# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Rand Assures Military Junta Generals: Cash Pipeline Will Continue Unabated

## Wolfgang Bohringer

> What Rand Paul Told a Close Associate of Sheldon Adelson about Israel
> 
> NYT reports:
> 
> Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and a close associate of Mr. Adelson’s, said that when he pressed Mr. Paul to explain his position on aid to Israel in a recent meeting in the senator’s Washington office, Mr. Klein left reassured. “*He said if there was a vote and for any reason it seemed like it was actually going to be close, he would vote for it*,” Mr. Klein said.
> 
> 
> And the NYT reports:
> 
> ...


Pheww--Its a good thing I didn't sell my Lockheed Martin stock!

His father--whom he moved away from long ago--taught us that the number of brown brains that are splattered by Lockheed's cruise missiles is directly proportional to the number of Americans shot in the head or bashed with truncheons by American cops.

"His father" often quoted Chalmers Johnson: "You either have to give up your empire or live under it."

They will still never let it happen--because there's absolutely no reason for them to do it--but you gotta wonder if some of the Generals aren't mulling over how humorous it would be to have Rand issuing the executive orders while we're still here on "his father's" forum stewing in our own vomit while reading 50 rape by cop threads in a row.

----------


## fisharmor

The thing you have to understand is that Rand is trying to win on a Republican ticket.
That's his goal.

Only Democrats give a $#@! about police abuses.  The worst police abuses anymore are all happening in pretty solidly red areas.

You _could_ talk about how it seemed like we were getting a third option out there, how we were taking the best from both sides and leaving the worst behind, but you really need to go back and read my first sentence.
His defenders aren't going to say anything different from that.

----------


## ZENemy

> The thing you have to understand is that Rand is trying to win on a Republican ticket.
> That's his goal.



What does this mean? 

To me: It sounds like "Rand needs to lie, like Obama, he needs to get into office so he can get things done, so right now, he is lying his ass off to a bunch of different groups of people but trust me, when he gets in office, he is REALLY on our side" 

I don't speak politics so a lie is a lie and bull$#@! is really just that...$#@!.

----------


## fisharmor

> I don't speak politics so a lie is a lie and bull$#@! is really just that...$#@!.


Well, you need to read my _last_​ sentence again.

----------


## Kotin

> The thing you have to understand is that Rand is trying to win on a Republican ticket.
> That's his goal.
> 
> Only Democrats give a $#@! about police abuses.  The worst police abuses anymore are all happening in pretty solidly red areas.
> 
> You _could_ talk about how it seemed like we were getting a third option out there, how we were taking the best from both sides and leaving the worst behind, but you really need to go back and read my first sentence.
> His defenders aren't going to say anything different from that.


this.

Rand is doing exactly what he needs to do. thanks for actually trying to win, Rand.. then maybe we can affect policy for once.. having Rand as the Commander in Chief of our armed forces is worth it.

----------


## Guitarzan

> What does this mean? 
> 
> To me: It sounds like "Rand needs to lie, like Obama, he needs to get into office so he can get things done, so right now, he is lying his ass off to a bunch of different groups of people but trust me, when he gets in office, he is REALLY on our side" 
> 
> I don't speak politics so a lie is a lie and bull$#@! is really just that...$#@!.



I'm not condoning the ways of politics, and would like to see them all be more forthcoming. 

But if this is the case that one must be misleading in order to get elected, that Rand is 'lying', and you want to make the comparison to how Obama lied; wouldn't you have to see the two as opposites? Where Obama lied to his base when campaigning, and then took sides with the status-quo after being elected, Rand is doing the opposite....misleading the establishment in order to align with his base once elected. 

To me, that's how I see it. Or at the least that's what I hope for.

----------


## fisharmor

> To me, that's how I see it. Or at the least that's what I hope for.


I think that was the actual argument.

----------


## specsaregood

> Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and a close associate of Mr. Adelson’s, said that when he pressed Mr. Paul to explain his position on aid to Israel in a recent meeting in the senator’s Washington office, Mr. Klein left reassured. “He said if there was a vote and for any reason it seemed like it was actually going to be close, he would vote for it,” Mr. Klein said.


Pardon me if I don't consider Mr. Klein of the Zionist Organization of America as a reliable source -- just the source of $#@! that would want to see Randals base of support erode.   And reported by the always upstanding and reliable source the NYT....

Ping me when you actually hear Randal saying that.

