Rand Paul ‘reserving judgment’ on Edward Snowden

[cajuncocoa]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he’s “reserving judgment” on Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked information regarding some of the agency’s telephone and Internet-tracking programs.

“I think it’s a complicated issue,” Paul said on “CBS This Morning.” “I think when people choose civil disobedience, they’re at their wit’s end and think there’s no other choice. We’ve had civil disobedience in our history, sometimes they turn out that we laud them and other times we say they went too far. I personally am trying to work within the law and change the law, I think that’s what my job is and I think we can challenge the president on this, particularly his hypocrisy. I’m reserving judgment on Mr. Snowden, but I think he felt like something like this was so wrong — millions of phone records being looked at.”

“You have to realize,” Paul added later, “by looking at your phone records, they can actually track your movements all day long. So I’ve been jokingly saying I’m leaving my phone at home when I go to Republican leadership meetings, because the president doesn’t need to know where I am all day long.”

The senator’s comments on Snowden differ from those of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who said Monday that “We should be thankful” for Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald, who first reported details of the NSA program in the Guardian.

Father Paul, the former presidential candidate, and son Rand, the senator, who is pondering a 2016 presidential campaign, often part ways on issues of national security and foreign policy — but they appear to agree that the U.S. government has gone too far.

Asked whether he had attended any of the dozens of briefings offered for lawmakers in recent years about NSA programs, Paul said that most of the briefings were for members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

“Just because Congress approved it doesn’t make it right,” Paul said of the NSA programs. “Congress has a 10 percent approval rating, so I think we’re often doing things that the public doesn’t approve of.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/11/rand-paul-reserving-judgment-on-edward-snowden/

I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.
I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.
I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.
I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.

Say your piece here, Kathy....I sure will.

This is yet another gutless move by Rand. Thank God RON didn't reserve judgement; he called Snowden a hero. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/ron-paul-edward-snowden-nsa-leak-92559.html)

Maybe this is an example of that infamous 1% that we keep hearing about. :rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

Mods, please do NOT merge this with the topic in Rand's subforum. Thank you.

[Christian Liberty]

Sorry, but I actually disagree with you on this one. I'm in Rand's camp but you know I'm not a mindless Rand defender.

If Rand had said "Snowden was wrong, throw the book at him" I'd agree with you. That's just going too far.

But he's not. In fact, he seems like he's supporting Snowden here. He's just being cautious about it and not flat out endorsing violations of the law, which if he did so would totally screw over his chances.

Even Ron Paul said that tax protestors should expect imprisonment if they disobey the law.

Now, do I prefer Ron Paul's style here? Yeah. But I honestly don't see what Rand said that's "Wrong" here. Ron has nothing to lose politically anymore. Rand has everything to lose, and as he said, it quite literally is his job to legally make change, as a senator.

I might wish he'd have flat out called him a hero but I don't see why its his job to do that. So yeah, I think I'm going to have to give Rand a pass on this one.

I was almost certain he was going to say something middle of the road like this, and I wasn't surprised. This is a stylistic issue, not a matter of principle.

[Christian Liberty]

Mods, please do NOT merge this with the topic in Rand's subforum. Thank you.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that bashing Rand is a bad thing in all cases... heaven knows I've done it. I just don't have an issue in this particular case.

[liberty2897]

I was just starting to warm up to him again. I see now that he doesn't get it.

[erowe1]

What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?

[Christian Liberty]

I was just starting to warm up to him again. I see now that he doesn't get it.

Oh my goodnesss those avatars are confusing me...

To be clear...

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I will be voting for Rand, but I do have some legitimate issues with him. I don't like the way he talks about Israel, or his votes for sanctions on Iran, or his unwillingness to say that we should end entitlements, or his unwillingness to say we should legalize drugs. Yeah, I get that some of that may be strategic but I still don't like it.

But I honestly have no issue with what he said here. He actually seems like he's supporting Snowden, just doing it in a reserved sort of way that is consistent with his position as a US Senator. I honestly do not expect a legal official to give an unqualified endorsement for breaking the law in this case.

For the record, I believe Snowden was a hero. I honestly think Rand does too, and if you parse the text of what he said you can get the picture that he's fed up and that he sympathizes with what Snowden did.

[Zarn Solen]

What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?

His name isn't Ron.

[cajuncocoa]

It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....

[Christian Liberty]

What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?

Its unfortunate that he has to. Snowden WAS a hero, and 49% of America are idiots for thinking otherwise.

Rand Paul doesn't agree with those 49% though, he's just choosing his words carefully so maybe he can take some of their votes:p

I don't really see what he said that was wrong here...

[kathy88]

I think he's weighing the political climate before he "makes a judgement." That sucks.

[Warlord]

It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....

Yes, they're hypocrites. Rand is not.

[Christian Liberty]

It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....

Well, there's truth to that, but the thing is, Rand would be saying the same thing if Bush were in office, while Rush and Hannity at the very least (I honestly don't know enough about Beck, I'm too young and he really does sound good sometimes) would be screaming that he should be sent to the gallows.

Rand never actually said Snowden did anything wrong. He simply said that it was his own job as a US Senator to change things legally, which it is.

[cajuncocoa]

Its unfortunate that he has to. Snowden WAS a hero, and 49% of America are idiots for thinking otherwise.

Rand Paul doesn't agree with those 49% though, he's just choosing his words carefully so maybe he can take some of their votes:p

I don't really see what he said that was wrong here...that's the problem, FF. He has a golden opportunity to educate that 49%…instead, he takes the safe road. Gutless.

[jbauer]

What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?

no clue. to me it seems like the easiest way to say you support it without pissing a bunch of people off. If you're going to run for president you shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law even if you agree with it.

If Rand truly was against Snowden he would have said so, saying he's reserving judgment means he's in his corner.

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, they're hypocrites. Rand is not.
Yes, they are hypocrites...but that's a subject for another thread. This one is about Rand lacking the courage to take a stand, as his Father has.

[Warlord]

that's the problem, FF. He has a golden opportunity to educate that 49%…instead, he takes the safe road. Gutless.

His job is not to educate the dumbed down masses. This is a fruitless task.

[donnay]

Anyone who watched the interview with Snowden would understand that what Snowden did is extremely risky against this shadow government. By exposing them, he put a light on them and the cockroaches are running for cover.

Rand should know better--seriously. He, as a senator, should also be thankful that a light was shown on the corruption this hijacked government has been doing for years. This is the same hijacked government who gathers information on their adversaries and blackmails them. This is the same hijacked government who thinks they are above the law.

Reserving judgment? I do not get it Rand?

[Christian Liberty]

that's the problem, FF. He has a golden opportunity to educate that 49%…instead, he takes the safe road. Gutless.

The thing is, Ron just did take that opportunity. If they won't listen to Ron I seriously doubt they'd listen to Rand...

My gut reaction was to say that the 49% were all idiots, but I also completely expected Rand to say something middle of the road.

I don't know. Sometimes it does bother me. When you're talking about foreign policy, it really does bother me when you support and vote for sanctions, or say "An Attack on Israel is an attack on the US" or whatever. It does bother me when Rand says he doesn't want to legalize drugs, or talks about "Saving" the entitlements (I know Ron did that last one to a limited extent as well. I don't even agree with Ron on the issue but at least he wanted to eventually end it). But this.. honestly, Rand did pretty much imply that he was cool with civil disobedience like this, he just did so in a somewhat less provocative way. I honestly don't know if that was smart of him in this particular case but I don't see anything "Wrong" with it.

[erowe1]

no clue. to me it seems like the easiest way to say you support it without pissing a bunch of people off. If you're going to run for president you shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law even if you agree with it.

If Rand truly was against Snowden he would have said so, saying he's reserving judgment means he's in his corner.

Seriously.

What is he supposed to do, come out and say in 2013 that if he gets elected in 2016 he'll pardon Snowden, without knowing much about him or what's going to happen between now and then?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Yes, they are hypocrites...but that's a subject for another thread. This one is about Rand lacking the courage to take a stand, as his Father has.

He's putting his neck on the line more than any other Senator. Wtf are you talking about?

You act like Rand is a radio-host talking to Libertarians and not an elected representative. If you haven't noticed according to most polls HALF of this country thinks this man is a traitor.

[kathy88]

no clue. to me it seems like the easiest way to say you support it without pissing a bunch of people off. If you're going to run for president you shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law even if you agree with it.

If Rand truly was against Snowden he would have said so, saying he's reserving judgment means he's in his corner.

Break WHAT fucking law? So signing a confidentiality agreement that requires you to do illegal things and calling people out on it is breaking the law, but warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance IS NOT? How fucked up are you people in the head?

[Warlord]

Yes, they are hypocrites...but that's a subject for another thread. This one is about Rand lacking the courage to take a stand, as his Father has.

Ron tried to educate them for 6 years and it didn't work. Rand is not going down that route

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Break WHAT fucking law? So signing a confidentiality agreement that requires you to do illegal things and calling people out on it is breaking the law, but warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance IS NOT? How fucked up are you people in the head?

Snowden knew what he was getting himself in to joining the CIA and NSA. As much as I admire the man for what he did we don't know the entire story. We don't know all the things Snowden has done. You can't judge a man on one act alone. Rand is playing it safe.

[kathy88]

He's putting his neck on the line more than any other Senator. Wtf are you talking about?

You act like Rand is a radio-host talking to Libertarians and not an elected representative. If you haven't noticed according to most polls HALF of this country thinks this man is a traitor.

Half of this country have the intelligence of my left knee.

[V3n]

Some people like the politics of winning. Some people like yelling in the wilderness.

Yeah, it's politics, but it's also how you win. His 'law-suit' should be enough evidence if you're really confused on where he stands.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Half of this country have the intelligence of my left knee.

And half of those morons will vote to elect Rand as president. Suck it up and read in between the lines... re-watch the interview. He clearly said we have a history of civil-disobedience, he said all he could but call the man a hero. He's not trying to polarize himself. It's that simple.

[kathy88]

And half of those morons will vote to elect Rand as president. Suck it up and read in between the lines... re-watch the interview. He clearly said we have a history of civil-disobedience, he said all he could but call the man a hero. He's not trying to polarize himself. It's that simple.


Not trying to polarize himself = being a pussy in this case IMO.

[Christian Liberty]

Break WHAT fucking law? So signing a confidentiality agreement that requires you to do illegal things and calling people out on it is breaking the law, but warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance IS NOT? How fucked up are you people in the head?

We're talking about what the law is, not what the law should be. Under a just legal system we'd have over 400 House Reps and 98 senators being hanged in the public square, but that frankly just isn't realistic...




Seriously.

What is he supposed to do, come out and say in 2013 that if he gets elected in 2016 he'll pardon Snowden, without knowing much about him or what's going to happen between now and then?

Yeah, pretty much. I think Rand is playing it smart here. Sometimes I have an issue with playing politics, other times its common sense. I'd never actually say what I said directly above your quote if I was running for office.

In this particular case, I support what Rand did. In other cases, like what he's said about Israel or drugs, I do not support, but it is what it is.

[enhanced_deficit]

I'm "reserving judgment" on Rand Paul.

But seriously, I won't praise him for this timid move but there are plenty others far more deserving politicos on whom I would spend my criticism.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm curious to see Traditional Conservative weigh in here...

[donnay]

I'm "reserving judgment" on Rand Paul.

But seriously, I won't praise him for this timid move but there are plenty others far more deserving politicos on whom I would spend my criticism.


"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

~ Thomas Jefferson

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Not trying to polarize himself = being a pussy in this case IMO.

KOOKY Libertarian Rand Paul son of CRAZY Dr. Ron Paul came out and said Snowden was a "hero".

Can you imagine the hundreds of articles that would have trashed Rand? He's a U.S. Senator, people expect him to uphold the law not encourage lawbreaking. He's been taking the path of least resistance for some time now, you can call that being a pussy. Others would call it trying to win.

[libertyplz]

I was originally a little upset after reading the article, but after actually watching the interview I think Rand handled that very well.

Video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0vs2FXBFo

[AuH20]

Not trying to polarize himself = being a pussy in this case IMO.

Leaping before looking isn't wise as a high-profile senator. Regardless, Paul doesn't need to eclipse the news worthiness of Snowden's revelations.

[jllundqu]

Of course Rand thinks Snowden is a hero... he just can't SAY that to the rank and file Repubs. He's just politicking.

And yes, Ron would and has always just come out and said what he believes. Rand has a different style and strategy.

I give him a pass on this one because I know he thinks Snowden is a hero.

[cajuncocoa]

Some people like the politics of winning. Some people like yelling in the wilderness.

Yeah, it's politics, but it's also how you win. His 'law-suit' should be enough evidence if you're really confused on where he stands.
Rand may win, but nothing will change.

[AuH20]

Rand may win, but nothing will change.

When they kill him, things will change fast. This entire political game is about revealing the true face of the beast. The beast enjoys working from the protection of the shadows.

[cajuncocoa]

Not trying to polarize himself = being a pussy in this case IMO.
^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

[enhanced_deficit]

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

~ Thomas Jefferson

Well said.

[Carlybee]

KOOKY Libertarian Rand Paul son of CRAZY Dr. Ron Paul came out and said Snowden was a "hero".

Can you imagine the hundreds of articles that would have trashed Rand? He's a U.S. Senator, people expect him to uphold the law not encourage lawbreaking. He's been taking the path of least resistance for some time now, you can call that being a pussy. Others would call it trying to win.

Siding with the American people when a govt agency has committed treason against us should be considered upholding the law.

[jllundqu]

Just noticed this is a double thread.... as in IDENTICAL

Holy-double-thread-post, Batman!

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Rand may win, but nothing will change.

LOL

[erowe1]

Siding with the American people when a govt agency has committed treason against us should be considered upholding the law.

But Rand is siding with the American people, isn't he?

He didn't say he was reserving judgment about PRISM, he said he was reserving judgment about Snowden.

[Christian Liberty]

Siding with the American people when a govt agency has committed treason against us should be considered upholding the law.

It should be but sadly it isn't...


Rand may win, but nothing will change.

I don't know if that's true. I really, really hope you're wrong here. I acknowledge you might not be...

[EBounding]

Rand's the only one that can possibly save this guy.

[cajuncocoa]

Just noticed this is a double thread.... as in IDENTICAL

Holy-double-thread-post, Batman!
Not really. Criticism of Rand is allowed in this thread. ;)

[tsai3904]

After watching the interview, it seems like Rand is trying to deflect the issue away from Snowden so we can talk about the real issue at hand. If you check the latest news, it's mostly been about Snowden and his actions rather than on NSA surveillance.

Curious what people think of Massie's statement.


“I’m not a lawyer, but based on what I know so far, I don’t think he should be prosecuted,” Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a self-styled libertarian, told CQ Roll Call on Monday. “If someone reports illegal activity as a whistle-blower, they shouldn’t be prosecuted.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Siding with the American people when a govt agency has committed treason against us should be considered upholding the law.

I agree.

