# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand meets Levin, Hannity & Malkin

## compromise



----------


## 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!"

----------


## 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/showthr...evin-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-mar...ches-ron-paul/

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> It should be noted that I have a kept a political boxscore in my head about which pundits were relatively quiet during the Bush Adminstration improprieties. Rush and Hannity were relatively quiet as churchmice, cheering on the elephant. Levin, Malkin, Savage and others were generally antagonistic to his compassionate conservative agenda, which was nothing more than repackaged progressivism. That was the early tell.


Good point.  And to his credit, Limbaugh stated he wasn't going to carry water for people he didn't feel deserved it any longer sometime in 06 or so.

----------


## compromise

> It should be noted that I have a kept a political boxscore in my head about which pundits were relatively quiet during the Bush Adminstration improprieties. Rush and Hannity were relatively quiet as churchmice, cheering on the elephant. Levin, Malkin, Savage and others were generally antagonistic to his compassionate conservative agenda, which was nothing more than repackaged progressivism. That was the early tell.


Rush and Hannity were RNC-backed at that time, so they would obviously be more "establishment" than the others.

----------


## compromise

> What were all of those pundits saying in the lead up to the Iraq war?  And have any of them apologized to the American people if they cheered on the attack based on Bush/Cheney lies about WMDs?


Savage says he is against the Iraq War now.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What were all of those pundits saying in the lead up to the Iraq war?  And have any of them apologized to the American people if they cheered on the attack based on Bush/Cheney lies about WMDs?


Here's Savage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm8Hpqjw9Gc

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Good point.  And to his credit, Limbaugh stated he wasn't going to carry water for people he didn't feel deserved it any longer sometime in 06 or so.


Really?

Article:  Rush Limbaugh lines up with Liz Cheney, July 22 2013 (less than one month ago!)

*“After all the great things Dick Cheney has done for our country over  his long brilliant career, Liz Cheney might turn out to be one of his  biggest contributions of all,” Limbaugh said.*
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2bxGLs42y

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Here's Savage
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm8Hpqjw9Gc


Don't give me YouTube videos; tell me what they said.  I can't open a video right now and I don't feel like listening to those people anyway.

----------


## AuH20

> Really?
> 
> Article:  Rush Limbaugh lines up with Liz Cheney, July 22 2013 (less than one month ago!)
> 
> *“After all the great things Dick Cheney has done for our country over  his long brilliant career, Liz Cheney might turn out to be one of his  biggest contributions of all,” Limbaugh said.*
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2bxGLs42y


Rush is bought and paid for, while he talks a big game. He didn't even recognize Rand after his stunning victory. Rush is a sellout.

----------


## compromise

> Don't give me YouTube videos; tell me what they said.  I can't open a video right now and I don't feel like listening to those people anyway.


In that video Savage says Bush lied about the WMDs, the Iraq War was one of the biggest blunders in history, Bush was one of the stupidest Presidents in history, Bush was no better than Obama and that Bush replaced Hussein with a pro-Iranian Shi'ite regime.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rush is bought and paid for, while he talks a big game. He ddin't even recognize Rand after his stunning victory. Rush is a sellout.


I agree; that's been obvious for over a decade at least.  +rep

----------


## cajuncocoa

> In that video Savage says Bush lied about the WMDs, the Iraq War was one of the biggest blunders in history, Bush was one of the stupidest Presidents in history, Bush was no better than Obama and that Bush replaced Hussein with a pro-Iranian Shi'ite regime.


Thank you.  Good on Savage.  Is there something similar from Hannity or Levin?  I'm not even going to bother asking about Rush.

----------


## AuH20

Levin has always been crtiical of Bush going back to Bush's second term. In fact, I specifically remember him stating in 2006/2007 that George W. Bush appeared hellbent in destroying the Republican Party:

http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com...e-w-bushs.html




> That said, Bush's record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse. In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush's profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs). And while Bush's spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama's, that is not the standard. Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices. I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner. (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)

----------


## cajuncocoa

Have any of these pundits acknowledged Ron Paul for correctly stating that our activities (war and military occupation) in other countries has made us LESS safe rather than more?  And even if they can't get a positive word out of their mouths about Ron Paul specifically, have they at least acknowledged that the idea was, and is, correct?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Levin has always been crtiical of Bush going back to Bush's second term:
> 
> http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com...e-w-bushs.html


Yes, but what about Bush's foreign policy?  Has he said anything critical about that?

----------


## jjdoyle

> Have any of these pundits acknowledged Ron Paul for correctly stating that our activities (war and military occupation) in other countries has made us LESS safe rather than more?  And even if they can't get a positive word out of their mouths about Ron Paul specifically, have they at least acknowledged that the idea was, and is, correct?


Not Levin. He went as far to say Ron Paul is 100% incorrect about a declaration of war and what it means in our Constitution. Last I checked, he still thinks the exact same way and that a "resolution" is a declaration of war. Mark Levin even went so far to say he couldn't vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/16/ma...ccurate-video/

----------


## Carlybee

> Not at all. No one "invented the movement".  There has been a libertarian/paleocon wing of the GOP going back over 100 years, and the people involved in that have been the "movement".



Who did you vote for in 2008 if I may ask?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Not Levin. He went as far to say Ron Paul is 100% incorrect about a declaration of war and what it means in our Constitution. Last I checked, he still thinks the exact same way and that a "resolution" is a declaration of war. Mark Levin even went so far to say he couldn't vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination:
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/16/ma...ccurate-video/


Bingo.  And I'm finally able to +rep you again.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Levin has always been crtiical of Bush going back to Bush's second term. In fact, I specifically remember him stating in 2006/2007 that George W. Bush appeared hellbent in destroying the Republican Party:
> 
> http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com...e-w-bushs.html


You know why the second term? He was already re-elected and it was A-okay to do so, his approval ratings were in the TANK.

----------


## KingNothing

> Familial treason? Is the Paul family some sort of mafia now?
> 
> I think the lack of forgiveness shown by people on here is unbiblical.



Who cares about forgiveness?  On one hand, you have the political theater and soap opera that is talk radio.  On the other, you have politicians who want power for one reason or another.  Each side does whatever it feels is in its best interest at the moment.  When the wind is blowing in the direction of neoconservatism, that is the direction fickle politicians and political talk-hosts will go because it will give them more of what they want.  Something is happening here and the wind is blowing in a libertarian direction with an increased desire for a more sensible foreign policy.  As the fickle politicians and political talk-hosts embrace this message, we should embrace them, and view them through the same prism we viewed them through before -- ie, one that highlights the game they are all playing to further their desired ends.

It's not rocket science.  It's not grand conspiracies.  It's not malice.  It's not philosophical.  It's individuals doing what they feel they need to do to get ahead.  When you realize that, you see that it isn't personal, it's strictly business.  And when it's business, it's easy to see that there are no reasons to hold grudges or vendettas.

