# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement by wearechange

## wongster41

Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement

----------


## TruthisTreason

Wearedipsticks.org

----------


## Cody1

I'm all for the vetting process but this was pretty stupid. 

Just listen to the way they are all giddy afterwards lol.

----------


## wongster41

> Wearedipsticks.org


say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.

----------


## Bruehound

Dopes.

----------


## Cody1

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


This was three people with an agenda. "TALK TO US ABOUT THE BILDURRBERRGGSSS RAND, PROVE THAT YOU'RE STILL ONE OF USSSS". Sound about right?

----------


## Endthefednow

Well, I will never support Rand Paul he is done in my book. Sell OUT!!

We The People are the Ron Paul R3volution!!

----------


## Matthanuf06

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


It's not painful. It's smart. He's trying to broaden support, not harden the hardliners. Of course you can disagree or dislike his strategy but it's clear as day what he's trying to do. I happen to agree with Rand.

Frankly it's not enough to be registered as a member of the GOP. We need to be infiltrate the mainstream. A "R" doesn't make us any less fringe in the eyes of the public. Bridging that gap should be a top goal

----------


## asurfaholic

> Well, I will never support Rand Paul he is done in my book. Sell OUT!!
> 
> We The People are the Ron Paul R3volution!!


Im not ron paul revolution, I am for revolution. I trust what is going on, and frankly the only way to really get change in the system is to infilterate it in the way rand is doing. There is no element of sell out.

He is doing what is necessary to bring credibility to the liberty movement. Its a step in the right direction. Total change wont ever happen overnight, to think otherwise is delusional.

----------


## wongster41

> It's not painful. It's smart. He's trying to broaden support, not harden the hardliners. Of course you can disagree or dislike his strategy but it's clear as day what he's trying to do. I happen to agree with Rand.
> 
> Frankly it's not enough to be registered as a member of the GOP. We need to be infiltrate the mainstream. A "R" doesn't make us any less fringe in the eyes of the public. Bridging that gap should be a top goal


He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out.  If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support?  The liberty movement?

----------


## TruthisTreason

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


Real journalism? LOL! How about Bilderberg Journalism?  Rand's endorsement is the best thing for this movement, why? Because there are some of us, like Rand, who heard Ron's call to work and influence the Republican party, then there is the rest of us.

----------


## specsaregood

> He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out.  If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support?  The liberty movement?


If 4years from now he doesn't change his positions and votes on the bills I'll sure support him.   And so will all of you.  you all talk a lot of smack; but he has 4 years to woo all of you to his side.

----------


## Adrock

These "reporters" look like a bunch of tools.

----------


## cassielund99@gmail.com

> Im not ron paul revolution, I am for revolution. I trust what is going on, and frankly the only way to really get change in the system is to infilterate it in the way rand is doing. There is no element of sell out.
> 
> He is doing what is necessary to bring credibility to the liberty movement. Its a step in the right direction. Total change wont ever happen overnight, to think otherwise is delusional.


I agree with you 100% on this issue. The problem is some people like chaos. Like occupy wall street. They think what there doing is helping there cause. What there doing is stupid. They have had zero organization and no true belief. I am for protesting, but with a message. The more chaotic it becomes the more they follow. Like the Ron Paul revolution the last few months. Now that the truth is that Ron Paul most likely won't win and Rand Paul endorsing Romney. This caused more chaos.  They love it so much they jumped on the never vote for Rand Paul and he is a sell out train. People like Adam Kokesh and Alex Jones hurt are movement more than anything else. That's because they like chaos. Its in there nature.

----------


## chudrockz

> If 4years from now he doesn't change his positions and votes on the bills I'll sure support him.   And so will all of you.  you all talk a lot of smack; but he has 4 years to woo all of you to his side.


Let him woo away. He lost me. Permanently.

----------


## wongster41

> Real journalism? LOL! How about Bilderberg Journalism?  Rand's endorsement is the best thing for this movement, why? Because there are some of us, like Rand, who heard Ron's call to work and influence the Republican party, then there is the rest of us.


Are you suggesting Bilderberg is not real or not worth talking about?  Yes Ron wanted to influence the party, but he would never endorse a guy who went against everything he stood for.

----------


## angelatc

> He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out.  If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support?  The liberty movement?


Duh.  The GOP.  As unfair as it is, there's a lot more of them than there are of us.    He may have sold us out (or not) but if he did, it was a calculated move.

----------


## wongster41

> These "politicians" look like a bunch of tools.


fixed it for you.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

Did you all see Rand on Glenn Beck show?

What a prick

----------


## TomtheTinker

> He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out.  If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support?  The liberty movement?



Rand will likely keep 50%+ of his fathers activist and almost all his voters. He will also likely gain support from many of his ex-supporters with strong stances for freedom on his senate floor. Not to mentionhe has support from many tea party type voters.