But if you haven't noticed we are a rather small (but growing) minority who believes that. And people who believe that are an even smaller minority in Congress.

Maybe if we elected 10 or 20 more pro-liberty congressman Rand would be singing a different tune. He can't appear to be the 'lone nut' like they painted Ron, HELL they are already trying to do that to Rand! And you know it.

[SilentBull]

I was just starting to warm up to him again. I see now that he doesn't get it.

People like you are the ones that don't get it. Rand needs to be careful. He's running for president. It isn't enough for you that he's getting the freaking Republican party to completely change and to be for civil liberties again?

[Warlord]

After watching the interview, it seems like Rand is trying to deflect the issue away from Snowden so we can talk about the real issue at hand. If you check the latest news, it's mostly been about Snowden and his actions rather than on NSA surveillance.

Curious what people think of Massie's statement.

Massie has it right but there's going to be a baying mob for this guy especially if there's a circus and he comes "home". Rand is right not to say too much about it as further details might come out and make him look stupid.

[Carlybee]

But Rand is siding with the American people, isn't he?

He didn't say he was reserving judgment about PRISM, he said he was reserving judgment about Snowden.

I guess we have no choice but to wait and see but the conversation needs to include the fact that this man did what he did because it was the right thing to do. When the govt commits a criminal act against us...calling them out is not high treason. They're just pissed they got caught with their collective pants down.

[cajuncocoa]

People like you are the ones that don't get it. Rand needs to be careful. He's running for president. It isn't enough for you that he's getting the freaking Republican party to completely change and to be for civil liberties again?
And if he wins, nothing will change. He's clearly too concerned with being "careful" to really change anything significantly.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I still am reserving my judgment on Rand. There's a lot of time between now and 2016. A lot of time to screw up. This just wasn't one of those cases...

[SilentBull]

His job is not to educate the dumbed down masses. This is a fruitless task.

^^ This. You people really think you can get 100% of the public to care??? You people don't get it. We will always be the minority. You can educate some, not all. The rest we just need to vote with us.

[Warlord]

Greenwald has said there's much more to come in this story.

Public opinion might violently change against Snowden and no politician with a profile like Rand needs to be caught out by this.

[fr33]

Rand reserving his judgement is not something I'll get mad about or call him "gutless" over. It's silly to nitpick one statement that wasn't even negative; it was neutral.

[AuH20]

And if he wins, nothing will change. He's clearly too concerned with being "careful" to really change anything significantly.

Besides risking his life when he's sworn in. He's a direct threat to numerous entrenched special interests.

[cajuncocoa]

After watching the interview, it seems like Rand is trying to deflect the issue away from Snowden so we can talk about the real issue at hand. If you check the latest news, it's mostly been about Snowden and his actions rather than on NSA surveillance.

Curious what people think of Massie's statement.
Massive gets it. Kudos to him for having the courage to say it.

[SilentBull]

And if he wins, nothing will change. He's clearly too concerned with being "careful" to really change anything significantly.

Riiiiiight. Because we haven't seen the kind of change he's already made, right? No change at all. The Republican party is changing before our very eyes because of Rand.

[TonySutton]

I thought people were innocent in this country until proven otherwise in the courts!

[Warlord]

Massive gets it. Kudos to him for having the courage to say it.

Yes but what you don't acknowledge is nobody but us and the voters of the 4th district in KY know who Massie is (or cares). Rand is one of the highest profile politicians in America.

There could be a swing against Snowden by the public. He's right to avoid taking a position on his personal circumstances.

[belian78]

Some people like the politics of winning. Some people like yelling in the wilderness.

Yeah, it's politics, but it's also how you win. His 'law-suit' should be enough evidence if you're really confused on where he stands.
Yeah, a lawsuit that will go absolutely no where, but sounds good. What he's doing is playing both sides of the fence and politikin, when we need leaders to stand up and speak for us, as his father has done unwavering for over 40 years.

[kathy88]

Leaping before looking isn't wise as a high-profile senator. Regardless, Paul doesn't need to eclipse the news worthiness of Snowden's revelations.

Yeah you're right. He should stick to trying to break the world record for holding his piss.

[ctiger2]

Rand needs to take the gloves off NOW! His responses should be as polarizing as these scandals. You have to match firepower. This is where the divergence between him and his father is revealed and the purity of RON's principles shines through!

[cajuncocoa]

Yes but what you don't acknowledge is nobody but us and the voters of the 4th district in KY know who Massie is (or cares). Rand is one of the highest profile politicians in America.

There could be a swing against Snowden by the public. He's right to avoid taking a position on his personal circumstances.Yeah, God forbid that Rand takes a stand for what is right even if it's not popular. It's ridiculous that so many of you think he will change anything when he has such a lack of courage.

[Christian Liberty]

Massive gets it. Kudos to him for having the courage to say it.

I think Rand does get it he just doesn't want to vocally state it.

I seriously doubt if Rand has "Mixed feelings" about what he did that he wants to lock him up for it.

[Carlybee]

Yeah you're right. He should stick to trying to break the world record for holding his piss.

Girl you owe me a new phone screen. :D

[cajuncocoa]

Rand needs to take the gloves off NOW! His responses should be as polarizing as these scandals. You have to match firepower. This is where the divergence between him and his father is revealed and the purity of RON's principles shines through!
That's why I admire Ron Paul. I pray that someone will emerge with his same courage!

[enhanced_deficit]

I had my first shock with Iran vote and realized he is bit more "political" than I thought. That said, Rand is on Intel Comittee, he might get cut out of the loop if he had really said what I feel his instict would have been. Reserving judgment and giving benefit of doubt on this timid cautious stance for now to focus on other regimes.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah you're right. He should stick to trying to break the world record for holding his piss.
lmao!!

[tsai3904]

Rand needs to take the gloves off NOW! His responses should be as polarizing as these scandals. You have to match firepower. This is where the divergence between him and his father is revealed and the purity of RON's principles shines through!

The media has been non stop talking about Snowden and ignoring the real issue of broad surveillance. Look at CNN.com, nothing about surveillance and only a couple headlines about Snowden. The guy said himself, he doesn't want this issue to be about him. If you get into a hero/traitor debate, it gets nowhere and people make judgments on that issue alone. Do we want the focus of the debate to be on Snowden or the government's violation of the Constitution?

If Snowden was pleading for help, I would see the issue differently but the guy sacrificed his life so that we can debate the issue at hand, not whether what he did was right or not.

[Warlord]

Yeah, God forbid that Rand takes a stand for what is right even if it's not popular. It's ridiculous that so many of you think he will change anything when he has such a lack of courage.

He needs to stay the right side of the electorate. The GOP electorate don't forget. Give it a month and they'll have pitchforks out for this guy. None of us know what Greenwald is going to release next.

The blowhards on radio can turn on a dime and demand his hanging. Seen it all before. Them being ahead of Rand (at this point) means nothing.

[Carlybee]

I thought people were innocent in this country until proven otherwise in the courts!

Hahahaha

[familydog]

This is yet another gutless move by Rand. Thank God RON didn't reserve judgement; he called Snowden a hero. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/ron-paul-edward-snowden-nsa-leak-92559.html)

Maybe this is an example of that infamous 1% that we keep hearing about. :rolleyes:

You clearly don't understand. Rand can't seem like a kooky fringe guy like his dad. He needs to appease his Establishment masters to get elected president. Then, like, he will turn around and do the opposite of what they want! It's like a Trojan Horse, or something.

[cajuncocoa]

I think Rand does get it he just doesn't want to vocally state it.

I seriously doubt if Rand has "Mixed feelings" about what he did that he wants to lock him up for it.FF, it needs to be said! He's on TV and radio every time I turn around! Beck thinks this guy is a hero...so do Rush and Hannity. It's embarrassing, really, that they support the guy (acknowledging the real reason they do is only because it makes Obama look bad) while Rand is reserving judgment.

[enhanced_deficit]

I had my first shock with Iran vote and realized he is bit more "political" than I thought. That said, Rand is on Intel Comittee, he might get cut out of the loop if he had really said what I feel his instict would have been. Reserving judgment and giving benefit of doubt on this timid cautious stance for now to focus on other regimes.

I would add that he is not his father but he is still his son.

[erowe1]

Yeah, a lawsuit that will go absolutely no where, but sounds good. What he's doing is playing both sides of the fence and politikin, when we need leaders to stand up and speak for us, as his father has done unwavering for over 40 years.

This is ironic.

The lawsuit is at least something substantive.

It looks like the only thing people are complaining about in this thread is Rand not making some purely symbolic gesture of uttering some magic words praising someone he doesn't know.

Is that not it? Or is there something Rand is supposed to do for Snowden, and whatever it is he has to do it right now? If so, what is that?

[cajuncocoa]

You clearly don't understand. Rand can't seem like a kooky fringe guy like his dad. He needs to appease his Establishment masters to get elected president. Then, like, he will turn around and do the opposite of what they want! It's like a Trojan Horse, or something.
I have some ocean front property to sell in Arizona...interested?

[Warlord]

You clearly don't understand. Rand can't seem like a kooky fringe guy like his dad. He needs to appease his Establishment masters to get elected president. Then, like, he will turn around and do the opposite of what they want! It's like a Trojan Horse, or something.

It's extremely unwise for him to take a firm position/ Ron is not running for anything. Greenwald has 1,000 documents from Snowden and public opinion can turn violently against him. No one knows what will happen next. Rand is absolutely right to avoid this trap.

[erowe1]

FF, it needs to be said! He's on TV and radio every time I turn around! Beck thinks this guy is a hero...so do Rush and Hannity. It's embarrassing, really, that they support the guy (acknowledging the real reason they do is only because it makes Obama look bad) while Rand is reserving judgment.

Why is it embarrassing? It should only be embarrassing if there's something wrong about reserving judgment. But there isn't.

Maybe if he had a radio show where he had to make sensationalistic claims to get ratings, he'd do things differently. But I wouldn't praise him for that if he did.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

He needs to stay the right side of the electorate. The GOP electorate don't forget. Give it a month and they'll have pitchforks out for this guy. None of us know what Greenwald is going to release next.

The blowhards on radio can turn on a dime and demand his hanging. Seen it all before. Them being ahead of Rand (at this point) means nothing.

It does mean something. Rand has really been working on Hannity, the fact that Hannity came out in favor of Snowden says something about the coalition Rand is building. But your right, these pundits turn on a dime and can't be trusted.

[belian78]

This is ironic.

The lawsuit is at least something substantive.

It looks like the only thing people are complaining about in this thread is Rand not making some purely symbolic gesture of uttering some magic words praising someone he doesn't know.

Is that not it? Or is there something Rand is supposed to do for Snowden, and whatever it is he has to do it right now? If so, what is that?
No what I'm talking about is Rand making some grand gesture that ultimately comes down to making absolutely zero impact, all the while his statements are politically curtailed to make sure they are 'safe'. It gets him/us/the american people nowhere except a few more steps down the same road we are currently on.

[Warlord]

For those doubting Rand's "courage" he's still the only Member of Congress asking questions about the CIA activities in Benghazi on national TV.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

FF, it needs to be said! He's on TV and radio every time I turn around! Beck thinks this guy is a hero...so do Rush and Hannity. It's embarrassing, really, that they support the guy (acknowledging the real reason they do is only because it makes Obama look bad) while Rand is reserving judgment.

And Rand shares none of the credit for shifting the debate to Liberty v.s. Tyranny? :rolleyes:

[Warlord]

FF, it needs to be said! He's on TV and radio every time I turn around! Beck thinks this guy is a hero...so do Rush and Hannity. It's embarrassing, really, that they support the guy (acknowledging the real reason they do is only because it makes Obama look bad) while Rand is reserving judgment.

So you trust Beck and Hannity now? These guys would viciously stab you in the back in an instant if they thought it prudent and they will Ed too. (SEE last 6 years of Ron Paul campaign). Nobody knows what Greenwald is going to dump next.

[liveandletlive]

So you trust Beck and Hannity now? These guys would viciously stab you in the back in an instant if they thought it prudent and they will Ed too. Nobody knows what Greenwald is going to dump next.

Beck is a nut job....Hannity is a pure neocon who should never be trusted.

The only man on television and radio I fully trust is Judge Nap

[Sola_Fide]

He's putting his neck on the line more than any other Senator. Wtf are you talking about?

You act like Rand is a radio-host talking to Libertarians and not an elected representative. If you haven't noticed according to most polls HALF of this country thinks this man is a traitor.


But I can still understand what the complaint that some have with Rand's words here. Ron came out and stood completely on principle and pulled no punches. And Rand kind of equivocated with the words.

Rand is either too political or not principled enough on this. Either way, its not inspiring.

[familydog]

It's extremely unwise for him to take a firm position/ Ron is not running for anything. Greenwald has 1,000 documents from Snowden and public opinion can turn violently against him. No one knows what will happen next. Rand is absolutely right to avoid this trap.

Why should I care what the public thinks of Rand Paul? I didn't care what the public thought of Ron Paul when he was speaking truths during his campaigning. If you believe that some magic guy in a position called the "presidency" will solve all your problems for you then yeah, I guess he will need to say whatever he needs to get him elected.

[Warlord]

A guy ranting on radio changes his positions daily. Nobody knows where this story will go or how it's going to play out. They might be demanding Snowden be hung in times square in a few weeks. Rand is very clever not to get involved in giving his opinion on every damn thing.

[erowe1]

No what I'm talking about is Rand making some grand gesture that ultimately comes down to making absolutely zero impact, all the while his statements are politically curtailed to make sure they are 'safe'. It gets him/us/the american people nowhere except a few more steps down the same road we are currently on.

A grand gesture that makes zero impact like calling Snowden a hero?

Or is there something substantive you want him to do. If so, what?

[cajuncocoa]

And Rand shares none of the credit for shifting the debate to Liberty v.s. Tyranny? :rolleyes:No. I give RON all of the credit for any of that which is sincere. The rest are just anti-Obama.

[Warlord]

Why should I care what the public thinks of Rand Paul? I didn't care what the public thought of Ron Paul when he was speaking truths during his campaigning. If you believe that some magic guy in a position called the "presidency" will solve all your problems for you then yeah, I guess he will need to say whatever he needs to get him elected.

You should care because he's trying to win the GOP nomination. Ron spoke a lot of truth but the public doesn't want to hear truth. That was self-evident from the results.

[erowe1]

But I can still understand what the complaint that some have with Rand's words here. Ron came out and stood completely on principle and pulled no punches. And Rand kind of equivocated with the words.

Rand is either too political or not principled enough on this. Either way, its not inspiring.

Ron's role now is purely one of propagating ideas. If he were in Congress, what do you think he would do for Snowden? Anything at all right this minute? Or maybe wait and see what happens (i.e. reserve judgment).

[cajuncocoa]

So you trust Beck and Hannity now? These guys would viciously stab you in the back in an instant if they thought it prudent and they will Ed too. (SEE last 6 years of Ron Paul campaign). Nobody knows what Greenwald is going to dump next.
Trust them? He'll, no...you're the one who's always crowing about them; not me. I just think it's interesting that (for political reasons) they're on the right side of this while Rand holds back.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....