----------


## AuH20

> Not Levin. He went as far to say Ron Paul is 100% incorrect about a declaration of war and what it means in our Constitution. Last I checked, he still thinks the exact same way and that a "resolution" is a declaration of war. Mark Levin even went so far to say he couldn't vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination:
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/16/ma...ccurate-video/


He disagrees with Ron Paul on philosophical grounds as opposed to some sinister agenda. I can live with that. What I can't stand is the Hannity and Limbaughs who are playing for the other side. It's utterly transparent who plays for the other side. George W. Bush went as far as to call Hannity "his buddy."  And Rush is a cocktail party favorite at these GOP events.

----------


## AuH20

> You know why the second term? He was already re-elected and it was A-okay to do so, his approval ratings were in the TANK.


Not really. Levin was a Reaganite in the late 70s fighting against the Gerald Ford machine. He's far more principled than you characterize him as. All this us vs. them nonsense is just that. Nonsense. And Levin is part of the problem for escalating this feud as well.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He disagrees with Ron Paul on philosophical grounds as opposed to some sinister agenda. I can live with that. What I can't stand is the Hannity and Limbaughs who are playing for the other side. It's utterly transparent who plays for the other side. George W. Bush went as far as to call Hannity "his buddy."  And Rush is a cocktail party favorite at these GOP events.


What philosophical grounds?  Bush/Cheney LIED about the reasons for our involvement in Iraq.  Is it so hard to apologize when you realize what you once thought was right turns out to be wrong?  ESPECIALLY when thousands of lives were lost in the interim?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Don't give me YouTube videos; tell me what they said.  I can't open a video right now and I don't feel like listening to those people anyway.


He was speaking out against neo-cons, Bush and the Iraq War.

----------


## AuH20

> What philosophical grounds?  Bush/Cheney LIED about the reasons for our involvement in Iraq.  Is it so hard to apologize when you realize what you once thought was right turns out to be wrong?  ESPECIALLY when thousands of lives were lost in the interim?


The philosphical grounds of seeing the U.S. as the leader of the  free world. Shining city on the hill. American exceptionalism. That's what Levin is guilty of. Pride and some romanticized gullibility. I understand how they think. However, he doesn't want to see innocent people slaughtered.

----------


## jjdoyle

> He disagrees with Ron Paul on philosophical grounds as opposed to some sinister agenda. I can live with that. What I can't stand is the Hannity and Limbaughs who are playing for the other side. It's utterly transparent who plays for the other side. George W. Bush went as far as to call Hannity "his buddy."  And Rush is a cocktail party favorite at these GOP events.


Except for one thing, he doesn't understand or care to understand what Ron Paul's foreign policy would be. He went out of his way and called it more extreme than Dennis Kucinich (Is he a Pacifist, or almost? I know he was for a Department of Peace?).

If Ron and Rand have the same foreign policy, there is no way Mark Levin could vote for Rand.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Who did you vote for in 2008 if I may ask?


Paul in the primaries. I can't recall if I abstained or voted for Baldwin in the general.  Can't remember if he was on the ballot or not.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The philosphical grounds of seeing the U.S. as the free leader of the world. Shining city on the hill. American exceptionalism. That's what Levin is guilty of. Pride and some romanticized gullibility. I understand how they think. He doesn't want to see innocent people slaughtered.


But his philosophy _caused_ innocent people to get slaughtered!  I think you see that...but this is why I cannot embrace, endorse, or sanction anything this man does!  He's not even sorry for causing it!!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Paul in the primaries. I can't recall if I abstained or voted for Baldwin in the general.  Can't remember if he was on the ballot or not.


Odd that someone doesn't recall for whom they voted a mere 5 years ago.  I remember every presidential vote I ever cast, going back to 1976.  I'm not proud of all of them, but I do remember them.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Odd that someone doesn't recall for whom they voted a mere 5 years ago.  I remember every presidential vote I ever cast, going back to 1976.  I'm not proud of all of them, but I do remember them.


If Baldwin was on the ballot I would have voted for him.  I cannot recall if he was or not.  

I went and looked it up for you.  He was on the ballot, so yes I voted for Baldwin.

----------


## AuH20

> But his philosophy _caused_ innocent people to get slaughtered!  I think you see that...but this is why I cannot embrace, endorse, or sanction anything this man does!  He's not even sorry for causing it!!


I wouldn't go that far. Mark Levin didn't order Rumsfield to remove all Ba'athist governmental elements, which eventually resulted in sectarian chaos. There were some major blunders in execution and policy.

----------


## AuH20

> Except for one thing, he doesn't understand or care to understand what Ron Paul's foreign policy would be. He went out of his way and called it more extreme than Dennis Kucinich (Is he a Pacifist, or almost? I know he was for a Department of Peace?).
> 
> If Ron and Rand have the same foreign policy, there is no way Mark Levin could vote for Rand.


I think Levin was alienated by some of Ron's more extreme comments. I honestly think if they somehow got together in a room and Ron acted like his humble self, they would come to a mutual understanding on certain subject matter, since Ron is a constitionalist at heart. Ron's rhetoric hurt his foreign policy perception in many instances as opposed to the message, which was sound and largely fact-based. Rand doesn't have questionable rhetoric associated with his FP views.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Actually, this board and some of the detractors you are talking about took a turn for the better recently. The usual suspects weren't attacking Rand. This all happened while CaptLou took a break. I noticed it. It happened. Now he's back with his bull$#@! making things worse. Again.


I read this last night and meant to respond but it was late...so here it is:

As one of the "usual suspects" I agree 100% with your assessment here.  There is nothing in this thread that is an attack on Rand; it is a criticism of what I see as the willingness to embrace Hannity and Levin after all the misinformation and insults we all endured from them between 2007-2012 on behalf of Ron Paul.  

I've said this more than once:  I get why Rand may have to smile with them right now, but I don't have to do so and no amount of brow-beating from the other usual suspects on this board can make me change my mind about that.  If Sean Hannity wakes up today, goes on the radio and says "water is wet" ...yeah, great, he's right about that, but I'm not inclined to forget all the other lies he's told in the past for which he has NEVER apologized (and for which I don't think he even regrets anyway).  

And yes, fr33, you're probably right that certain member(s) taking a break from this board made it easier to reach the conclusion I did to support Rand...and I will continue to say, I don't support him as strongly as I did his father and I don't support him for the same reasons, but I'm going to vote for him for the reasons I spelled out in the post in my sig line.  Hurling insults at people is never the way to bring about a change of hearts and minds...I suppose it was easier to dig in rather than give in during the time I had to defend myself from insults as I have had to do again yesterday.  What's different now is that I get it....the only one who can make me change my mind about Rand now is Rand himself.  If CaptLou, Patriot, and LE want to continue to insult me and tell me I'm not wanted or needed or whatever, fine.  I never promised to work on Rand's campaign so they can relax...I won't be embarrassing Rand by showing up at one of his rallies with a yard sign and/or without my big-ass flag pin and pearls.   But I will show up for him at my voting precinct in November of 2016.

That said, those other usual suspects won't shut me up or censor me of my opinions either.  Even if I can't post here, the Internet is big and worldwide, plus I have face-to-face conversations about politics quite frequently.  It's impossible for these people to control everyone in spite of their wishes to do so.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I wouldn't go that far. Mark Levin didn't order Rumsfield to remove all Ba'athist governmental elements, which eventually resulted in sectarian chaos. There were some major blunders in execution and policy.