While you and I may be upset..make no mistake when the days come for Rand to announce his bid for president..many of us will still be there. 

Hopefully Rand will stay true where it matters.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


1.  Rand had already answered the questions about Bilderberger in a previous interview with Luke.

2.  Rand and his aide told Luke that he had just gotten out of a meeting and that she was briefing him before his next thing and asked him to make an appointment.

3.  But, noooooooooooooo  Luke had to be an $#@! and keep on.

Rand didn't dodge $#@!.  Luke is an embarrassment.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Rand will likely keep 50%+ of his fathers activist and almost all his voters. He will also likely gain support from many of his ex-supporters with strong stances for freedom on his senate floor. Not to mentionhe has support from many tea party type voters.
> 
> While you and I may be upset..make no mistake when the days come for Rand to announce his bid for president..many of us will still be there. 
> 
> Hopefully Rand will stay true where it matters.


Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?

Rand has no charisma or real desire for change.  He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)

----------


## Adrock

> fixed it for you.


My original statement was fine. This ambush type of "reporting" is ridiculous when liberals and conservatives do it. It looks really gawd awful when libertarians try it, fail, and afterwards act like giddy school children.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you suggesting Bilderberg is not real or not worth talking about?


Have you not seen the other video from Luke where Rand said exactly what he thought the Bilderberg group was?  




> Yes Ron wanted to influence the party, but he would never endorse a guy who went against everything he stood for.


You are mischaracterizing him.

----------


## samsung1

Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.

----------


## Adrock

> Are you suggesting Bilderberg is not real or not worth talking about?  Yes Ron wanted to influence the party, but he would never endorse a guy who went against everything he stood for.


Like when he supported Gingrich for speaker?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.


What in hell are you talking about?

----------


## angelatc

> Have you not seen the other video from Luke where Rand said exactly what he thought the Bilderberg group was?  
> 
> 
> You are mischaracterizing him.


YOu're trying to talk sense to the people that insist that the Illuminati already have our futures so deeply under control that resistance is futile.

----------


## green73

> Did you all see Rand on Glenn Beck show?
> 
> What a prick


Link?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now is one of those times.

----------


## wongster41

> 1.  Rand had already answered the questions about Bilderberger in a previous interview with Luke.
> 
> 2.  Rand and his aide told Luke that he had just gotten out of a meeting and that she was briefing him before his next thing and asked him to make an appointment.
> 
> 3.  But, noooooooooooooo  Luke had to be an $#@! and keep on.
> 
> Rand didn't dodge $#@!.  Luke is an embarrassment.


That interview took place two years ago, he also discredited Mitt around the same time and well, we all know what happened last week.   People just have questions right now and it's only fair to ask them.

----------


## nobody's_hero

This movement may be the only movement that seeks to hold its own accountable. Granted, it makes our job much more difficult, but is it necessary? (I'll let everyone answer that one themselves)

----------


## specsaregood

> Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.


The same gary johnson that had a great shot at a senate seat where he could compete with Rand on who can cause the most heartburn in the Senate; but instead chose to do a destined to be forgotten LP run for president?

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Link?


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

Please watch and share.

Around 330-5 in.

Very condescending

----------


## angelatc

> Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now if one of those times.


It's not the movement - it's these boards.  The people in the movement who don't hang out on the internet all day long are much more encouraging.

----------


## CJPrinter

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


wongster41 to put it as blunt as possible, yes. 

The liberty movement is MUCH more than just Ron Paul supporters and the radical fringe. To become president a candidate MUST appeal to as many people as possible. Rand DID NOT "sell out," he simply understands what it takes to win the game! If you are so stubborn you won't accept this, he's telling you he doesn't need you, because for every one of you he looses he gains several more in exchange. He's holding firm to his liberty convictions, just because you don't agree with his methods doesn't make him wrong. The liberty movement will grow, with or without you and we will support him for a presidential bid...

----------


## CJPrinter

> My original statement was fine. This ambush type of "reporting" is ridiculous when liberals and conservatives do it. It looks really gawd awful when libertarians try it, fail, and afterwards act like giddy school children.


^^^THIS!^^^

----------


## CJPrinter

> It's not the movement - it's these boards.  The people in the movement who don't hang out on the internet all day long are much more encouraging.


^^^EXACTLY!^^^

----------


## Adrock

> Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now is one of those times.


I feel it represents a lack of maturity as a movement.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

The Rand apologists are out in full force.

Watch him with Glenn Beck.

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

----------


## IndianaPolitico

> It's not the movement - it's these boards.  The people in the movement who don't hang out on the internet all day long are much more encouraging.


I have to say, I have to agree. Even though we didn't win at the Indiana convention, I saw excitement, and passion to continue. Come back here, and you would think the sky just fell.