Savage called Snowden a hero too.


I'm "reserving judgment" on Rand Paul.

There you go, nothing wrong with reserving judgement. And isn't a little more deliberation what we want from Congress?


Massive gets it. Kudos to him for having the courage to say it.

OMG! You accidentally found the perfect tag for Thomas! #MassiveMassie


Beck is a nut job....Hannity is a pure neocon who should never be trusted.

The only man on television and radio I fully trust is Judge Nap

Judge Nap called Snowden a hero.

[Warlord]

But I can still understand what the complaint that some have with Rand's words here. Ron came out and stood completely on principle and pulled no punches. And Rand kind of equivocated with the words.

Rand is either too political or not principled enough on this. Either way, its not inspiring.

There is zero electoral consequences for Ron if public opinion swings against Ed after Greenwald dumps the next load of documents

[PaulConventionWV]

So let me get this straight. Some people are criticizing Rand because he didn't fall to his knees in worship of Snowden?

"FALL TO YOUR KNEES.. BOY!"

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Please grow a pair Rand.

[Warlord]

Trust them? He'll, no...you're the one who's always crowing about them; not me. I just think it's interesting that (for political reasons) they're on the right side of this while Rand holds back.

Their positions change daily. You can't infer anything from their current stance.

[familydog]

You should care because he's trying to win the GOP nomination. Ron spoke a lot of truth but the public doesn't want to hear truth. That was self-evident from the results.

I'm not a Republican and politics are part of the problem. His statements and your unwavering do-no-wrong defense just confirms that.

[erowe1]

No. I give RON all of the credit for any of that which is sincere. The rest are just anti-Obama.

This is all just silly.

This is a game to you people. You don't want anything real to happen. You're essentially sports fans imagining that when you cheer for your guy that somehow accomplishes something, like rousing Hulkamania or something. And then you have a duty to talk smack about whoever it is you've decided you're not supposed to like.

[kathy88]

Beck is a nut job....Hannity is a pure neocon who should never be trusted.

The only man on television and radio I fully trust is Judge Nap

And Ben Swann.

[cajuncocoa]

OMG! You accidentally found the perfect tag for Thomas! #MassiveMassi
Thanks to auto-correct! I didn't notice that, but it's pretty catchy! :)

[Warlord]

I'm not a Republican and politics are part of the problem. His statements and your unwavering do-no-wrong defense just confirms that.

So why do you care? You dont support Rand and never will. You will only come into threads to criticize him (like a few others) and your judgement on politics is of little value if you don't believe in it.

Why don't you identify an island and start working out a way of making it a self-sufficient ancap society. I might join you.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

But I can still understand what the complaint that some have with Rand's words here. Ron came out and stood completely on principle and pulled no punches. And Rand kind of equivocated with the words.

Rand is either too political or not principled enough on this. Either way, its not inspiring.

I understand what their complaint is and I agree that Rand isn't always the most inspiring during his interviews. But that's because he is trying to win. If people want to be inspired -- read a book.


Why should I care what the public thinks of Rand Paul? I didn't care what the public thought of Ron Paul when he was speaking truths during his campaigning. If you believe that some magic guy in a position called the "presidency" will solve all your problems for you then yeah, I guess he will need to say whatever he needs to get him elected.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this forum say Rand would fix all our problems. Personally, I just hope he can change this country's direction just enough that we aren't completely screwed.


No. I give RON all of the credit for any of that which is sincere. The rest are just anti-Obama.

Rand Paul deserves no credit? There you have it. You're anti-Rand.

[cajuncocoa]

This is all just silly.

This is a game to you people. You don't want anything real to happen. You're essentially sports fans imagining that when you cheer for your guy that somehow accomplishes something, like rousing Hulkamania or something. And then you have a duty to talk smack about whoever it is you've decided you're not supposed to like.
I was thinking it's more like a game to YOU people. You just want your team to win. Even if you don't watch the game, you still get a championship t-shirt to wear next time you show up at the sports bar....unfortunately, that's all you get. No ring, no check, just the ability to brag.

[belian78]

A grand gesture that makes zero impact like calling Snowden a hero?

Or is there something substantive you want him to do. If so, what?
Look to Ron's interview with Scumbag Morgan, this is what Rand could have done, but he didnt he played it safe.

[erowe1]

Look to Ron's interview with Scumbag Morgan, this is what Rand could have done, but he didnt he played it safe.

So that is what you want then? A grand gesture with zero impact?

Because I thought you said it wasn't.

[PaulConventionWV]

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

~ Thomas Jefferson

That's making a lot of assumptions. Is what Rand Paul did "timid"? Does he prefer the calm of despotism? Now, obviously, if the answer to the second question is "no", then he's not timid, is he? Perhaps he's just brave in a different way than you. Have you no tolerance for different forms of action? All we are doing by criticism is glaring at him demeaningly because he did not kiss the feet of Snowden. What kind of mindset is that? I'll let you decide. What are we? Kings who say "Off with their heads!" when someone doesn't bow before us or citizens who cry for blood when someone doesn't bow before another perceived leader?

To me, that is just pathetic. Let the man reserve judgment, for God's sake.

[Warlord]

Look to Ron's interview with Scumbag Morgan, this is what Rand could have done, but he didnt he played it safe.


Old Pushtu proverb: 'different strokes for different folks'

[belian78]

This is all just silly.

This is a game to you people. You don't want anything real to happen. You're essentially sports fans imagining that when you cheer for your guy that somehow accomplishes something, like rousing Hulkamania or something. And then you have a duty to talk smack about whoever it is you've decided you're not supposed to like.
Bullshit. I want leaders that will stand up and yell from the rooftops to the American people. Why the fuck do you think that an ENTIRE MOVEMENT sprang up like wildfire around ONE MAN!?!? Because that man has had the balls to get right in the face of TPTB and respond with a resounding NO!!! I want Rand to stand on principle and not succumb to playing politics. When he does that, he takes a huge step backwards right into a huge pack of other politicians. We need leaders, not more politicians.

[cajuncocoa]

Rand Paul deserves no credit? There you have it. You're anti-Rand.oh, well...I guess you'll have to crucify me :rolleyes:

I'm actually not though. He's better than 99.3% or more of the others holding office right now. He'll probably be the best presidential candidate running in 2016.

But so what? That doesn't mean he's above criticism when he should take a bolder stand.

[Warlord]

Bullshit. I want leaders that will stand up and yell from the rooftops to the American people. Why the fuck do you think that an ENTIRE MOVEMENT sprang up like wildfire around ONE MAN!?!? Because that man has had the balls to get right in the face of TPTB and respond with a resounding NO!!! I want Rand to stand on principle and not succumb to playing politics. When he does that, he takes a huge step backwards right into a huge pack of other politicians. We need leaders, not more politicians.

Did you know Rand is the only Member of Congress questioning the CIA's role in Benghazi?

Did you know he's the only senator (ever) to go to Israel and tell them to stop taking foreign aid?

Do you remember he led a 13 hour filibuster on drones and changed public opinion over night?

etc etc.

Yeah, he's terrible.

[belian78]

So that is what you want then? A grand gesture with zero impact?

Because I thought you said it wasn't.
If you think that speaking truth to power has no impact, I don't know what else to say but that I'm sorry for you.

[cajuncocoa]

Did you know Rand is the only Member of Congress questioning the CIA's role in Benghazi?

Did you know he's the only senator (ever) to go to Israel and tell them to stop taking foreign aid?
Great! But he shouldn't stop there.

I've always said Rand takes a carrot/stick approach to liberty. One step forward, one step back. Gets you nowhere.

[familydog]

So why do you care? You dont support Rand and never will. You will only come into threads to criticize him (like a few others) and your judgement on politics is of little value if you don't believe in it.

Why don't you identify an island and start working out a way of making it a self-sufficient ancap society. I might join you.

I don't care, I just like to give you a hard time in my down time at work. Tell you what, you keep existing in your delusional fantasy world where your knight in shining armor will come and rescue the world. I will continue to live in the real world and affect change in my actual sphere of influence. In four years, we'll see who is any more free.

[erowe1]

Bullshit. I want leaders that will stand up and yell from the rooftops to the American people. Why the fuck do you think that an ENTIRE MOVEMENT sprang up like wildfire around ONE MAN!?!? Because that man has had the balls to get right in the face of TPTB and respond with a resounding NO!!! I want Rand to stand on principle and not succumb to playing politics. When he does that, he takes a huge step backwards right into a huge pack of other politicians. We need leaders, not more politicians.

I don't accept the premise that he's abandoned any principles.

And I still don't know what exactly you want him to do. When you cut through this gibberish about rooftops and getting in faces, what are you even getting at?

Is it really just a symbolic gesture you want? You really think that would be better than something substantive? Or would you rather see Rand use the position he has that his dad, Judge Nap, Glenn Beck, etc., don't have to do something substantive? Because if you want the latter, then waiting until more is known is precisely the right thing for Rand to do right now.

[July]

The media has been non stop talking about Snowden and ignoring the real issue of broad surveillance. Look at CNN.com, nothing about surveillance and only a couple headlines about Snowden. The guy said himself, he doesn't want this issue to be about him. If you get into a hero/traitor debate, it gets nowhere and people make judgments on that issue alone. Do we want the focus of the debate to be on Snowden or the government's violation of the Constitution?

Bingo. Did anyone notice yesterday how the MSM declared that this has sparked a national debate over whether he is a hero or a traitor, NOT whether the government should be doing what it's doing. This is a distraction and deflection away from the real issue.

[belian78]

Did you know Rand is the only Member of Congress questioning the CIA's role in Benghazi?

Did you know he's the only senator (ever) to go to Israel and tell them to stop taking foreign aid?
Staying on the Benghazi thing is good, but why not just bring up the fact that if we weren't continuing this war of aggression we wouldn't have to worry about situations like this in the first place?

And he can say what he wants about Israel taking foreign aid, but when he votes to increase sanctions on Israel's enemies and votes to go to war for Israel he destroys any pretty words he may have said previously.

[EBounding]

“I think it’s a complicated issue,” Paul said on “CBS This Morning.” “I think when people choose civil disobedience, they’re at their wit’s end and think there’s no other choice. We’ve had civil disobedience in our history, sometimes they turn out that we laud them and other times we say they went too far. I personally am trying to work within the law and change the law, I think that’s what my job is and I think we can challenge the president on this, particularly his hypocrisy. I’m reserving judgment on Mr. Snowden, but I think he felt like something like this was so wrong — millions of phone records being looked at.”

“You have to realize,” Paul added later, “by looking at your phone records, they can actually track your movements all day long. So I’ve been jokingly saying I’m leaving my phone at home when I go to Republican leadership meetings, because the president doesn’t need to know where I am all day long.”

Sounds like Rand is trying to shift the focus to the issue of unlawful spying instead of debating the heroics of a man. Isn't that what Snowden wants?

[newbitech]

When you have the establishment coming out with boiled rope and talking about black bagging the guy, reserving judgement is a polar opposite position.

I'm not sure what there is to be disappointed about. Leave the radical rhetoric to folks outside the system and let the leader of the liberty movement work within his constraints to gather support from across the spectrum.

The country is not going to change by turning everyone into radicals. We have the radical element down pat. The radical element is growing exponentially since end of 2008 presidential campaign. Thanks in large part to the fact Ron Paul ran a radical education campaign. It also helps that the system is crumbling at its core and every day more and more people are feeling the impacts of out of control "leaders" running the show.

I appreciated Rand's measured approach. Ron Paul's radical education campaign over the past 2 elections created a stark contrast between folks who love liberty and folks who stop at nothing to destroy it.

There is no need to constantly point out who the hostiles are at this time. That is all that radical speech would do coming from Rand Paul. It's time to start looking for friends and forging alliances.

Of course Rand Paul would pardon Snowden, but first, he needs to remain moderate enough to appeal to folks across the political spectrum. And the easiest way to remain moderate, without giving up a plan for radical action, is not use strong language to express views that would only server to incite one group or another.

Let Rand remain reserved until all the details come in. That is what I expect my representatives in government to do. Knee jerk reactions are for amateurs, and I think Rand is pro.

[muh_roads]

I was just starting to warm up to him again. I see now that he doesn't get it.

Rand is playing trojan horse to get the nomination IMO. At least that is my hope. It is a different strategy than what his father did. To win the favor of dishonest people you have to be a bit dishonest as well.

If he actually does retain some neocon tendencies, he will still be lightyears better than Romney, McPain, Dubya, Obummer, Clintons, which are full on neocons.

[Eagles' Wings]

That's making a lot of assumptions. Is what Rand Paul did "timid"? Does he prefer the calm of despotism? Now, obviously, if the answer to the second question is "no", then he's not timid, is he? Perhaps he's just brave in a different way than you. Have you no tolerance for different forms of action? All we are doing by criticism is glaring at him demeaningly because he did not kiss the feet of Snowden. What kind of mindset is that? I'll let you decide. What are we? Kings who say "Off with their heads!" when someone doesn't bow before us or citizens who cry for blood when someone doesn't bow before another perceived leader?

To me, that is just pathetic. Let the man reserve judgment, for God's sake.

Well said.

Rand handled this with diplomacy, also known as tact, delicacy, discretion and wisdom. Exactly as his father has done for decades.

[kathy88]

Rand is playing trojan horse to get the nomination IMO. At least that is my hope. It is a different strategy than what his father did. To win the favor of dishonest people you have to be a bit dishonest as well.

If he actually does retain some neocon tendencies, he will still be lightyears better than Romney, McPain, Dubya, Obummer, Clintons, which are full on neocons.

That's what we are afraid of and to a lot of us this is just unacceptable.

[erowe1]

If you think that speaking truth to power has no impact, I don't know what else to say but that I'm sorry for you.

What was it you called the lawsuit? A grand gesture with zero impact?

You're trying to have it both ways.

[erowe1]

Rand is playing trojan horse to get the nomination IMO. At least that is my hope. It is a different strategy than what his father did. To win the favor of dishonest people you have to be a bit dishonest as well.

If he actually does retain some neocon tendencies, he will still be lightyears better than Romney, McPain, Dubya, Obummer, Clintons, which are full on neocons.

What's dishonest about reserving judgment?

[cajuncocoa]

Rand is playing trojan horse to get the nomination IMO. At least that is my hope. It is a different strategy than what his father did. To win the favor of dishonest people you have to be a bit dishonest as well.

If he actually does retain some neocon tendencies, he will still be lightyears better than Romney, McPain, Dubya, Obummer, Clintons, which are full on neocons.


That's what we are afraid of and to a lot of us this is just unacceptable.Damned straight, it's unacceptable. :mad:

[Warlord]

If you think you can do a better job cajun why not run against Scary Mary and see how your purist libertarian stances go down with the people of NOLA?