I realize Levin didn't give orders to Rumsfeld, but did he support the actions of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld?  And when he learned they lied, did he admit to his audience that he and they were wrong...did he apologize?  It's a pretty important thing, because innocent lives WERE lost...and while some Americans don't care about innocent Iraqis, I would imagine they might at least care about the American soldiers' lives that were lost in vain.

----------


## PatriotOne

> That said, those other usual suspects won't shut me up or censor me of my opinions either.  *Even if I can't post here*, the Internet is big and worldwide, plus I have face-to-face conversations about politics quite frequently.


That would be awesome.  Your personal jihad against those who did Ron wrong is really counter-productive but I would be satisfied if you just didn't irritate me daily here.  What's next on your agenda?  A jihad against the voters who didn't vote for Ron last year?  Will they not be good enough to cast a vote for Rand because they insulted Ron also?  Shall we burn them at the stake if they dare try to vote for Rand?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes let's make sure Mark Levin gets an even bigger head than he already has by turning him into some sudden icon of liberty and freedom and let's pretend he isn't in love with Ted Cruz too while we're at it.  If the likes of Mark Levin is going to make or break us, then we are in very big trouble.   These kind of people are only interested in the Constitution because Obama is shredding it...they had no problem with Bush doing it.


That's pretty much how I feel.




> The "delegate strategy" was horrible and destined to fail. You need to win one of the early contests to even be in contention. If Rand cannot win IA, NH, NC or SC he should drop out.
> 
> Oh and I honestly don't care about your money.  I fund raise locally, not on the internet.


Why should Rand let the establishment candidates win?  




> The American citizen's entire way of life is being destroyed and we want to focus on drugs? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Fix country and then get to the recreation. No, Recreation first! Recreational drugs will solve the debt bubble, help end foreign excursions abroad and release the free market! Hallelujah! Praise Timothy Leary! Can I get an Amen?!!?


Foreign policy is the root of the problem, not drugs.  I'm pro-drug legalization but that's not the #1 issue I focus on.

I don't honestly see what's so complicated about a 10th  amendment type of answer.  That should be easy to defend from a constitutional standpoint rather than a "Pro-drug" type argument.  Personally, I had no problem with what Ron said in South Carolina, but I understand that some people did get "pro-drug" from that even though I didn't.  But it shouldn't be too hard to say something like "Well, as a Federal official drugs aren't really my jurisdiction, the 10th amendment clearly gives the states the right to set drug policy" or something like that.

It would hurt with big government conservatives, who wouldn't support Rand no matter what.  But I think most Tea Party type conservatives could at least live with a stance like that.  As far as social conservatism goes, I think most of them care more about life (abortion) and marriage (one-man-one-woman) than they do about drugs, particularly marijuana.




> Familial treason? Is the Paul family some sort of mafia now?
> 
> I think the lack of forgiveness shown by people on here is unbiblical.


If Mark Levin got up there and said that he was wrong and that he agreed with us on foreign policy and we told him to screw off, I'd agree that's unbiblical.

But he doesn't.  He's not repentant for his attacks on Ron.  He just knows that Rand isn't quite the same, particularly on the national security issues.  




> I don't think that's a downside.  Freedom brings together people wanting to use their freedom in different ways. Being in favor of freedom is not an endorsement of vice.


I agree, but at the same time, I don't want the radical libertines to be the face of the movement either, especially considering how most of them don't really support philosophical libertarianism in the fiscal or foreign spheres either.  



> I like the list that you compiled. It should be in the following order of priority: Eliminate DEA, Decriminalization and then maybe we can start talking about legalization. Legalization is a very tricky matter because of our over-litigious society and if you can't tackle that in concert legalization won't be really work. And then you would likely have the potential healthcare variables that be difficult to navigate. This is a complex issue that is multi-lateral and beyond just "legalizing drugs."


Its only "Tricky" if you think two wrongs make a right.  Otherwise, legalization is right REGARDLESS of what other government laws may make that undesirable.

Does it need to be the #1 issue for the liberty movement?  No, I agree with you there.  The 2nd amendment, foreign policy, and the Fed (opposing it) are all more important.  But I still think liberty candidates should at least be able to cite the 10th on the issue.  




> What were all of those pundits saying in the lead up to the Iraq war?  And have any of them apologized to the American people if they cheered on the attack based on Bush/Cheney lies about WMDs?


Do we actually KNOW there weren't any  WMDs?  I mean, I agree with you, but is there any way to really disprove the hypothesis that they could have been hidden?

Fighting over whether there were WMDs is besides the point, IMO.  We're going to have the same problem in Iran.  I believe it is likely that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.  But... so what?  Who cares?

We need to establish, philosophically, why we shouldn't be going after foreign powers that are building WMDs without UN permission.  That will come from an opposition to the UN, as well as belief in the 6th and 8th commandments (I believe that's 5th or 7th for the Catholics and Lutherans, but I could be wrong).  Trying to argue that Iraq shouldn't have been attacked BECAUSE they didn't have WMDs is not going to help us when the neocons and Israel firsters start going after Iran and Syria.



> The philosphical grounds of seeing the U.S. as the leader of the  free world. Shining city on the hill. American exceptionalism. That's what Levin is guilty of. Pride and some romanticized gullibility. I understand how they think. However, he doesn't want to see innocent people slaughtered.


I'm not saying he WANTS to see innocent people slaughtered, but he obviously doesn't have an opposition to it the way we do.  Then again, you probably wouldn't even agree with the view I have on everything military these days.



> But his philosophy _caused_ innocent people to get slaughtered!  I think you see that...but this is why I cannot embrace, endorse, or sanction anything this man does!  He's not even sorry for causing it!!


This.




> That would be awesome.  Your personal jihad against those who did Ron wrong is really counter-productive but I would be satisfied if you just didn't irritate me daily here.  What's next on your agenda?  A jihad against the voters who didn't vote for Ron last year?  Will they not be good enough to cast a vote for Rand because they insulted Ron also?  Shall we burn them at the stake if they dare try to vote for Rand?


I'm  not saying to burn them at the stake.  I'm saying don't pretend they are something they aren't.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Why should Rand let the establishment candidates win?


I was originally going to ask a follow up question first as to your knowledge of the primary/caucus system, but I am going out to dinner soon so, I'll just post my general thought.  If you do not understand the process, maybe someone can answer that later.

I think 2016 will be in order: IA, NH, SC, NC, FL, etc.  Let's say you have 11 candidates to start.  At most 5 of them will have a decent showing.  Post IA you will see two or three that were at the way bottom just drop out, it's done for them.  Their support then transfers to others.  NH will have again 4 or 5 that have a decent showing.  The herd thins some more.  Usually you'll have a couple that didn't show well that will stick it out if the south is favorable to them (Newt did this last election).  SC votes, a few more drop, NC votes, thinned again.  By the time you get to FL if you haven't pulled out a win your campaign is on life support.  This could be what happens to Jeb or Rubio (they may hang in there long enough to win their home state and revitalize the campaign).  If after FL you haven't won a state, it's time to call it quits.