----------


## ctiger2

We can only hope Rand is lying to some in order to get elected. Then, he'll do the opposite of what a typical politician would do. 
Regardless, I'd much rather have Rand in office during the economic collapse of 2016-'20 vs Billary/Bush/Etc.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> We can only hope Rand is lying to some in order to get elected. Then, he'll do the opposite of what a typical politician would do. 
> Regardless, I'd much rather have Rand in office during the economic collapse of 2016-'20 vs Billary/Bush/Etc.


If he doesn't pull that switcheroo, he'll have set back libertarianism at least as far as Ronald Reagan did. And unless there's another Ron Paul like figure decades from now, it might be buried for good. It's not likely that there will be another Ron Paul figure anytime soon.

I'm not willing to place my bets on such a scenario. It is nearly all risk, with almost no reward.

----------


## juleswin

> Pheww--Its a good thing I didn't sell my Lockheed Martin stock!
> 
> His father--whom he moved away from long ago--taught us that the number of brown brains that are splattered by Lockheed's cruise missiles is directly proportional to the number of Americans shot in the head or bashed with truncheons by American cops.
> 
> "His father" often quoted Chalmers Johnson: "You either have to give up your empire or live under it."
> 
> They will still never let it happen--because there's absolutely no reason for them to do it--but you gotta wonder if some of the Generals aren't mulling over how humorous it would be to have Rand issuing the executive orders while we're still here on "his father's" forum stewing in our own vomit while reading 50 rape by cop threads in a row.


Not exactly sure I believe the Klein guy but with Rand's opposition to foreign aid alone, your Lockheed martin stock is definitely going to take a hit if hes elected

----------


## puppetmaster

> Pardon me if I don't consider Mr. Klein of the Zionist Organization of America as a reliable source -- just the source of $#@! that would want to see Randals base of support erode.   And reported by the always upstanding and reliable source the NYT....
> 
> Ping me when you actually hear Randal saying that.


 This♤
Disinfo to break the support. Anyone who trusts this report is a fool....cm' on Sheldon you have to do better.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Rand was explaining that if if his amendment were to reduce foreign aid instead of eliminate it, then the vote might be closer and he would vote for it.  That's probably what Rand said, and then the 2nd-hand statement was either deliberately twisted or unintentionally garbled.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> If he doesn't pull that switcheroo, he'll have set back libertarianism at least as far as Ronald Reagan did. And unless there's another Ron Paul like figure decades from now, it might be buried for good. It's not likely that there will be another Ron Paul figure anytime soon.
> 
> I'm not willing to place my bets on such a scenario. It is nearly all risk, with almost no reward.


But Reagan didn't come on the heels of anything like the Ron Paul Love-o-lution.

I agree there was a big spike in libertarian sentiment around the country in the 1970's and Reagan was the tool they used to neutralize it.  But the the Rothbardian anti-war/anti-deep-state/anti-power-elite/anti-govt-bank form of libertarianism never made it out very far.  They had the Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose type of packaging of "libertarianism" for the masses which was silent on the war/empire/military-state issue.

The only reason that anti-war/empire/militarist libertarianism wasn't buried for good in the 1970's was because of a giant fluke when somehow pure libertarian anti-war/anti-militarist unspeakable truths were uttered on a nationally televised presidential debate that caused a chain reaction ruckus.

The ruckus is completely handled now.  They don't think they have to worry about anybody preaching Ron Paul libertarianism on national TV or at their conventions at all let alone too loudly.  

They've even added a new tactic which is on display everywhere of late where they now constantly accuse Rand Paul of being his father.  That's what all these previous NYTimes articles about Walter Block and libertarians being anti-government bigots are all about.  This is now a permanent part of their arsenal.  They will accuse Rand of being anti-war/empire/militarism and he will have to keep re-assuring the retired generals that sit on the boards of Lockheed, Ratheon, and Boeing that he will vote to keep the trillions flowing to the war state.

They're not worried in the least about Rand.  When they accuse him or anybody else of being a Spoonerian or Rothbardian anarchist, they are just carrying out the end-phases of their project to twist the Love-o-lution into the Hate-o-lution.  If Rand didn't exist, they'd call Ted Cruz or Rick Perry or anybody else a Ron Paul bigot if they hesitated for one instant to endorse the next bombing campaign or no fly zone.

