Rand meets Levin, Hannity & Malkin

[compromise]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1167140_10153101910240084_1283341949_o.jpg

[brandon]

..Since when is Hannity 4 feet wide?

[Sola_Fide]

Looks like the Adams family

[jkr]

looks like extras from CONSTANTINE...

[cajuncocoa]

How exciting! /sarcasm

[thoughtomator]

check the jacket for missing threads, Rand

[brushfire]

..Since when is Hannity 4 feet wide?

Shoulder pads? I think he keeps a stash of snowballs in there...

You know, Just in case - seeing how he's PTSD'd over a certain harrowing incident he endured.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Rand posted this one on his FB page with the following:

"Enjoyed spending some time tonight with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Both great conservative voices!"

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/999705_10151693944956107_2006185586_n.jpg

[Sola_Fide]

Rand posted this one on his FB page with the following:

"Enjoyed spending some time tonight with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Both great conservative voices."

Ughhh

[SilentBull]

..Since when is Hannity 4 feet wide?

Lol! I thought the same thing.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand posted this one on his FB page with the following:

"Enjoyed spending some time tonight with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Both great conservative voices!"



Yes, I saw it. I had to swallow hard a couple of times to be honest. But, to me it's kind of like Ron Paul recommending Lamar Smith. Sometimes ya just gotta do this stuff, so that you can accomplish your larger goals.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yes, I saw it. I had to swallow hard a couple of times to be honest. But, to me it's kind of like Ron Paul recommending Lamar Smith. Sometimes ya just gotta do this stuff, so that you can accomplish your larger goals.

Rand also just recommended Levin's book: "My friend Mark Levin has a great new book: The Liberty Amendments. A lot of good ideas, I highly recommend you read it."

[Warlord]

barf

[CaptLouAlbano]

I am watching Levin's interview in full now. I only caught a little of it last night. Can't say I really disagree with anything he is speaking about regarding his book, and based on Rand's recommendation, I am going to order a copy today.

Levin believes we are in a "post-constitutional" era. And that since Congress is out of control that the states need to pull back the reigns through the amendment process, and that this should be started by the states using Article V, particularly the clause which states "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments," He then has the following suggestions for amendments: term limits, repeal of the 17th, term limits for SC, legislative overrides for SC decisions, and amendments regarding taxes, spending, bureaucracy, private property amendment, etc.

[fr33]

Lol they make Rand look tiny.

[AuH20]

I am watching Levin's interview in full now. I only caught a little of it last night. Can't say I really disagree with anything he is speaking about regarding his book, and based on Rand's recommendation, I am going to order a copy today.

Levin believes we are in a "post-constitutional" era. And that since Congress is out of control that the states need to pull back the reigns through the amendment process, and that this should be started by the states using Article V, particularly the clause which states "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments," He then has the following suggestions for amendments: term limits, repeal of the 17th, term limits for SC, legislative overrides for SC decisions, and amendments regarding taxes, spending, bureaucracy, private property amendment, etc.

Levin isn't far away from the concept of secession, even though he has discounted it in the past.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Levin isn't far away from the concept of secession, even though he has discounted it in the past.

It all sounds good from the segment last night. Nothing I would have any disagreement with. Hannity is having him on for an hour I think on Friday night, so I might have to see what he has to say. I'm glad that Rand brought this to my attention.

[Carlybee]

Isn't Levin a big uber Zionist? I remember him calling Ron an anti-semite and anti-American...and his followers kooks. But I'm sure he's a nice fellow.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Isn't Levin a big uber Zionist? I remember him calling Ron an anti-semite and anti-American...and his followers kooks. But I'm sure he's a nice fellow.

Really doesn't concern me regarding his new book. I don't listen to Levin, but from what I gather, his FP differ from mine in many areas. But since this book doesn't have anything to do with FP, I don't think there will be any areas of major disagreement. From what I have seen in the interview, along with an article or two about the book, it looks like a really good read.

[AuH20]

Really doesn't concern me regarding his new book. I don't listen to Levin, but from what I gather, his FP differ from mine in many areas. But since this book doesn't have anything to do with FP, I don't think there will be any areas of major disagreement. From what I have seen in the interview, along with an article or two about the book, it looks like a really good read.

Agreed. Just because someone supports the state of Israel doesn't necessarily degrade their ideas. I'm not a fan of either Israel or Palestine and will still read works from their proponents (Ron Paul who is a Palestine supporter).

[Carlybee]

Really doesn't concern me regarding his new book. I don't listen to Levin, but from what I gather, his FP differ from mine in many areas. But since this book doesn't have anything to do with FP, I don't think there will be any areas of major disagreement. From what I have seen in the interview, along with an article or two about the book, it looks like a really good read.

I wouldn't send a red cent to someone who spoke about Ron the way he did but maybe that's just me.

[Brian4Liberty]

Isn't Levin a big uber Zionist? I remember him calling Ron an anti-semite and anti-American...and his followers kooks. But I'm sure he's a nice fellow.

There are big government socialist Zionists like Bill Kristol and many on the left, and then there are smaller government Constitution leaning Zionists like Levin.

It clouds his judgement on issues and people. They (falsley) demonized Ron right from the start as anti-Israel, and thus didn't listen to anything he was saying, other than attack him on foreign policy because they had predetermined prejudice. The irony is that Levin is doing everything he can to be the new version of Ron Paul. After all, Levin is the champion of the Consitution. ;)

[willwash]

It's all about building bridges where you can. Just because you work with levin on domestic issues doesn't make you a big zionist

[CaptLouAlbano]

I wouldn't send a red cent to someone who spoke about Ron the way he did but maybe that's just me.

Apparently Rand doesn't feel the same way you do, since he just recommended the book to his 1.1 million Facebook followers.

[AuH20]

There are big government socialist Zionists like Bill Kristol and many on the left, and then there are smaller government Constitution leaning Zionists like Levin.

It clouds his judgement on issues and people. They (falsley) demonized Ron right from the start as anti-Israel, and thus didn't listen to anything he was saying, other than attack him on foreign policy because they had predetermined prejudice. The irony is that Levin is doing everything he can to be the new version of Ron Paul. After all, Levin is the champion of the Consitution. ;)

Levin has a very large ego and is temper prone. Secondly, Ron said a few outrageous things in the past that deserved a response. So I kind of understand where the feud started. You do notice the way Rand conducts himself as opposed to Ron? You can disagree with Rand without being drawn into trench warfare. Ron sometimes on occasions just goes off the cuff with some stuff that is outright bizarre if not false. I think he gets trapped with poor source material.

[Carlybee]

Apparently Rand doesn't feel the same way you do, since he just recommended the book to his 1.1 million Facebook followers.

His prerogative. He doesn't seem to take insults directed at his dad personally. Different strokes et al.

[Anti-Neocon]

Isn't Levin a big uber Zionist? I remember him calling Ron an anti-semite and anti-American...and his followers kooks. But I'm sure he's a nice fellow.
Yes, yes, and definitely yes. He even left Ron out of all his polls for 2012, while leaving in obvious contenders such as Bachmann and Perry. What a nice guy.

[FSP-Rebel]

The fact is, having these three pundits in your corner or at least neutral will be a major step up from the lack of media allies lined up behind Ron back then. People can be disgusted and rate this thread down all they want but it's time to drop the emotional nonsense and realize that logic tells us that these media hacks in our corner will be helpful. Thx to Rand for repackaging the message for mainstream consumption and it makes my coalition building easier in my circles of associates.

[cajuncocoa]

I wouldn't send a red cent to someone who spoke about Ron the way he did but maybe that's just me.

My sentiments exactly. And where is anaconda with the no-Levin challenge??
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339354-Take-The-No-Levin-Challenge

Some days this place looks more like RedState than Ron Paul Forums. :(

[Carlybee]

There are big government socialist Zionists like Bill Kristol and many on the left, and then there are smaller government Constitution leaning Zionists like Levin.

It clouds his judgement on issues and people. They (falsley) demonized Ron right from the start as anti-Israel, and thus didn't listen to anything he was saying, other than attack him on foreign policy because they had predetermined prejudice. The irony is that Levin is doing everything he can to be the new version of Ron Paul. After all, Levin is the champion of the Consitution. ;)



http://therightscoop.com/awesome-mark-levin-torches-ron-paul/

[cajuncocoa]

Apparently Rand doesn't feel the same way you do, since he just recommended the book to his 1.1 million Facebook followers.
*sitting on my hands...not gonna type it....nope*

[CaptLouAlbano]

The fact is, having these three pundits in your corner or at least neutral will be a major step up from the lack of media allies lined up behind Ron back then. People can be disgusted and rate this thread down all they want but it's time to drop the emotional nonsense and realize that logic tells us that these media hacks in our corner will be helpful. Thx to Rand for repackaging the message for mainstream consumption and it makes my coalition building easier in my circles of associates.

Agreed 100%. Some people are moving forward and some are stuck in neutral.

[AuH20]

My sentiments exactly. And where is anaconda with the no-Levin challenge??
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339354-Take-The-No-Levin-Challenge

Some days this place looks more like RedState than Ron Paul Forums. :(

We're going to ruthlessly attack someone because they don't worship Ron Paul? I think what Ron Paul has done over the years is fairly remarkable, but he's not for everybody. Different frequencies sometimes work.

[CaptLouAlbano]

*sitting on my hands...not gonna type it....nope*

But yet you felt the need to type that :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

Some days this place looks more like RedState than Ron Paul Forums. :(

That's better than being over at the Daily Paul, which often times looks more like the Daily Kos than a Ron Paul website.

[JK/SEA]

Bernanke is Mark Levin?...wtf?...

[Brian4Liberty]

http://therightscoop.com/awesome-mark-levin-torches-ron-paul/

Thanks. A good segment to remember. An example of that blind spot. A willfully ignorant, no holds barred, blind rage, attack. And he intentionally twisted the point about "Bush being gleeful." Ron clearly said neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. That was not about Bush himself, that was a direct reference to neo-conservatives such as Wolfowitz calling for an invasion of Iraq hours after the 9/11 attacks. That was an insider revelation, not something Ron made up.

For additional irony, Levin has contradicted himself since that segment. In that segment he says "America is not the Soviet Union!" Now he has been saying exactly that, that the Soviet Union is now alive in America. So in reality, the fact is that we (and Ron) were years ahead of Levin.

Levin has been playing catch-up for years, and would like to claim the majority of Ron Paul's platform for himself. Will Levin start talking about the concept of blow-back? Wouldn't be surprising.

[Warlord]

Levin does actually talk about the Fed sometimes which is more than the others even do.

[Carlybee]

Thanks. A good segment to remember. An example of that blind spot. A willfully ignorant, no holds barred, blind rage, attack. And he intentionally twisted the point about "Bush being gleeful." Ron clearly said neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. That was not about Bush himself, that was a direct reference to neo-conservatives such as Wolfowitz calling for an invasion of Iraq hours after the 9/11 attacks. That was an insider revelation, not something Ron made up.

For additional irony, Levin has contradicted himself since that segment. In that segment he says "America is not the Soviet Union!" Now he has been saying exactly that, that the Soviet Union is now alive in America. So in reality, the fact is that we (and Ron) were years ahead of Levin.

Levin has been playing catch-up for years, and would like to claim the majority of Ron Paul's platform for himself. Will Levin start talking about the concept of blow-back? Wouldn't be surprising.


He talks about Ted Cruz on his show all the time too...I specifically forced myself to listen to more than my usual 2 minutes and all I heard was Ted.

[AngryCanadian]

That's better than being over at the Daily Paul, which often times looks more like the Daily Kos than a Ron Paul website.
Thats not quite true.

[AuH20]

BTW I hate all forms of internet factionalism. I abhor some of the factionalism that takes place on Redstate and Hot Air. I have gotten in a few heated arguments over there. I despise the factionalism that occurs both here and the Daily Paul. We have people across blogosphere and bulletin board world fighting over so many petty things instead of actually sitting down and building on their commonalities. Neocon or Neo-isolationist. Spare me the nonsense. It's the lowest common denominator.

[Carlybee]

BTW I hate all forms of internet factionalism. I abhior some of the factionalism that takes place on Redstate and Hot Air. I have gotten in a few heated arguments over there. I despise the factionalism that occurs both here and the Daily Paul. We have people across blo
gosphere and bulletin board world fighting over so many petty things instead of actually sitting down and building on their commonalities.

Some of the things Hannity and Levin did to hurt the liberty movement were not petty..I'm talking about the real liberty movement, not the faux coopted one.

[LibertyEagle]

Agreed. Just because someone supports the state of Israel doesn't necessarily degrade their ideas. I'm not a fan of either Israel or Palestine and will still read works from their proponents (Ron Paul who is a Palestine supporter).

It's not about whether HE supports Israel. It is the fact that he wants to send our young men and women to die for HIS beliefs; in addition to sticking his hand in my pocket to support it. However, I take no issue if he wants to open his own bank account and send it to anywhere he chooses. He also can travel to Israel himself and strap on a bomb, for all I care.

[LibertyEagle]

Some of the things Hannity and Levin did to hurt the liberty movement were not petty..I'm talking about the real liberty movement, not the faux coopted one.

Oh, please. Nothing has been co-opted. Unless you believe Ron is a liar.

[Christian Liberty]

Ughhh

If Hannity and Levin were just regular Republican talk radio hosts, I might sympathize with LE saying "You've just got to do this stuff."

I don't know about Hannity, but I know Levin has spent a LOT of time attacking Ron Paul.

For Rand to criticize him is to spit in his dad's face.

Yes, I understand why he did it, and I know Ron isn't going to take this the way I did, but still...

If it were just their questionable conservative records, I can understand it. Heck, much as I don't exactly like Hannity or Levin, I do sometimes agree with them.

Its the personal attacks on Ron Paul that make me think that his son should DEFINITELY not be complimenting them...

[Carlybee]

Oh, please. Nothing has been co-opted. Unless you believe Ron is a liar.

Oh you're right LE...Levin, Beck et al are just all about liberty...Rush too. And I don't recall Ron giving them kudos or holding them up as bastions of liberty. Maybe we should change the name of this place to "Pseudo-Liberty Forest" if we are going to start kowtowing on a regular basis.

[LibertyEagle]

If Hannity and Levin were just regular Republican talk radio hosts, I might sympathize with LE saying "You've just got to do this stuff."

I don't know about Hannity, but I know Levin has spent a LOT of time attacking Ron Paul.

For Rand to criticize him is to spit in his dad's face.

Yes, I understand why he did it, and I know Ron isn't going to take this the way I did, but still...

If it were just their questionable conservative records, I can understand it. Heck, much as I don't exactly like Hannity or Levin, I do sometimes agree with them.

Its the personal attacks on Ron Paul that make me think that his son should DEFINITELY not be complimenting them...

Remember CHESS; not checkers.

Ron's goal is to win the WAR. You are still trying to fight one of the battles that was already lost.

[Christian Liberty]

That's better than being over at the Daily Paul, which often times looks more like the Daily Kos than a Ron Paul website.

What's wrong with the Daily Paul? (Honest ignorance, I've only been on there once or twice, and never registered.)


Agreed. Just because someone supports the state of Israel doesn't necessarily degrade their ideas. I'm not a fan of either Israel or Palestine and will still read works from their proponents (Ron Paul who is a Palestine supporter).

Ron's statements on Palestine used to make me flinch a little, but once I've looked at it more, I mostly agree with him.