Now, yes, technically someone can win as long as there are enough states left with enough bound delegates left to claim the prize.  But realistically, if you don't win early, you aren't going to win later.  It's just how it is.  The early states can be won by building an organization and relying on old fashioned retail/grassroots politics.  The latter states are more mass marketing since they vote in big clumps.  Post FL we should be down to 3, maybe 4 candidates, and by the time we get through Super Tuesday it will be down to 2 or 3.  

So it's not that Rand is "letting" the Establishment candidate win by dropping out, it is that he has been beaten.  Time to pack it in a focus on his Senate reelection.  Try again in 4 years.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Do we actually KNOW there weren't any  WMDs?  I mean, I agree with you, but is there any way to really disprove the hypothesis that they could have been hidden?






:25

----------


## compromise

> If Mark Levin got up there and said that he was wrong and that he agreed with us on foreign policy and we told him to screw off, I'd agree that's unbiblical.


Glenn Beck did admit he was wrong, and many on here did tell him to screw off.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Glenn Beck did admit he was wrong, and many on here did tell him to screw off.


Wrong about what, specifically?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> If the ideas are being communicated to a large audience, who cares who the mouthpiece is?  If tomorrow Rush started dedicating three hours of his show everyday to communicating to his audience the principles of Austrian Econ, would you be happy?


I agree, but Rand isn't communicating Austrian Econ, he's promoting and defending Friedman and generalized GOP policy instead. If Rand isn't willing to promote it, what makes you think GOP shills will?

Above all, that was the value of Ron. He was going to talk about Austrian and libertarian ideas, even if it made him look bad or kooky.

My opposition to Rand is based on his continuous defense of people like Friedman at the expense of extolling Austrian virtues. And even worse, he's defending a version of Friedman that didn't exist; so not only can he be attacked for getting Friedman wrong, he's defending bad policy.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I agree, but Rand isn't communicating Austrian Econ, he's promoting and defending Friedman and generalized GOP policy instead. If Rand isn't willing to promote it, what makes you think GOP shills will?
> 
> Above all, that was the value of Ron. He was going to talk about Austrian and libertarian ideas, even if it made him look bad or kooky.
> 
> My opposition to Rand is based on his continuous defense of people like Friedman at the expense of extolling Austrian virtues. And even worse, he's defending a version of Friedman that didn't exist; so not only can he be attacked for getting Friedman wrong, he's defending bad policy.


Then perhaps Rand isn't the best candidate for you.  Possibly, there may be someone else for you to donate to and volunteer for. 

Rand isn't the perfect candidate for me, but neither was Ron - no one is perfect, but of those who are on the front lines (Rand, Amash, Massie, et al), Rand has the highest profile and the best chance of success in the presidential contest.  That's enough reason for me to support him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was originally going to ask a follow up question first as to your knowledge of the primary/caucus system, but I am going out to dinner soon so, I'll just post my general thought.  If you do not understand the process, maybe someone can answer that later.
> 
> I think 2016 will be in order: IA, NH, SC, NC, FL, etc.  Let's say you have 11 candidates to start.  At most 5 of them will have a decent showing.  Post IA you will see two or three that were at the way bottom just drop out, it's done for them.  Their support then transfers to others.  NH will have again 4 or 5 that have a decent showing.  The herd thins some more.  Usually you'll have a couple that didn't show well that will stick it out if the south is favorable to them (Newt did this last election).  SC votes, a few more drop, NC votes, thinned again.  By the time you get to FL if you haven't pulled out a win your campaign is on life support.  This could be what happens to Jeb or Rubio (they may hang in there long enough to win their home state and revitalize the campaign).  If after FL you haven't won a state, it's time to call it quits.
> 
> Now, yes, technically someone can win as long as there are enough states left with enough bound delegates left to claim the prize.  But realistically, if you don't win early, you aren't going to win later.  It's just how it is.  The early states can be won by building an organization and relying on old fashioned retail/grassroots politics.  The latter states are more mass marketing since they vote in big clumps.  Post FL we should be down to 3, maybe 4 candidates, and by the time we get through Super Tuesday it will be down to 2 or 3.  
> 
> So it's not that Rand is "letting" the Establishment candidate win by dropping out, it is that he has been beaten.  Time to pack it in *a focus on his Senate reelection.*  Try again in 4 years.


OK, the bold was ultimately what I wanted to know.

I understood that it was likely impossible (Or close) for Rand to win in the scenario you described and that was why he should drop, but if he didn't have a senate race to win, I would see no reason why Rand shouldn't try anyway.  That makes sense.




> :25


OK, thanks.



> Glenn Beck did admit he was wrong, and many on here did tell him to screw off.


Glenn... I actually wonder if he's sincere.  Not saying he is, but I wouldn't be shocked.  I feel like I know Rush, Hannity, and Levin aren't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree, but Rand isn't communicating Austrian Econ, he's promoting and defending Friedman and generalized GOP policy instead. If Rand isn't willing to promote it, what makes you think GOP shills will?
> 
> Above all, that was the value of Ron. He was going to talk about Austrian and libertarian ideas, even if it made him look bad or kooky.
> 
> My opposition to Rand is based on his continuous defense of people like Friedman at the expense of extolling Austrian virtues. And even worse, he's defending a version of Friedman that didn't exist; so not only can he be attacked for getting Friedman wrong, he's defending bad policy.



Yeah, it always pains me to hear Rand speak in such boring GOP language.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Glenn Beck did admit he was wrong, and many on here did tell him to screw off.





> Wrong about what, specifically?


Bump for an answer to my question.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I understood that it was likely impossible (Or close) for Rand to win in the scenario you described and that was why he should drop, but if he didn't have a senate race to win, I would see no reason why Rand shouldn't try anyway.  That makes sense.


There are several reasons why it does not make sense, but the primary one is that you are asking people to send you money to fund a campaign that is doing nothing more but chasing rainbows, and in turn you are diverting money from candidates for other offices that have a chance to win.  Basically he would be saying, "Send me money so I can continue my meaningless Presidential campaign instead of sending it to Joe Smith who actually has a chance to win his House race".

Rand will get $2500 from our household prior to Iowa, if he can win a state, he'll get the rest.  If not, then that money will go elsewhere.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Glenn Beck did admit he was wrong, and many on here did tell him to screw off.





> Wrong about what, specifically?


Is there no Glenn Beck fan on this site who can answer this question?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Dwelling on personalities is stupid.  You guys sound like a bunch of jaded women when they see their ex boyfriend in public.  

It's the same thing every Rand interview thread....OMG Beck!...OMG Levin!...OMG...OMG!!

----------


## Carlybee

> Dwelling on personalities is stupid.  You guys sound like a bunch of jaded women when they see their ex boyfriend in public.  
> 
> It's the same thing every Rand interview thread....OMG Beck!...OMG Levin!...OMG...OMG!!


Hyperbole much?