So I think we could re-ignite the Love-o-lution if we had a real anti-war/anti-empire/anti-militarist/anti-govt-bank candidate.  The candidate would have to be a "made" man in the government mafia in order for the press to allow him in the debates.

The other day I could only think of 2 "made" guys who might qualify: Judge Nap (made-mafia-man credentials = NJ State Judge) and Michael Scheuer (mafia credentials = CIA killer).  But I just thought of a real good one that I don't know if anybody else has thought of: David Stockman (mafia credentials = congressman and Don Ronny's consigliore on the budget if I recall correctly).  I believe he's turned into a real Rothbardian along the way since the 80s and he's really good on everything including the warfare state and writing books and article's on Rockwell's site and all of that.

We need to draft one of these "made" guys to revive the movement.  It could go way farther than Ron took it.  Ron hired the republican division of the CIA to muzzle him and be his gate keepers.  I think he was afraid that if they let him talk to much, there'd be a real revolution in the streets and it might get out of hand.  We can't blame him.  Its up to us to find another made man to take it to the next level.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm not condoning the ways of politics, and would like to see them all be more forthcoming. 
> 
> But if this is the case that one must be misleading in order to get elected, that Rand is 'lying', and you want to make the comparison to how Obama lied; wouldn't you have to see the two as opposites? Where Obama lied to his base when campaigning, and then took sides with the status-quo after being elected, Rand is doing the opposite....misleading the establishment in order to align with his base once elected. 
> 
> To me, that's how I see it.* Or at the least that's what I hope for*.


Damn. Another round of Hope and Change, huh. Think the third time is the charm? 

I, for one, am looking forward to foreign policy discussion in the future. Ought to be a hoot.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's not likely that there will be another Ron Paul figure anytime soon.


Seems like every hundred years or so is the model. We had a thread here a ways back regarding just this very thing.

----------


## acptulsa

I don't see us coming up with a better candidate any time soon.

I'm willing to take the chance on him.  Wish I could record these conversations and put them on YouTube.

If Rand is doing what some of us think and hope he's doing, he and we need to start by replacing the Secret Service.

----------


## devil21

This thread gives me an ad for Boeing with a fully loaded jet fighter, saying "Protect the Growler. Boeing".

I don't pay much attention to second and third hand quotes from rags like the NYT but whether this is a true report or not it doesn't hurt Rand's support.




> We can only hope Rand is lying to some in order to get elected. Then, he'll do the opposite of what a *typical* politician would do.
> Regardless, I'd much rather have Rand in office during the economic collapse of 2016-'20 vs Billary/Bush/Etc.


Strangely, he would be doing exactly what a typical politician does.  It just depends on which side of the issue you're on.

----------


## oyarde

> Pardon me if I don't consider Mr. Klein of the Zionist Organization of America as a reliable source -- just the source of $#@! that would want to see Randals base of support erode.   And reported by the always upstanding and reliable source the NYT....
> 
> Ping me when you actually hear Randal saying that.


 I agree .

----------


## oyarde

> We can only hope Rand is lying to some in order to get elected. Then, he'll do the opposite of what a typical politician would do. 
> Regardless, I'd much rather have Rand in office during the economic collapse of 2016-'20 vs Billary/Bush/Etc.


If the economy takes another dive , oh yes , he will be much , much better .

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> This thread gives me an ad for Boeing with a fully loaded jet fighter, saying "Protect the Growler. Boeing".


Wow, that Adchoices gizmo did that based on the key words "Boeing", "splattered brains", and "truncheons" along with your terror matrix signature? 

The gizmo on my page has a Pluralsight ad.  They probably don't want to rile me up this early in the morning when I should be working.

So I googled "protect the growler" to see what that meant.  Is money being being printed to pay madison avenue to saturate the brains of Ron Paul bigots and probably everybody else with the idea that brave and mighty machines need our protection?


Then I read some of the text and they say that this right wing welfare project is "combat tested" which made me wonder: Aren't they embarrassed to call it combat when all they're doing is burning completely defenseless primitive people alive in huts from positions high in the sky where their victims have zero chance to retaliate?  How is that any different than their tests in the desert except costing more hundreds of millions to perform? I predict that soon as a stride toward revealing the method and truth in advertizing the ad text will be changed to "tested by splattering real human brains".