At the same time, I really don't care, its none of America's business, exc.

Mark Levin supporting Israel isn't really a problem. What I do have a problem with is his pretending that people like Ron Paul actually hate Israel when we don't.


The fact is, having these three pundits in your corner or at least neutral will be a major step up from the lack of media allies lined up behind Ron back then. People can be disgusted and rate this thread down all they want but it's time to drop the emotional nonsense and realize that logic tells us that these media hacks in our corner will be helpful. Thx to Rand for repackaging the message for mainstream consumption and it makes my coalition building easier in my circles of associates.

I won't rate it down, and I understand why he did it. At the same time, it was spitting in his dad's face. How much is "winning" worth? How much do you have to compromise before winning really isn't winning anymore?

I'm not angry at Rand for this, but I do have kind of a "Rand is playing the game, I understand but I don't like it, roll my eyes" type of reaction.

At the end of the day, I'm just hoping Rand Paul stays himself rather than becomming more of a Ted Cruz type, or even a Mike Lee type (Which, I like Lee more than Cruz, but its easy to tell the difference between Rand and Mike as well.)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Agreed 100%. Some people are moving forward and some are stuck in neutral.

Ah, progress. Somehow it always involves turning gold into shit. Buddying up to Hannity, Levin, McConnell, and the rest of the gang is as you heard it folks - moving forward! I don't even recognize this place anymore, and I told you mofo's that you'd sell out your damn principles with the lure of power, and end up just like the damn hippies. Sometimes, I hate being right. I guess I'm going to be that 50 year old snarled hippy who looks at all the other assimilated hippies with disgust (metaphorically). A pox on your damn houses.

[Christian Liberty]

Remember CHESS; not checkers.

Ron's goal is to win the WAR. You are still trying to fight one of the battles that was already lost.

I did make another post that clarified further.

Here's the thing, the whole reason I admired Ron Paul so much is that he DIDN'T play the game. As an inconsistent neocon three years ago, it was Ron Paul's principles that made me care about what he had to say, which led to me learning more.

Now, I know Rand is trying to reach the people that Ron couldn't, or at least, that's what he's doing. I don't know to what extent his ideology is actually the same as Ron's, and how much he's conceeding just to play the game compared to how much he actually believes and such. I honestly haven't figured Rand out.

If Rand wins, I just hope he rules in a manner we're happy with. Don't forget that if Rand Paul does become President, he'll still have to figure out how to reconcile what he really believes with what he's said.

I'm excited, but at the same time, I recognize the bad things that could happen as well.

More likely than not, Rand Paul doesn't end up winning. I don't think anyone who really supports liberty can win the White House. Make of that what you will.

[Christian Liberty]

Ah, progress. Somehow it always involves turning gold into shit. Buddying up to Hannity, Levin, McConnell, and the rest of the gang is as you heard it folks - moving forward! I don't even recognize this place anymore, and I told you mofo's that you'd sell out your damn principles with the lure of power, and end up just like the damn hippies. Sometimes, I hate being right. I guess I'm going to be that 50 year old snarled hippy who looks at all the other assimilated hippies with disgust (metaphorically). A pox on your damn houses.

What are your thoughts on all this? Its sometimes hard to know just how much you should compromise.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Some of the things Hannity and Levin did to hurt the liberty movement were not petty..I'm talking about the real liberty movement, not the faux coopted one.

Define the "real" movement and the "faux" one please.

As I see it the real movement is the one that has existed since Goldwater's day and has been working tirelessly for 50 years even when no one was paying attention. The faux movement is that small number of keyboard warriors who showed up in the last few years and think they have all the answers.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh you're right LE...Levin, Beck et al are just all about liberty...Rush too. And I don't recall Ron giving them kudos or holding them up as bastions of liberty. Maybe we should change the name of this place to "Pseudo-Liberty Forest" if we are going to start kowtowing on a regular basis.

Who is "kowtowing", Carlybee? I don't see anyone here saying they think Levin, Beck, or Rush are all about liberty. Some of us just don't want to poke their eyes out. I don't trust them farther than I can spit, but it is a good thing for us that they are not yet ripping Rand to pieces. Can't you see that? I know it feels weird and it does to me too, but it is a blessing. Who knows what they will do tomorrow, but today they are not fighting us. That doesn't mean I trust them, because I do NOT.

You know, Ron worked with the likes of Barney Frank. He did it not because he loved the man, or even agreed with him on much of anything. Ron kept his eye on the prize. Maybe we should too.

[LibertyEagle]

What are your thoughts on all this? Its sometimes hard to know just how much you should compromise.

Appearing with the 3 stooges for a photograph does not mean you compromised any principles.

[Christian Liberty]

Who is "kowtowing", Carlybee? I don't see anyone here saying they think Levin, Beck, or Rush are all about liberty. Some of us just don't want to poke their eyes out. I don't trust them farther than I can spit, but it is a good thing for us that they are not yet ripping Rand to pieces. Can't you see that? I know it feels weird and it does to me too, but it is a blessing. Who knows what they will do tomorrow, but today they are not fighting us. That doesn't mean I trust them, because I do NOT.

You know, Ron worked with the likes of Barney Frank. He did it not because he loved the man, or even agreed with him on much of anything. Ron kept his eye on the prize. Maybe we should too.

I'm pretty sure Ron and Barney did agree on the issue of pot legalization, which IIRC was what they were working on. Ron Paul also worked with Kucinich on foreign policy issues, and while good for a Democrat, Dennis Kucinich is clearly no friend of the liberty movement as a whole. I honestly prefer him over Ted Cruz, but I also emphasize foreign policy far more than I do anything else, and even still, I'd clearly prefer the likes of Mike Lee over Kucinich.

I have no problem with any of that.

When it comes to working on a particular issue, ally with whoever you can on that one issue.

There's a difference between that and supporting someone in general.

[LibertyEagle]

I did make another post that clarified further.

Here's the thing, the whole reason I admired Ron Paul so much is that he DIDN'T play the game. As an inconsistent neocon three years ago, it was Ron Paul's principles that made me care about what he had to say, which led to me learning more.

Now, I know Rand is trying to reach the people that Ron couldn't, or at least, that's what he's doing. I don't know to what extent his ideology is actually the same as Ron's, and how much he's conceeding just to play the game compared to how much he actually believes and such. I honestly haven't figured Rand out.

If Rand wins, I just hope he rules in a manner we're happy with. Don't forget that if Rand Paul does become President, he'll still have to figure out how to reconcile what he really believes with what he's said.

This won't be difficult at all. Only a fool would believe a President would be able to end the FED in one fell swoop, end the CIA, the IRS and everything else, all by their little lonesome.


I'm excited, but at the same time, I recognize the bad things that could happen as well.

More likely than not, Rand Paul doesn't end up winning. I don't think anyone who really supports liberty can win the White House. Make of that what you will.

Oh, Ron played the game. Why did you think he endorsed Lamar Smith? He also played the game more than you think he did when he ran locally for his congressional office. But, let's be honest with ourselves for once. Ron never thought he had a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, much less the Republican nomination. What he was doing was running one leg of a relay race and he did what he needed to do. Look at the people he brought out of the woodwork. Some who hadn't yet opened their eyes, some who hadn't heard a politician talk like he did in a very long time and others, who had just given up. Without Ron doing what he did, I doubt Justin Amash would be in Congress and of course, not Rand, and who knows who else. Ron showed us the steps forward. We have to decide if we are going to take them or not. Each person will make that decision for themselves.

[Christian Liberty]

Appearing with the 3 stooges for a photograph does not mean you compromised any principles.

I'm not saying that, although I do think calling someone who has viciously attacked his dad "A great voice for connservatism" is a compromise of principle. I'd never give any credit to anybody who insulted either of my parents. I'd be attacking them, not trying to cozy up to them.

And neither would you.

This IS a compromise, whether justified or not.

That said, its not a dealbreaker. A lot of little things like this add up to become annoying though.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Appearing with the 3 stooges for a photograph does not mean you compromised any principles.

Exactly. And when you have Levin on TV, as he was last night, talking about repealing the 17th and the other issues he spoke on that means that we are winning. Five years ago you wouldn't have had a national radio personality such as himself touching the issues that he did last night.

One thing the political isolationists will never understand or accept is that part of winning is convincing people, who may have previously disagreed with you on issue to now agree with you. I don't give a flying fuck if it is Levin, Rush, Beck, Hannity or whomever - if they are on the radio talking to millions of people about issues that are front and center on my agenda, I am pleased.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm pretty sure Ron and Barney did agree on the issue of pot legalization, which IIRC was what they were working on. Ron Paul also worked with Kucinich on foreign policy issues, and while good for a Democrat, Dennis Kucinich is clearly no friend of the liberty movement as a whole. I honestly prefer him over Ted Cruz, but I also emphasize foreign policy far more than I do anything else, and even still, I'd clearly prefer the likes of Mike Lee over Kucinich.

I have no problem with any of that.

When it comes to working on a particular issue, ally with whoever you can on that one issue.

There's a difference between that and supporting someone in general.

Ron supported Lamar Smith in general.

[PatriotOne]

Ah, progress. Somehow it always involves turning gold into shit. Buddying up to Hannity, Levin, McConnell, and the rest of the gang is as you heard it folks - moving forward! I don't even recognize this place anymore, and I told you mofo's that you'd sell out your damn principles with the lure of power, and end up just like the damn hippies. Sometimes, I hate being right. I guess I'm going to be that 50 year old snarled hippy who looks at all the other assimilated hippies with disgust (metaphorically). A pox on your damn houses.

Um yeah. It is a good thing. Rand appears to have an open door policy with the media and you act like it's some kind of treasonous act. You prefer when they ridiculed or blacked Ron out? That's some twisted freaking logic you got going on there :rolleyes:.

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. And when you have Levin on TV, as he was last night, talking about repealing the 17th and the other issues he spoke on that means that we are winning. Five years ago you wouldn't have had a national radio personality such as himself touching the issues that he did last night.

One thing the political isolationists will never understand or accept is that part of winning is convincing people, who may have previously disagreed with you on issue to now agree with you. I don't give a flying fuck if it is Levin, Rush, Beck, Hannity or whomever - if they are on the radio talking to millions of people about issues that are front and center on my agenda, I am pleased.

Exactly. One lesson I learned in business is that if you were trying to get something done and it required others' participation, you WANTED them to think it was their idea. Because then, they were vested in making it work out and they darn sure wouldn't be trying to sabotage you along the way.

[devil21]

Anybody know why Rand was there with the three of them in the first place? Did he appear in studio on Fox News or something?

[cajuncocoa]

What's wrong with the Daily Paul?
Mainly, the format. Hard to navigate. Other than that, I don't get the comparison to Daily Kos. The content is not much different from what you find here.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, Ron played the game. Why did you think he endorsed Lamar Smith? He also played the game more than you think he did when he ran locally for his congressional office. But, let's be honest with ourselves for once. Ron never thought he had a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, much less the Republican nomination. What he was doing was running one leg of a relay race and he did what he needed to do. Look at the people he brought out of the woodwork. Some who hadn't yet opened their eyes, some who hadn't heard a politician talk like he did in a very long time and others, who had just given up. Without Ron doing what he did, I doubt Justin Amash would be in Congress and of course, not Rand, and who knows who else. Ron showed us the steps forward. We have to decide if we are going to take them or not. Each person will make that decision for themselves.

I wasn't aware of the Smith endorsement three years ago, but I don't necessarily think an endorsement is a real compromise of principle. I'd say it can be, but it doesn't have to be, especially if the one guy is marginally better than the other guy even if he still sucks (Don't know if that was the case for Smith.) I'm not a big fan of the Rand endorsement of Romney, but that's only because Romney won by cheating Ron Paul. Even still... I do understand why Rand did it.

And yeah, I guess you could say running for Congress is playing the game. That said, that's not really what I'm talking about. Ron played by his own rules. He stuck to his guns. Sometimes he endorsed people I wouldn't support, but he did stick to his guns.

To be clear, I'm not opposing Rand here, although I do think relying on Ron Paul to tell us who to vote for is a good idea. If I can say one flaw regarding Ron Paul, he's too nice and he's too free with his endorsements.

However, despite the fact that I do support Rand Paul, I don't agree completely with everything he does.

I don't get how sometimes people don't catch that nuance. Either you love everything Rand does or you hate him. For me... he's a good candidate who I agree with close to 90% of the time, but he's not Ron Paul either.

Mind you, I'll always support the most libertarian candidate in a given race, all things being equal. If someone even more libertarian ran against Rand in the GOP primary, I'd vote for them.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Anybody know why Rand was there with the three of them in the first place? Did he appear in studio on Fox News or something?

Yes, he was in NY for the Daily Show and hit Hannity and I think CBS's morning show as well.

[FSP-Rebel]

Ah, progress. Somehow it always involves turning gold into shit. Buddying up to Hannity, Levin, McConnell, and the rest of the gang is as you heard it folks - moving forward! I don't even recognize this place anymore, and I told you mofo's that you'd sell out your damn principles with the lure of power, and end up just like the damn hippies. Sometimes, I hate being right. I guess I'm going to be that 50 year old snarled hippy who looks at all the other assimilated hippies with disgust (metaphorically). A pox on your damn houses.
Speaking as a fellow ancap and admittedly there's very few like me, I can understand why the average ancap doesn't go for this sort of thing. However, I don't call it throwing out principles. Standing by one's principles means might having to go the mainstream route in terms of presentation and networking to actually advance one's principles in the long run. There's no question in my mind that Rand is a real Champion of the Constitution and I'm fully aware of and approve his mission and method to attempt to return us to that document and then we can begin the process of discussing whether we need the state in the first place. Education is meaningless w/o mobilization so it really isn't in Rand's plan to educate on the margins of issues, it's to go with what works and brings more minds over the libertarian way of thinking on an issue by issue basis. To some, they'd say that that isn't really being a libertarian but if he can get more people (and clearly it's happening) to come to a more libertarian conclusion on and issue then it's a positive. These are the people who vote and donate money in large sums. And having the "trusted" right wing media darlings not ignore you or blast you off the stage is something Ron didn't have going for him and that's when certain elements of the party base started to actively almost hate the guy and anyone associated with him. What Ron did do is resuscitate the remnant and get them in gear but he couldn't change who he was or how he had operated for the many recent decades. Now, Rand is hustling libertarian bits to conservatives and they're consuming them like Brits and a tea party.

[AuH20]

Levin attacks everyone. He is an abrasive man. He's gotten in fights with nearly everyone. The war with ron wasn't a big deal. However, Hannity is the one you need to watch out for since he is far more underhanded and agenda driven.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not saying that, although I do think calling someone who has viciously attacked his dad "A great voice for connservatism" is a compromise of principle. I'd never give any credit to anybody who insulted either of my parents. I'd be attacking them, not trying to cozy up to them.

And neither would you.

Probably, but it would be juvenile of me to do so. It would mean that I wasn't mature enough to keep my eye on the larger goal; preferring instead to have immediate gratification of kicking the dude in the shin or something. The real payback is if you win the war.


This IS a compromise, whether justified or not.

That said, its not a dealbreaker. A lot of little things like this add up to become annoying though.

Because you are still playing checkers. Ron and Rand are playing chess.

[cajuncocoa]

What are your thoughts on all this? Its sometimes hard to know just how much you should compromise.