----------


## wongster41

> wongster41 to put it as blunt as possible, yes. 
> 
> The liberty movement is MUCH more than just Ron Paul supporters and the radical fringe. To become president a candidate MUST appeal to as many people as possible. Rand DID NOT "sell out," he simply understands what it takes to win the game! If you are so stubborn you won't accept this, he's telling you he doesn't need you, because for every one of you he looses he gains several more in exchange. He's holding firm to his liberty convictions, just because you don't agree with his methods doesn't make him wrong. The liberty movement will grow, with or without you and we will support him for a presidential bid...


We're just going to have to agree to disagree, if you really think the GOP establishment won't try to fraud elections in 2016 and marginalize Rand like they did with his father, than you are sadly mistaken.   Republicans and Democrats will always prop up a candidate who is for wars.

----------


## Adrock

> The Rand apologists are out in full force.
> 
> Watch him with Glenn Beck.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw


I see no one apologizing. Everyone is calling out the foolish method used.

----------


## green73

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw
> 
> Please watch and share.
> 
> Around 330-5 in.
> 
> Very condescending


Wow. He just used the "extremist" word.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Wow. He just used the "extremist" word.


Yes, Rand has thrown RP supporters under the bus of course in favor of Beck/Hannity and Romney.

This video needs to be seen by all, create a thread for it if you'd like because I haven't seen one

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?
> 
> Rand has no charisma or real desire for change.  He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)


Grow up.

----------


## CJPrinter

> We're just going to have to agree to disagree, if you really think the GOP establishment won't try to fraud elections in 2016 and marginalize Rand like they did with his father, than you are sadly mistaken.   Republicans and Democrats will always prop up a candidate who is for wars.


Fair enough. Time will tell...

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Grow up.


So you are fine with Rand wanting continuation of Social Security, Medicare, supports Drone use in America etc.

It's more like you are a brainless follower of Ron Paul and following Rand simply because of family ties, betraying your "galt" nametag

----------


## AuH20

_We are Change_ trying to play gotcha with Rand Paul?? Did Alex send them?

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Wow. He just used the "extremist" word.


Damn straight and they ARE.  He was talking about the few who were "preaching violence to me and my family."

What would you call them?  Besides $#@!s, that is.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?
> 
> Rand has no charisma or real desire for change.  He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)


No like fillabustering the patriot act and sopa...like be 1 of a 100 senators to hold up the synthetics drug ban. 

The 500 billion in budget cuts may not be a 100% what needs to be done..I dare you to find a senator in the last 50 years that presented a budget cut that size.

----------


## AuH20

> This movement may be the only movement that seeks to hold its own accountable. Granted, it makes our job much more difficult, but is it necessary? (I'll let everyone answer that one themselves)


Accountable?? More like tar and feather without evidence.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> That interview took place two years ago, he also discredited Mitt around the same time and well, we all know what happened last week.   People just have questions right now and it's only fair to ask them.


If he wanted answers to questions, then Sen Paul made him the offer to schedule time with his office.  That is how adults in a civilized society conduct press interviews with officeholders.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, Rand has thrown RP supporters under the bus of course in favor of Beck/Hannity and Romney.
> 
> This video needs to be seen by all, create a thread for it if you'd like because I haven't seen one


Oh, bull$#@!.  There is absolutely no proof of that.  Not yet, anyway.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> No like fillabustering the patriot act and sopa...like be 1 of a 100 senators to hold up the synthetics drug ban. 
> 
> The 500 billion in budget cuts may not be a 100% what needs to be done..I dare you to find a senator in the last 50 years that presented a budget cut that size.


Tom, in the past we didn't have so much to cut so it would be impossible to find someone in 1970 who proposed a 500 billion dollar cut.

Rand is wishy washy, do you support his drone stance?  He is in between Dick Cheney and Ron Paul

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Oh, bull$#@!.  There is absolutely no proof of that.  Not yet, anyway.


Did you watch GBTV?

He uses strawman of "all rp supporters are extremists"

he does this to ingratiate himself with big government glenn beck

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Did you watch GBTV?
> 
> He uses strawman of "all rp supporters are extremists"
> 
> he does this to ingratiate himself with big government glenn beck


Yes, I watched it and what's more, I AGREE WITH HIM.  He was talking about those select few who were threatening violence against he and his family and even Ron!!  Or, do you applaud those $#@!s?

Rand was making the point that these extremist $#@!S were not the majority of the liberty movement.  Don't you get it?  When people go around cursing everyone out and making threats, they smear our entire movement and scare the $#@! out of mainstream Americans.  That means that it smears all the rest of us and hurts our progress.

----------


## Fredom101

This was pretty cool, but disappointing at the same time. Cool because these two didn't back down and asked Rand some real questions. Disappointing that he refused to answer them. He could have spent 5 minutes with these guys and made himself look a lot less guilty.