----------


## Carlybee

> There are several reasons why it does not make sense, but the primary one is that you are asking people to send you money to fund a campaign that is doing nothing more but chasing rainbows, and in turn you are diverting money from candidates for other offices that have a chance to win.  Basically he would be saying, "Send me money so I can continue my meaningless Presidential campaign instead of sending it to Joe Smith who actually has a chance to win his House race".
> 
> Rand will get $2500 from our household prior to Iowa, if he can win a state, he'll get the rest.  If not, then that money will go elsewhere.


Would you support Ted Cruz if he runs and wins a state?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Dwelling on personalities is stupid.  You guys sound like a bunch of jaded women when they see their ex boyfriend in public.  
> 
> It's the same thing every Rand interview thread....OMG Beck!...OMG Levin!...OMG...OMG!!


do you get this treatment often?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Dwelling on personalities is stupid.  You guys sound like a bunch of jaded women when they see their ex boyfriend in public.  
> 
> It's the same thing every Rand interview thread....OMG Beck!...OMG Levin!...OMG...OMG!!


The serious answer to your silly post is, this has nothing to do with their personalities; it has to do with relevant past behavior. And it has nothing to do with Rand.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Would you support Ted Cruz if he runs and wins a state?


Assuming Rand and Cruz run, Rand doesn't catch fire at all, but Cruz does...I might support him financially.  A lot would depend on his platform.  As far as voting for Cruz in the primary, that is a moot point since we vote third and Rand would still be in the mix at that time presumably. If Cruz won the nomination and was up against Clinton in the general, that would be a no-brainer for me.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> The serious answer to your silly post is, this has nothing to do with their personalities; it has to do with relevant past behavior. And it has nothing to do with Rand.


It also has to do with how grievous a sin one considers their treatment of Ron. Obviously for you it is a mortal sin to have called Ron an anti-Semite and anti-American and called his supporters "kooks".  Other can look past that and move on.  It's politics, it's a dirty game.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Back to the topic of this thread before it was derailed.  Isn't it great that at least at this point that these news opinion pundits aren't trashing Rand?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Back to the topic of this thread before it was derailed.  Isn't it great that at least at this point that these news opinion pundits aren't trashing Rand?


Yes it is.  I think there are two major reasons for that: 

1) Rand presents himself and his positions well.  So, even if there is any area of disagreement, Rand can leave someone with the "we can agree to disagree" feeling, as opposed to a vehement disagreement.

2) The pundits can see the mood of the country from their callers, emails, tweets, etc. Rand, his allies and the grassroots are moving the minds of the voters in a different direction, and these pundits see that.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Back to the topic of this thread before it was derailed.  Isn't it great that at least at this point that these news opinion pundits aren't trashing Rand?



Yes it is. And the fact that people want to consider coalition building to target multiple voter demographics wrong because some of those people talked bad about Ron Paul is, quite honestly, sad. There are people here saying that they like it when Ron tells them who to vote for (wtf.....), or think that Ron Paul possibly agreeing with them magically validates their personal opinions. 

But the thing that REALLY gets me is this. To build bridges, and attempt to build a team of people to help get into the White House to effect some change is wrong if it involves anyone who dared disagree with Ron Paul. Yet, those same people are perfectly fine with an armed revolt, and murdering anyone who dares to not think as they do. And to top it off....they are trying to claim how "Libertarian" they are, and how "Un-Libertarian" the non-believers in the book of Ron are. 

They remind me of radical Jihadists. Cherry picking a source to fit their agenda. They're detrimental to people seriously wanting to right things, and justification for labels and ridicule from opposing parties.

----------


## speciallyblend

smiling and posing with the scum of the earth, yeah! shakes my head!

----------


## speciallyblend

> Dwelling on personalities is stupid.  You guys sound like a bunch of jaded women when they see their ex boyfriend in public.  
> 
> It's the same thing every Rand interview thread....OMG Beck!...OMG Levin!...OMG...OMG!!


levin,hannity and malkin are the evil of evil, no better then bush or obama! It goes beyond personalities. They are liars,thieves and crooks! For you to say anything less is to ignore their past,present and possible future(which i cannot trust them with their lying track record). Never trust these slimy characters. If you look up judas. You will see their pics!

Rands pandering to the right wing nuts and the pro drug war folks in the gop has bacically lost me as a delegate. Rand is sounding like obamney(romney) to me. Sadly rand can only flip fop pander  again and at that point i have no interest.  

Rand pandered to far to the right for me. sucking up to these liars hannity,malkin and levin does nothing to make me want to be a delegate for rand.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Hmm, when I posted a thread with a picture of Rand Paul meeting Beck, a moderator deleted it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> smiling and posing with the scum of the earth, yeah! shakes my head!


The Scum of the Earth?  Really?  Some radio talking heads?  Not like, you know, mass murderers or dictators or whatever, but radio hosts with opinions you don't like.  Wow.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The Scum of the Earth?  Really?  Some radio talking heads?  Not like, you know, mass murderers or dictators or whatever, but radio hosts with opinions you don't like.  Wow.


Enablers all of mass murder, aka war.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Enablers all of mass murder, aka war.




So glad I've been away from this site mostly for the past week.  A benign thread about Rand Paul meeting some talking heads, and it has almost 400 replies.  Same ol' pointless sh**-storms over nothing.

Thought some were going to stop attacking Rand Paul in his own forum.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So glad I've been away from this site mostly for the past week.  A benign thread about Rand Paul meeting some talking heads, and it has almost 400 replies.  Same ol' pointless sh**-storms over nothing.


Everyone keeps trying to make this about Rand...that's not where I'm coming from.  Rand may have to hold his nose, and I get that.  What I don't get is why everyone here is promoting these bastards and acting like the things they've done in the past is no big deal. 

They lied, people died.  Oh and yeah, they insulted Ron Paul, too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Thought some were going to stop attacking Rand Paul in his own forum.


You must have added this after I replied above.  

No one is ATTACKING RAND IN HIS OWN FORUM.  This isn't about Rand.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Everyone keeps trying to make this about Rand...that's not where I'm coming from.  Rand may have to hold his nose, and I get that.  What I don't get is why everyone here is promoting these bastards and acting like the things they've done in the past is no big deal. 
> 
> They lied, people died.  Oh and yeah, they insulted Ron Paul, too.


Who specifically is this "everybody" who you claim is promoting Levin, Hannity and Malkin in this thread?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Who specifically is this "everybody" who you claim is promoting Levin, Hannity and Malkin in this thread?


Saying that Levin or Hannity made a good point about something, or is covering a particular issues well is akin to "promoting" in the minds of some people.  Apparently, if someone has said something wrong about Ron Paul in the past, unless they make a full apology to Ron and his supporters, they are forever scarred for life for their mortal sin against Ron. Forever, they must wear a scarlet letter.

----------


## Carlybee

I suspect when these guys turn on a dime and begin promoting the candidate they are told by their string pullers to promote, that some in this thread will do the same.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Saying that Levin or Hannity made a good point about something, or is covering a particular issues well is akin to "promoting" in the minds of some people.  Apparently, if someone has said something wrong about Ron Paul in the past, unless they make a full apology to Ron and his supporters, they are forever scarred for life for their mortal sin against Ron. Forever, they must wear a scarlet letter.