Each individual has to decide how much he/she is comfortable with. I wouldn't be willing to compromise at all if the prospect of President Hillary or President Jeb Bush wasn't so horrifying by comparison.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron supported Lamar Smith in general.

I'd say three things there. First of all, an endorsement is different than "Support" per say, although I don't remember Lamar Smith's particular endorsement and what it contained. Second of all, I have mentioned that endorsements are the issue where I disagree with Ron Paul most often, and that doesn't even necessarily only apply to endorsements that were clearly political in nature. I'm not sure that Ron Paul necessarily endorsed Ted Cruz purely for political reasons, but I nonetheless believe he's a warmongering snake who we shouldn't really have anything to do with beyond the kind of "Issue by issue" alliances that I talked about before. And third of all, what does Ron's endorsements have to do with Rand? I've never said I agreed with Ron Paul in every case either, although you've got to admit, whether good or bad, Rand Paul is doing more of this sort of thing than Ron did.

[cajuncocoa]

Because you are still playing checkers. Ron and Rand are playing chess.

I know you really love that line, but you'd better be willing to understand that the "chess" game never ends. Someone will always be running for something.

[devil21]

Yes, he was in NY for the Daily Show and hit Hannity and I think CBS's morning show as well.

Oh ok thanks, then I don't have a problem with the photo. Standard operating procedure for media appearances to take pictures with the host and other hangers-on.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm not a big fan of the Rand endorsement of Romney, but that's only because Romney won by cheating Ron Paul.

Ok, reality check. Romney won the nomination because the voters in 37 states preferred him over other candidates. Period. There was never any chance in hell that Ron Paul was going to win the nomination post SC, forget about "stealth delegates" and all the other little fantasies you may have in your head. It just wasn't going to happen.

In my personal opinion, the whole "it's the delegates" mantra that was pushed by the campaign, was solely designed to keep the money and enthusiasm flowing in so that Ron could keep getting his message out as long as possible. It worked, but sadly some people were under the delusion that Ron was somehow going to win the nomination, long after Romney clinched it. Sites like this and DP allowed that false hope to continue, and unfortunately, the campaign never really corrected it until the very end.

[Christian Liberty]

Speaking as a fellow ancap and admittedly there's very few like me, I can understand why the average ancap doesn't go for this sort of thing. However, I don't call it throwing out principles. Standing by one's principles means might having to go the mainstream route in terms of presentation and networking to actually advance one's principles in the long run. There's no question in my mind that Rand is a real Champion of the Constitution and I'm fully aware of and approve his mission and method to attempt to return us to that document and then we can begin the process of discussing whether we need the state in the first place. Education is meaningless w/o mobilization so it really isn't in Rand's plan to educate on the margins of issues, it's to go with what works and brings more minds over the libertarian way of thinking on an issue by issue basis. To some, they'd say that that isn't really being a libertarian but if he can get more people (and clearly it's happening) to come to a more libertarian conclusion on and issue then it's a positive. These are the people who vote and donate money in large sums. And having the "trusted" right wing media darlings not ignore you or blast you off the stage is something Ron didn't have going for him and that's when certain elements of the party base started to actively almost hate the guy and anyone associated with him. What Ron did do is resuscitate the remnant and get them in gear but he couldn't change who he was or how he had operated for the many recent decades. Now, Rand is hustling libertarian bits to conservatives and they're consuming them like Brits and a tea party.

What makes you so sure that Rand is on our side? Mind you, I agree with your intuition, I'm just wondering. Ron's word alone isn't enough, he obviously trusted Ted Cruz and even endorsed Lamar Smith as LE keeps pointing out. Endorsements aren't really a matter of principle anyway, but I don't think Ron's endorsements are always right.


Each individual has to decide how much he/she is comfortable with. I wouldn't be willing to compromise at all if the prospect of President Hillary or President Jeb Bush wasn't so horrifying by comparison.

What do you define as "Compromising"? Supporting anyone who disagrees with you on any issue? Or are there certain ones that can and should be allowed to be let go?

Personally, the social conservatism doesn't bother me as much in all but the most extreme cases, but that's also because I'm personally very conservative, I can understand why a more libertine libertarian would care more about that. Rand's views on drugs, for instance, aren't the end of the world for me, and its not the end of the world that he won't go all the way when it comes to getting government out of marriage, even though I think he's wrong on both of those positions.

But with foreign policy, the ice is very, very thin for me. Same with anti-terror policy. He's mostly been alright on the civil liberties front, but he's walking a thin tightrope regarding the foreign policy issues.

What annoys me is that its somehow "Divisive" to ask the hard questions with regards to Rand's foreign policy. I don't know how much of that is people just believing that deep down they have the same foreign policy, and how much of it is knowing that Rand's foreign policy differs but either finding it unimportant or agreeing with Rand. In any case... The questions deserve to be asked, whatever the answers.

And teaming up with neocons is not really a good sign with that regard.

(Note that DESPITE this post I still support Rand. I'm just making a point that this isn't as simple as you guys seem to think it is, at least not IMO.)

[Christian Liberty]

Ok, reality check. Romney won the nomination because the voters in 37 states preferred him over other candidates. Period. There was never any chance in hell that Ron Paul was going to win the nomination post SC, forget about "stealth delegates" and all the other little fantasies you may have in your head. It just wasn't going to happen.

In my personal opinion, the whole "it's the delegates" mantra that was pushed by the campaign, was solely designed to keep the money and enthusiasm flowing in so that Ron could keep getting his message out as long as possible. It worked, but sadly some people were under the delusion that Ron was somehow going to win the nomination, long after Romney clinched it. Sites like this and DP allowed that false hope to continue, and unfortunately, the campaign never really corrected it until the very end.

I worded my post pretty horribly, but I agree with you that Romney probably would have won even if they hadn't changed the rules. However, they did change the rules... and I believe that was to hide just how much influence Ron Paul had in the GOP. Even though it wasn't enough to win, it would have made Mitt look bad.

But yes, I agree with you Romney still would have won. That doesn't make cheating OK.

I guess its kind of like, if you played monopoly with your little brother, and winning with 1700 dollars, 1,000 of which was stolen from the bank secretly while he wasn't looking. Yeah, you would have won anyway, but you still cheated in order to further humiliate your little brother that you would have beaten far less conclusively if you didn't cheat.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I worded my post pretty horribly, but I agree with you that Romney probably would have won even if they hadn't changed the rules. However, they did change the rules... and I believe that was to hide just how much influence Ron Paul had in the GOP. Even though it wasn't enough to win, it would have made Mitt look bad.

But yes, I agree with you Romney still would have won. That doesn't make cheating OK.

I guess its kind of like, if you played monopoly with your little brother, and winning with 1700 dollars, 1,000 of which was stolen from the bank secretly while he wasn't looking. Yeah, you would have won anyway, but you still cheated in order to further humiliate your little brother that you would have beaten far less conclusively if you didn't cheat.

Well they did cheat, agreed. But here is the reason they did so. The conventions are not conventions, unless for some odd reason its brokered - and it hasn't been in many years. They are nothing more than carefully orchestrated events to showcase the nominee. It's a week long commercial to kick off the campaign season. Trust me if Rand wins the nomination and Chris Christie has a little band of followers who threaten to make a spectacle of themselves, Rand's folks will do everything possible to squash it - and rightfully so. It's Rand's moment to shine, just as it was Romney's moment.

All in all the RP campaign did a very poor job in the mid to latter part of the primary season by stringing people along with the false hope that Ron was going to win the nomination. Even after Ron said he couldn't win the nomination, some people imagined a "wink and a nod" in his speech. Hell, I even remember some people still holding out hope for stealth electors that would vote for Paul in the electoral college.

There was good and bad in the whole thing. It was good that he got more time to get his message out, but it was bad because it gave some folks who were new to this whole thing a false hope that was crushed and left them bitter. Has Ron just pulled out around the time that Santorum did, some of those people would have had a much more pleasant summer.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's better than being over at the Daily Paul, which often times looks more like the Daily Kos than a Ron Paul website.
So true.

[Carlybee]

Define the "real" movement and the "faux" one please.

As I see it the real movement is the one that has existed since Goldwater's day and has been working tirelessly for 50 years even when no one was paying attention. The faux movement is that small number of keyboard warriors who showed up in the last few years and think they have all the answers.

The real movement are those of us who learned thanks to Ron Paul just how badly this country has been run and had the gonads to not just support him in 2 presidential runs against the odds rather than embracing the status quo. If it had not been for that movement, there would be no tea party, there would be no Rand Paul for President. It was the Ron Paul movement that started the liberty movement while Goldwater and Reagan conservatives sat around and let Bill Clinton and George W. Bush serve 2 terms and probably all voted for Bush. And now you want to sit around and gush over pundits...former imperial neocon wombats of the universe who are now pretending to care about liberty. Um oookay.

[LibertyEagle]

The real movement are those of us who learned thanks to Ron Paul just how badly this country has been run and had the gonads to not just support him in 2 presidential runs against the odds rather than embracing the status quo. If it had not been for that movement, there would be no tea party, there would be no Rand Paul for President. It was the Ron Paul movement that started the liberty movement while Goldwater and Reagan conservatives sat around and let Bill Clinton and George W. Bush serve 2 terms and probably all voted for Bush. And now you want to sit around and gush over pundits...former imperial neocon wombats of the universe who are now pretending to care about liberty. Um oookay.

ROFLMAO. Where ya been, Carly? Did you just wake the hell up when Ron ran for President? Some of us have been in this movement for a very, very long time and in fact, even supported Ron when he first went to Congress.

So, get off your purity high horse. It doesn't fit you well at all. But, it's nice that you finally joined the party. Better late than never.

[cajuncocoa]

What do you define as "Compromising"? Supporting anyone who disagrees with you on any issue? Or are there certain ones that can and should be allowed to be let go?I wouldn't vote for someone who disagrees with me on a majority of issues; nor would I vote for someone who agrees with me on all but one issue, if that one issue is one that takes priority over many of the others. This gets to the main reason I have decided to vote for Rand. You can just read my sig line, but stated differently, the differences between Rand and his father are not so big that I could live with NOT voting for Rand if he runs against Hillary Clinton. I didn't see a difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, but I can easily see the difference between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, and Rand is light years better....even though he's not as good a fit for me as RON Paul would be.

[cajuncocoa]

ROFLMAO. Where ya been, Carly? Did you just wake the hell up when Ron ran for President? Some of us have been in this movement for a very, very long time and in fact, even supported Ron when he first went to Congress.

So, get off your purity high horse. It doesn't fit you well at all. But, it's nice that you finally joined the party. Better late than never.

That's nice, LE...we all know Ron didn't begin his political career in 2007. But for most of the people here who have proclaimed themselves apathetic before Ron ran for president, that's when the Ron Paul R3volution began.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Mainly, the format. Hard to navigate. Other than that, I don't get the comparison to Daily Kos. The content is not much different from what you find here.

Rand is supported by about 95% of the members here. Daily Paul supports Kucinich over Rand.

[cajuncocoa]

Rand is supported by about 95% of the members here. Daily Paul supports Kucinich over Rand.
What they supported about Kucinich was not his political opinions, but the fact that he (mostly, but not always) refused to compromise on them. That poll was posted at DP around the time when Rand voted for sanctions if I remember correctly.

[Christian Liberty]

Well they did cheat, agreed. But here is the reason they did so. The conventions are not conventions, unless for some odd reason its brokered - and it hasn't been in many years. They are nothing more than carefully orchestrated events to showcase the nominee. It's a week long commercial to kick off the campaign season. Trust me if Rand wins the nomination and Chris Christie has a little band of followers who threaten to make a spectacle of themselves, Rand's folks will do everything possible to squash it - and rightfully so. It's Rand's moment to shine, just as it was Romney's moment.

You know, on the one hand, as a libertarian, I see nothing inherently juistified about the electoral process. I don't believe Obama has any RIGHT to do what he's doing just because the majority of people supported it. If, somehow, Ron Paul could have won through voter fraud.... Ron would never have done it, but I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. At the same time, I would argue that if any of our enemies did something like that, they should be hanged for treason. Why? Liberty is right, everything else is wrong.

At the same time, that's a philosophical principle. In the real world, I don't want a precedent set that cheating is "allowed". So I wouldn't want the Rand Paul folks to cheat in order to squash Christie, even if philosophically I see nothing wrong with doing so.


All in all the RP campaign did a very poor job in the mid to latter part of the primary season by stringing people along with the false hope that Ron was going to win the nomination. Even after Ron said he couldn't win the nomination, some people imagined a "wink and a nod" in his speech. Hell, I even remember some people still holding out hope for stealth electors that would vote for Paul in the electoral college.

There was good and bad in the whole thing. It was good that he got more time to get his message out, but it was bad because it gave some folks who were new to this whole thing a false hope that was crushed and left them bitter. Has Ron just pulled out around the time that Santorum did, some of those people would have had a much more pleasant summer.

I don't think he should have done that. Fight to the end, even if you can't win. Never LET the establishment win.

I wouldn't vote for someone who disagrees with me on a majority of issues; nor would I vote for someone who agrees with me on all but one issue, if that one issue is one that takes priority over many of the others. This gets to the main reason I have decided to vote for Rand. You can just read my sig line, but stated differently, the differences between Rand and his father are not so big that I could live with NOT voting for Rand if he runs against Hillary Clinton. I didn't see a difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, but I can easily see the difference between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, and Rand is light years better....even though he's not as good a fit for me as RON Paul would be.

Yep, I agree with this.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand is supported by about 95% of the members here. Daily Paul supports Kucinich over Rand.

For the record, I certainly support Rand over Kucinich, and I wouldn't even vote for Kucinich, but there are things to admire about him, particularly for those of us who care more about foreign policy than we do about economics.

That said, I would absolutely prefer Kucinich over Ted Cruz.

[Carlybee]

ROFLMAO. Where ya been, Carly? Did you just wake the hell up when Ron ran for President? Some of us have been in this movement for a very, very long time and in fact, even supported Ron when he first went to Congress.

So, get off your purity high horse. It doesn't fit you well at all. But, it's nice that you finally joined the party. Better late than never.

I've never made it a secret that I came to be a Ron Paul supporter around 2005, however, the movement got legs with his 2008 run. Before that conservatives were happy to sit around and vote Bush in for 2 terms apparently. So it was those of us who became energized who got the ball rolling..not the armchair quarterbacks...if you had then why was there no liberty candidate in play until 2008? So snark off LE.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's nice, LE...we all know Ron didn't begin his political career in 2007. But for most of the people here who have proclaimed themselves apathetic before Ron ran for president, that's when the Ron Paul R3volution began.

Precisely and thanks for defining and pointing out that small number of keyboard warriors who showed up in the last few years and think they have all the answers. Little do you know that before you decided to wake up, there were (and still are) thousands of libertarian minded folks working within the GOP (many of them elected at the local level) - and honestly, most of them don't give a rat's ass about what someone on an internet forum has to say or when they think the movement began. The "Ron Paul Revolution" is just a catchy marketing name. There has been a libertarian/paleocon wing of the GOP as long as there has been a GOP. You just happened to figure that out in the last few years.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Speaking as a fellow ancap and admittedly there's very few like me, I can understand why the average ancap doesn't go for this sort of thing. However, I don't call it throwing out principles. Standing by one's principles means might having to go the mainstream route in terms of presentation and networking to actually advance one's principles in the long run. There's no question in my mind that Rand is a real Champion of the Constitution and I'm fully aware of and approve his mission and method to attempt to return us to that document and then we can begin the process of discussing whether we need the state in the first place. Education is meaningless w/o mobilization so it really isn't in Rand's plan to educate on the margins of issues, it's to go with what works and brings more minds over the libertarian way of thinking on an issue by issue basis. To some, they'd say that that isn't really being a libertarian but if he can get more people (and clearly it's happening) to come to a more libertarian conclusion on and issue then it's a positive. These are the people who vote and donate money in large sums. And having the "trusted" right wing media darlings not ignore you or blast you off the stage is something Ron didn't have going for him and that's when certain elements of the party base started to actively almost hate the guy and anyone associated with him. What Ron did do is resuscitate the remnant and get them in gear but he couldn't change who he was or how he had operated for the many recent decades. Now, Rand is hustling libertarian bits to conservatives and they're consuming them like Brits and a tea party.