----------


## fisharmor

> But Reagan didn't come on the heels of anything like the Ron Paul Love-o-lution.
> 
> I agree there was a big spike in libertarian sentiment around the country in the 1970's and Reagan was the tool they used to neutralize it.  But the the Rothbardian anti-war/anti-deep-state/anti-power-elite/anti-govt-bank form of libertarianism never made it out very far.  They had the Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose type of packaging of "libertarianism" for the masses which was silent on the war/empire/military-state issue.
> 
> The only reason that anti-war/empire/militarist libertarianism wasn't buried for good in the 1970's was because of a giant fluke when somehow pure libertarian anti-war/anti-militarist unspeakable truths were uttered on a nationally televised presidential debate that caused a chain reaction ruckus.
> 
> The ruckus is completely handled now.  They don't think they have to worry about anybody preaching Ron Paul libertarianism on national TV or at their conventions at all let alone too loudly.  
> 
> They've even added a new tactic which is on display everywhere of late where they now constantly accuse Rand Paul of being his father.  That's what all these previous NYTimes articles about Walter Block and libertarians being anti-government bigots are all about.  This is now a permanent part of their arsenal.  They will accuse Rand of being anti-war/empire/militarism and he will have to keep re-assuring the retired generals that sit on the boards of Lockheed, Ratheon, and Boeing that he will vote to keep the trillions flowing to the war state.
> ...


Man, I wish you the best, I really do.
But I actually got rep from Rand supporters for my first post in this thread.  They're not capable of reading six simple sentences clearly to see that I'm badmouthing them, so there's ZERO chance of them processing a well-thought-out 541 word response.

Keep at it, maybe someone else will wake up.  But the Rand train has left the station.  He's all anyone is going to be talking about even after he voluntarily signs the order sending out the troops again.

For the foreseeable future, militarism and foreign adventurism are dead issues in libertarianism.

----------


## juleswin

> The thing you have to understand is that Rand is trying to win on a Republican ticket.
> That's his goal.
> 
> Only Democrats give a $#@! about police abuses.  The worst police abuses anymore are all happening in pretty solidly red areas.
> 
> You _could_ talk about how it seemed like we were getting a third option out there, how we were taking the best from both sides and leaving the worst behind, but you really need to go back and read my first sentence.
> His defenders aren't going to say anything different from that.



^^^^this^^^^
Because I will believe anything I read on the internet. Btw, who still refers to the US military generals as Junta Generals? definitely someone trying to elicit a response like the one we see above from Rand Paul supporters.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

The statement by Klein is obvious disinformation. Wake up people.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> The statement by Klein is obvious disinformation. Wake up people.


Why do you say that?  Rand has already said "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US".  If he's willing to send our men and women to "defend" Israel, why would you think he wouldn't send our money?

----------


## klamath

> Pheww--Its a good thing I didn't sell my Lockheed Martin stock!
> 
> *His father*--whom he moved away from long ago--taught us that the number of brown brains that are splattered by Lockheed's cruise missiles is directly proportional to the number of Americans shot in the head or bashed with truncheons by American cops.
> 
> "*His father*" often quoted Chalmers Johnson: "You either have to give up your empire or live under it."
> 
> They will still never let it happen--because there's absolutely no reason for them to do it--but you gotta wonder if some of the Generals aren't mulling over how humorous it would be to have Rand issuing the executive orders while we're still here on "his father's" forum stewing in our own vomit while reading 50 rape by cop threads in a row.


Are we talking about "his father" that voted for the most open ended world wide war in American history all to save his congressional seat? Now that is what you call playing politics to the utmost extreme. Yeaw that GOD(his father) when he made mistakes he made the absolute worst kind for his political career.

----------


## fisharmor

> Are we talking about "his father" that voted for the most open ended world wide war in American history all to save his congressional seat? Now that is what you call playing politics to the utmost extreme. Yeaw that GOD(his father) when he made mistakes he made the absolute worst kind for his political career.


Hey, wait a second there, if we're going to start reviewing whether Ron has made mistakes, we might have to apply logic to the illegal immigration issue, or start actually examining the people he endorses... and as we all well know, those are incontestable sacred cows on this forum.

----------


## klamath

> Hey, wait a second there, if we're going to start reviewing whether Ron has made mistakes, we might have to apply logic to the illegal immigration issue, or start actually examining the people he endorses... and as we all well know, those are incontestable sacred cows on this forum.


What ever. debate all you want about II. Seems the OP specifically compared the father to the son in this thread.