She take's Bushes_ "you are either with us or against us"_ statement to a whole new level of crazy.  Cajun's would be "you were either with us in the past or forever our enemy in the future".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> She take's Bushes_ "you are either with us or against us"_ statement to a whole new level of crazy.  Cajun's would be "you were either with us in the past or forever our enemy in the future".


No she's not.  She just doesn't trust snakes.  Neither do  I.

I guess we'll find out who's right...

----------


## PatriotOne

> I suspect when these guys turn on a dime and begin promoting the candidate they are told by their string pullers to promote, that some in this thread will do the same.


I don't trust them as far as I can throw them but as long as they are talking our language I see nothing but negative consequences by lambasting them for it.  It's just dumb.

----------


## PatriotOne

> No she's not.  She just doesn't trust snakes.  Neither do  I.
> 
> I guess we'll find out who's right...


I don't trust snakes either but things are not as black and white as some make them out to be.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> Saying that Levin or Hannity made a good point about something, or is covering a particular issues well is akin to "promoting" in the minds of some people.  Apparently, if someone has said something wrong about Ron Paul in the past, unless they make a full apology to Ron and his supporters, they are forever scarred for life for their mortal sin against Ron. Forever, they must wear a scarlet letter.


Surely you jest when you say that last part. Or at least hyperbole. _Mortal sin_?  Last I checked, he's no deity or saint, so that's a bit excessive.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Surely you jest when you say that last part. Or at least hyperbole. _Mortal sin_?  Last I checked, he's no deity or saint, so that's a bit excessive.


He's obviously jesting.  The whole post was a jest aimed at Cajun.

----------


## AuH20

This one goes to Capt. Lou. Read it in it's entirety:

http://www.dailypaul.com/295925/rand...ith-them-daily

----------


## AuH20

> I don't trust snakes either but things are not as black and white as some make them out to be.


Anyone who has ever said anything negative about Ron Paul is being manipulated to do so. I wish that was the case but it isn't so. Yes, these cases do exist but it isn't absolute.

----------


## neoreactionary

> They remind me of radical Jihadists.





> levin,hannity and malkin are the evil of  evil


Too perfect, lol.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Enablers all of mass murder, aka war.


Enablers of mass murder? That's a pretty egregious charge. Do you think it should be permissible to kill people who advocate war? Do you think it would be permissible to kill these three in particular?

I ask because I _do_ think it would be permissible to kill someone responsible for mass murder/starting a war, but I do not think it would be permissible to kill these three.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Everyone keeps trying to make this about Rand...that's not where I'm coming from.  Rand may have to hold his nose, and I get that.  What I don't get is why everyone here is promoting these bastards and acting like the things they've done in the past is no big deal. 
> 
> They lied, people died.  Oh and yeah, they insulted Ron Paul, too.


Please cite a source for the claim that they lied. You seem unreliable and so I'm afraid I can't simply take your word for it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Who specifically is this "everybody" who you claim is promoting Levin, Hannity and Malkin in this thread?


Obviously it's not "everybody" because there are still some here (myself included) who are disgusted by them; I put it that way because it feels that way at times. Maybe you miss the numerous threads started all too frequently about something they (and Beck) said that supposedly suggests they're getting it now. It's not just evident in this one thread.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Please cite a source for the claim that they lied. You seem unreliable and so *I'm afraid I can't simply take your word for it*.


Aw...I really wish I could care about that, spladle.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Yes it is. And the fact that people want to consider coalition building to target multiple voter demographics wrong because some of those people talked bad about Ron Paul is, quite honestly, sad. There are people here saying that they like it when Ron tells them who to vote for (wtf.....), or think that Ron Paul possibly agreeing with them magically validates their personal opinions. 
> 
> But the thing that REALLY gets me is this. To build bridges, and attempt to build a team of people to help get into the White House to effect some change is wrong if it involves anyone who dared disagree with Ron Paul. Yet, those same people are perfectly fine with an armed revolt, and murdering anyone who dares to not think as they do. And to top it off....they are trying to claim how "Libertarian" they are, and how "Un-Libertarian" the non-believers in the book of Ron are. 
> 
> They remind me of radical Jihadists. Cherry picking a source to fit their agenda. They're detrimental to people seriously wanting to right things, and justification for labels and ridicule from opposing parties.


I call them litmus test libertarians.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't trust them as far as I can throw them but as long as they are talking our language I see nothing but negative consequences by lambasting them for it.  It's just dumb.


There's a word for that.  
*3.*  A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> So glad I've been away from this site mostly for the past week.  A benign thread about Rand Paul meeting some talking heads, and it has almost 400 replies.  Same ol' pointless sh**-storms over nothing.
> 
> Thought some were going to stop attacking Rand Paul in his own forum.


They'll do anything to derail a Rand thread.  I actually believe they want to see Rand fail more than the neocon establishment does.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Aw...I really wish I could care about that, spladle.


I see. Then you are not only a liar, but an unrepentant one? How disturbing. I wonder what God thinks of your behavior.

----------


## neoreactionary

I'm just saying, for a so-called Christian, it's remarkable how comfortable you are with making false and slanderous claims about people. Is that what Christ stood for? Dishonesty, malice, and a lack of remorse?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm just saying, for a so-called Christian, it's remarkable how comfortable you are with making false and slanderous claims about people. Is that what Christ stood for? Dishonesty, malice, and a lack of remorse?


The proof of my words is out there, but I don't engage with people who continuously insult people. Learn to Google.

----------


## neoreactionary

> The proof of my words is out there, but I don't engage with people who continuously insult people. Learn to Google.


I suppose it should come as no surprise, given your willingness to lie about other things, that you would be willing to lie and claim that I "continuously insult people."

I know how to Google and have found no evidence to support your claim: "They lied, people died." So it seems instead that _you_ have lied.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Enablers of mass murder...yes.  What do you guys think war is?  Hopscotch?  Do you not remember how these bastards, along with almost everyone else in the mainstream media were enabling Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld talking points in the lead up to the Iraq War?  They were just as much in bed with the Bush administration on that issue as MSNBC is with Obama now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer21.1.html

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Obviously it's not "everybody" because there are still some here (myself included) who are disgusted by them; I put it that way because it feels that way at times. Maybe you miss the numerous threads started all too frequently about something they (and Beck) said that supposedly suggests they're getting it now. It's not just evident in this one thread.


Nobody gives a $#@! about Beck.  I only care that organizations like YAL are getting an hour of free press on his network and liberty candidates like Nancy Mace, Bright, and others are getting an opportunity to speak to a couple million ears over radio.  Once again you're dwelling on Beck's peccadilloes.  You're like a liberal that doesn't comprehend that a gun is just a tool.  The media can be our tool if we're wise enough to wield it and Rand has proven time and time again that he is up to the task.  We get it, you have an axe to grind, you're the Betty Broderick of the forums.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Nobody gives a $#@! about Beck.  I only care that organizations like YAL are getting an hour of free press on his network and liberty candidates like Nancy Mace, Bright, and others are getting an opportunity to speak to a couple million ears over radio. * Once again you're dwelling on Beck's peccadilloes. * You're like a liberal that doesn't comprehend that a gun is just a tool.  The media can be our tool if we're wise enough to wield it and Rand has proven time and time again that he is up to the task.  We get it, you have an axe to grind, you're the Betty Broderick of the forums.