[Tod]

"George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were traitors as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people." ~ Judge Andrew Napolitano

[asurfaholic]

When you have the establishment coming out with boiled rope and talking about black bagging the guy, reserving judgement is a polar opposite position.

I'm not sure what there is to be disappointed about. Leave the radical rhetoric to folks outside the system and let the leader of the liberty movement work within his constraints to gather support from across the spectrum.

The country is not going to change by turning everyone into radicals. We have the radical element down pat. The radical element is growing exponentially since end of 2008 presidential campaign. Thanks in large part to the fact Ron Paul ran a radical education campaign. It also helps that the system is crumbling at its core and every day more and more people are feeling the impacts of out of control "leaders" running the show.

I appreciated Rand's measured approach. Ron Paul's radical education campaign over the past 2 elections created a stark contrast between folks who love liberty and folks who stop at nothing to destroy it.

There is no need to constantly point out who the hostiles are at this time. That is all that radical speech would do coming from Rand Paul. It's time to start looking for friends and forging alliances.

Of course Rand Paul would pardon Snowden, but first, he needs to remain moderate enough to appeal to folks across the political spectrum. And the easiest way to remain moderate, without giving up a plan for radical action, is not use strong language to express views that would only server to incite one group or another.

Let Rand remain reserved until all the details come in. That is what I expect my representatives in government to do. Knee jerk reactions are for amateurs, and I think Rand is pro.

Qft.

Rand shows in this one instance why he is miles ahead in terms of wisdom.
I appreciate his tact in dealing with these types of situations. This is how you build bridges between the "radical Ron Paul supporters" and the more mainstream, govt trusting types.

[cajuncocoa]

If you think you can do a better job cajun why not run against Scary Mary and see how your purist libertarian stances go down with the people of NOLA?

I don't believe things can be fixed through the political process. I have no aspirations for public office.

[Ender]

It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....

Those three in agreement alone, would be enough for me to want a little more info before I jumped into the dung pile.

[CPUd]

So let me get this straight. Some people are criticizing Rand because he didn't fall to his knees in worship of Snowden?

"FALL TO YOUR KNEES.. BOY!"

I think it's interesting within a few hours of the guy outing himself people here were asking where to donate and changing their avatars.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is all just silly.

This is a game to you people. You don't want anything real to happen. You're essentially sports fans imagining that when you cheer for your guy that somehow accomplishes something, like rousing Hulkamania or something. And then you have a duty to talk smack about whoever it is you've decided you're not supposed to like.

+rep for the truth!

Half of RPFs has become a bunch of raving football fans.

[Warlord]

I think it's interesting within a few hours of the guy outing himself people here were asking where to donate and changing their avatars.

There's nothing wrong with supporting him and simultaneously understanding why others might not be able to. Kind of like how most of us are truthers or ask questions of the official story of 9/11 but we dont expect rep's to

[PaulConventionWV]

Bullshit. I want leaders that will stand up and yell from the rooftops to the American people. Why the fuck do you think that an ENTIRE MOVEMENT sprang up like wildfire around ONE MAN!?!? Because that man has had the balls to get right in the face of TPTB and respond with a resounding NO!!! I want Rand to stand on principle and not succumb to playing politics. When he does that, he takes a huge step backwards right into a huge pack of other politicians. We need leaders, not more politicians.

Ron Paul himself said it's not about the man, and here you are parading around the man, talking about being a bunch of belicose sports fans who make boisterous but meaningless actions. What the f*** is "Yelling from the rooftops" supposed to do? How is that substantive actions? How is that not EXACTLY what erowe just described? You say bullshit, but what you really mean is "You're one hundred percent right and that's exactly what I intend to keep on doing!"

[WM_in_MO]

When did Ron ever make knee-jerk statements?

[newbitech]

That's what we are afraid of and to a lot of us this is just unacceptable.

There is lot's to build off of, the foundation has been laid out. I think Rand has learned from his dads mistakes and is doing the best to play the hand he was dealt, as do all honest people.

I don't buy the trojan horse non-sense, because anyone paying attention to the counter trend in this country realizes that Rand is leading the charge against the status quo. Including those folks that have some need to hear him moderate his liberty rhetoric, like the Hannity's of the world.

It is not you and I and Rand who are blinded by the truth about what is happening in our country. Some folks just don't want to get out of bed, and I think Rand is taking on the roll of caretaker for those folks helping them ease their way back in to the light.

From my perspective, it sure seems like a stark contrast between the radical ideas that I was introduced to upon discovering Ron Paul and the movement he was leading. But think about it from the perspective of people sitting on the fence. Rand makes it a little easier for them to come over to our side.

He puts a bridge there for folks to help them get over whatever little hitch they had with his dad. I can easily view this as coddling, or even lying, or being deceitful, but really those folks are lying to themselves. Rand gives them a chance to rectify that internal lie at their own pace, rather than shoving the truth down their throat.

We got all the mileage we are going to get out of radical speech I believe. The movement has been wildly successful in its education campaign blitz. Many folks are still in denial about the truth. Rand just gives them another chance to embrace a little more truth than they were willing to with Ron.

I think for people needing a continuous stream of radicalism, it's probably time to consider taking up arms and physically resisting, the way Kokesh is doing, and even the way Snowden has done.

I myself am on the fence with radicalism, because my gut is telling me time has run out. Rand is buying a little more time, and I think regardless if he is able to convince enough people to put him in power, there are elements of our culture so deeply lodged in the hearts and minds of folks that nothing short of abrupt and sudden change will dig that cancerous impurity out.

I don't mind Rand's relative weakness in rhetoric compared to Ron's because I think his actions and his influence amongst his peers is relatively stronger. I think it's a fair trade that again, buys time for the broader coalition to develop and organize and grow. We'll need a strong base for what's coming next. And I think now is a good a time as any to start gearing up for the real battles that lie ahead.

There will come a day I believe in the not too distant future where we will all come to believe Ron Paul when he says that he and Rand are 99%.

[talkingpointes]

I don't believe things can be fixed through the political process. I have no aspirations for public office.

So Ron Paul getting into office and doing absolutely nothing but going on vacation and repealing anything that he could of -appealed to you more then another Ronald The Democrat Raygun.?

Same here. I don't seek to enhance or better government. I seek to completely dismantle and replace it with voluntarism and private business. I seek to sever the ties of business and force through the government, not to streamline the process in which they themselves get money for subsidies creating monolithic companies with ethics mirroring their providers. I don't wish for people to see the good in government, I realize there is no good in government. A system in which the first dollar being collected at the behest of a man with a gun is a system in which corruption is openly welcomed because of the moral fluidity set by the first man.

This system is sick, and like a patient dying from something disease without a cure it must be put to death or allowed to die. Prolonging the agony and pain by administering pain killers (printing money) might subside the feelings of the inevitable momentarily- by lowering the cries heard aloud. But one must be met with the truth and acceptance in order to ever move on. This patient in particular like slavery is a relic of a different era. We as humans in this society are either going to regress on account of the restraints of this systems limitations or we are going to evolve and realize the stench surrounding us is this festering corpse.

[fisharmor]

I appreciate his tact in dealing with these types of situations. This is how you build bridges between the "radical Ron Paul supporters" and the more mainstream, govt trusting types.

Bridges?
Every time I try walking on that bridge, I fall in the river.

[EBounding]

What would Ed Snowden prefer? Would he want Rand to debate whether or not he's a hero, or would he want Rand to do whatever it takes to alert and persuade people regarding the vast lawless surveillance in this country?

[fisharmor]

So Ron Paul getting into office and doing absolutely nothing but going on vacation and repealing anything that he could of -appealed to you more then another Ronald The Democrat Raygun.?

Same here. I don't seek to enhance or better government. I seek to completely dismantle and replace it with voluntarism and private business. I seek to sever the ties of business and force through the government, not to streamline the process in which they themselves get money for subsidies creating monolithic companies with ethics mirroring their providers. I don't wish for people to see the good in government, I realize there is no good in government. A system in which the first dollar being collected at the behest of a man with a gun is a system in which corruption is openly welcomed because of the moral fluidity set by the first man.

This system is sick, and like a patient dying from something disease without a cure it must be put to death or allowed to die. Prolonging the agony and pain by administering pain killers (printing money) might subside the feelings of the inevitable momentarily by lowering the cries hear aloud. But one must be met with the truth and acceptance in order to ever move on. This patient in particular like slavery is a relic of a different era. We as humans in this society are either going to regress on account of the restraints of this systems limitations or we are going to evolve and realize the stench surrounding us is this festering corpse.

What he said.

At some point, you have to back up and look at the whole.
You don't replace brake shoes when your frame is rusted through.
You don't hang new shutters when all the joists are shot through with termites.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here's a bit of wisdom for all you anti-Rand nuts. The only wise response to someone reserving judgment... is reserving judgment on that person. No other position makes any logical sense.

[Sola_Fide]

There is zero electoral consequences for Ron if public opinion swings against Ed after Greenwald dumps the next load of documents

And what is the consequence for Rand coming out bold for this guy? Would you have told Rand not to do the drone filibuster because of the political consequences? Or would you have realized that stands on principle help electoral success?

[fisharmor]

Here's a bit of wisdom for all you anti-Rand nuts. The only wise response to someone reserving judgment... is reserving judgment on that person. No other position makes any logical sense.

"Hi, I'm going to berate you for being illogical with a post that starts with the best known logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). "

[erowe1]

And what is the consequence for Rand coming out bold for this guy? Would you have told Rand not to do the drone filibuster because of the political consequences? Or would you have realized that stands on principle help electoral success?

Coming out bold by doing what?

Whatever that is, he might still do it. That's what reserving judgment means.

[talkingpointes]

And Rand shares none of the credit for shifting the debate to Liberty v.s. Tyranny? :rolleyes:

Do you actually think they care about a debate or even see a debate ? These people lie to our FACES every day of every hour of every week. There is nothing voluntary about this system what so ever. Would you like a huge nice cuddly government if it wasn't spying and warring with people around the world?

You can pretend all this stuff is isolated to a few people or this administration but you would be missing the bigger picture. I understand the comfort in pretending were at the same level and table as these people, but clearly we're not.

[Carlybee]

It should be but sadly it isn't...



It isn't because we turn over our power to our so called representatives and don't march on them with pitchforks when they betray us which makes us the status quo.

[erowe1]

Do you actually think they care about a debate or even see a debate ? These people lie to our FACES every day of every hour of every week. Voluntary ? There is nothing voluntary about this system what so ever. That has been established more recently almost weekly with scandals.

You can pretend all this stuff is isolated to a few people or this administration but you would be missing the bigger picture. I understand the comfort in pretending were at the same level and table as these people, but clearly we're not.

This is confusing.

Isn't "debate" the precise thing Rand is being accused in the thread of not doing enough?

[Carlybee]

Here's a bit of wisdom for all you anti-Rand nuts. The only wise response to someone reserving judgment... is reserving judgment on that person. No other position makes any logical sense.

So if we differ on action we are anti Rand nuts? Piss off.

[newbitech]

OP, you are bitching cause Rand dodged the media ambush by "reserving judgement" and moving on to the important issue of 4th amendment protection?

You might have issues with Rand, but in this episode and the context of the Snowden interview, I bet you if Snowden heard this video and your reaction to it, he'd tell you that what Rand said and what you heard him say are at odds.

Anyway, not to condemn your view point or anything, I just watched the interview and it was a really good interview. Rand stayed focused on the issue that created this situation an "reserved judgement" on the man because there is just absolutely no need at this time for someone who is going up against the NSA surveillance state to debate whether or not a whistle blower is a hero or a traitor, because it's a silly distracting debate.

[Valli6]

Rand is doing the wise thing.

He's not a media personality - he's a sitting Senator who has to work within a Senate where many have already labeled Snowden a traitor. Some of these may fear they are about to be implicated in wrongdoing.

If they (the entrenched, establishment) ban him from committees and meetings - like they did to Ron for several decades - he will only be handicapped from bringing about the changes that need to occur - or reaching higher office. He has already stated he is not allowed to sit in on many of the meetings where spying on citizens was allegedly "approved".

Rand has unequivocally rejected the specific tyrannical behavior and pointed out it's unconstitutionality. There is no smart reason for him to pass judgement on a man who has not yet released his whole story.

As much as I want to see all Snowden's slides NOW! and get all the details NOW! - the details need to be absorbed, pondered, and remembered from one unjust incident to the next. The crime needs to stick to the guilty parties and not be swept away by some other nonsense issue (celebrity death/murder/maiming, sports-figure-does-somethin-woohoo, political-figure-gets-blowjob, etc…). This will not be a quick process.

Rand is "keeping his head while all about him" are running around making brash pronouncements with only part of the story. (Of course, Ron can say whatever he wants, because he's no longer working from within the corrupt system.)

They'll be plenty more to say when the specific details come out.

[Carlybee]

They should be implicated in wrongdoing and booted out.

[TheGrinch]

Christ, can we stop the drama queen bullshit. This is getting absolutely ridiculous the way some of you look for reasons to dislike Rand.

While he's walking a fine line between understanding the need for civil disobedience, and also understanding that a Senator can't really endorse illegal behavior (thus leaving him with the lone option of "reserving judgement" to see if he can take a hard stand without being painted as a hypocrite), he's one of the lone voices trying to do something about the larger issue at hand.

Read his op-ed from yesterday below. I'm going to judge him on his votes and fighting fights he can win, not for holding back on a matter that he has absolutely no control over:


Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

By RAND PAUL

When Americans expressed outrage last week over the seizure and surveillance of Verizon's client data by the National Security Agency, President Obama responded: "In the abstract, you can complain about Big Brother . . . but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance."

How many records did the NSA seize from Verizon? Hundreds of millions. We are now learning about more potential mass data collections by the government from other communications and online companies. These are the "details," and few Americans consider this approach "balanced," though many rightly consider it Orwellian.

These activities violate the Fourth Amendment, which says warrants must be specific—"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And what is the government doing with these records? The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?

No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this.

What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation. Americans should trust the National Security Agency as much as they do the IRS and Justice Department.

Monitoring the records of as many as a billion phone calls, as some news reports have suggested, is no modest invasion of privacy. It is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked. Our lives are now so digitized that the government going from computer to computer or phone to phone is the modern equivalent of the same type of tyranny that our Founders rebelled against.

I also believe that trolling through millions of phone records hampers the legitimate protection of our security. The government sifts through mountains of data yet still didn't notice, or did not notice enough, that one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was traveling to Chechnya. Perhaps instead of treating every American as a potential terror suspect the government should concentrate on more targeted analysis.

To protect against the invasion of Americans' privacy, I have introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act. I introduced similar Fourth Amendment protections in December and again just last month. Both measures would have prevented the data-mining we're now seeing, but both bills were rejected by the Senate. We will see if this time my colleagues will vote to support the Constitution that they all took an oath to uphold.

I am also looking into a class-action lawsuit to overturn the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that allowed for this to happen. I will take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. My office has already heard much enthusiasm for this action.