It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. Rand can get a room of rank and file republicans to applaud enthusiastically his non-interventionist foreign policy and Ron would get booed mercilessly. I love how Rand connects the dots and explains in simple terms how tear gas manufactured in Pennsylvania is purchased by dictators (with your foreign aid tax dollars) and then used to suppress their own people. Which then stirs resentment towards the US. Rand's packaging of libertarian tidbits is really ingenious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw70EItcJdU

[cajuncocoa]

Precisely and thanks for defining and pointing out that small number of keyboard warriors who showed up in the last few years and think they have all the answers. Little do you know that before you decided to wake up, there were (and still are) thousands of libertarian minded folks working within the GOP (many of them elected at the local level) - and honestly, most of them don't give a rat's ass about what someone on an internet forum has to say or when they think the movement began. The "Ron Paul Revolution" is just a catchy marketing name. There has been a libertarian/paleocon wing of the GOP as long as there has been a GOP. You just happened to figure that out in the last few years.Hysterical. It's not just "keyboard warriors" who were awakened by Ron's run for POTUS. But keep insulting...you're really going to win over hearts and minds with that attitude.

[angelatc]

Really doesn't concern me regarding his new book. I don't listen to Levin, but from what I gather, his FP differ from mine in many areas. But since this book doesn't have anything to do with FP, I don't think there will be any areas of major disagreement. From what I have seen in the interview, along with an article or two about the book, it looks like a really good read.

My biggest disagreement with Levin is his belief that the Executive Branch has the right to wage undeclared war.

[Bastiat's The Law]

What they supported about Kucinich was not his political opinions, but the fact that he (mostly, but not always) refused to compromise on them. That poll was posted at DP around the time when Rand voted for sanctions if I remember correctly.

Progressives are fundamentally flawed. We've discussed why a liberty movement within the democratic party would be D.O.A. countless times here. Daily Paul posters tend to be simpletons in my experience.

[cajuncocoa]

Progressives are fundamentally flawed. We've discussed why a liberty movement within the democratic party would be D.O.A. countless times here. Daily Paul posters tend to be simpletons in my experience.

Isn't everyone a simpleton in your experience? I always get the impression you're typing with your nose in the air a little. Oh well. I don't get the description of DP members as progressives. I've been around progressives; those people at DP don't fit the bill.

[green73]

I assume somebody's already made a satan/vampire/demon joke about the red eyes. Haha to you, madam/sir!

[CaptLouAlbano]

I've never made it a secret that I came to be a Ron Paul supporter around 2005, however, the movement got legs with his 2008 run. Before that conservatives were happy to sit around and vote Bush in for 2 terms apparently. So it was those of us who became energized who got the ball rolling..not the armchair quarterbacks...if you had then why was there no liberty candidate in play until 2008? So snark off LE.

In 2000, libertarians/paleocons were split between Buchanan and Forbes, neither really got a foot hold. In 96 it was the same. In 92 it was Buchanan. In 88 we were split bewteen Kemp and Buchanan. In 68, 76 & 80, we went for Reagan (including Paul). Goldwater before that. So there has always been someone there for our wing.

In fact, some of them were far more successful in their run at the nomination than Paul was. Goldwater won it, Reagan won a state in 68, Reagan won 23 in 76 and the nomination in 80, Buchanan won 4 states in 96 (Forbes 2).

What is different now, is that we have someone who has reached the Senate and has been really out there in front of the cameras more than anyone we have had in years. DeMint was a good guy, but he never got the coverage to make things happen like Rand is doing. And this is due in large part to his father's name of course, but Rand is taking things to a substantially higher level than his dad did. I can see Rand winning the nomination, as I see the same type of resurgence of our principles today as we did in the 76-80 period prior to Reagan's win.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Hysterical. It's not just "keyboard warriors" who were awakened by Ron's run for POTUS. But keep insulting...you're really going to win over hearts and minds with that attitude.

I really could give a shit. I win over hearts and minds in person, not on an internet forum. This is entertainment.

[compromise]

What they supported about Kucinich was not his political opinions, but the fact that he (mostly, but not always) refused to compromise on them. That poll was posted at DP around the time when Rand voted for sanctions if I remember correctly.

Yeah, right. When Rand endorsed Romney, there was uproar. When Kucinich endorsed Obama, no one cared. When Kucinich flip-flopped on Obamacare after meeting Obama on Air Force One, no one cared. When Rand voted for sanctions (despite amending them), there was uproar.

If you want to consider this guy part of the liberty movement, treat him the same as you treat Rand.

Kucinich is not the left's Ron Paul. His pragmatism is much more in line with Rand than Ron.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It would be nice to see Cajun, Carly, and FreedomFanatic in the trenches this next election cycle and away from the computer keyboard.

Anyone want to take bets? :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

That's nice, LE...we all know Ron didn't begin his political career in 2007. But for most of the people here who have proclaimed themselves apathetic before Ron ran for president, that's when the Ron Paul R3volution began.

Ron's revolution has been going on for decades and the struggle for liberty, much, much longer than that.

[CaptLouAlbano]

It would be nice to see Cajun, Carly, and FreedomFanatic in the trenches this next election cycle and away from the computer keyboard.

Anyone want to take bets? :rolleyes:

If they were a part of the movement they would be in the trenches now. But I bet they won't soil they hands by dare going to a local GOP committee meeting.

[krugminator]

Mainly, the format. Hard to navigate. Other than that, I don't get the comparison to Daily Kos. The content is not much different from what you find here.

I have come across that site a number of times over the last few years from Google. My impression when I read the comments was that a huge number of people there are just conspiritard, America-hating socialists. It might not be everyone, but that was my general impression.

[compromise]

If they were a part of the movement they would be in the trenches now. But I bet they won't soil they hands by dare going to a local GOP committee meeting.

I think it's better they don't soil the reputation of our movement by going to GOP committee meetings. I don't think Freedom Fanatic's death threats would go down well among a group of old conservative Republicans.

[Carlybee]

In 2000, libertarians/paleocons were split between Buchanan and Forbes, neither really got a foot hold. In 96 it was the same. In 92 it was Buchanan. In 88 we were split bewteen Kemp and Buchanan. In 68, 76 & 80, we went for Reagan (including Paul). Goldwater before that. So there has always been someone there for our wing.

In fact, some of them were far more successful in their run at the nomination than Paul was. Goldwater won it, Reagan won a state in 68, Reagan won 23 in 76 and the nomination in 80, Buchanan won 4 states in 96 (Forbes 2).

What is different now, is that we have someone who has reached the Senate and has been really out there in front of the cameras more than anyone we have had in years. DeMint was a good guy, but he never got the coverage to make things happen like Rand is doing. And this is due in large part to his father's name of course, but Rand is taking things to a substantially higher level than his dad did. I can see Rand winning the nomination, as I see the same type of resurgence of our principles today as we did in the 76-80 period prior to Reagan's win.

As a libertarian I don't consider some of those people all about liberty...regardless of who Ron Paul voted for. Liberty is not just about small government conservatism. Most conservatives I know are selective about liberty...therefore I don't consider them 100% representative of the liberty movement and Reagan didn't live up to his own hype (Star Wars Defense System anyone?). Buchanan is wishy washy. Really? You consider that a liberty movement? Stop confusing liberty with conservatism because it encompasses more and with all due respect, no one was able to light a fire under people until Ron Paul decided to run again and for the record I didnt agree with him on everything either but the things I did agree on were more important.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think it's better they don't soil the reputation of our movement by going to GOP committee meetings. I don't think Freedom Fanatic's death threats would go down well among a group of old conservative Republicans.

The downside of the whole RP Revolution was that he picked up a bunch of tin foil hat wearers, libertines, radical anti-war leftists, and stoner video game addicts. The same crowd that would stand on street corners with the V for Vendetta masks and Ron Paul signs. And they wonder why Rand doesn't pander to them.

Good fucking riddance - I say. I am sure Gary Johnson would love to have you on his team.

[CaptLouAlbano]

As a libertarian I don't consider some of those people all about liberty...regardless of who Ron Paul voted for. Liberty is not just about small government conservatism. Most conservatives I know are selective about liberty...therefore I don't consider them 100% representative of the liberty movement and Reagan didn't live up to his own hype (Star Wars Defense System anyone?). Buchanan is wishy washy. Really? You consider that a liberty movement? Stop confusing liberty with conservatism because it encompasses more and with all due respect, no one was able to light a fire under people until Ron Paul decided to run again and for the record I didnt agree with him on everything either but the things I did agree on were more important.

IIRC, Paul supported all of the ones I mentioned above.

[Carlybee]

It would be nice to see Cajun, Carly, and FreedomFanatic in the trenches this next election cycle and away from the computer keyboard.

Anyone want to take bets? :rolleyes:


I have been in the trenches since Ron's 2008 run. I was a county delegate and would have been a state delegate but had to have surgery the month of the convention. How is it that you think you know anything about me at all?

[cajuncocoa]

It would be nice to see Cajun, Carly, and FreedomFanatic in the trenches this next election cycle and away from the computer keyboard.

Anyone want to take bets? :rolleyes:there you go again. If we don't put on our big-ass flag pins and pearls and drive on down to the local GOP committee meeting, we must just be sitting around pounding the keyboard (no more than you are, obviously). Let me save you some trouble....if you hold your breath waiting to see me at a GOP function, you will asphyxiate.

[Carlybee]

Ron's revolution has been going on for decades and the struggle for liberty, much, much longer than that.


No shit Sherlock.

[Bastiat's The Law]

In 2000, libertarians/paleocons were split between Buchanan and Forbes, neither really got a foot hold. In 96 it was the same. In 92 it was Buchanan. In 88 we were split bewteen Kemp and Buchanan. In 68, 76 & 80, we went for Reagan (including Paul). Goldwater before that. So there has always been someone there for our wing.

In fact, some of them were far more successful in their run at the nomination than Paul was. Goldwater won it, Reagan won a state in 68, Reagan won 23 in 76 and the nomination in 80, Buchanan won 4 states in 96 (Forbes 2).

What is different now, is that we have someone who has reached the Senate and has been really out there in front of the cameras more than anyone we have had in years. DeMint was a good guy, but he never got the coverage to make things happen like Rand is doing. And this is due in large part to his father's name of course, but Rand is taking things to a substantially higher level than his dad did. I can see Rand winning the nomination, as I see the same type of resurgence of our principles today as we did in the 76-80 period prior to Reagan's win.

Don't forget Perot. I'm not sure where he fits exactly, but he was an independent voice. Perot was a precursor to the tea party in many ways, although the genesis was Ron's 2007 campaign.

[LibertyEagle]

The downside of the whole RP Revolution was that he picked up a bunch of tin foil hat wearers, libertines, radical anti-war leftists, and stoner video game addicts. The same crowd that would stand on street corners with the V for Vendetta masks and Ron Paul signs. And they wonder why Rand doesn't pander to them.

Good fucking riddance - I say. I am sure Gary Johnson would love to have you on his team.

Hold on there. I welcome EVERYONE. Because everyone has something to offer. Perhaps in different areas, but we all have our strengths and our weaknesses.

Ronald Reagan won because he appealed to people across the political spectrum. Don't lose sight of that.

[cajuncocoa]

The downside of the whole RP Revolution was that he picked up a bunch of tin foil hat wearers, libertines, radical anti-war leftists, and stoner video game addicts. The same crowd that would stand on street corners with the V for Vendetta masks and Ron Paul signs. And they wonder why Rand doesn't pander to them.

Good fucking riddance - I say. I am sure Gary Johnson would love to have you on his team.they certainly loved spending the money we donated to all those moneybombs though.

[Carlybee]

If they were a part of the movement they would be in the trenches now. But I bet they won't soil they hands by dare going to a local GOP committee meeting.

Been there, done that...still havent forgotten what they did to Ron so probably won't be signing up this time.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Don't forget Perot. I'm not sure where he fits exactly, but he was an independent voice. Perot was a precursor to the tea party in many ways, although the genesis was Ron's 2007 campaign.

Yeah Perot kind of screwed things up for a while really, because he sent a lot of people chasing after the rainbow that was the Reform Party.

[Carlybee]

The downside of the whole RP Revolution was that he picked up a bunch of tin foil hat wearers, libertines, radical anti-war leftists, and stoner video game addicts. The same crowd that would stand on street corners with the V for Vendetta masks and Ron Paul signs. And they wonder why Rand doesn't pander to them.

Good fucking riddance - I say. I am sure Gary Johnson would love to have you on his team.

Nice debating skills there Lou.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Been there, done that...still havent forgotten what they did to Ron so probably won't be signing up this time.

Don't worry, we'll find plenty of others who are willing to roll up their sleeves.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Nice debating skills there Lou.

I call them as I see them. And they are as useless as tits on a bull to me.

[cajuncocoa]

If they were a part of the movement they would be in the trenches now. But I bet they won't soil they hands by dare going to a local GOP committee meeting.
Maybe they won't go to the local GOP committee meeting, but many of those people were "in the trenches" contributing money, creative talent, phone banking, etc. But it's cool if you'd rather not embarrass Rand with those contributions.

[Carlybee]

IIRC, Paul supported all of the ones I mentioned above.


I wasnt of voting age for some of them and as I said I didnt get turned on to Ron Paul until 05 so I wasnt following who he voted for in the 70s when I was still in high school.

[LibertyEagle]

they certainly loved spending the money we donated to all those moneybombs though.

Do you honestly believe that pushing drug legalization was a winning platform to win over voting Republicans in '08?

[Carlybee]

Don't forget Perot. I'm not sure where he fits exactly, but he was an independent voice. Perot was a precursor to the tea party in many ways, although the genesis was Ron's 2007 campaign.

I voted for Perot.

[CaptLouAlbano]

they certainly loved spending the money we donated to all those moneybombs though.

If you did not have the discernment to properly allocate your campaign funding to candidates that could best use the money to win votes, then that is your problem. I know when to cut of the money supply and direct it elsewhere. Hell as high as I am on Rand, I won't max out to him (meaning my wife and I) until he wins a state. I'll probably throw my max to him before Iowa and then hold off to see if he can win one or two. I did a similar thing in 12 with Ron.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe they won't go to the local GOP committee meeting, but many of those people were "in the trenches" contributing money, creative talent, phone banking, etc. But it's cool if you'd rather not embarrass Rand with those contributions.

Don't act like there weren't some that harmed Ron's image with other Republicans. When I would talk to people where I live about Ron Paul, their first comments were always about some of the rather colorful supporters and what they touted.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc204/RIGHTSOFMAN/Ron-Paul-9-11-Inside-Job-2-786248.jpg

[Carlybee]

I call them as I see them. And they are as useless as tits on a bull to me.


