Does this sound familiar? Comment from Rand Paul article at Breitbart.

[Origanalist]

DCgorillafighter •
We can beat the Clinton's at their own game- triangulation, with someone like Rand Paul. Most Americans are dumb and need to be fooled to get to 51 percent. If this means Paul supporting dope smoking and attacking the CIA here and there and maybe spouting a few lies like the dims than[sic] more power to him. The low info types need to be fooled to win. The ends will justify the means to save America .

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/19/Rand-Paul-Addresses-Packed-House-at-Berkeley

I find the similarities rather striking.

[Natural Citizen]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/19/Rand-Paul-Addresses-Packed-House-at-Berkeley

I find the similarities rather striking.

Similarities in what? Like we're low info types around here or something as well because the same gag is sold?

Oh, never mind. I see that you were referencing a comment on a article.

[angelatc]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/19/Rand-Paul-Addresses-Packed-House-at-Berkeley

I find the similarities rather striking.

Amusing. That guy thinks that Rand Paul is a neocon disguised as a libertarian, while here he's accused of just the opposite.

[Schifference]

Amusing. That guy thinks that Rand Paul is a neocon disguised as a libertarian, while here he's accused of just the opposite.

In the end, who really knows?

[Mini-Me]

In the end, who really knows?

I'd imagine Ron Paul has a pretty good idea of who Rand Paul is.

[angelatc]

In the end, who really knows?

It's a shame we don't have a voting record to judge.

[MRK]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/19/Rand-Paul-Addresses-Packed-House-at-Berkeley

I find the similarities rather striking.

Good find. It's always nice to get interesting perspectives like this.

It benefits us all to remember that RPF is a bit of an echo chamber. Others from different experiences and situations come to the same realizations as people in RPF but in different contexts, even in topics that seem dominated by the liberty movement and similar groups.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'd imagine Ron Paul has a pretty good idea of who Rand Paul is.

Possibly. But what does that have to do with anything?

[John F Kennedy III]

It's a shame we don't have a voting record to judge.

If you keep showing me thorns yet giving me roses I am going to regard you as an untrustworthy individual.

[Mini-Me]

Possibly. But what does that have to do with anything?

In the most superficial sense, it answers Schifference's specific question. In the full context of this thread, Ron Paul's confidence in his son casts heavy doubt on DCgorillafighter's notion that Rand is somehow trying to come off as more libertarian than he actually is. In the big picture sense, it's a pretty big vote of confidence that Rand's relatively restrained interventionist tendencies aren't going to explode into the neoconservative agenda of total nuclear armageddon abroad and Stalinism at home in the meantime. (Or is it Trotskyism? We never really saw what Trotsky's favorite kind of police state would have looked like, and the neocons are after all "reformed" Trotsky followers. Since they "reformed" to follow Strauss, maybe their favorite kind of police state looks more like Hitler's than Stalin's...but I digress.)

I don't trust Rand to speak boldly about every topic like Ron, but I do trust him to move grassroots conservatives closer to our camp, so they may one day be receptive to Ron's rhetoric. I don't trust him to be a full noninterventionist, but I do trust him to do everything he thinks he can to rein things in [without losing his influence to do so] and avoid the extinction of the human race or complete worldwide domination on his watch. He's said some stupid things before to avoid losing the grassroots conservatives he needs to stop the runaway train, and he's said stupid things recently for the same reason...but how much do you know about the specifics of what he actually said? Note the thread titles and "red meat" sound bites are misleading, and the majority of his proposals were quite noninterventionist. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447020-Rand-Paul-Just-Outed-Himself&p=5457576&viewfull=1#post5457576) Nevertheless, the tone of his rhetoric can still be stupid, and there will be more stupid to come, so brace yourself...but none of this is really new. Rand is being Rand, and it's the same Rand we've been seeing for years.

On the substance side of things, Ron Paul has characterized sanctions as an act of war, and I agree with him based on the most technical sense of the phrase. I don't trust Rand Paul to hold this same view, and he may feel differently about certain kinds of sanctions, especially if he fears the alternative is losing all influence to the neoconservatives, who think nuclear war can be won. I do think Rand erred too far on the side of "don't lose the conservatives" when actual US polls demonstrate he could have afforded bolder noninterventionism without any sanction talk...but in the scheme of things, I just can't bring myself to say "burn the witch." ;)

[Occam's Banana]

Amusing. That guy thinks that Rand Paul is a neocon disguised as a libertarian, while here he's accused of just the opposite.

:D

Or maybe he thinks that Rand Paul is a libertarian disguised as a neocon and he's just trying to fool people at breitbart into thinking the opposite ...

;)

Or maybe he doesn't like Rand at all and is making claims like this in order to provoke Rand supporters into refuting him - thereby "exposing" Rand as really being a libertarian and not a neocon after all ...

:eek:

Or maybe I should just go lie down until I don't feel so dizzy anymore ...

[KingNothing]

If you keep showing me thorns yet giving me roses I am going to regard you as an untrustworthy individual.

But, crazy person, Rand's voting record is as good as any politcian's since his dad, and basically better than any Senator since... ever?