The administration has responded to the public uproar by simply claiming that it is allowed to have unlimited access to all Americans' private information. This response is a clear indication that the president views our Constitutional "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" as null and void.

If this is the new normal in America, then Big Brother certainly is watching and it's not hyperbolic or extreme to say so. Nor is it unreasonable to fear which parts of the Constitution this government will next consider negotiable or negligible.

Mr. Paul, a Republican, is a senator from Kentucky.

[kcchiefs6465]

His job is not to educate the dumbed down masses. This is a fruitless task.
It worked for me.

I in turn educated most my entire family to open their eyes.

Fruitless, I know.

[69360]

Seems like Rand is saying he knew Snowden broke the law, but understands why and that history will probably show Snowden a hero, but it's too early in this for Rand to come out and say that.

I agree.

[Sola_Fide]

Coming out bold by doing what?

Whatever that is, he might still do it. That's what reserving judgment means.

I agree. But now I hear that Mike Lee is now calling this guy a traitor, and that concerns me. If Rand is listening to the other "liberty senators", he will try to take some "middle of the road" approach which will gain him no interest.

[tsai3904]

But now I hear that Mike Lee is now calling this guy a traitor, and that concerns me.

Do you have a link to this?

[kathy88]

Here's a bit of wisdom for all you anti-Rand nuts. The only wise response to someone reserving judgment... is reserving judgment on that person. No other position makes any logical sense.

And again, the name calling because we aren't frothing at the mouth over Rand EVERY time his name is posted. I know I personally am not anti-Rand, at all. I spread his posts, I signed his "lawsuit" I have donated. But on THIS issue I think he should have taken a bit of a stronger stand. It's people like you that turn people like me off to Rand, quite frankly.

[V3n]

If he comes out too strong it will be seen as a "right" issue, instead of "left and right" - it will polarize the crowds and turn people off. He's smart to play the middle, where he's going to need the votes a few years from now.

[ZENemy]

Lay down with dogs; wake up with fleas.

[Warlord]

It worked for me.

I in turn educated most my entire family to open their eyes.

Fruitless, I know.

Anecdotal. The herd of course is millions and millions. They dont want to be educated. They want to be played by politicians like good little slaves.

Only maybe a tiny % will ever get it. Try and do it via T party meetings. This is the best route.

[FSP-Rebel]

And again, the name calling because we aren't frothing at the mouth over Rand EVERY time his name is posted. I know I personally am not anti-Rand, at all. I spread his posts, I signed his "lawsuit" I have donated. But on THIS issue I think he should have taken a bit of a stronger stand. It's people like you that turn people like me off to Rand, quite frankly.
I'm surprised that you'd let a few pro-Rand posters that may have less than stellar online tactics affect your opinion of him. I certainly don't let the few people that hold Rand to Ron's pure standard affect my view of Ron. Notice that cajun jumped on this with all her glory despite the entire segment of the interview Rand is at the necks of TPTB, interesting takeaway wouldn't ya say, hmm? Rand is the one swinging for the fences with all this info that Snowden revealed; how could one have ill will of anyone that just set the table for him to hit a grandslam.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I can't deal with this. :(

[FSP-Rebel]

BTW, why don't the ring leaders here go let off some steam by posting their pledge amounts in the Ben Swann Kickstarter thread instead of the once again meaningless activism of nickel and diming Rand over nothing whatsoever and making each other all touchy and feely.

[TheGrinch]

And again, the name calling because we aren't frothing at the mouth over Rand EVERY time his name is posted. I know I personally am not anti-Rand, at all. I spread his posts, I signed his "lawsuit" I have donated. But on THIS issue I think he should have taken a bit of a stronger stand. It's people like you that turn people like me off to Rand, quite frankly.

And it's okay that this duplicate thread was made pretty much for the sole reason of calling him a coward? It's a two way street. The more people try to hang on trivial stuff like this to criticize him, the mroe it causes the other side to have to go to his defense, and sometimes rudely so, because frankly this is getting ridiculous.

Rand has always been one of the lone Senators to speak out about what Snowden has revealed, and continues to do so in the wake of it, and yet people overlook that and don't realize that a Senator wouldn't be smart to call someone a hero for performing illegal acts. Why is it so bad that he leaves it at, "I think when people choose civil disobedience, they’re at their wit’s end and think there’s no other choice.", but that he's forced to reserve judgement (bite his tongue) beyond that.

As was said in the original thread, Snowden himself said, ""I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me,” he told the paper. “I want it to be about what the U.S. government is doing". But no, don't praise Rand for trying to do something about it, let's fixate on any little gotcha attemtp we can find. I'm sick of us eating our own, quite frankly.

[John F Kennedy III]

Wow Rand. Way to fight for liberty. He's even only saying they're tracking phones. That punk sold us out.

[cajuncocoa]

It's not enough to quit posting negative stuff in Rand's subforum. I am now being PM'd from a Rand supporter asking me to censor myself with regard to criticism of Rand even in General Politics.

I guess eventually we're all going to have to kiss Rand's toenails or GTFO of this board altogether.

[TheGrinch]

I'm surprised that you'd let a few pro-Rand posters that may have less than stellar online tactics affect your opinion of him. I certainly don't let the few people that hold Rand to Ron's pure standard affect my view of Ron. Notice that cajun jumped on this with all her glory despite the entire segment of the interview Rand is at the necks of TPTB, interesting takeaway wouldn't ya say, hmm? Rand is the one swinging for the fences with all this info that Snowden revealed; how could one have ill will of anyone that just set the table for him to hit a grandslam.

Precisely, having watched the interview in full context now, the entire time he made sure that he did not get caught up in the red herring of "hero or traitor" which is a no-win argument, and not his place to decide.

Like Snowden and Rand can see, this isn't about him. He was merely the one who revealed the thing we should be concerned about here, "our privacy and whether the president is a hypocrite" as Rand said. That's what's the issue here.

Clearly the media wants to deflect to the "hero or traitor" conversation, rather than the real issue of privacy and unconstitutionality. It saddens me that people here are playing into that distraction, instead of asking what we're going to do about these revelations like Rand is. Like Snowden said himself, this isn't about him, this is about what the government is doing. He didn't reveal it to be a hero, and Rand was wise to see that there are bigger fish to fry, particularly when there's not anything we can do for Snowden currently, except hope he isn't extradited.

I thought we were better than this, but clearly some just want to find reasons to dislike Rand, rather than look at the big picture.

[FSP-Rebel]

Wow Rand. Way to fight for liberty. He's even only saying they're tracking phones. That punk sold us out.
He only has a short time to speak his piece and it's clear, if you've watched/listened to every interview he's done since yesterday, that he's developed his pitch on the subject. But if those are your sentiments, by all means call up Alex Jones and make a scene about it.

[TheGrinch]

It's not enough to quit posting negative stuff in Rand's subforum. I am now being PM'd from a Rand supporter asking me to censor myself with regard to criticism of Rand even in General Politics.

I guess eventually we're all going to have to kiss Rand's toenails or GTFO of this board altogether.

Cajun, you know damn well why I PMed you, it's because you're not being objective, and acting liek the media with your gotcha attempts.

I didn't say you couldn't criticize Rand, I said that 98% of what you criticize him for is unwarranted and petty, and ignores all of the actual good he's doing in favor of a few statements that don't make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

But please continue to ignore me trying to knock some sense into your head, that this is far bigger than Rand calling him a hero, that's not whatSnowden wants, and you're deflecting just like the media from the real issues that Rand is fighting for in wake of this.

[FSP-Rebel]

Precisely

I thought we were better than this, but clearly some just want to find reasons to dislike Rand, rather than look at the big picture.
That is exactly what goes on in these instances. Some are waiting with baited breath like many do on the left to extrapolate any potential unsure statement he makes which could perhaps be seen as Rand being a stark fraud. And, every time they mount up it looks ridiculous and it's almost always taken out of context. When the media did/does that to Ron, it's off with their heads. When some of our own do it to Rand, it's suppose to be a pity party. Note that in all of the threads in Rand's sub where he's standing up for the 4th amendment, filing a lawsuit against NSA/FBI and other foreign policy and civil liberties issues you won't see most of the posters you see in here. When there's actions consistent with what Ron advocates, it's crickets and no credit given. In a meaningless statement on this latest, it's burn him at the stake. So, the only thing I can take away from that mindset is actions are worthless and comments to avoid media demagoguery make one a coward. point, set, match

[sailingaway]

Sorry, but I actually disagree with you on this one. I'm in Rand's camp but you know I'm not a mindless Rand defender.

If Rand had said "Snowden was wrong, throw the book at him" I'd agree with you. That's just going too far.

But he's not. In fact, he seems like he's supporting Snowden here. He's just being cautious about it and not flat out endorsing violations of the law, which if he did so would totally screw over his chances.

Even Ron Paul said that tax protestors should expect imprisonment if they disobey the law.

Now, do I prefer Ron Paul's style here? Yeah. But I honestly don't see what Rand said that's "Wrong" here. Ron has nothing to lose politically anymore. Rand has everything to lose, and as he said, it quite literally is his job to legally make change, as a senator.

I might wish he'd have flat out called him a hero but I don't see why its his job to do that. So yeah, I think I'm going to have to give Rand a pass on this one.

I was almost certain he was going to say something middle of the road like this, and I wasn't surprised. This is a stylistic issue, not a matter of principle.

I almost grudgingly agreed with you to a point, but the 'Ron has nothing to lose any more' I simply am constitutionally incapable of letting pass.

When in 30 years did Ron ever let having something to lose stand in his way of saying something IMPORTANT?

I do agree that conceivably Snowden could be a well set up plant and spy or something, and IF that is proven (note the need for PROOF) my opinion of him would change. AS it is, I am taking him at face value, as someone who is sacrificing a lot to get attention to massive violation of our Constitution. Obviously, there is the agreement side, that he agree to confidentiality, but I refuse to even entertain discussion of that until the worst violators of their oaths in this scenario are prosecuted for this, and they are in Washington DC.

[jclay2]

I am confident in Rand, but Ron is clearly going senile. Calling Snowden's efforts heroic to reveal the unconstitutional prism program is aggressive and dangerous. Ron would do good to follow his son on this one. We need to ensure that an objective decision is made off all available information (probably in a few months).

[TheGrinch]

Wow Rand. Way to fight for liberty. He's even only saying they're tracking phones. That punk sold us out.

Did you read his op-ed with the proposition and lawsuit he's waging over it?

[talkingpointes]

Did you read his op-ed with the proposition and lawsuit he's waging over it?

Yeah, and is this big government system going to put itself in check. LOL

[kcchiefs6465]

I am confident in Rand, but Ron is clearly going senile. Calling Snowden's efforts heroic to reveal the unconstitutional prism program is aggressive and dangerous. Ron would do good to follow his son on this one. We need to ensure that an objective decision is made off all available information (probably in a few months).
Senile?

Are you out your goddamn mind?

I wish I could imagine being this sharp at Ron Paul's age. Hell, at any age. Senile... that's a good one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89ClXEveeo

[talkingpointes]

I am confident in Rand, but Ron is clearly going senile. Calling Snowden's efforts heroic to reveal the unconstitutional prism program is aggressive and dangerous. Ron would do good to follow his son on this one. We need to ensure that an objective decision is made off all available information (probably in a few months).

Senile is having a government with 6-7 scandals in rotation and both sides are fighting it when really one side should take the blame. But they both want the power.

What is so hard to understand. If you keep voting how can you complain when the abuses happen. You have to realize it's going to always happen when you give someone power and a gun.

[newbitech]

Did you read his op-ed with the proposition and lawsuit he's waging over it?

you, that's something that his dad was reluctant to do. taking cases to the supreme court. Ron Paul never got criticized for taking cases to the supreme court, but I got to believe that if people were really this vehemently opposed to Rand's words, they should have been at least equally opposed to his father's inaction in regards to taking matters to that he championed.

The fact is, everyone has a roll. We can't expect everyone to dish out harsh and super critical liberty rhetoric 24/7 and think that is going to accomplish anything.

[Carlybee]

My main issue is that I thought once Rand was elected to the senate it would be a blow to the status quo. Now that he may run for president its like he has to kowtow. I mean come on...the members of government who knew about this and approved it should be prosecuted not protected.

[jclay2]

Senile?

Are you out your goddamn mind?

I wish I could imagine being this sharp at Ron Paul's age. Hell, at any age. Senile... that's a good one.

Don't worry, it was in the utmost spirit of sarcasm. Unless you are replying sarcastically to my sarcastic remark?..lol

[Mini-Me]

Wow Rand. Way to fight for liberty. He's even only saying they're tracking phones. That punk sold us out.

So I take it that it's you, not Rand, who's filing a lawsuit in an attempt to take this to the Supreme Court? ;) Right now, the phones are the subject of Snowden's leak. We all know that the NSA tracks every electronic communication to and from anyone at all times (I wonder if they have the resources to permanently store all content as well as the metadata?), but so far only the phone records have been proven...and actually proving it for once is pretty huge. Rand is sticking to what has been proven here, because there's a real opportunity for him to make an issue of it without people criticizing him for "paranoid speculation."

Ron's job is to tell it like it is, and a lot of people love him for it, but a lot of people HATE him for it. Half the country wants to see Snowden black-bagged, and telling them how it is only makes them dig their heels in further. Snowden has given us an opportunity here, and the government and media are doing everything they can to make the issue about how to lynch him instead of staying on point about what he has revealed. That's where Rand comes in: His job is to stay on point and carefully and diplomatically sway people who are too far gone for unrestrained truth bombs to have an effect. He's also working within the constraints of wanting to be elected President, so he can, you know...actually DO something about all of this instead of just making bold statements to draw our cheers. In other words, this is just a rehash of the same old argument about Rand Paul. Some people can see how Ron and Rand's styles complement each other, whereas others just can't...nothing new here.

[kcchiefs6465]

you, that's something that his dad was reluctant to do. taking cases to the supreme court. Ron Paul never got criticized for taking cases to the supreme court, but I got to believe that if people were really this vehemently opposed to Rand's words, they should have been at least equally opposed to his father's inaction in regards to taking matters to that he championed.

The fact is, everyone has a roll. We can't expect everyone to dish out harsh and super critical liberty rhetoric 24/7 and think that is going to accomplish anything.
The Supreme Court's track record on 'public safety' and treasonous precedents set I probably wouldn't want to waste my time either.

Go to the SCOTUS so they can say it is unconstitutional but in the interest of public safety? Seems pointless.

[talkingpointes]

So I take it that it's you, not Rand, who's filing a lawsuit in an attempt to take this to the Supreme Court? ;) Right now, the phones are the subject of Snowden's leak. We all know that the NSA tracks every electronic communication to and from anyone at all times (I wonder if they have the resources to permanently store all content as well as the metadata?), but so far only the phone records have been proven...and actually proving it for once is pretty huge. Rand is sticking to what has been proven here, because there's a real opportunity for him to make an issue of it without people criticizing him for "paranoid speculation."