----------


## fisharmor

> What ever. debate all you want about II. Seems the OP specifically compared the father to the son in this thread.


And I do want him to know, too, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

However, he kind of has a point in that the father - the guy who got us all woken up - appears to have been selling a different bill of goods.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If he doesn't pull that switcheroo, he'll have set back libertarianism at least as far as Ronald Reagan did. And unless there's another Ron Paul like figure decades from now, it might be buried for good. It's not likely that there will be another Ron Paul figure anytime soon.
> 
> I'm not willing to place my bets on such a scenario. It is nearly all risk, with almost no reward.


I guess it depends on what we're betting on.

If we're betting on Rand actually being a consistent advocate for libertarianism, I agree that that's a foolish bet. If we're betting on Rand being substantially better than Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or even Ted Cruz, that seems like a pretty reliable bet to me.  What's the goal here?

For what its worth, if the OP is accurate, Rand's statement was awful and is definitely making me feel more ambivalent.  I support him reluctantly because I don't feel like I have anyone else to support.  If somebody like Judge Napolitano or Justin Raimondo or someone of that nature decided to run in the GOP primary, I'd support them despite the fact that they were longshots.

I don't know, Rand is lame enough to bore me, but he's good enough that I'm at least willing to root for him because his alternatives are undeniably worse.  If the election were Cruz v Clinton I'd just barely prefer Cruz, but I would likely not care at all.  I also barely preferred Obama over Romney but didn't really care at all, to the point where I was more interested in my EV prediction being accurate than any other aspect of the election.  But with Rand, the difference is non-minimal.  The difference between Rand Paul and Ron Paul is also non-minimal.

I doubt the Zionist guy is lying.  If he were lying, he'd be really, really stupid because all he'd be doing is getting more Republicans to  vote for Rand.  What would he have to gain from that?  Unless he's secretly a libertarian, lol.




> But Reagan didn't come on the heels of anything like the Ron Paul Love-o-lution.
> 
> I agree there was a big spike in libertarian sentiment around the country in the 1970's and Reagan was the tool they used to neutralize it.  But the the Rothbardian anti-war/anti-deep-state/anti-power-elite/anti-govt-bank form of libertarianism never made it out very far.  They had the Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose type of packaging of "libertarianism" for the masses which was silent on the war/empire/military-state issue.
> 
> The only reason that anti-war/empire/militarist libertarianism wasn't buried for good in the 1970's was because of a giant fluke when somehow pure libertarian anti-war/anti-militarist unspeakable truths were uttered on a nationally televised presidential debate that caused a chain reaction ruckus.
> 
> The ruckus is completely handled now.  They don't think they have to worry about anybody preaching Ron Paul libertarianism on national TV or at their conventions at all let alone too loudly.  
> 
> They've even added a new tactic which is on display everywhere of late where they now constantly accuse Rand Paul of being his father.  That's what all these previous NYTimes articles about Walter Block and libertarians being anti-government bigots are all about.  This is now a permanent part of their arsenal.  They will accuse Rand of being anti-war/empire/militarism and he will have to keep re-assuring the retired generals that sit on the boards of Lockheed, Ratheon, and Boeing that he will vote to keep the trillions flowing to the war state.
> ...


I don't know what to think about the rest of this, but if anyone seriously believes that Ted Cruz is an anarchist, that person is unspeakably dumb, probably enough so that I don't think they are worth our time to try to convince.  That's just laughable and absurd.



> Hey, wait a second there, if we're going to start reviewing whether Ron has made mistakes, we might have to apply logic to the illegal immigration issue, or start actually examining the people he endorses... and as we all well know, those are incontestable sacred cows on this forum.


Afghanistan was an understable mistake.  A huge one, mind you, but nonetheless understandable.  Ron did not know that he was voting for endless war, he thought he was going after the people who did 9/11.  In theory that wouldn't be unjustified.  In practice we probably don't know for sure who did 9/11, trying to kill them would lead to unjustifiable collateral damage, would lead to more blowback, would be unhelpful, and could very likely lead to starting a war.  But in theory, the vote was compatible with minarchism.  

Ron also now knows its a mistake.  Rand is still saying this stuff NOW.  Big difference.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> And I do want him to know, too, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.
> 
> However, he kind of has a point in that the father - the guy who got us all woken up - appears to have been selling a different bill of goods.