If y'all didn't want an answer to the question, you shouldn't have asked.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Enablers of mass murder...yes.  What do you guys think war is?  Hopscotch?


Mass murder and war are not the same things. Know how I know? Because we use different words to describe them. Mass murder is mass murder, and war is war. Now, mass murder may sometimes occur _within_ a war, and a war may sometimes involve mass murder, but it is simply not correct to say that supporters of a war are supporters of mass murder. That is virtually never true. There are a huge number of people who support some wars but who do not support mass murder.

In fact, here's an excellent hypothetical demonstrating that the two concepts can be completely at odds with one another: Imagine that a genocide was taking place in a small African country - that is, actual mass murder. Further imagine that an American president sent US troops into the country to _stop_ the mass murder. Would you support this action? Understand that supporting the mass murder means you must oppose the war, and opposing the war means that you support the mass murder. So which would you choose?




> Do you not remember how these bastards, along with almost everyone else in the mainstream media were enabling Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld talking points in the lead up to the Iraq War?  They were just as much in bed with the Bush administration on that issue as MSNBC is with Obama now.


Engaging in partisan cheer-leading/"journalism" is not the same thing as enabling mass murder. It is objectionable, to be sure, but far less so than you make it out to be.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Mass murder and war are not the same things. Know how I know? Because we use different words to describe them. Mass murder is mass murder, and war is war. Now, mass murder may sometimes occur _within_ a war, and a war may sometimes involve mass murder, but it is simply not correct to say that supporters of a war are supporters of mass murder. That is virtually never true. There are a huge number of people who support some wars but who do not support mass murder.
> 
> In fact, here's an excellent hypothetical demonstrating that the two concepts can be completely at odds with one another: *Imagine that a genocide was taking place in a small African country - that is, actual mass murder. Further imagine that an American president sent US troops into the country to stop the mass murder. Would you support this action? Understand that supporting the mass murder means you must oppose the war, and opposing the war means that you support the mass murder. So which would you choose?
> *
> 
> 
> Engaging in partisan cheer-leading/"journalism" is not the same thing as enabling mass murder. It is objectionable, to be sure, but far less so than you make it out to be.


I choose non-interventionism....causing more mass murder to stop mass murder is insanity.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Dwelling on personalities is stupid.  You guys sound like a bunch of jaded women when they see their ex boyfriend in public.  
> 
> It's the same thing every Rand interview thread....OMG Beck!...OMG Levin!...OMG...OMG!!


 What you are describing is pretty much the exact opposite of what "jaded" means.

----------


## neoreactionary

> I choose non-interventionism....causing more mass murder to stop mass murder is insanity.


Do you believe all killing is murder, then, and that persons engaging in mass murder may not be legitimately defended against? Are you a pacifist?

I do not think that killing people engaged in genocide would be "mass murder."

Also, I may have failed to point this out in the original hypothetical and mistakenly assumed you'd take it for granted, but I'll correct that error now - imagine the genocide is expected to result in 7 million deaths, while the war is expected to result in 500,000 deaths, roughly half of whom will be persons engaged in genocide.

Would you prefer that 7 million innocents die rather than 250,000 innocents and 250,000 mass murderers?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you believe all killing is murder, then, and that persons engaging in mass murder may not be legitimately defended against? Are you a pacifist?
> 
> I do not think that killing people engaged in genocide would be "mass murder."
> 
> Also, I may have failed to point this out in the original hypothetical and mistakenly assumed you'd take it for granted, but I'll correct that error now - imagine the genocide is expected to result in 7 million deaths, while the war is expected to result in 500,000 deaths, roughly half of whom will be persons engaged in genocide.
> 
> Would you prefer that 7 million innocents die rather than 250,000 innocents and 250,000 mass murderers?


You can't reduce innocent life to a mathematical equation.

----------


## neoreactionary

> You can't reduce innocent life to a mathematical equation.


Of course you can. I just did.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't trust them as far as I can throw them but as long as they are talking our language I see nothing but negative consequences by lambasting them for it.  It's just dumb.


I love the First Amendment.

----------


## JCDenton0451

*neoreactionary*  (spladle) does not have a clue about non-interventionism or any other aspect of the Liberty movement. Why is he hanging around here? Is he paid to do this?
*Israel to pay students to defend it online*


> Israel is looking to hire university students to post pro-Israel  messages on social media networks — without needing to identify  themselves as government-linked, officials said Wednesday.
> 
> The Israeli prime minister's office said in a statement that students on  Israeli university campuses would receive full or partial scholarships  to combat anti-Semitism and calls to boycott Israel online. It said  students' messages would parallel statements by government officials.
> 
> "This is a groundbreaking project aimed at strengthening Israeli  national diplomacy and adapting it to changes in information  consumption," the statement said.
> 
> An Israeli official said Wednesday that scholarship recipients would be  free to decide whether or not to identify themselves as part of the  program, which would begin within months.
> 
> "Everyone who believes in the cause, and wants to join, can join," he  told The Associated Press. He said the office was looking to budget  $778,000 for the project, and that the national Israeli student  association would select participants from a pool of applicants.
> ...

----------


## Carlybee

> I suppose it should come as no surprise, given your willingness to lie about other things, that you would be willing to lie and claim that I "continuously insult people."
> 
> I know how to Google and have found no evidence to support your claim: "They lied, people died." So it seems instead that _you_ have lied.
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself.


You should be ashamed for being such an establishment sycophant who apparently believes anything the talking heads tell you. These jackasses did parrot Bush's lies frequently. Go watch some archives. All 3 of them pushed the wartards agenda.

----------


## neoreactionary

> You should be ashamed for being such an establishment sycophant who apparently believes anything the talking heads tell you. These jackasses did parrot Bush's lies frequently. Go watch some archives. All 3 of them pushed the wartards agenda.


But I'm not an establishment sycophant who believes anything the talking heads tell me. What a crazy thing to say. Should I also be ashamed of having been born in the year 1492?

Leaving aside the fact that there is a great deal of difference between sometimes believing/parroting lies (aka: being a journalist) and telling them independently, what evidence do you have that Bush himself lied?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> what evidence do you have that Bush himself lied?





> :25


If you still believe he didn't know this at the time he claimed it to be true, I have a bridge to sell you.

----------


## neoreactionary

> If you still believe he didn't know this at the time he claimed it to be true, I have a bridge to sell you.


I'm a skeptic, so I don't believe things in the absence of evidence. I can't prove that he was lying, so I don't believe he was lying. I can't prove he was sincere but mistaken, so I don't believe he was sincere but mistaken.