Ron's job is to tell it like it is, and a lot of people love him for it, but a lot of people HATE him for it. Half the country wants to see Snowden black-bagged, and telling them how it is only makes them dig their heels in further. Snowden has given us an opportunity here, and the government and media are doing everything they can to make the issue about how to lynch him instead of staying on point about what he has revealed. That's where Rand comes in: His job is to stay on point and carefully and diplomatically sway people who are too far gone for unrestrained truth bombs to have an effect. He's also working within the constraints of wanting to be elected President, so he can, you know...actually DO something about all of this instead of just making bold statements to draw our cheers. In other words, this is just a rehash of the same old argument about Rand Paul. Some people can see how Ron and Rand's styles complement each other, whereas others just can't...nothing new here.

Yet at the end of the day he has to maneuver in their system. If he stood on his own like his father it would be a lot harder but the payoff would be bigger. Every time there is a debate here it's about words. The guy never votes anymore, it's just not present for now. Because giving votes would be too much too.

If Rand made government the most profitable nice business would you like that? I just don't get it. You either like government or you don't. There really is no in between. Saying less government makes no sense because it doesn't describe a goal, just a feeling. The government has to end, these abuses are not just a few people -- it's everyone involved in it practically. The libery guys are less then 1% of the vote in the congress. What more has to be said for this too sink in.

[SilentBull]

All right I'm done with this thread and with the "all or nothing" purists that would prefer nothing to change than to actually make some progress. The socialists understand they can't go full socialist, so they've opted for gradual changes towards socialism, and look at where we are now.

But the purists don't like gradualism. Either we end the fed NOW or you're a sell-out. Either you say the guy is a hero or you're a sell-out. Either you are for 0% income tax or you're a sell-out, even if you can convince the country that a low, flat income tax is a fairer tax. Either you are for abolishing or you're a sell-out, even if you are gradually convincing people that maybe we can do with less and less government. God, you guys don't get it. You will NEVER, EVER get the population to support big changes. Either you sell it to them as gradual changes, or you will get NO CHANGE. Don't you guys get this? The left always wins because this is what they do. We should be learning from their techniques, not taking the path that never works.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?

Nothing, unless you're purposefully and desperately looking for a reason, as the OP always is.

[Barrex]

I was just starting to warm up to him again. I see now that he doesn't get it.
I dont think you get it.

Not trying to polarize himself = being a pussy in this case IMO.
He did smart move. He cant get Snowden presidential pardno but he can keep this issue on front pages.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

~ Thomas Jefferson
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Quote for ever position.
Barrex, The wise one according to kcchiefs6465 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417348-Get-your-Ed-Snowden-quot-HERO-quot-avatar-here&p=5069621&viewfull=1#post5069621)
---------

If he is to be president he needs to play the game. It was wise to wait before calling him hero before he knows more about it and not just what newspapers say. Until then he is forcing people to talk about it. Snowden is not focus of this scandal. What your government did and is still doing is focus of this scandal. It is obvious that every single one of you is cointelpro because you are trying to shift focus from government evil to semantics of people that fight governments evils. How much are they paying you?

Aliens

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Go to the SCOTUS so they can say it is unconstitutional but in the interest of public safety? Seems pointless.

Mere words are even more pointless.

[V3n]

Rand says he's going to think about his words before he says them, and people lose their heads.
More people should think about what they say before they speak.
This is an intentional nit-picky attack to divide us and put Hillary in the White House in 2016.
It's disgusting.

[Mini-Me]

Yet at the end of the day he has to maneuver in their system. If he stood on his own like his father it would be a lot harder but the payoff would be bigger. Every time there is a debate here it's about words. The guy never votes anymore, it's just not present for now. Because giving votes would be too much too.
He should definitely be voting; if he's not, I won't defend him on that point. However, I think you overestimate the payoff from Rand Paul behaving exactly like Ron Paul: We already HAVE a Ron Paul, but he's not reaching everyone. Having more of him would help for sure, but we need more than a single flavor of champions, because bananas and blackberries can be an acquired taste. Ron Paul reached me, and Ron Paul reached you, but there's a limit to the number of people you can convince out of the gate with incisive libertarian rhetoric, especially considering the vast majority of people form their political viewpoints entirely from social cues instead of reason (logical arguments come later...or rationalizations, when no logical arguments exist). Ron Paul's approach by itself cannot achieve a critical mass, because far too many people aren't open to it yet. If you want more mainstream Americans to be open to full-blown libertarian rhetoric, you need to inch them closer first...which is why it's useful to have people who can speak their language. It's the difference between demanding people jump a chasm and building a bridge to help them get across. Not everyone is an Olympic long-jumper.


If Rand made government the most profitable nice business would you like that? I just don't get it. You either like government or you don't. There really is no in between. Saying less government makes no sense because it doesn't describe a goal, just a feeling. The government has to end, these abuses are not just a few people -- it's everyone involved in it practically. The libery guys are less then 1% of the vote in the congress. What more has to be said for this too sink in.

I'm nearly a voluntaryist (basically, I'm a short-term minarchist and long term optimistic voluntaryist, and I don't like the judgmental attitude so many carry), so no, I wouldn't like Rand to make the government a "profitable business." This is not an argument between strict libertarians and easily corruptible neocon-lites. This is a strategic debate only. It is precisely our incisive rhetoric that makes ordinary people freak out about our ideas, but Rand's rhetoric is a great deal more convincing for anyone who is not in the 20%-or-so of the population who is conducive to Ron Paul's...and not only his rhetoric but his popularity and success (social proof) is what will bring more people within striking range of Ron's rhetoric and more principled libertarian ideas (e.g. Rothbard's rhetoric).

[talkingpointes]

He should definitely be voting; if he's not, I won't defend him on that point. However, I think you overestimate the payoff from Rand Paul behaving exactly like Ron Paul: We already HAVE a Ron Paul, but he's not reaching everyone. Having more of him would help for sure, but we need more than a single flavor of champions, because bananas and blackberries can be an acquired taste. Ron Paul reached me, and Ron Paul reached you, but there's a limit to the number of people you can convince out of the gate with incisive libertarian rhetoric, especially considering the vast majority of people form their political viewpoints entirely from social cues instead of reason (logical arguments come later...or rationalizations, when no logical arguments exist). Ron Paul's approach by itself cannot achieve a critical mass, because far too many people aren't open to it. If you want them to be open to it, you need to draw them closer first...which is why it's useful to have people who can speak their language.

Look for yourself. He has made some good votes too. But now he isn't voting on most stuff at all.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/VotingStatistics/

There is only one flavor with government, and it's tyranny. You can try to tame the best all you want. Humans have been doing this for about 6000 years. I think it's time we stop. It's over.

We know of the abuses taking place. We know they are sociopaths, and they will not concede the truth no matter the consequences. We know they will take advantage of every position they can.

We play on a different set of rules. We cannot --CANNOT allow to share power with these people. The only way to go is to decentralize the whole deal. Take away the guns and stop the violence.

You can make the worlds sharpest sword, but if all it's used to do is kill people then what have you really done.

A Rand Paul presidency doesn't mean no wars, CIA, DHS, DOD, FBI. There is nothing he or we can do in their world playing by our rules.

"It isn't who votes that matters, it who counts the votes that matters". Uncle Joe Stalin

[kcchiefs6465]

Mere words are even more pointless.
Perhaps pointless was a little harsh. More information will undoubtedly come out about the program, sure. The SCOTUS is as bad as the rest of them. They do not care about the Fourth Amendment in the slightest. Otherwise there wouldn't be weekly checkpoints stopping all motorists.

As to words being pointless that depends on who hears them. Explaining clearly and concisely that their rights are being violated and their activities monitored could exact change. Perhaps your use of 'pointless' was in response to my careless use of the word. That's fair.

To be quite honest, it's all rather pointless. People are fat and fed, perjurious officials tell jokes and have good laughs. Not much else could be said that I haven't said a few times before. Good luck.

[fisharmor]

By the way, does anyone remember a lady named Deborah Medina?
Seems to me she went on Beck's show and withheld judgement on a similarly charged subject, and Beck went ahead and destroyed her anyway.

They're going to do and say what they want. It makes no sense to me to hide the truth.

[Anti Federalist]

Rand may win, but nothing will change.

More and more, this.

Welp, I guess Snowden can forget that pardon from President Paul.

[Mini-Me]

Look for yourself. He has made some good votes too. But now he isn't voting on most stuff at all.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/VotingStatistics/

Am I missing something? I don't see any 2013 statistics, but it looks like he didn't miss a single vote ("No Votes") in either 2011 or 2012.


There is only one flavor with government, and it's tyranny. You can try to tame the best all you want. Humans have been doing this for about 6000 years. I think it's time we stop. It's over.

We know of the abuses taking place. We know they are sociopaths, and they will not concede the truth no matter the consequences. We know they will take advantage of every position they can.

We play on a different set of rules. We cannot --CANNOT allow to share power with these people. The only way to go is to decentralize the whole deal. Take away the guns and stop the violence.

You can make the worlds sharpest sword, but if all it's used to do is kill people then what have you really done.

A Rand Paul presidency doesn't mean no wars, CIA, DHS, DOD, FBI. There is nothing he or we can do in their world playing by our rules.

"It isn't who votes that matters, it who counts the votes that matters". Uncle Joe Stalin

I'm not talking about flavors of government. I'm talking about flavors of personality and rhetorical styles.

All government is evil, but some governments commit more atrocities than others, and degree matters in practice, because people have to live through it. Pontificating about equivalence does nothing to ease their suffering...only ACTION does. A Rand Paul Presidency can indeed mean ending wars, halting the surveillance dragnet temporarily, etc. It can mean buying us more time to educate people before the entire country implodes and socialists or fascists try to institute a new leviathan goverment (the old one only failed because it wasn't big enough)...and it can mean PROVING to people that ending the wars and the surveillance dragnet will not lead to the end of the world or "Disney Land for terrorists." Actual real-world experience is FAR more important for shaping ordinary people's attitudes than theoretical hypothesizing about a stateless society.

As far as government being "Over," that's just wishful thinking. We're not even close yet...and the longer libertarians take to realize how people form and change their views on a psychological level, the longer it's going to take. At this rate, it's going to take a thousand years or more. Either way, drill this into your head: Voluntaryism is only going to work when the majority of people are actually prepared for it and comfortable enough with the idea of it that they won't start an unstoppable reactionary movement toward a totalitarian government. The only realistic path to that kind of acceptance is through a gradually dismantled minarchy, not from the current leviathan government imploding.

[Anti Federalist]

Besides risking his life when he's sworn in. He's a direct threat to numerous entrenched special interests.

As if Snowden has not already done this.

Weaksauce Rand, weaksauce.

[kcchiefs6465]

By the way, does anyone remember a lady named Deborah Medina?
Seems to me she went on Beck's show and withheld judgement on a similarly charged subject, and Beck went ahead and destroyed her anyway.

They're going to do and say what they want. It makes no sense to me to hide the truth.
It seems to me that Beck has been by and large forgiven with his recent 'transformation.'

Good point though that I often think myself.

People honestly think they are that damn dumb that they can't tell Rand Paul will be a threat to their power structure? Smears, black outs, misrepresentations, CRA bullshit will be thrown shamelessly until the dumbed down American populous either A, nominates another Republican such as Rubio or the like, or B, votes for the Democratic candidate. I hate being so cynical but radical awakening of the American people is the only way this will change before it comes to a halt. And it's a long shot at that.

I hardly criticize Rand Paul but that is the issue I have. I don't think his route is going to get him elected and then what? The message was censored for nothing. My two cents anyways.

[asurfaholic]

Bridges?
Every time I try walking on that bridge, I fall in the river.

Lol the bridge is not for you, silly.

It's for the neocons to cross this way.

[TheGrinch]

So I take it that it's you, not Rand, who's filing a lawsuit in an attempt to take this to the Supreme Court? ;) Right now, the phones are the subject of Snowden's leak. We all know that the NSA tracks every electronic communication to and from anyone at all times (I wonder if they have the resources to permanently store all content as well as the metadata?), but so far only the phone records have been proven...and actually proving it for once is pretty huge. Rand is sticking to what has been proven here, because there's a real opportunity for him to make an issue of it without people criticizing him for "paranoid speculation."

Ron's job is to tell it like it is, and a lot of people love him for it, but a lot of people HATE him for it. Half the country wants to see Snowden black-bagged, and telling them how it is only makes them dig their heels in further. Snowden has given us an opportunity here, and the government and media are doing everything they can to make the issue about how to lynch him instead of staying on point about what he has revealed. That's where Rand comes in: His job is to stay on point and carefully and diplomatically sway people who are too far gone for unrestrained truth bombs to have an effect. He's also working within the constraints of wanting to be elected President, so he can, you know...actually DO something about all of this instead of just making bold statements to draw our cheers. In other words, this is just a rehash of the same old argument about Rand Paul. Some people can see how Ron and Rand's styles complement each other, whereas others just can't...nothing new here.

Perfectly said. I can't think of a better example of how Ron is the educator among those who will listen, and Rand is the implementer among those who won't. Sort of a good-cop, bad-cop routine if you will.. That doesn't mean that Rand is being disengenous however, it's allowing him to tackle the bigger fish to fry on matters that more of us can agree on, while Ron tells it like it is and grows the ideologically pure base.

Education-wise, yes, anyone who's against the surveillence programs should view this guy as a hero (and given Rand's disdain for these programs, you know he at very least leans this way privately, even if he does in fact prefer doing it legally), but what about those who think Snowden's a traitor and/or don't see a problem with the programs? Do you really think they'll ever view him as a hero without first seeing how these programs are wrong? Further, does it even matter if they still don't see him as a hero, if they can see that the things he revealed are wrong? The latter is exactly why Snowden did this, not to be seen as a hero. That's nothing but a red herring argument to be having.

From the way some go on, you would have thought that Rand called him a traitor, rather than just keeping his mouth shut over the unfruitful contreversial part and keeping his focus on what we should be focusing on, the programs themselves and how we stop them. I often hear that if his last name wasn't Paul, that many of us wouldn't support him, but then why is it that just because his last name is Paul, he gets far more scrutiny for reserving judgement publicly (while fighting agianst the programs themselves) than Mike Lee does for calling him a traitor? Double standard much? Sounds more like some don't like all the attention Rand is getting, more than them having actual issues with his statements.

Also a very excellent point about Rand sticking to what we do know, rather than being painted as "paranoid" like the left loves to do to us. "Protecting against tyranny by bearing arms? Man, you guys sure are paranoid". Hear it all the time.... In fact, I've said many times during the last election, that despite some conspiratorial view that I have, there is just so much that we know about that they're doing, that there is no need to devolve into the controversial claims that can be more easily dismissed.

So to those who want to claim that we think Rand is our trojan horse that will pull a complete 180, that's simply not the case. He's already been a huge thorn in the side of the statists, but he's just smart about the way he does it. You don't give your enemies ammo against you, unless you have a damn good reason to. This is how they alienated and destroyed Ron's chances (though that's not to say that Ron's efforts weren't frutiful, they are, but this is an uphill battle with many obstacles). In this case, he has much more reason to continue revealing the nature of the programs and actions against them, rather than getting caught up in the narrative they'd rather deflect to.