I referenced Ron and called him "his father" in my comment because the General's quote in the article is about Ron whom the General names as "his father":




> What I did come away with was he is in fact moving away from *his father*


The whole point of the article was that the Generals are starting to believe that "in fact" Rand will print the money and keep the cauldron's around the world boiling which "his father" would never do.

I thought using "his father" in my references would highlight the humor in the General's choice of words.  Little did I know that it would throw a responding poster into a conniption and that he would attribute whatever the General's meaning was (probably satanic--as in ye are of your father the devil) to some kind of divine or authoritative meaning on my part.

Oh well, and little did I know that that would bounce the thread out of General Politics so mission accomplished.  We don't want any discussion about who we're going to run in the Republican primaries to challenge the Junta in the most visible political forum.  

And, oh yeah, speaking of the group of Generals that took over rulership of the U.S. after WWII--i.e. the junta--I think somebody up above asked: "who still refers to the US military generals as Junta Generals?" which makes me wonder exactly when the poster up above stopped calling them that?

----------


## klamath

> I guess it depends on what we're betting on.
> 
> If we're betting on Rand actually being a consistent advocate for libertarianism, I agree that that's a foolish bet. If we're betting on Rand being substantially better than Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or even Ted Cruz, that seems like a pretty reliable bet to me.  What's the goal here?
> 
> For what its worth, if the OP is accurate, Rand's statement was awful and is definitely making me feel more ambivalent.  I support him reluctantly because I don't feel like I have anyone else to support.  If somebody like Judge Napolitano or Justin Raimondo or someone of that nature decided to run in the GOP primary, I'd support them despite the fact that they were longshots.
> 
> I don't know, Rand is lame enough to bore me, but he's good enough that I'm at least willing to root for him because his alternatives are undeniably worse.  If the election were Cruz v Clinton I'd just barely prefer Cruz, but I would likely not care at all.  I also barely preferred Obama over Romney but didn't really care at all, to the point where I was more interested in my EV prediction being accurate than any other aspect of the election.  But with Rand, the difference is non-minimal.  The difference between Rand Paul and Ron Paul is also non-minimal.
> 
> I doubt the Zionist guy is lying.  If he were lying, he'd be really, really stupid because all he'd be doing is getting more Republicans to  vote for Rand.  What would he have to gain from that?  Unless he's secretly a libertarian, lol.
> ...


The Iumf doesn't even mention Afghanistan. So you are telling me the one bill that would throw our entire country into endless unlimited war "His father" didn't even read. One bag assed mistake.

----------


## klamath

Speak for yourself. "His father didn't wake me up. I had my own mind long before. I supported him because he agreed with most of the beliefs I already held.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> I don't know, Rand is lame enough to bore me, but he's good enough that I'm at least willing to root for him


Of course, if there's nobody better in the Republican party, then people like us will root for Rand.  Passively rooting is one thing.  Being inspired enough to even vote is another.  Murray Rothbard rooted for LBJ against Goldwater in 1964 because he thought that LBJ was less in the pocket of the junta and therefore he was less likely to be incinerated in a nuclear exchange--but I'll bet he didn't go through the indignities of voting for him.




> If somebody like Judge Napolitano or Justin Raimondo or someone of that nature decided to run in the GOP primary, I'd support them despite the fact that they were longshots.


Yes, if we had a candidate as good as Ron Paul or better, then the Love-o-lution would be self-mobilized.  People would come out of the woodwork, join the party, vote, create websites like this, etc.  And libertarian ideas would increase in popularity rather than decrease which has been happening since we've been without a candidate.

If there's the chance that hard core libertarian truth can get spoken on nationally televised debates, then all sorts of highly qualified people will withstand the indignities of voting, joining the party, going to caucuses, etc.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Ron also now knows its a mistake.  Rand is still saying this stuff NOW.  Big difference.


Yes.  Ron was good and certainly good enough to admit when he was wrong.  I'm hoping we can get an even better candidate, but that will be really hard--especially if he's a "made" man.

----------


## Working Poor

> Only Democrats give a $#@! about police abuses


I beg to differ with you I am not a democrat and I really give a $#@! about it.

----------


## DamianTV

> And I do want him to know, too, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.
> 
> However, he kind of has a point in that the father - the guy who got us all woken up - appears to have been selling a different bill of goods.


Appealing to any Authority will only legitamize that Authority, like giving lunch money to a bully, its still wrong.  It is exactly how we end with Unaccountable Authority.

Rand needs to be careful where he treads.

----------