Right back atcha Sparky

[Bastiat's The Law]

there you go again. If we don't put on our big-ass flag pins and pearls and drive on down to the local GOP committee meeting, we must just be sitting around pounding the keyboard (no more than you are, obviously). Let me save you some trouble....if you hold your breath waiting to see me at a GOP function, you will asphyxiate.

I will likely be in the early states (Iowa/NH). Will you go into hiding when excitement begins to build for Rand's run on these forums in the upcoming months? I don't see you guys sticking around long with your present attitudes.

[Carlybee]

Don't worry, we'll find plenty of others who are willing to roll up their sleeves.

Oh I have no doubt...no matter how many blowjobs y'all have to give Sean Hannity. Metaphorically speaking of course.

[Christian Liberty]

Progressives are fundamentally flawed. We've discussed why a liberty movement within the democratic party would be D.O.A. countless times here. Daily Paul posters tend to be simpletons in my experience.

While I completely agree with you that Kucinich is a progressive and not part of the liberty movement (Admittedly, I think he's better than some other progressives, but still a progressive): I do not believe Bob Conley was a progressive, despite running Democrat.

Yeah, right. When Rand endorsed Romney, there was uproar. When Kucinich endorsed Obama, no one cared. When Kucinich flip-flopped on Obamacare after meeting Obama on Air Force One, no one cared. When Rand voted for sanctions (despite amending them), there was uproar.

If you want to consider this guy part of the liberty movement, treat him the same as you treat Rand.

Kucinich is not the left's Ron Paul. His pragmatism is much more in line with Rand than Ron.

I don't treat Kucinich like anything. I like that his foreign policy is a lot like Ron's, or at least closer than anyone on the left. But due to his fiscal and personal liberty stances, I still don't support him. So why would I care?


It would be nice to see Cajun, Carly, and FreedomFanatic in the trenches this next election cycle and away from the computer keyboard.

Anyone want to take bets? :rolleyes:

Some of that depends on what Rand does between now and 2016.

Personally, I care more about educating people than I do about winning elections, and besides, I think we're screwed no matter what we do.


I think it's better they don't soil the reputation of our movement by going to GOP committee meetings. I don't think Freedom Fanatic's death threats would go down well among a group of old conservative Republicans.

First of all, nothing I've posted here has ever been a "Death threat." I may have discussed how certain anti-government violence relates to the NAP from a third person perspective, but I've never actually threatened anyone's life, nor would I ever do so.

Second of all, I do change the way I present ideas depending on who I'm talking to. When I talk to someone who is already anti-war, I might question the way they view the US military. If I'm talking to a flag-waving neocon, I won't even question their support for the troops, I'll take that as a given and try to worry about the greater foreign policy issue first. If someone supports the Iraq War, I won't tell them why I oppose intervention in WWII, and other similar things. I do tone down my rhetoric somewhat depending on who I'm talking to.

That said, that IS person to person interaction, and I'd rather not tick off people that I actually have a real life relationship with.

This forum is a little different though, and this honestly is my place to vent, as well as get information regarding principle from those who are more knowledgeable than me, and to present devil's advocate arguments in order to learn how to refute those arguments in real life. You're probably the furthest poster from me politically other than the Stormfront type people, and you STILL agree with me on probably more than 80% of the issues.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yeah Perot kind of screwed things up for a while really, because he sent a lot of people chasing after the rainbow that was the Reform Party.

Very, very true. We probably lost a good 10 years with the Reform Party debacle. Third parties are the death knell to political movements more often than not.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have been in the trenches since Ron's 2008 run. I was a county delegate and would have been a state delegate but had to have surgery the month of the convention. How is it that you think you know anything about me at all?

Just seeing if you're a bot program like Sailing.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh I have no doubt...no matter how many blowjobs y'all have to give Sean Hannity. Metaphorically speaking of course.

Do you need a cold shower? You are the only one talking about Hannity and blowjobs.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh I have no doubt...no matter how many blowjobs y'all have to give Sean Hannity. Metaphorically speaking of course.

And again, you just don't understand what it is like to win. When Hannity, Levin, etc are talking about our issues that is us winning, not us giving metaphorical blowjobs. Of course, maybe you have never actually won anything in your life politically, so the concept is foreign to you. Or perhaps, you are one of the types that has an incessant need to be an outsider to feed some sort of longstanding need in your life.

[cajuncocoa]

I will likely be in the early states (Iowa/NH). Will you go into hiding when excitement begins to build for Rand's run on these forums in the upcoming months? I don't see you guys sticking around long with your present attitudes.
One minute you're complaining that all I do is post on the Internet, and in the next you're betting I won't be posting here when "excitement" builds for Rand. Yeah, I will...I know the Hannity ass-kissers would love to get rid of me, but I'm not going away.

One minute y'all are complaining that Ron's supporters are nothing but tinfoil-hat-wearing hippies who embarrass you, and in the next you're wondering if we'll be joining you in Iowa.

When you make up your mind what you really want to complain about, I guess you'll inform us.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Very, very true. We probably lost a good 10 years with the Reform Party debacle. Third parties are the death knell to political movements more often than not.

Buchanan did it too. So he's at fault as well. It goes to show when you remove a certain number of activists from the party, how easy it was for another element to take over. I know people who chased that rainbow and they were replaced by ex-Dems who switched parties.

[cajuncocoa]

Just seeing if you're a bot program like Sailing.
WTF?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Just seeing if you're a bot program like Sailing.

Sailing was a bot program?

[cajuncocoa]

Don't act like there weren't some that harmed Ron's image with other Republicans. When I would talk to people where I live about Ron Paul, their first comments were always about some of the rather colorful supporters and what they touted.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc204/RIGHTSOFMAN/Ron-Paul-9-11-Inside-Job-2-786248.jpg
THAT embarrasses you? You're waaaay too thin-skinned. Put on the big-girl panties, LE...you can't control everyone. And for the record, I might be inclined to carry such a sign myself.

[cajuncocoa]

Sailing was a bot program?

:rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

One minute you're complaining that all I do is post on the Internet, and in the next you're betting I won't be posting here when "excitement" builds for Rand. Yeah, I will...I know the Hannity ass-kissers would love to get rid of me, but I'm not going away.

One minute y'all are complaining that Ron's supporters are nothing but tinfoil-hat-wearing hippies who embarrass you, and in the next you're wondering if we'll be joining you in Iowa.

When you make up your mind what you really want to complain about, I guess you'll inform us.

You keep saying this. WHO IS KISSING HANNITY'S ASS???????????????????????

[Bastiat's The Law]

One minute you're complaining that all I do is post on the Internet, and in the next you're betting I won't be posting here when "excitement" builds for Rand. Yeah, I will...I know the Hannity ass-kissers would love to get rid of me, but I'm not going away.

One minute y'all are complaining that Ron's supporters are nothing but tinfoil-hat-wearing hippies who embarrass you, and in the next you're wondering if we'll be joining you in Iowa.

When you make up your mind what you really want to complain about, I guess you'll inform us.
It's not really any of that. I just think you're all talk.

[LibertyEagle]

THAT embarrasses you? You're waaaay too thin-skinned. Put on the big-girl panties, LE...you can't control everyone. And for the record, I might be inclined to carry such a sign myself.

You don't get it, do you? It's not about me and it's not about you. If we are actually trying to help our candidates win, then we need to be assets, not poison.

[cajuncocoa]

It's not really any of that. I just think you're all talk.

Good thing I don't care what you think.

[cajuncocoa]

You don't get it, do you? It's not about me and it's not about you. If we are actually trying to help our candidates win, then we need to be assets, not poison.

No, I need to be me. You can play dress-up if that floats your boat.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I need to be me. You can play dress-up if that floats your boat.

And attach your personal agenda to any candidate you choose, eh? That wouldn't make you part of this movement. That would make your behavior one of an instigator and a troll.

[CaptLouAlbano]

No, I need to be me. You can play dress-up if that floats your boat.

Back in IA when the Paul campaign brought students in to do canvassing they had a dress code.

Oh and thank you for putting my quote in your sig. More people do need to read that - you are helping the movement.

[LibertyEagle]

I give up. And with that attitude, Cajun, I truly hope you stay far away from Rand Paul and any activity to get him elected.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And attach your personal agenda to any candidate you choose, eh? That wouldn't make you part of this movement. That would make your behavior one of an instigator and a troll.

And we have come full circle at identifying those that have co-opted the genuine liberty movement.

[cajuncocoa]

I give up. And with that attitude, Cajun, I truly hope you stay far away from Rand Paul and any activity to get him elected.

The closest I intend to come is the voting booth in November of 2016. You're welcome.

[cajuncocoa]

And attach your personal agenda to any candidate you choose, eh? That wouldn't make you part of this movement. That would make your behavior one of an instigator and a troll.

Um, no...it's not about attaching anything to anyone. And, no...it doesn't make me a troll (if Rand had $1 for every time you called me that). It makes me an individual.

[Carlybee]

Just seeing if you're a bot program like Sailing.

Oh good Lord. Get a grip.

[cajuncocoa]

Back in IA when the Paul campaign brought students in to do canvassing they had a dress code.

Oh and thank you for putting my quote in your sig. More people do need to read that - you are helping the movement.

Oh, you're welcome. I'm sure it will go over big with many RPF members here who still see through Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. But don't worry...there aren't enough of us for you to lose sleep over.

[Carlybee]

And again, you just don't understand what it is like to win. When Hannity, Levin, etc are talking about our issues that is us winning, not us giving metaphorical blowjobs. Of course, maybe you have never actually won anything in your life politically, so the concept is foreign to you. Or perhaps, you are one of the types that has an incessant need to be an outsider to feed some sort of longstanding need in your life.

Thank you Dr. Freud. Perhaps you are just an old square who feels the need to pump yourself up by tearing others down. That being said, you're barking up the wrong tree as I don't intimidate easily. Given that you don't know me or anything about me, your analysis is at best speculation.

[AuH20]

It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. Rand can get a room of rank and file republicans to applaud enthusiastically his non-interventionist foreign policy and Ron would get booed mercilessly. I love how Rand connects the dots and explains in simple terms how tear gas manufactured in Pennsylvania is purchased by dictators (with your foreign aid tax dollars) and then used to suppress their own people. Which then stirs resentment towards the US. Rand's packaging of libertarian tidbits is really ingenious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw70EItcJdU

I think Ron stopped caring after being marginalized. That's why he said some off-the-cuff stuff that wasn't 100% true. Rand is younger and much more invigorated. He hasn't been trampled yet.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh, you're welcome. I'm sure it will go over big with many RPF members here who still see through Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. But don't worry...there aren't enough of us for you to lose sleep over.

Again, you are very correct. Points for you on the astute observation of the minuscule size of the hard core RPF members vs the entire liberty movement.

[AuH20]

Do you honestly believe that pushing drug legalization was a winning platform to win over voting Republicans in '08?

Maybe if we had enough drugs we could sleep our way through this dystopian nightmare. ROFL That was the platform.

[AuH20]

You keep saying this. WHO IS KISSING HANNITY'S ASS???????????????????????

Hannity is pure trouble. He and Rush can't be trusted. That's pretty much established fact. Remember that Rush could destroy the GOP establishment if he so desired, but he's comfortable in that passive criticism role.

[Carlybee]

Do you need a cold shower? You are the only one talking about Hannity and blowjobs.

You are familar with the term metaphorical?

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think Ron stopped caring after being marginalized. That's why he said some off-the-cuff stuff that wasn't 100% true. Rand is younger and much more invigorated. He hasn't been trampled yet.

With all due respect to the man, Ron marginalized himself. On the one hand he liked serving in Congress because it gave him a place to read his books, write his papers, and give his speeches - he enjoyed being involved in the issues and having a seat gave him some sort of platform (albeit a small one) from which he could speak about the issues that were important to him. But on the other hand, he didn't like (nor was he well equipped) to play the game that is needed in politics. Put Ron in the corporate world and he might have wound up in the same situation. A brilliant mind, that is relegated to a small office at the end of the hallway because he doesn't go to the cocktail parties and play golf with the big boys to work his way up the ladder. At least that is my estimation of his career.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Hannity is pure trouble. He and Rush can't be trusted. That's pretty much established fact. Remember that Rush could destroy the GOP establishment if he so desired, but he's comfortable in that passive criticism role.

Actually, he has been talking a lot about people getting involved locally and taking back the party. He seems more fired up lately.

[mit26chell]

I'm sorry, but appearing on someone's TV show and plugging another person's book who have both attacked Ron before does not mean Rand is compromising his principles. That's just silly. Rand is forming coalitions - all three of these men have many things in common. Just because Hannity and Levin may disagree on FP does not mean Rand shouldn't continue forming these types of alliances. They can really only help us and both men seem to thoroughly appreciate Rand and the work he is doing in the Senate.

[cajuncocoa]

Again, you are very correct. Points for you on the astute observation of the minuscule size of the hard core RPF members vs the entire liberty movement.

The entire real "liberty movement" is not as large as YOU think it is....unfortunately. If it was, Ron Paul would be almost halfway through his 2nd term right now. The people you will get behind Rand wouldn't touch Ron with a 10-foot pole. That should tell you something about their opinion of real liberty.

[Carlybee]

With all due respect to the man, Ron marginalized himself. On the one hand he liked serving in Congress because it gave him a place to read his books, write his papers, and give his speeches - he enjoyed being involved in the issues and having a seat gave him some sort of platform (albeit a small one) from which he could speak about the issues that were important to him. But on the other hand, he didn't like (nor was he well equipped) to play the game that is needed in politics. Put Ron in the corporate world and he might have wound up in the same situation. A brilliant mind, that is relegated to a small office at the end of the hallway because he doesn't go to the cocktail parties and play golf with the big boys to work his way up the ladder. At least that is my estimation of his career.

And a very insulting estimate.

[AuH20]

With all due respect to the man, Ron marginalized himself. On the one hand he liked serving in Congress because it gave him a place to read his books, write his papers, and give his speeches - he enjoyed being involved in the issues and having a seat gave him some sort of platform (albeit a small one) from which he could speak about the issues that were important to him. But on the other hand, he didn't like (nor was he well equipped) to play the game that is needed in politics. Put Ron in the corporate world and he might have wound up in the same situation. A brilliant mind, that is relegated to a small office at the end of the hallway because he doesn't go to the cocktail parties and play golf with the big boys to work his way up the ladder. At least that is my estimation of his career.

This picture sums it up. The system alienates you into a loner and eventually you embrace the persona over the long haul.

http://snooperreport.com/storage/ron-paul/ron%20paul%20alone.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION= 1291934238233

[fr33]

I give up. And with that attitude, Cajun, I truly hope you stay far away from Rand Paul and any activity to get him elected.
You should hope the same about CaptLou. He's just as divisive as Cajun, if not more.

[cajuncocoa]

And a very insulting estimate.

Capt.Lou...winning hearts and minds!

[Christian Liberty]

Don't act like there weren't some that harmed Ron's image with other Republicans. When I would talk to people where I live about Ron Paul, their first comments were always about some of the rather colorful supporters and what they touted.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc204/RIGHTSOFMAN/Ron-Paul-9-11-Inside-Job-2-786248.jpg

I'm not a truther, but I don't see how those people are really being "Harmful to Ron Paul's image." I can understand the government skepticism, in fact, 9/11 is an issue I'd like to look into more, seeing as I was 6 when it happened.