[John F Kennedy III]

It's not enough to quit posting negative stuff in Rand's subforum. I am now being PM'd from a Rand supporter asking me to censor myself with regard to criticism of Rand even in General Politics.

I guess eventually we're all going to have to kiss Rand's toenails or GTFO of this board altogether.

Wow that's ridiculous. I'd post negative stuff in the Rand forum too then. Obviously you can't play nice with the GOP bootlickers.

[Ender]

As if Snowden has not already done this.

Weaksauce Rand, weaksauce.

But Snowden had already packed his bags and headed to Hong Kong before TSHTF.

He's no fool and neither is Rand.

And since most on this thread are barking at the pussyfication of Rand Paul, then I suggest y'all get your butts on up to Washington and start making your own noises. Put your money where your mouth is-

Let's see who the brave really are? :rolleyes:

[TheGrinch]

More and more, this.

Welp, I guess Snowden can forget that pardon from President Paul.

Why do some of you act as if he called him a traitor? He didn't, if you watched the interview, he implied that, while he can't publicly endorse illegal behavior, he understands why one would turn to civil disobedience. Nuff said, before he shifts the conversation from that red herring to the real issue and reason that Snowden did this. He's said himself, this isn't about him, and it's a mistake to play into their narrative that it is.

If you think that the lone Senator who has been fighting against these programs (and continues to do so) doesn't sympathize with the guy, then you simply aren't paying attention.

[liveandletlive]

I am fed up with all this Rand bashing, especially those clowns on the Daily Paul. I doubt he can secure the nomination but give the kid a chance

[TheGrinch]

Wow that's ridiculous. I'd post negative stuff in the Rand forum too then. Obviously you can't play nice with the GOP bootlickers.

nm, this bullshit isn't worth my time. You all are the ones being ridiculous, only hearing what you want to hear, rather than actually watchnig these interviews and putting things in proper perspective. Worse than the damn media with this gotcha bullshit.

[Mini-Me]

It seems to me that Beck has been by and large forgiven with his recent 'transformation.'

Good point though that I often think myself.

People honestly think they are that damn dumb that they can't tell Rand Paul will be a threat to their power structure? Smears, black outs, misrepresentations, CRA bullshit will be thrown shamelessly until the dumbed down American populous either A, nominates another Republican such as Rubio or the like, or B, votes for the Democratic candidate. I hate being so cynical but radical awakening of the American people is the only way this will change before it comes to a halt. And it's a long shot at that.

I hardly criticize Rand Paul but that is the issue I have. I don't think his route is going to get him elected and then what? The message was censored for nothing. My two cents anyways.

The difference is that as much as the power structure hates Rand Paul, ordinary grassroots Republicans love him. The powers-that-be could easily smear Ron Paul, because he fell right into the category of people the MSM's listeners have been trained to hate...but heavy-handed blackouts of Rand Paul on Fox (etc.) in 2016 will confuse ordinary Republicans, and they're very likely to backfire. Obviously, YES, they'll try. Almost nobody thinks Rand Paul is fooling TPTB. They know who he is; Rand's job is not to convince them but to convince ordinary Republicans, and the MSM's job is to try to get Rand to fall off his tightrope and alienate either us or Republicans (many of whom will be future libertarians, given enough social motivation). You guys can either realize that's what's going on, or you can play into their manipulation.

Importantly, his message wasn't "censored for nothing." He's constantly educating people and bringing them closer to our views, but he does so more gradually and cautiously than Ron Paul: Ron just tells things the way they are, and he doesn't care if he loses his audience, because he's telling the truth damn it, and that's all that matters. That's why he sold so many of us so quickly: Someone like Ron is just explosive in a "love him or hate him" kind of way, and we just so happen to make up the small subset of the population that the "libertarian macho flash" works on. Rand is approaching things from the [correct] assumption that a lot of other people are still reachable, but they're way on the other side of a chasm, and they're not going to make the jump without a bridge or some stepping stones: His words are libertarian enough to teach Republicans something, but they're close enough to what they want to hear that he doesn't lose his influence over his audience. There are a ton of people who say, "Snowden's a traitor, and it looks like Ron Paul is too!" Rand isn't censoring his rhetoric as much as he's trying to speak in his audience's language. They're in a place called "teetering on the brink of insanity," and his job is to make them halfway reasonable so they don't [figuratively] lynch us when we tell them what's what. WE are not his audience, because we are not the ones who need convincing.

Our "conversion rate" has slowed over time, because we keep insisting that Ron Paul's rhetoric is the only way (it's what converted us, right?). More people WILL come around to Ron's rhetoric in the future...but it's only going to happen if someone more moderate-sounding is there to consistently move them in the right direction first.

[SilentBull]

By the way, does anyone remember a lady named Deborah Medina?
Seems to me she went on Beck's show and withheld judgement on a similarly charged subject, and Beck went ahead and destroyed her anyway.

They're going to do and say what they want. It makes no sense to me to hide the truth.

That example doesn't help you at all. If Medina would have said "no I don't believe in those conspiracies" she possibly could be the governor of Texas right now, making some great progress for the movement. But that would have made the purists on this board very angry for not standing with them. So that example actually helps those of us who are saying that we have to look at the bigger picture and pick our battles.

Medina is the perfect example of what we SHOULD NOT BE DOING when running for office.

[Anti Federalist]

And since most on this thread are barking at the pussyfication of Rand Paul, then I suggest y'all get your butts on up to Washington and start making your own noises. Put your money where your mouth is-

Let's see who the brave really are? :rolleyes:

I fully intend to support this man, with financial support, once (and if) the channels are open to do so.

If The System declares him a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant", that will open me up to numerous felony charges as well, and very quickly end my career, remove my family's sole source of income and more than likely end in a divorce as well, worst case scenario.

And you are chastising me because I made a mild criticism of a man in office, that I helped put there, can't stand up on the line and declare this man to be the hero he is?

SMMFH...

[kcchiefs6465]

That example doesn't help you at all. If Medina would have said "no I don't believe in those conspiracies" she possibly could be the governor of Texas right now, making some great progress for the movement. But that would have made the purists on this board very angry for not standing with them. So that example actually helps those of us who are saying that we have to look at the bigger picture and pick our battles.

Medina is the perfect example of what we SHOULD NOT BE DOING when running for office.
Trust Glenn Beck?

[Anti Federalist]

Why do some of you act as if he called him a traitor? He didn't, if you watched the interview, he implied that, while he can't publicly endorse illegal behavior, he understands why one would turn to civil disobedience. Nuff said, before he shifts the conversation from that red herring to the real issue and reason that Snowden did this. He's said himself, this isn't about him, and it's a mistake to play into their narrative that it is.

If you think that the lone Senator who has been fighting against these programs (and continues to do so) doesn't sympathize with the guy, then you simply aren't paying attention.

I am well aware of what he said.

I've listened a couple of times.

He did not say,

"This man is an American Hero, who has risked everything, including his life, to expose what this criminal government does every single day, violating the very core, the most basic of freedoms, that every human being has. God Damn the man who calls him a traitor and God Damn the man who tries to prosecute him!"

I'd say that, if I were in his shoes.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I am fed up with all this Rand bashing, especially those clowns on the Daily Paul. I doubt he can secure the nomination but give the kid a chance

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417267-PPP-Michigan-Rand-Paul-tops-Republican-presidential-poll

Don't worry, they make more noise than their political relevancy should allow. I remember that 91-page Dancing Libertarians thread was full of "Rand Paul is finished, you Rand-lovers can't see the massive damage he's done, blah, blah, blah" comments. People live in this bubble where they fool themselves into thinking a dozen people here throwing a hissy fit over absolutely nothing (which this thread is a monument to) represents 5,000,000 GOP primary voters.

[AuH20]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417267-PPP-Michigan-Rand-Paul-tops-Republican-presidential-poll

Don't worry, they make more noise than their political relevancy should allow. I remember that 91-page Dancing Libertarians thread was full on "Rand Paul is finished, you Rand-lovers can't see the massive damage he's done, blah, blah, blah" comments. People live in this bubble where they fool themselves into thinking a dozen people here throwing a hissy fit over absolutely nothing (which this thread is a monument to) represents 5,000,000 GOP primary voters.

I can understand the criticism, but not the hate.

[EBounding]

I really don't think Snowden cares if Rand calls him a hero or not. He probably does care if Rand continues the conversation on the surveillance program, which is exactly what Rand is doing.

[belian78]

I am well aware of what he said.

I've listened a couple of times.

He did not say,

"This man is an American Hero, who has risked everything, including his life, to expose what this criminal government does every single day, violating the very core, the most basic of freedoms, that every human being has. God Damn the man who calls him a traitor and God Damn the man who tries to prosecute him!"

I'd say that, if I were in his shoes.

Thank you, this is exactly what is needed from those that have the platform to reach the nation, as rand and amash and others have.

[Anti Federalist]

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul

One Percent.

[Anti Federalist]

Thank you, this is exactly what is needed from those that have the platform to reach the nation, as rand and amash and others have.

Yah, all along I kind of thought that was the point.

You know, to boldly speak the truth, from a pulpit that is hard to ignore.

[kcchiefs6465]

The difference is that as much as the power structure hates Rand Paul, ordinary grassroots Republicans love him. The powers-that-be could easily smear Ron Paul, because he fell right into the category of people the MSM's listeners have been trained to hate...but heavy-handed blackouts of Rand Paul on Fox (etc.) in 2016 will confuse ordinary Republicans, and they're very likely to backfire. Obviously, YES, they'll try. Almost nobody thinks Rand Paul is fooling TPTB. They know who he is; Rand's job is not to convince them but to convince ordinary Republicans, and the MSM's job is to try to get Rand to fall off his tightrope and alienate either us or Republicans. You guys can either realize that's what's going on, or you can play into their manipulation.

Importantly, his message wasn't "censored for nothing." He's constantly educating people and bringing them closer, but he does so more cautiously than Ron Paul: Ron just tells things the way they are, and he doesn't care if he loses his audience, because he's telling the truth, and that's all that matters. That's why he sold so many of us so quickly: Someone like Ron is just explosive in a "love him or hate him" kind of way. Rand is approaching things from the [correct] assumption that a lot of people are reachable, but they have to take baby steps: His words are libertarian enough to teach Republicans something, but they're close enough to what they want to hear that he doesn't lose his influence over his audience. There are a ton of people who say, "Snowden's a traitor, and it looks like Ron Paul is too!" Rand isn't censoring his rhetoric as much as he's trying to speak in his audience's language...and WE are not his audience, because we are not the ones who need convincing.

Our "conversion rate" has slowed over time, because we keep insisting that Ron Paul's rhetoric is the only way (it's what converted us). More people WILL come around to Ron's rhetoric in the future...but it's only going to happen if someone more moderate-sounding is there to consistently move them in the right direction first.
Very thoughtful response. You make some good points.

I have reservations about the entire system that has been set in stone. I have reservations about the morality of the people and whether or not they even want freedom. I have reservations about everything because I am aware of the significant amount of time and money spent on researching the human psyche and propaganda methods and the power/wealth these people have. I can see it quite clearly, where this is all headed. I am not saying possibly, but will. I could write about the dystopian future that would challenge Orwell. For every step you believe gained, the ball is only moved laterally. Not to mention we lose yardage weekly. The bills will keep coming, the credit allotted, dollar hegemony secured through cancerous munitions and sanctions. We stop being diligent for one moment, and the wave of tyranny erodes more freedom. Time is on their side. One way or another, they will win.

Which brings me to my point of why I hardly comment on what Rand Paul is doing. I appreciate his efforts and the principles he fights for but am sort of a cynic. I do not wish to discourage others from taking the action they think will help. Personally I've seen too much. I know the outcome, and am not particularly worried. Karma and all that - the way of the world. Perhaps with all the pain, suffering, and wickedry 'we've' created it is time to get a taste of our own medicine? Though those by and large responsible will continue living in plush palaces and mansions, I'm sure.

I apologize for the pessimism. To be truthful I will most surely vote for Rand Paul if he is the nominee and will convince many of my family that he is the best thing for the country.

[TheGrinch]

I am well aware of what he said.

I've listened a couple of times.

He did not say,

"This man is an American Hero, who has risked everything, including his life, to expose what this criminal government does every single day, violating the very core, the most basic of freedoms, that every human being has. God Damn the man who calls him a traitor and God Damn the man who tries to prosecute him!"

I'd say that, if I were in his shoes.

That doesn't mean your views are diametrically opposed, it means that your prerogative differs from Rand's and in fact Snowden's, ""I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me,” he told the paper. “I want it to be about what the U.S. government is doing."

So while some of you focus on the exact thing that the media wants you to fixate on (is he a "hero or traitor"), Rand took every opportunity not to get painted into a corner, and focus on the real issues at hand and what he's trying to do about them. That's what Snowden wants, to draw attention to it and stop it, not to have the conversation be about him being a martyr or not.

Rand doesn't have to call him a hero for other whistle-blowers to do what's right. However, he does have to lead a fight against the programs or else all of this whistle-blowing will turn out to be nothing more than a pat on the back from us like-minded individuals, as business stays as usual.

[Mini-Me]

I am well aware of what he said.

I've listened a couple of times.

He did not say,

"This man is an American Hero, who has risked everything, including his life, to expose what this criminal government does every single day, violating the very core, the most basic of freedoms, that every human being has. God Damn the man who calls him a traitor and God Damn the man who tries to prosecute him!"

I'd say that, if I were in his shoes.

I know you would, and we would all love you for it. I would probably say the same thing in his shoes. I mean, I'd consider saying what Rand said as well, and I'd probably try to, but I'm betting my emotions would get the best of me, and I might channel a little too much Patrick Henry and lose my audience. ;) (I WOULD however have the restraint not to give away too much about all the people I'd be pardoning. ;))

That's part of our problem though: If people like you and I get up on stage and tell the truth without restraint, we're only going to convince the people who already agree with us...and we won't convince anyone new to reevaluate their position. Snowden doesn't want this issue to be about him; he made a great personal sacrifice by revealing this information, and Rand is doing what he can to take advantage of that opportunity without losing his audience by openly revealing his full sympathy for the man himself. If you were Snowden, would you rather Rand Paul took your ball and ran with it, or used up his limited social capital defending you personally in an environment where TPTB want the debate to be about Snowden's "crime" instead of the government's crimes?

[Anti Federalist]

That doesn't mean your views are diametrically opposed, it means that your prerogative differs from Rand's and in fact Snowden's, ""I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me,” he told the paper. “I want it to be about what the U.S. government is doing."

So while some of you focus on the exact thing that the media wants you to fixate on (is he a "hero or traitor"), Rand took every opportunity not to get painted into a corner, and focus on the real issues at hand and what he's trying to do about them. That's what Snowden wants, to draw attention to it and stop it, not to have the conversation be about him being a martyr or not.