If you make a habit of believing with certainty things you cannot prove, then _I_ have a bridge to sell _you_.

----------


## AuH20

> You should be ashamed for being such an establishment sycophant who apparently believes anything the talking heads tell you. These jackasses did parrot Bush's lies frequently. Go watch some archives. All 3 of them pushed the wartards agenda.


Yes, since they were there on the ground. A large plurality of a democratic congress voted for entrance into Iraq, including Walter Jones.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Hyperbole much?


15 pages later...I think my point stands.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm a skeptic, so I don't believe things in the absence of evidence. I can't prove that he was lying, so I don't believe he was lying. I can't prove he was sincere but mistaken, so I don't believe he was sincere but mistaken.
> 
> If you make a habit of believing with certainty things you cannot prove, then _I_ have a bridge to sell _you_.


Did you support the Iraq invasion...and if so, for what reason?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, since they were there on the ground. A large plurality of a democratic congress voted for entrance into Iraq, including Walter Jones.


Is there a point to this post?  As if we don't already know that Dems love them some war as much as the GOP!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If y'all didn't want an answer to the question, you shouldn't have asked.


Stop derailing every Rand thread by attempting to turn it into your personal crusade against media personalities.  You think you're telling us something?  You're not.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Stop derailing every Rand thread by attempting to turn it into your personal crusade against media personalities.  You think you're telling us something?  You're not.


What is there to derail in this thread?  Somebody posts a picture of Rand with Hannity, Levin, and Malkin....at least we made it interesting (and hopefully educated some who are dumb enough to fall for their current rhetoric).

----------


## neoreactionary

> Did you support the Iraq invasion...and if so, for what reason?


No, I did not support the Iraq invasion.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I suspect when these guys turn on a dime and begin promoting the candidate they are told by their string pullers to promote, that some in this thread will do the same.


LOL! The media made Ron Paul what he is today.  His popularity exploded when talented youtubers clipped his media/debate appearances together.  

No 2007 Fox News debate = No Giuliani moment.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm a skeptic, so I don't believe things in the absence of evidence. I can't prove that he was lying, so I don't believe he was lying. I can't prove he was sincere but mistaken, so I don't believe he was sincere but mistaken.
> 
> If you make a habit of believing with certainty things you cannot prove, then _I_ have a bridge to sell _you_.


It's in the congressional record of the Senate Intelligence Committee...not that I give a plug nickel for most of them Repub or Dem.  Part 1 is not as accusatory, Part 2 specifically states the country was misled into war.  Besides that there is all kinds of citations if you care to look, but probably none you would find credible because they are not Pro-Bush sites.   Bush claimed faulty intelligence.....and if you believe that I have a bridge for you.  It was contrived intelligence and it was a big fat lie.

----------


## Carlybee

> Stop derailing every Rand thread by attempting to turn it into your personal crusade against media personalities.  You think you're telling us something?  You're not.



Shall we post videos of Shirley Temple singing "The Good Ship Lollipop" instead?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> What is there to derail in this thread?  Somebody posts a picture of Rand with Hannity, Levin, and Malkin....at least we made it interesting (and hopefully educated some who are dumb enough to fall for their current rhetoric).


You couldn't educate the 14 cats you live with to piss in the litter box.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> LOL! *The media made Ron Paul what he is today*.  His popularity exploded when talented youtubers clipped his media/debate appearances together.  
> 
> No 2007 Fox News debate = No Giuliani moment.


*smh*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You couldn't educate the 14 cats you live with to piss in the litter box.


I must have lost 13 of them too because I only have one.  

At least I have a better attitude than you which is more conducive to getting people to listen.

----------


## neoreactionary

> It's in the congressional record of the Senate Intelligence Committee...not that I give a plug nickel for most of them Repub or Dem.  Part 1 is not as accusatory, Part 2 specifically states the country was misled into war.  Besides that there is all kinds of citations if you care to look, but probably none you would find credible because they are not Pro-Bush sites.   Bush claimed faulty intelligence.....and if you believe that I have a bridge for you.  It was contrived intelligence and it was a big fat lie.


Look, I understand that your lack of cognitive complexity makes it difficult for you, but you should at least try to bear in mind that declining to believe a thing does not compel one to believe its opposite.

To reiterate my earlier point: If you can prove that Bush did not receive faulty intelligence but was instead maliciously and willfully deceptive, then by all means do so. But continuing to levy baseless accusations simply makes you look stupid and immature.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Look, I understand that your lack of cognitive complexity makes it difficult for you, but you should at least try to bear in mind that declining to believe a thing does not compel one to believe its opposite.
> 
> To reiterate my earlier point: If you can prove that Bush did not receive faulty intelligence but was instead maliciously and willfully deceptive, then by all means do so. But continuing to levy baseless accusations simply makes you look stupid and immature.


Try critical thinking skills.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Try critical thinking skills.


Try learning your place, prole.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Try learning your place, prole.


OK, I'm done with you.  Go $#@! yourself.

----------


## Carlybee

> Look, I understand that your lack of cognitive complexity makes it difficult for you, but you should at least try to bear in mind that declining to believe a thing does not compel one to believe its opposite.
> 
> To reiterate my earlier point: If you can prove that Bush did not receive faulty intelligence but was instead maliciously and willfully deceptive, then by all means do so. But continuing to levy baseless accusations simply makes you look stupid and immature.


Stop playing dumb. If you are part of the liberty movement you should be well aware of what he did and said leading us into that sham...if not then you are most likely an operative here for no good reason other than to push a different agenda.

----------


## Carlybee

> Try learning your place, prole.



Nice debating skills.

----------


## Carlybee

> You couldn't educate the 14 cats you live with to piss in the litter box.



Nice debating skills.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Nice debating skills.





> Nice debating skills.


You can always tell when someone is losing an argument, can't you?

----------


## neoreactionary

> OK, I'm done with you.  Go $#@! yourself.


Tsk, tsk. I suppose that's the sort of language and attitude I should expect from a peasant.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Stop playing dumb. If you are part of the liberty movement you should be well aware of what he did and said leading us into that sham...if not then you are most likely an operative here for no good reason other than to push a different agenda.


I'm not playing dumb. You are a tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid crazy person who thinks that I must be AN OPERATIVE merely for refusing to believe a thing that hasn't been proven.

----------


## neoreactionary

> Nice debating skills.


Try critical thinking skills.

----------


## neoreactionary

> You can always tell when someone is losing an argument, can't you?


OK, I'm done with you.  Go $#@! yourself.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I hadn't been keeping up on this thread for the past few days or so but I see it's taken an interesting twist as of late.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm not playing dumb. You are a tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid crazy person who thinks that I must be AN OPERATIVE merely for refusing to believe a thing that hasn't been proven.


How many times have you been banned spladle? I believe you are an operative because of your troll like behavior not because of what you believe or don't believe. Or maybe you are just a garden variety troll living in mom's basement. Either way, I really don't care what you believe.

----------


## neoreactionary

> *I believe you are an operative because of your troll like behavior*

----------


## Carlybee

neoreactionary

----------


## neoreactionary

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument, can't you?

----------