The Stormfront people are actually harming Ron's image. I don't see why the Truthers are. Unless you mean that in a purely "What will people think?" sense, but in that case, Ron is hurting his own image because most people don't like what he supports.

[Carlybee]

I'm out of this thread. It eventually comes down to those claiming to be part of the liberty movement insulting Ron Paul and you should be ashamed of yourselves for it.

[AuH20]

You should hope the same about CaptLou. He's just as divisive as Cajun, if not more.

Albano sounds really perturbed by the infighting more than anything. And I kinda agree with him.

[cajuncocoa]

Albano sounds really perturbed by the infighting more than anything. And I kinda agree with him.

Of course you do. I think I'll follow Carly on the way out. Y'all can have Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Truthers were too dumb to back a politician that actually agrees with their conspiracy theory. Ron sure didn't.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The entire real "liberty movement" is not as large as YOU think it is....unfortunately. If it was, Ron Paul would be almost halfway through his 2nd term right now. The people you will get behind Rand wouldn't touch Ron with a 10-foot pole. That should tell you something about their opinion of real liberty.

No what it tells you is their estimation of a candidate's chances at success. I worked for Sanford here in the special election, him and Ron were thick as thieves when they were in the House. I could raise a lot more money for Sanford and get a lot more people to vote for him, because he had a realistic chance at winning (despite his past problems). In 08 few of us thought Ron had any chance and we were right. In 12, all eyes were on the early states - money went into the campaign from people that abstained in 08, but it was cautious optimism. But after he couldn't win early on, there was no reason for the big money to follow him - it was time to put it elsewhere and we did.

[AuH20]

Of course you do. I think I'll follow Carly on the way out. Y'all can have Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.
Do you think that we're choosing them over you? You can't be serious? Cajun, I don't doubt your sincerity but I think you may have to look at things abit differently. There is room for you here. With that said, nobody should be declaring open warfare on pundits they don't like.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Of course you do. I think I'll follow Carly on the way out. Y'all can have Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Try going outside. I hear sunlight is good for you, I mean, as long as you and Carly aren't vampires.

[enhanced_deficit]

Rand is secretly holding his nose.


..Since when is Hannity 4 feet wide?

Wide stance.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Of course you do. I think I'll follow Carly on the way out. Y'all can have Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

I'll take Hannity and Levin when they spend an entire segment (as they did last night) talking about issues that are important to me. He is supposed to be on for a full hour on Friday and if he does they same then that is great. I mentioned earlier that I was kind of taken back that he was talking about the repeal of the 17th - that has been a pet issue of mine that few, if any, talked about. Hell I don't think Ron mentioned it in 08 or 12. And here we have Levin pitching to the audience something that has been a platform position of the libertarian wing for decades. That means we are winning - we are influencing those that shape opinions, and that is a good thing.

Now if Hannity and Levin are out there talking FP positions that I disagree with, I have no need for them. But when they are hitting home runs talking up libertarian positions that is great because that means their listeners are hearing positions that I support - good for me - I don't care who the mouthpiece is.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
..Since when is Hannity 4 feet wide?
How on earth could you miss that guy with snowballs?

[PatriotOne]

Try going outside. I hear sunlight is good for you, I mean, as long as you and Carly aren't vampires.

Positive energy vampires at the very least ;).

[Christian Liberty]

Of course you do. I think I'll follow Carly on the way out. Y'all can have Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

You guys should stay and fight:p


The Truthers were too dumb to back a politician that actually agrees with their conspiracy theory. Ron sure didn't.

I'm not a truther, I agree with Ron Paul regarding "Blowback", although I realize those two positions aren't completely mutually exclusive.

However, I'm not sure why that matters. If I were a truther, I'd still support Ron, seeing as Ron was the one who WASN'T looking for a "War on Terror" wheras all the other candidates of relevance were.

Jesse Ventura is very liberal on a lot of issues. Being a truther is the least of my issues with Jesse. Granted, I still approve of him more than I don't. In a three way election between any Republican who has a chance other than Rand Paul, a Democrat, and Jesse Ventura, Ventura would get my vote. But he's still quite liberal. I can completely see why a conservative or a libertarian who held to an anti-war view and happened to believe the 9/11 truther theory could nonetheless support Ron Paul over an open truther like Ventura.

At the end of the day, regarding truthers and non-truthers, I think that's something we can disagree on, much like plenty of other fringe issues like evolution, gay marriage, anarchism vs minarchism, and other issues that may be fun to debate in the echo chambers but really don't matter to much of anything in reality.

[NewRightLibertarian]

The Truthers were too dumb to back a politician that actually agrees with their conspiracy theory. Ron sure didn't.

Perhaps you haven't been acquainted with these two very enlightening videos:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I

Ron certainly didn't blab about 9/11 truth on the campaign trail or in Congress, but the man is no fool. He is certainly aware of who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[CaptLouAlbano]

How on earth could you miss that guy with snowballs?

I think Hannity looks so wide because Rand is so un-wide. The second picture with the three guys, Hannity looks more normal - about the same width as Levin.

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think that we're choosing them over you? You can't be serious? Cajun, I don't doubt your sincerity but I think you may have to look at things abit differently. There is room for you here. With that said, nobody should be declaring open warfare on pundits they don't like.

I think some people who completely agree with Rand here are nonetheless willing to engage in dialogue with those who do not. Others here... are not...

I agree that if Levin or Hannity are expressing positions we agree with: that's great. Heck, that's one reason I'm glad Obama is the President and not Romney (Note: that is a COMPARATIVELY speaking comment, with the assumption that the only options are Obama and Romney): It makes the talk show hosts take a more anti-government stance than they would otherwise.

That said, I still don't like them, for the reasons I described.

As with "Open warfare" if you mean ACTUAL warfare than obviously I'm opposed to that, but I see nothing wrong with using our 1st amendment rights to attack when appropriate.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think some people who completely agree with Rand here are nonetheless willing to engage in dialogue with those who do not. Others here... are not...

I agree that if Levin or Hannity are expressing positions we agree with: that's great. Heck, that's one reason I'm glad Obama is the President and not Romney (Note: that is a COMPARATIVELY speaking comment, with the assumption that the only options are Obama and Romney): It makes the talk show hosts take a more anti-government stance than they would otherwise.

That said, I still don't like them, for the reasons I described.

As with "Open warfare" if you mean ACTUAL warfare than obviously I'm opposed to that, but I see nothing wrong with using our 1st amendment rights to attack when appropriate.

I think the problem comes when people jump all over these guys when they are saying stuff we want them to say. They do it to Beck, Hannity, Levin, et al. See a lot of these folks hold a grudge because the talking heads weren't too kind to Ron. And since some of the folks have elevated Ron Paul to godlike status in their minds, anything less that Hannity bowing down to his knee and confessing Ron Paul as his Lord and Savior isn't enough. And please, no offense to you as a conservative Baptist, but it was the best illustration I could come up with.

So instead of recognizing the gains that we have made when the major talking heads are talking about our issues, they prefer to lambaste them for their past sins.

I honestly don't care what Levin or any of them said about Ron Paul in the past - it's over. What is satisfying to me is when less than a year later Levin is on TV talking about some of the very same issues, in a very libertarian way. That is called winning.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Good thing I don't care what you think.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/inarticles/3e055c0922745430be8b72d978807b0e.gif

[Carlybee]

I'll take Hannity and Levin when they spend an entire segment (as they did last night) talking about issues that are important to me. He is supposed to be on for a full hour on Friday and if he does they same then that is great. I mentioned earlier that I was kind of taken back that he was talking about the repeal of the 17th - that has been a pet issue of mine that few, if any, talked about. Hell I don't think Ron mentioned it in 08 or 12. And here we have Levin pitching to the audience something that has been a platform position of the libertarian wing for decades. That means we are winning - we are influencing those that shape opinions, and that is a good thing.

Now if Hannity and Levin are out there talking FP positions that I disagree with, I have no need for them. But when they are hitting home runs talking up libertarian positions that is great because that means their listeners are hearing positions that I support - good for me - I don't care who the mouthpiece is.

The problem is they are liars. Hannity said on his radio show that the only reason he is still in NY is because he has time on his contract and he has to "get someone elected"...which means he will ultimately push whomever his string pullers tell him to push. These guys are not journalists, they have very little integrity, they are little more than mercenaries...I would say whores but I know how delicate you and LE are. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. These guys are simply the other side of the coin from Chris Matthews et al...political hacks. By supporting them you are supporting the status quo. I'll try not to say I told you so when they turn. Paradigm Change...look it up.

[Christian Liberty]

I think the problem comes when people jump all over these guys when they are saying stuff we want them to say. They do it to Beck, Hannity, Levin, et al. See a lot of these folks hold a grudge because the talking heads weren't too kind to Ron. And since some of the folks have elevated Ron Paul to godlike status in their minds, anything less that Hannity bowing down to his knee and confessing Ron Paul as his Lord and Savior isn't enough. And please, no offense to you as a conservative Baptist, but it was the best illustration I could come up with.

So instead of recognizing the gains that we have made when the major talking heads are talking about our issues, they prefer to lambaste them for their past sins.

I honestly don't care what Levin or any of them said about Ron Paul in the past - it's over. What is satisfying to me is when less than a year later Levin is on TV talking about some of the very same issues, in a very libertarian way. That is called winning.

I agree with some of this, and disagree with some, but the thing is, you're attacking the people who disagree with you rather than explaining it to them. And yeah, I know you just explained this to me, but your attacks against Cajun, and against me earlier, were completely uncalled for.

I agree that whenever they talk about our issues, that that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean we should cozy up to them either.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Perhaps you haven't been acquainted with these two very enlightening videos:

Ron certainly didn't blab about 9/11 truth on the campaign trail or in Congress, but the man is no fool. He is certainly aware of who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
So not only was their a conspiracy around 9/11, but now there's also a conspiracy that Ron Paul secretly agrees with you.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare3/fieldofdreams/51.29-n-ff.jpg

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

[NewRightLibertarian]

So not only was their a conspiracy around 9/11, but now there's also a conspiracy that Ron Paul secretly agrees with you.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare3/fieldofdreams/51.29-n-ff.jpg

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

Did you watch the videos? Ron stated that he doesn't take on 9/11 truth because he already has too much on his plate. He admits that Building 7 is the smoking gun. This isn't a conspiracy, it's Ron's own words. The cognitive dissonance within truth deniers like yourself always amazes me.

[Brett85]

Ah, progress. Somehow it always involves turning gold into shit. Buddying up to Hannity, Levin, McConnell, and the rest of the gang is as you heard it folks - moving forward! I don't even recognize this place anymore, and I told you mofo's that you'd sell out your damn principles with the lure of power, and end up just like the damn hippies. Sometimes, I hate being right. I guess I'm going to be that 50 year old snarled hippy who looks at all the other assimilated hippies with disgust (metaphorically). A pox on your damn houses.

You just have to love anarchists. :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

Mainly, the format. Hard to navigate. Other than that, I don't get the comparison to Daily Kos. The content is not much different from what you find here.

Not true. Most of the people who post there are anti war liberals who don't really care about economic libertarianism. There was a poll conducted on that site where the majority of members preferred Kucinich over Rand for President.

[Christian Liberty]

So not only was their a conspiracy around 9/11, but now there's also a conspiracy that Ron Paul secretly agrees with you.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare3/fieldofdreams/51.29-n-ff.jpg

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

:rolleyes:

Why do you pretend that everyone who's more radical than you is "insane"?

For the record, I don't agree with him, and unlike you, I actually have a reason why (At least for the first video.)

Did you watch the videos? Ron stated that he doesn't take on 9/11 truth because he already has too much on his plate. He admits that Building 7 is the smoking gun. This isn't a conspiracy, it's Ron's own words. The cognitive dissonance within truth deniers like yourself always amazes me.

Ron was in a very loud room, and obviously didn't feel like arguing. So, at least in the first video, I don't think that's enough evidence to suggest that Ron is a truther.

Truth be told, I don't know if he is or not, but considering his character, I think if he did believe that, he'd say so. Ron generally doesn't really care what people think.

That said, I'm not really interested in fighting the truthers. Its the logical equivalent of "You distrust government a little too much." I'd never fight with anyone for distrusting government on just a couple more issues than I do, when blind sheep who don't question the government on much of anything comprise 75+% of voters.

So... who cares?

And... even if Ron Paul is a truther, doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with him. Ron IS fallible.


You just have to love anarchists. :rolleyes:

I understand that that was a harsh comment, but there have been a lot of bitter comments against so-called "purists" (Not even necessarily anarchists) in this thread. It has been predominately the hardcore pro-Rand faction who has been pressing the attacks here. Moderately pro-Rand and anti-Rand people have been playing defense in this thread. Your beef here SHOULD be with the pragmatists, not the anarchists, at least in this particular case.

Have you been reading the thread? This doesn't seem like the kind of comment you'd normally make in this sort of thread. You're generally one of the best posters in that you hold BOTH the pro-Rand and anti-Rand faction's feet to the fire.

[Christian Liberty]

Not true. Most of the people who post there are anti war liberals who don't really care about economic libertarianism. There was a poll conducted on that site where the majority of members preferred Kucinich over Rand for President.

That doesn't necessarily make them liberals.

Heck: I'd prefer Kucinich over Ted Cruz, although I'd never vote for either of them. Many here would say that makes me a liberal, when I actually agree with economic libertarians on every issue but just happen to care about war more than I care about economics.

[Brett85]

You're generally one of the best posters in that you hold BOTH the pro-Rand and anti-Rand faction's feet to the fire.

I was responding to a member who's an anarchist who only criticizes Rand and those who support him without ever giving him credit for the good things he does. I don't have a problem with criticism of Rand; I've been critical of some of his votes and statements. But, I don't think that there should be only criticism and never any praise for the good things that Rand does. The member I responded to never does anything productive and simply criticizes everything Rand does and criticizes those who support him. And personally, I care more about how Rand votes than who he endorses or who he hangs out with.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc426/ProjectD7/simpsons.gif

[Christian Liberty]

I was responding to a member who's an anarchist who only criticizes Rand and those who support him without ever giving him credit for the good things he does. I don't have a problem with criticism of Rand; I've been critical of some of his votes and statements. But, I don't think that there should be only criticism and never any praise for the good things that Rand does. The member I responded to never does anything productive and simply criticizes everything Rand does and criticizes those who support him. And personally, I care more about how Rand votes than who he endorses or who he hangs out with.

OK, fair enough, but I don't think its quite fair to put all anarchists in exactly the same votes.

The thing that annoys me about Levin, in particular, are the insults against Ron Paul. So Rand associating with him is almost familial treason. I know Ron Paul isn't going to get upset with him for it, but still, it kind of bugs me, and more than it would if Levin's only flaw was being a neocon zionist idiot.

That said, at the end of the day, I totally agree that the votes matter more. I just don't agree that this doesn't matter at all, and I certainly don't agree that those who do think it matters should get trolled by radical partisans who are unable to see the slightest of faults in Rand (Obviously you don't fall in that category, the fact that some of them hate you is enough evidence of that;))

[AuH20]

Not true. Most of the people who post there are anti war liberals who don't really care about economic libertarianism. There was a poll conducted on that site where the majority of members preferred Kucinich over Rand for President.

That is in itself MADNESS. Kucinich wants to use the fed as his personal piggy bank for social justice endeavors and would have every gun confiscated.