Rand doesn't have to call him a hero for other whistle-blowers to do what's right. However, he does have to lead a fight against the programs or else all of this whistle-blowing will turn out to be nothing more than a pat on the back from us like-minded individuals, as business stays as usual.

Understood.

My point is simple:

Heroes inspire other heroes to heroic action.

I know that is a radical concept in this world weary, soi disant culture of poseurs and cynics that modern life in AmeriKa has become.

But one man can make difference.

And it pains me to see the political standard bearer for our "movement" fail to boldly and bravely acknowledge that.

Whether anybody likes or wants it to be so, it is as much about the man as it is about what information he brought forward.

[NationalAnarchist]

Not really surprised by this...I know where Rand is headed and it ain't in the direction of his father...I just hope folks wake up and realize that before 2016 gets here and they waste their vote on him.

[TheGrinch]

Not really surprised by this...I know where Rand is headed and it ain't in the direction of his father...I just hope folks wake up and realize that before 2016 gets here and they waste their vote on him.

Yes, how could that sellout not fall into the media narrative that focuses on Snowden's crimes rather than the government's crimes, and try to propose legislation and lawsuits to stop the programs? What nerve!

[Mini-Me]

Very thoughtful response. You make some good points.

I have reservations about the entire system that has been set in stone. I have reservations about the morality of the people and whether or not they even want freedom. I have reservations about everything because I am aware of the significant amount of time and money spent on researching the human psyche and propaganda methods and the power/wealth these people have. I can see it quite clearly, where this is all headed. I am not saying possibly, but will. I could write about the dystopian future that would challenge Orwell. For every step you believe gained, the ball is only moved laterally. Not to mention we lose yardage weekly. The bills will keep coming, the credit allotted, dollar hegemony secured through cancerous munitions and sanctions. We stop being diligent for one moment, and the wave of tyranny erodes more freedom. Time is on their side. One way or another, they will win.

Which brings me to my point of why I hardly comment on what Rand Paul is doing. I appreciate his efforts and the principles he fights for but am sort of a cynic. I do not wish to discourage others from taking the action they think will help. Personally I've seen too much. I know the outcome, and am not particularly worried. Karma and all that - the way of the world. Perhaps with all the pain, suffering, and wickedry 'we've' created it is time to get a taste of our own medicine? Though those by and large responsible will continue living in plush palaces and mansions, I'm sure.

I apologize for the pessimism. To be truthful I will most surely vote for Rand Paul if he is the nominee and will convince many of my family that he is the best thing for the country.

I understand your pessimism, and I share it to some degree...but I've come to realize that my pessimistic side comes out most when I forget how short my time as a libertarian has been, relatively speaking. Imagine being a libertarian thirty years ago like Ron Paul. Imagine how Murray Rothbard felt. It may feel to us like we're running on a treadmill, but people with a longer memory tend to be more optimistic...and that gives me comfort. Surely, the government is spiraling out of control and getting steadily worse, but public opinion is vastly more sympathetic to our cause than it was a few years ago, especially if you ignore the partisans and shills on the Internet and talk with people in real life about how their views have evolved over the past decade.

Both sides of this ideological battle are running out of time fast for different reasons: It's accurate to say that time is on TPTB's side in terms of constructing their legal and technological control grid, but time is on our side in a demographic and informational sense. It's no secret that our movement captures the attention of younger generations more than older ones. As we age, older generations will die out, but this message will continue to resonate with the younger generations that come and take our own place...and we will remain more libertarian than generations before us. Moreover, even older generations are increasingly coming around in terms of sentiment (if not voting behavior...yet). No, Ron Paul's presence in Congress never really impacted legislation, and Rand Paul's has not made a huge impact on legislation either. So long as he's 1 out of 100 (with a handful of occasional allies), tyranny will march ever onward...but the Pauls have moved the national dialogue toward important issues for the first time in decades, and people are actually paying attention. They just need more allies (or a more powerful office) to start cutting down on the government's crimes in practice (and I should stress that gradualism doesn't mean stopping halfway, either ;)). Their visibility is doing more for libertarian education than decades of more low-key libertarian intellectualism. We've made real forward progress, and while legislation has not yet reflected that, we've really only just started our first serious attempt since about...well, probably 1776. ;)

The short-term future is going to suck, and the medium-term future may very well have dystopian horrors in store for us as you imagine...but if you ask Ron Paul, I think he would feel a lot more confident about our long-term future today than he did thirty years ago, and that gives me strength.

[SilentBull]

That example doesn't help you at all. If Medina would have said "no I don't believe in those conspiracies" she possibly could be the governor of Texas right now, making some great progress for the movement. But that would have made the purists on this board very angry for not standing with them. So that example actually helps those of us who are saying that we have to look at the bigger picture and pick our battles.

Medina is the perfect example of what we SHOULD NOT BE DOING when running for office.


Trust Glenn Beck?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, did you see it? What a joke that that's the conclusion you draw from what I just said.

[Mini-Me]

Trust Glenn Beck?

That too. ;)

[John F Kennedy III]

nm, this bullshit isn't worth my time. You all are the ones being ridiculous, only hearing what you want to hear, rather than actually watchnig these interviews and putting things in proper perspective. Worse than the damn media with this gotcha bullshit.


LOL. That's bullshit and you know it is.

[cajuncocoa]

"I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me,” (Snowden) told the paper. “I want it to be about what the U.S. government is doing."

Understandable, coming from Snowden himself.

But others are rushing to judgment in calling this young man a traitor for daring to call out the government on their extra-constitutional activities. I don't think it's too much to ask for those of us -- ALL OF US -- who believe that these activities should be exposed, to stand up in support of Mr. Snowden.

[John F Kennedy III]

Yes, how could that sellout not fall into the media narrative that focuses on Snowden's crimes rather than the government's crimes, and try to propose legislation and lawsuits to stop the programs? What nerve!

Rand won't even speak the truth. He just panders. He'd probably have a brain aneurism if he lost a single GOP voter from stepping outside his eggshell rhetoric.

[John F Kennedy III]

Also, don't you just love how the Rand apologists here keep bringing up the quote from Ron about him and Rand being 99% the same? When the quote is from over a year ago before Rand started all this shit and it has zero relevance anymore.

[Warlord]

Also, don't you just love how the Rand apologists here keep bringing up the quote from Ron about him and Rand being 99% the same? When the quote is from over a year ago before Rand started all this shit and it has zero relevance anymore.

What "shit" has Rand started? You're an epic troll.

[V3n]

http://i.qkme.me/3utcht.jpg

That makes a whole lot of sense...

[John F Kennedy III]

What "shit" has Rand started? You're an epic troll.

All this GOP bootlicking. And fuck you. I'm not a troll. Rand selling out doesn't make me a troll.

[cajuncocoa]

Also, don't you just love how the Rand apologists here keep bringing up the quote from Ron about him and Rand being 99% the same? When the quote is from over a year ago before Rand started all this shit and it has zero relevance anymore.
There's a recent quote that seems to negate that 1% bullshit.

“I don’t talk to him in detail for the precise reason that I’m not looking to sort that all out,” Ron Paul said. “He has his opinions. You’ll have to ask him where he disagrees. Not me.”

This was in April 2013, when Ron Paul opened the Peace & Prosperity Institute.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/ron-paul-institute-opens-amid-split-with-rand-90236.html#ixzz2Vwdb5JvG

[libertyplz]

Also, don't you just love how the Rand apologists here keep bringing up the quote from Ron about him and Rand being 99% the same? When the quote is from over a year ago before Rand started all this shit and it has zero relevance anymore.

Well, I don't like that argument either, but just to stay on a factual basis Ron actually said that a couple months ago, back in April

[TheGrinch]

Rand won't even speak the truth. He just panders. He'd probably have a brain aneurism if he lost a single GOP voter from stepping outside his eggshell rhetoric.

Won't speak the truth? He's the only one putting forth legislation and lawsuits (aside from the ACLU) to try to stop the program that Snowden's revealed. If he was just being politically expedient, he wouldn't be taking the unpopular position of speaking out against these abuses.

The only remotely non-truthful thing (and I wouldn't even call it that) was shifting the conversation away from Snowden's illegal behavior towards the government's illegal behavior. That's exactly what he should be doing, rather than getting bogged down in the part that he cannot change.

Can't you see that it's nothing more than a red herring and twisting the narrative to focus on Snowden rather than the government's abuses? Rand "reserving judgement" on Snowden is his way of not getting bogged down by the divisive tactics of the media, and focusing on what Snowden wants us to focus on.

[John F Kennedy III]

There's a recent quote that seems to negate that 1% bullshit.


This was in April 2013, when Ron Paul opened the Peace & Prosperity Institute.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/ron-paul-institute-opens-amid-split-with-rand-90236.html#ixzz2Vwdb5JvG



Thanks bro. I wonder why they don't use this quote instead :p

[Warlord]

Surprise. Cajun's obsessed with bringing Ron into a Rand thread. not shocked.

Oh and thanks for the fuck you JFK, how nice of you. What a POS you are.


Ignored

[cajuncocoa]

Surprise. Cajun's obsessed with bringing Ron into a Rand thread. not shocked.

Oh and thanks for the fuck you JFK, how nice of you. What a POS you are.


Ignored
LMAO....in case you haven't noticed, this is RON Paul's forum.

[krugminator]

Rand Paul is absolutely correct. Rand Paul is not a commentator. He is in a position where he is accountable for what says. He is someone who has a chance of becoming President. He can't afford to not make calculated statements.

What happens if there is more to this story? What happens if Snowden had an opportunity to handle to this better? If Snowden turned out to be working for the enemy this would be crippling for Rand.

It would be absolutely crazy for Rand Paul to do anything other than wait and see.

[LibertyEagle]

Listen people. Rand does not know what else might be released by Snowden. Remember him saying that there was more to come? Rand simply cannot risk calling him a hero at this point.

It's really easy to run around pounding your chest saying what you would do if you were in Rand's shoes, but you would never be in that position, because your mouths would have sidelined you long ago. If you are sidelined, you can't do crap!

[TheGrinch]

Understandable, coming from Snowden himself.

But others are rushing to judgment in calling this young man a traitor for daring to call out the government on their extra-constitutional activities. I don't think it's too much to ask for those of us -- ALL OF US -- who believe that these activities should be exposed, to stand up in support of Mr. Snowden.

And how prey tell is Rand sharing his concern and putting forth legislation to continue the fight he started not supporting him?

Read between the lines instead of just hearing what you want to hear. Clearly Rand supports this fight that they're both on the same side of, even if he doesn't feel it's his place to make a judgement one way or the other (particularly not before facts come out) to endorse illegal behavior. It isn't as if he's the one calling him a traitor, he's just picking up where Snowden left off to actually do something about it.

Fine if that doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy that he didn't use his political capital to martyr the guy, but that by no means does not mean that he doesn't support what Snowden started. Just the opposite. He's using his capitol to build on that momentum and enact real change.

Seriously, would you rather an atta-boy that only appeals to those who already agree, or him to fight against the real criminals?

[TheGrinch]

dp - forum lag

[TheGrinch]

Understood.

My point is simple:

Heroes inspire other heroes to heroic action.

I know that is a radical concept in this world weary, soi disant culture of poseurs and cynics that modern life in AmeriKa has become.

But one man can make difference.

And it pains me to see the political standard bearer for our "movement" fail to boldly and bravely acknowledge that.

Whether anybody likes or wants it to be so, it is as much about the man as it is about what information he brought forward.

People don't need Rand to call him a hero to follow what Snowden did and do what's right. Plus there are already plenty of people praising him. Rand has a different prerogative to use his political capitol on, which as you said is every bit (and IMO more important) than the man himself to do something about it.

[Carlybee]

And how prey tell is Rand sharing his concern and putting forth legislation to continue the fight he started not supporting him?

Read between the lines instead of just hearing what you want to hear. Clearly Rand supports this fight that they're both on the same side of, even if he doesn't feel it's his place to make a judgement one way or the other (particularly not before facts come out) to endorse illegal behavior. It isn't as if he's the one calling him a traitor, he's just picking up where Snowden left off to actually do something about it.

Fine if that doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy that he didn't use his political capital to martyr the guy, but that by no means does not mean that he doesn't support what Snowden started. Just the opposite. He's using his capitol to build on that momentum and enact real change.

Seriously, would you rather an atta-boy that only appeals to those who already agree, or him to fight against the real criminals?

And the real criminals could possibly be colleagues serving on the Intelligence Committee...do you honestly think he is going to do anything about that?

[LibertyEagle]

Also, don't you just love how the Rand apologists here keep bringing up the quote from Ron about him and Rand being 99% the same? When the quote is from over a year ago before Rand started all this shit and it has zero relevance anymore.

No, you are wrong. It was April 26 of this year.

"Published on Apr 26, 2013
Ron Paul interviewed by Geraldo Rivera on WABC radio 4/26/13"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

[TheGrinch]

Listen people. Rand does not know what else might be released by Snowden. Remember him saying that there was more to come? Rand simply cannot risk calling him a hero at this point.

It's really easy to run around pounding your chest saying what you would do if you were in Rand's shoes, but you would never be in that position, because your mouths would have sidelined you long ago. If you are sidelined, you can't do crap!

This too, since when is reserving judgement on an individual a bad thing? What matters is which side he's on in this fight, and that part is abundantly clear.

Though I think if you ask him off the record what he really thinks, he sides with what Snowden did ,but his job is not to base his opinions on unfounded speculation about Snowden's intentions, but rather to put forth legislation on what he knows the government is doing.

[krugminator]

Listen people. Rand does not know what else might be released by Snowden. Remember him saying that there was more to come? Rand simply cannot risk calling him a hero at this point.

It's really easy to run around pounding your chest saying what you would do if you were in Rand's shoes, but you would never be in that position, because your mouths would have sidelined you long ago. If you are sidelined, you can't do crap!

I don't get how this is not obvious.

Rand is not Jesse Ventura or even Ron Paul. Rand is actually a player in politics. What he says matters. He doesn't have the luxury of just talking in a stream of consciousness. People need to feel comfortable that he is capable of thinking complex issues through.

[TheGrinch]

And the real criminals could possibly be colleagues serving on the Intelligence Committee...do you honestly think he is going to do anything about that?

Did Ron ever attempt to prosecute his colleagues who made unconstitutional votes? There's a difference between what you want and what you can achieve. It is very clear that Rand is doing everything he can on to build on Snowden's momentum.

[LibertyEagle]

If any of these people dragging Rand through the mud would look to see what he has been putting up all over Facebook, post after post, ever since Snowden released the first batch, they would damn well know what Rand thought.

[LibertyEagle]

Did Ron ever attempt to prosecute his colleagues who made unconstitutional votes? There's a difference between what you want and what you can achieve. It is very clear that Rand is doing everything he can on to build on Snowden's momentum.

That is exactly what he is doing. It is very apparent.