[AuH20]

OK, fair enough, but I don't think its quite fair to put all anarchists in exactly the same votes.

The thing that annoys me about Levin, in particular, are the insults against Ron Paul. So Rand associating with him is almost familial treason. I know Ron Paul isn't going to get upset with him for it, but still, it kind of bugs me, and more than it would if Levin's only flaw was being a neocon zionist idiot.

That said, at the end of the day, I totally agree that the votes matter more. I just don't agree that this doesn't matter at all, and I certainly don't agree that those who do think it matters should get trolled by radical partisans who are unable to see the slightest of faults in Rand (Obviously you don't fall in that category, the fact that some of them hate you is enough evidence of that;))

Once you arrive at the conclusion, that Levin talks like that to everyone, you'll start to understand. He's an irritable person who's been involved in verbal spars with Michael Savage and Mike Church. I don't let that get in the way of his analysis most of the time. I'm a content guy, for the most part as opposed to emotional appeals. That's why the Ron Paul criticism doesn't really irk me. I don't worship Ron Paul and sometimes I understand the criticism. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The problem is they are liars. Hannity said on his radio show that the only reason he is still in NY is because he has time on his contract and he has to "get someone elected"...which means he will ultimately push whomever his string pullers tell him to push. These guys are not journalists, they have very little integrity, they are little more than mercenaries...I would say whores but I know how delicate you and LE are. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. These guys are simply the other side of the coin from Chris Matthews et al...political hacks. By supporting them you are supporting the status quo. I'll try not to say I told you so when they turn. Paradigm Change...look it up.

Yawn. Who gives a shit if they are liars. The simple fact is (in respect to the topic at hand, i.e. Levin's appearance yesterday), he is talking about things that we agree with, and doing so pretty damn well. People watch, people listen and quite possibly some of those ideas move forward. I don't care if Levin, Hannity, Paul, or Obama gets the credit for it, as long as these things happen.

So let me ask you this, Levin was going to be on TV last night - would you prefer that he was not talking about Article V, repeal of the 17th, a balanced budget amendment, and the other points he hit? Are these topics only to be talked about by those who you deem worthy? :rolleyes:

Again, this goes back to what I was saying before about those that co-opted the liberty movement. Political novices that have no idea what they are talking about, but think they have all the answers. And to add insult to injury, they lambaste anyone who dares stray from their prescribed version of orthodoxy.

[cajuncocoa]

Political novices that have no idea what they are talking about, but think they have all the answers. And to add insult to injury, they lambaste anyone who dares stray from their prescribed version of orthodoxy.

And political veterans have done such a great job up to now. Gotcha.

[AuH20]

Yawn. Who gives a shit if they are liars. The simple fact is (in respect to the topic at hand, i.e. Levin's appearance yesterday), he is talking about things that we agree with, and doing so pretty damn well. People watch, people listen and quite possibly some of those ideas move forward. I don't care if Levin, Hannity, Paul, or Obama gets the credit for it, as long as these things happen.

So let me ask you this, Levin was going to be on TV last night - would you prefer that he was not talking about Article V, repeal of the 17th, a balanced budget amendment, and the other points he hit? Are these topics only to be talked about by those who you deem worthy? :rolleyes:

Again, this goes back to what I was saying before about those that co-opted the liberty movement. Political novices that have no idea what they are talking about, but think they have all the answers. And to add insult to injury, they lambaste anyone who dares stray from their prescribed version of orthodoxy.

But he said Bad Tings about Ron Paul! Imagine if all us pouted and ceased our lives because someone said something unsavory about us? :0 You keep on truckin.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I agree with some of this, and disagree with some, but the thing is, you're attacking the people who disagree with you rather than explaining it to them. And yeah, I know you just explained this to me, but your attacks against Cajun, and against me earlier, were completely uncalled for.

I agree that whenever they talk about our issues, that that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean we should cozy up to them either.

I explain my positions pretty well here. There are some on here, not necessarily yourself, that don't want to listen. They are only here to shoot down Rand and everyone he associates with and have been doing so for a long time. I call them as I see them - they are the degenerates that co-opted the liberty movement and are doing everything they can to cast doubt on our candidates and allies and sew discord among those that are working to move forward.

[AuH20]

I explain my positions pretty well here. There are some on here, not necessarily yourself, that don't want to listen. They are only here to shoot down Rand and everyone he associates with and have been doing so for a long time. I call them as I see them - they are the degenerates that co-opted the liberty movement and are doing everything they can to cast doubt on our candidates and allies and sew discord among those that are working to move forward.

I wouldn't call them degenerates. But we have apolitical individuals giving political advice. LOL Not to say that their opinions aren't insightful or beneficial, but if you don't want to partake in the arena....

[Christian Liberty]

Once you arrive at the conclusion, that Levin talks like that to everyone, you'll start to understand. He's an irritable person who's been involved in verbal spars with Michael Savage and Mike Church. I don't let that get in the way of his analysis most of the time. I'm a content guy, for the most part as opposed to emotional appeals. That's why the Ron Paul criticism doesn't really irk me. I don't worship Ron Paul and sometimes I understand the criticism. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not.

There's a difference between "criticism" and crap like "He hates Jews" or "He supports Jihadists" or crap like that.


I explain my positions pretty well here. There are some on here, not necessarily yourself, that don't want to listen. They are only here to shoot down Rand and everyone he associates with and have been doing so for a long time. I call them as I see them - they are the degenerates that co-opted the liberty movement and are doing everything they can to cast doubt on our candidates and allies and sew discord among those that are working to move forward.

To me, it very much depends on the "liberty candidate" as well. There are some I don't trust, if that makes me a divider, so be it.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And political veterans have done such a great job up to now. Gotcha.

At least some of us have actually DONE something. Being a county delegate and sending a few hundred bucks is nice, but no one is going to be erecting a statue to you for your work.

Personally, I have served over a dozen years in local government and am presently serving on my local GOP committee. I have worked on the Sanford, Davis, DeMint, Paul, Reagan, Buchanan, Goldwater and numerous other campaigns and am presently working on Mace's campaign. Not patting myself on the back, but your insinuation that the veterans haven't done anything is obtuse. But considering you think the entire political world began in 08 with Paul running for the second time, your worldview is sort of narrow.

Again, more evidence of how you and your kind are intentionally infiltrating the liberty movement to sew discord among its ranks.

[AuH20]

There's a difference between "criticism" and crap like "He hates Jews" or "He supports Jihadists" or crap like that.

Ron called Palestine a concentration camp, insinuating the Israelis to be Nazis. Completely overlooking why they aren't allowed certain building materials, chemicals, etc. I'm not an Israeli guy but that's like way over the top. Step out of your RP supporter shoes for a second and ruminate on that comment as a Jewish American.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I wouldn't call them degenerates. But we have apolitical individuals giving political advice. LOL Not to say that their opinions aren't insightful or beneficial, but if you don't want to partake in the arena....

degenerate - A depraved, corrupt, or vicious person.

I would say that describes the infiltrators well.

[NewRightLibertarian]

There's a difference between "criticism" and crap like "He hates Jews" or "He supports Jihadists" or crap like that.

The establishment bootlicker types around here think that kissing Levin or Hannity's ass means they'll give them fair treatment when his Presidential run comes around. If Levin and Hannity turn on him and throw him under the bus during his Presidential campaign, they'll find a way to blame it on anyone but themselves once more. It'll be the fault of those of us who didn't toe the line enough or whatever. It's the same routine over and over with these folks, absolutely no different than the mainstream Republicans or Democrats in their mentality.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That is in itself MADNESS. Kucinich wants to use the fed as his personal piggy bank for social justice endeavors and would have every gun confiscated.

Right. More evidence that Ron's FP views attracted far too many unwashed anti-war hippies, that don't have a clue about economics and still don't. They only heard "bring the troops home now" and stopped listening after that.

[Carlybee]

Yawn. Who gives a shit if they are liars. The simple fact is (in respect to the topic at hand, i.e. Levin's appearance yesterday), he is talking about things that we agree with, and doing so pretty damn well. People watch, people listen and quite possibly some of those ideas move forward. I don't care if Levin, Hannity, Paul, or Obama gets the credit for it, as long as these things happen.

So let me ask you this, Levin was going to be on TV last night - would you prefer that he was not talking about Article V, repeal of the 17th, a balanced budget amendment, and the other points he hit? Are these topics only to be talked about by those who you deem worthy? :rolleyes:

Again, this goes back to what I was saying before about those that co-opted the liberty movement. Political novices that have no idea what they are talking about, but think they have all the answers. And to add insult to injury, they lambaste anyone who dares stray from their prescribed version of orthodoxy.

You never had a liberty movement to co-opt if you consider Goldwater, Buchanan and Reagan bastions of liberty. There is more to liberty than just small government, although that is a large part of it. And I reserve the right to lambaste anyone I feel acts without integrity. If that makes me a "poser" in your mind, whoop-ti-doo. I haven't seen much libertarian idealism from you...mostly just a politico blowhard. If you care to enlighten me, feel free.

[Carlybee]

degenerate - A depraved, corrupt, or vicious person.

I would say that describes the infiltrators well.

So people who have been here since this forum's inception are infiltrators, yet you have only been here since 2012? LOL. Get a grip Lou.

[AuH20]

degenerate - A depraved, corrupt, or vicious person.

I would say that describes the infiltrators well.

I would say misguided. Not degenerate. Heart is in the right place. Strategy is flawed. There are two forms of activism IMHO. Political and community level based.

[CaptLouAlbano]

So people who have been here since this forum's inception are infiltrators, yet you have only been here since 2012? LOL. Get a grip Lou.

The movement didn't begin in 08. My participation in a web forum does not denote when I became actively involved in the libertarian/paleocon wing of the party. I served as a delegate to the RNC in 1964 and have been elected and/or active ever since.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I would say misguided. Not degenerate. Heart is in the right place. Strategy is flawed. There are two forms of activism IMHO. Political and community level based.

I tend to think their heart is not in the right place. I think they have an intention to sew discord, and when you read their posts over and over it becomes evident.

[Carlybee]

At least some of us have actually DONE something. Being a county delegate and sending a few hundred bucks is nice, but no one is going to be erecting a statue to you for your work.

Personally, I have served over a dozen years in local government and am presently serving on my local GOP committee. I have worked on the Sanford, Davis, DeMint, Paul, Reagan, Buchanan, Goldwater and numerous other campaigns and am presently working on Mace's campaign. Not patting myself on the back, but your insinuation that the veterans haven't done anything is obtuse. But considering you think the entire political world began in 08 with Paul running for the second time, your worldview is sort of narrow.

Again, more evidence of how you and your kind are intentionally infiltrating the liberty movement to sew discord among its ranks.



Apparently you ARE patting yourself on the back. Wow...some people have jobs and families that preclude spending very much time working in the trenches. I guess raising a family instead of being a full time campaign worker means you are a slug? Also using the term "you and your kind" couldn't BE any more divisive. I kind of feel sorry for anyone whose campaign you work for because you sound like an asshat frankly.

[AuH20]

You never had a liberty movement to co-opt if you consider Goldwater, Buchanan and Reagan bastions of liberty. There is more to liberty than just small government, although that is a large part of it. And I reserve the right to lambaste anyone I feel acts without integrity. If that makes me a "poser" in your mind, whoop-ti-doo. I haven't seen much libertarian idealism from you...mostly just a politico blowhard. If you care to enlighten me, feel free.

Here's the problem. We can't even turn the pendulum the other way. Not even the slightest. See how the establishment conflates the current political resistance with anarchism? Your grandiose plans for liberty are DOA unless WE move the ball for you. So sit back, watch and learn. :)

[CaptLouAlbano]

You never had a liberty movement to co-opt if you consider Goldwater, Buchanan and Reagan bastions of liberty. There is more to liberty than just small government, although that is a large part of it. And I reserve the right to lambaste anyone I feel acts without integrity. If that makes me a "poser" in your mind, whoop-ti-doo. I haven't seen much libertarian idealism from you...mostly just a politico blowhard. If you care to enlighten me, feel free.

Paul endorsed and supported both Reagan and Goldwater. You should learn more about your hero before you speak.

Libertarian idealism is bullshit - it's not practical and is best saved for coffee shop debates around a hash pipe. I deal in the real world, where libertarian principles can be enacted, but talking about the idealist crap is pointless.

And no I do not care to enlighten you. I have had enough conversations with you over time to know your intentions here.

[Carlybee]

I tend to think their heart is not in the right place. I think they have an intention to sew discord, and when you read their posts over and over it becomes evident.

Oh you mean sort of like reading YOUR posts where you say things like "You and your kind" and call people degenerates? Is that what you call not sewing discord?

[AuH20]

I tend to think their heart is not in the right place. I think they have an intention to sew discord, and when you read their posts over and over it becomes evident.

There are some who simply want to destroy any viable political movement, but many have their hearts in the right place. They just need to be vigilant but not paranoid. I'm vigilant but not paranoid.

[Carlybee]

Paul endorsed and supported both Reagan and Goldwater. You should learn more about your hero before you speak.

Libertarian idealism is bullshit - it's not practical and is best saved for coffee shop debates around a hash pipe. I deal in the real world, where libertarian principles can be enacted, but talking about the idealist crap is pointless.


Principles are born of ideals and what libertarian principles have you enacted oh smug one?

[Carlybee]

Here's the problem. We can't even turn the pendulum the other way. Not even the slightest. See how the establishment conflates the current political resistance with anarchism? Your grandiose plans for liberty are DOA unless WE move the ball for you. So sit back, watch and learn. :)

GFY AuH20.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Apparently you ARE patting yourself on the back. Wow...some people have jobs and families that preclude spending very much time working in the trenches. I guess raising a family instead of being a full time campaign worker means you are a slug? Also using the term "you and your kind" couldn't BE any more divisive. I kind of feel sorry for anyone whose campaign you work for because you sound like an asshat frankly.

I owned a business my entire adult life. I ran multiple seasonal businesses and enterprises in the Jersey Shore area from Atlantic City to Cape May. I raised six kids during that time, and put them all through college.

I only sound like an asshat to you, because I have absolutely zero respect for you or your kind. And judging from the PM's and notifications I am getting, apparently others support the things I am saying here. You took a discussion about Rand and Levin's appearances last night and the positive steps we are making and turned it into your usual troll fest.

[Carlybee]

The movement didn't begin in 08. My participation in a web forum does not denote when I became actively involved in the libertarian/paleocon wing of the party. I served as a delegate to the RNC in 1964 and have been elected and/or active ever since.


I don't see anything libertarian about you.

[AuH20]

GFY AuH20.

I'm telling it like it is. You're operating in a progressive based, corporate environment where your ideas have been labeled insanity by the gatekeepers. This is going to take time. You can't just unveil Murray Rothbard's 12 principles and expect to hit paydirt. It's going to be a bitter, prolonged fight.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Here's the problem. We can't even turn the pendulum the other way. Not even the slightest. See how the establishment conflates the current political resistance with anarchism? Your grandiose plans for liberty are DOA unless WE move the ball for you. So sit back, watch and learn. :)

The problem with your plan is that I've seen prominent establishment libertarians defending children getting hellfire missiles dropped on them, deriding 'those stupid libertarians' for not understanding how beneficial it is to drop hellfire missiles on children and then laughing with neocons about it. If that's what the libertarian movement becomes under Ron Paul Inc, it becomes completely worthless as a vehicle for achieving anything worthwhile.

[mad cow]

You people are funny.There are concurrent threads running about Hannity,Levin and Malkin saying nice things about Rand Paul and Ralph Nader denigrating him.


Some of the SAME posters in the Nader thread are saying oh, we should listen to him and take this criticism to heart,I guess because Ralph is such a libertarian stalwart:rolleyes:,are saying in this thread that these commentators are evil and wrong.

SO:
Do y'all hate Rand's guts?

Do you just hate Hannity,Levin and Malkin so much that you don't want them complimenting Rand,even though you like,or at least tolerate him?

Do you love Nader so much that you will accept him criticizing Rand even though you like,or at least tolerate him?

Do you dislike Nader but hate Rand more because the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Anyway,thanks for a hilarious pair of threads.:D

[AuH20]

The problem with your plan is that I've seen prominent establishment libertarians defending children getting hellfire missiles dropped on them, deriding 'those stupid libertarians' for not understanding how beneficial it is to drop hellfire missiles on children and then laughing with neocons about it. If that's what the libertarian movement becomes under Ron Paul Inc, it becomes completely worthless as a vehicle for achieving anything worthwhile.

Cato? I don't speak for the beltway.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Cato? I don't speak for the beltway.

I was talking about an employee of FreedomWorks specifically. I hold them in higher esteem than CATO, but not this one employee.

[Carlybee]

I owned a business my entire adult life. I ran multiple seasonal businesses and enterprises in the Jersey Shore area from Atlantic City to Cape May. I raised six kids during that time, and put them all through college.

I only sound like an asshat to you, because I have absolutely zero respect for you or your kind. And judging from the PM's and notifications I am getting, apparently others support the things I am saying here. You took a discussion about Rand and Levin's appearances last night and the positive steps we are making and turned it into your usual troll fest.


My "usual" troll fest? I rarely even post in this forum so that is a lie from the get go. As I said before you like to build yourself up by tearing others down and insulting them. It doesn't really matter to me what you have done in your life, you certainly demand no respect based on your comments on here. For all I know you could have been a total jerk in your businesses and I doubt you were the one taking care of the kids so spare me. I pray your job in any campaign is not winning friends and influencing people because ...well that might be a stretch. You might do well as a hatchet man though. Maybe you can hook up with Benton (wink wink).

[AuH20]

I was talking about an employee of FreedomWorks specifically. I hold them in higher esteem than CATO, but not this one employee.

Well, that employee is a moron then.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Principles are born of ideals and what libertarian principles have you enacted oh smug one?

When I got onto township govt, we had a budget deficit and debt. Over my time there I worked with others on the board to eliminate two public works functions (trash pickup and road maintenance). Trash removal was left up to the individual home owner, and road maintenance projects were put out to bid. When I left we had eliminated the deficit and paid off the debt. When I served on school board, I was a budget hawk and was able to hold the line on spending, so that taxes were not increased in our district, though other districts around us were spending like drunken sailors.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Well, that employee is a moron then.

Based upon what I've seen, that employee is emblematic of Ron Paul Inc. as a whole. We have to be worried about those influences within our movement, not the influences of dedicated supporters.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I don't see anything libertarian about you.

And I don't see anything libertarian about you.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh you mean sort of like reading YOUR posts where you say things like "You and your kind" and call people degenerates? Is that what you call not sewing discord?

I'm doing what I feel needs to be done to identify and describe the infiltrators who are attempting to co-opt the movement. When one's intention is to cast dispersion on every politician and ally that is promoting the ideals that libertarians/paleocons stand for, they are acting in a degenerate manner.

[Carlybee]

And I don't see anything libertarian about you.

Sure there is. I'm willing to sit here and let you blather on about being the general manager of the universe aren't I? Otherwise I would have told you to stick your opinions where the sun doesn't shine. However you are entitled to your delusions and your thinking that paleo-conservatism is the same thing as libertarianism. At any rate, I actually do have a life and am not going to spend all night arguing with you (and your kind). Save your insults for someone they might actually affect. I have been worked over by masters and you are no master. I stick by my opinion on the pundits and will let history tell their story with regard to the liberty movement.

[AuH20]

Sure there is. I'm willing to sit here and let you blather on about being the general manager of the universe aren't I? Otherwise I would have told you to stick your opinions where the sun doesn't shine. However you are entitled to your delusions and your thinking that paleo-conservatism is the same thing as libertarianism. At any rate, I actually do have a life and am not going to spend all night arguing with you (and your kind). Save your insults for someone they might actually affect. I have been worked over by masters and you are no master. I stick by my opinion on the pundits and will let history tell their story with regard to the liberty movement.

You do realize that Paleoconservatives and libertarians need each other? Right? Small R republicans? Restrained foreign policy, anti-corporate welfare, bill of rights advocates. If you want to embark on some Quixotian crusade, while degrading us, so be it. You'll just be relegated to the Gary Johnson limbo of 1%. That's life. You have doctrinaire libertarians fighting over some mythical empire that doesn't even exist. No cornerstone has even been set, yet they want to attack Paleos for not going far enough. I think the task at hand is too move the dialogue in the proper direction first. Then we can argue about the spoils. Sheesh!

[Christian Liberty]

Ron called Palestine a concentration camp, insinuating the Israelis to be Nazis. Completely overlooking why they aren't allowed certain building materials, chemicals, etc. I'm not an Israeli guy but that's like way over the top. Step out of your RP supporter shoes for a second and ruminate on that comment as a Jewish American.

I don't think that Ron called the Jews "Nazis" although he did call Gaza a concentration camp. Walter Block responded to that accusation already, and he's Jewish.

I don't generally engage Palestine the way Ron Paul does, although I do believe he's right about most of what he says. When talking to conservatives, I generally focus on how cutting aid from everyone is fiscally conservative and would help Israel, much like Rand does.

But if anyone was stupid enough to tell me Ron Paul hated Jews, I would tell the person in question, whether Jewish or not, that I hate them and that would be the end of it.

I give respect to people who give respect in turn.



The establishment bootlicker types around here think that kissing Levin or Hannity's ass means they'll give them fair treatment when his Presidential run comes around. If Levin and Hannity turn on him and throw him under the bus during his Presidential campaign, they'll find a way to blame it on anyone but themselves once more. It'll be the fault of those of us who didn't toe the line enough or whatever. It's the same routine over and over with these folks, absolutely no different than the mainstream Republicans or Democrats in their mentality.

You know, this is exactly what I'm afraid of. I honestly don't know what the right strategy is. Not everyone can be Rothbard, but on the other hand, I see people like Ted Cruz supposedly part of the "liberty movement" and I want to cringe. It seems like we've entirely rejected Ron's foreign policy principles around here, or at least decided that its OK to compromise severely on them.

Believe it or not, I am a Rand supporter, albieit a reluctant one. That may change depending on his actions, but right now, I want him for President in 2016. That said, I'm not going to pretend that Rand is the same as his dad. he's a lot more moderate, particularly on foreign policy issues, but on the economy as well.


Right. More evidence that Ron's FP views attracted far too many unwashed anti-war hippies, that don't have a clue about economics and still don't. They only heard "bring the troops home now" and stopped listening after that.

So I guess you aren't talking about me here, seeing as I do not support Kucinich for exactly the reasons you described?


I tend to think their heart is not in the right place. I think they have an intention to sew discord, and when you read their posts over and over it becomes evident.

I can guarantee you Cajuncocoa does not. At least, unless every single thing she's told me has been a lie. In which case, what would be the point? For all I REALLY know you're actually an agent for Uncle Sam, which is actually more likely than Cajuncocoa lying to me about everything, seeing as I have conversed with her far more often than I have with you.

I don't think anyone else is either, although I'm not certain.

[Carlybee]

You do realize that Paleoconservatives and libertarians need each other? Right? Small R republicans? Restrained foreign policy, anti-corporate welfare, bill of rights advocates. If you want to embark on some Quixotian crusade, while degrading us, so be it. You'll just be relegated to the Gary Johnson limbo of 1%. That's life.

So far I haven't seen any small R Republicans in charge. At least not in a long time. I will end up supporting Rand but if he keeps pandering then I will be holding my nose when I do it. Don't discount the small l libertarians, you may need us more than we need you and we are legion.

When you have Captain Lou over there making comments like these:


At least some of us have actually DONE something. Being a county delegate and sending a few hundred bucks is nice, but no one is going to be erecting a statue to you for your work.

Well I tell you what those few hundred bucks multiplied by thousands of people add up. I would highly suggest this movement doesn't start shitting where it eats.

[AuH20]

So far I haven't seen any small R Republicans in charge. At least not in a long time. I will end up supporting Rand but if he keeps pandering then I will be holding my nose when I do it. Don't discount the small l libertarians, you may need us more than we need you and we are legion.

Small R republicans have been isolated to the political wilderness for many many years. Look at the major political think-tanks dominated by post ww2 thinking "conservatives". I've always been one. But what I'm saying is that libertarians and paleos are not big enough to go at it alone against the mainstream.

[cajuncocoa]

You do realize that Paleoconservatives and libertarians need each other? Right? Small R republicans? Restrained foreign policy, anti-corporate welfare, bill of rights advocates. If you want to embark on some Quixotian crusade, while degrading us, so be it. You'll just be relegated to the Gary Johnson limbo of 1%. That's life.
If you look through the thread, I think you will find that libertarians have been on the receiving end of the degradation more often than not. There are only one or two people in this thread who are saying they don't need certain people around, and neither of them are libertarians.

[AuH20]

If you look through the thread, I think you will find that libertarians have been on the receiving end of the degradation more often than not. There are only one or two people in this thread who are saying they don't need certain people around, and neither of them are libertarians.

Well, someone needs to clear the air.

[cajuncocoa]

I can guarantee you Cajuncocoa does not. At least, unless every single thing she's told me has been a lie. In which case, what would be the point? For all I REALLY know you're actually an agent for Uncle Sam, which is actually more likely than Cajuncocoa lying to me about everything, seeing as I have conversed with her far more often than I have with you.

I don't think anyone else is either, although I'm not certain.

I appreciate that, FF...I have always told you the truth. I've told everyone the truth. I have no reason to lie...I have nothing to gain from lying.

[fr33]

Cooler heads could have prevailed on this topic (from both sides). It's not like it's a new thing that Rand is appearing with these type of people. This strategy has been debated over and over.

[Christian Liberty]

Paul endorsed and supported both Reagan and Goldwater. You should learn more about your hero before you speak.

Ron regretted his support of Reagan.



If you look through the thread, I think you will find that libertarians have been on the receiving end of the degradation more often than not. There are only one or two people in this thread who are saying they don't need certain people around, and neither of them are libertarians.

I don't understand why people can't see this.


I appreciate that, FF...I have always told you the truth. I've told everyone the truth. I have no reason to lie...I have nothing to gain from lying.

You must spread some reputation around... you know...

[cajuncocoa]

Well, someone needs to clear the air.

It makes no sense to tell anyone in a political campaign that they're not needed or wanted. You have no idea how much some of Rand's supporters have turned off some of his Dad's strongest supporters with that attitude. It shouldn't matter if one is a high-ranking GOP committee leader or a lowly phone-from-home phone banker. You will be calling for people to do those jobs in another year or so. You will be looking for those hundred dollar donations (some of us even maxed out for Ron). I want to hear those two say we're not needed then.

[cajuncocoa]

Cooler heads could have prevailed on this topic (from both sides). It's not like it's a new thing that Rand is appearing with these type of people. This strategy has been debated over and over.
Ya know, I get Rand's strategy....but what I don't get is how so many here at RPF are ready to kiss Hannity/Levin ass when we know what those two have said about RON. It's one thing for Rand to have to swallow that, but we don't have to...so why are we?

[AuH20]

It makes no sense to tell anyone in a political campaign that they're not needed or wanted. You have no idea how much some of Rand's supporters have turned off some of his Dad's strongest supporters with that attitude. It shouldn't matter if one is a high-ranking GOP committee leader or a lowly phone-from-home phone banker. You will be calling for people to do those jobs in another year or so. You will be looking for those hundred dollar donations (some of us even maxed out for Ron). I want to hear those two say we're not needed then.

Don't look at me. I never said that. I just can't stand the fighting. And the fighting isn't reserved to this forum. It's everywhere. Redstate as well.

[cajuncocoa]

Don't look at me. I never said that. I just can't stand the fighting. And the fighting isn't reserved to this forum. It's everywhere. Redstate as well.
No, you didn't say that....I actually remember you said just the opposite. Those who said it know who they are.

[Carlybee]

Cooler heads could have prevailed on this topic (from both sides). It's not like it's a new thing that Rand is appearing with these type of people. This strategy has been debated over and over.


I don't disagree but I also don't think it's right for people to refer to some of us as degenerates because we can't spend 24/7 in the political arena. Especially when we have donated funds not just to candidates but to superpacs and have gone to meetups/primaries/caucuses etc and served in ways that we were able to. As for the strategy it won't take long to find out if it was worth it.

[Occam's Banana]

A brilliant mind, that is relegated to a small office at the end of the hallway because he doesn't go to the cocktail parties and play golf with the big boys to work his way up the ladder. At least that is my estimation of [Ron Paul's] career.


The system alienates you into a loner and eventually you embrace the persona over the long haul.

If the only alternative is that you play the part of the cocktail-slurping, ladder-climbing schmoozer who measures success on the basis of the "bigness" of the "boys" you golf with - with the system absorbing you as you eventually embrace that persona over the long haul - then I'd much prefer the latter fate.

At least then, I'd get to keep "the last inch of me" ...

[Occam's Banana]

You just have to love anarchists. :rolleyes:

I don't think its quite fair to put all anarchists in exactly the same [boat].

It's not. I'm an an-cap, and I support Rand. FSP-Rebel is an an-cap, and he enthusiastically supports Rand.

TC is just waving his vastly over-broad brush around again - as usual. (It seems to be one of his favorite things ...)

[Carlybee]

Ya know, I get Rand's strategy....but what I don't get is how so many here at RPF are ready to kiss Hannity/Levin ass when we know what those two have said about RON. It's one thing for Rand to have to swallow that, but we don't have to...so why are we?

Not only that but it's one thing to schmooze with them and another thing to try and pretend like they resemble anything close to liberty. Conservatives have always spoken out for small government, even these pundits but when it came time to spend money like drunken sailors on propping up dictators and funding imperialism they were out there cheerleading for it and some still are.

[Christian Liberty]

It's not. I'm an an-cap, and I support Rand. FSP-Rebel is an an-cap, and he enthusiastically supports Rand.

Exactly, and yes, I did mean boat, but typoed somehow.


TC is just waving his vastly over-broad brush around again - as usual. (It seems to be one of his favorite things ...)

I've seen remarkably little of that from him compared to some.

[PatriotOne]

It makes no sense to tell anyone in a political campaign that they're not needed or wanted. I want to hear those two say we're not needed then.

You've already said your not going to lift a finger for Rand so what are you complaining about? You don't want to help and we don't want YOU to help. What's the problem? You just want people to feel you've been victimized by the big bad Rand supporters on top of your uselessness?

LibertyEagle: And with that attitude, Cajun, I truly hope you stay far away from Rand Paul and any activity to get him elected.

Cajun: The closest I intend to come is the voting booth in November of 2016. You're welcome.

[BlackTerrel]

Hannity's eyes creep me out.

Beyond that not sure we need to really hash this out. These people have followings - you can't fight everyone and Rand is smart to make allies where possible.