----------


## Adrock

> Did you watch GBTV?
> 
> He uses strawman of "all rp supporters are extremists"
> 
> he does this to ingratiate himself with big government glenn beck


Are you talking about the video you posted? He actually goes out of his way to segregate the knuckleheads from the majority of the movement.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Yes, I watched it and what's more, I AGREE WITH HIM.  He was talking about those select few who were threatening violence against he and his family and even Ron!!  Or, do you applaud those $#@!s?


No M'am.  He implied there was more violence than there was and tried to group us as "crazy" to ingratiate himself with Mr. Beck to be "one of the boys."

That was a strawman argument if I've ever seen one from Randy Paul

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> So you are fine with Rand wanting continuation of Social Security, Medicare, supports Drone use in America etc.
> 
> It's more like you are a brainless follower of Ron Paul and following Rand simply because of family ties, betraying your "galt" nametag


I'm fine with Rand engaging in politics.  That sort of what you do when you enter politics... you engage in politics.  Like when Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich for SOTH, or when he endorsed Ted Cruz, who stands for Iranian sanctions.

And son, when you've helped elect half as many GOPers to office as I have, come and talk to me about being a brainless follower.  I know what tools are at our disposal, and what/who stands in our way.  And right now, what/who is the biggest obstacle in our way, is YOU.  YOU and the $#@!heads out there who think they know better than the people who have actually moved the ball down the field.  I'll work in the GOP with Rand Paul to move the ball down the field.  If it's with fellow libertarians, then great.  If not... hey, I'll work with the Tea Partiers, and accept half a loaf of Liberty for now.  And I'll laugh at the purist urchins looking desperately in the windows at the grown ups eating at the political table, downtrodden because the maitre d' won't let them in without a coat and tie.

Suck it up, cupcake!  Put on the coat and tie, sit down at the table, and act like a grown up.  Or, get used to playing the role of the urchin in the cold.

----------


## AuH20

> No M'am.  He implied there was more violence than there was and tried to group us as "crazy" to ingratiate himself with Mr. Beck to be "one of the boys."
> 
> That was a strawman argument if I've ever seen one from Randy Paul


Read the facebook comments on the Rand Paul page. Paul was being kind with the "extremist" tag on some of those individuals.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> I'm fine with Rand engaging in politics.  That sort of what you do when you enter politics... you engage in politics.  Like when Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich for SOTH, or when he endorsed Ted Cruz, who stands for Iranian sanctions.
> 
> And son, when you've helped elect half as many GOPers to office as I have, come and talk to me about being a brainless follower.  I know what tools are at our disposal, and what/who stands in our way.  And right now, what/who is the biggest obstacle in our way, is YOU.  YOU and the $#@!heads out there who think they know better than the people who have actually moved the ball down the field.  I'll work in the GOP with Rand Paul to move the ball down the field.  If it's with fellow libertarians, then great.  If not... hey, I'll work with the Tea Partiers, and accept half a loaf of Liberty for now.  And I'll laugh at the purist urchins looking desperately in the windows at the grown ups eating at the political table, downtrodden because the maitre d' won't let them in without a coat and tie.
> 
> Suck it up, cupcake!  Put on the coat and tie, sit down at the table, and act like a grown up.  Or, get used to playing the role of the urchin in the cold.


You haven't moved the ball down the field mr wannabe bigwig.

Tell me how the people you have helped elected have changed the monetary policy or shrunk government?  Sure that will be crickets.

----------


## Elwar

What is "e-change" and how do I wear it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This was pretty cool, but disappointing at the same time. Cool because these two didn't back down and asked Rand some real questions. Disappointing that he refused to answer them. He could have spent 5 minutes with these guys and made himself look a lot less guilty.


1.  He had already spoken with Luke about the Bilderberg group.  I saw the video somewhere on here yesterday.

2.  Rand was busy.  He was getting briefed before another meeting.  He asked them to make an appointment and they would talk.

3.  Luke refused.  Luke was a jerk.

/end of story

----------


## green73

> Damn straight and they ARE.  He was talking about the few who were "preaching violence to me and my family."
> 
> What would you call them?  Besides $#@!s, that is.


It sounded like he was dismissing all those that are unhappy with him as a tiny minority of dumbasses calling for violence (which I'm sure is a minuscule percentage of people, along with some shills).

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No M'am.  He implied there was more violence than there was and tried to group us as "crazy" to ingratiate himself with Mr. Beck to be "one of the boys."
> 
> That was a strawman argument if I've ever seen one from Randy Paul


Sorry.  You are wrong.  I saw the comments.  He was being nice about it.

Again, Rand was saying that those people who did that only represented a very small percentage of the movement.  What would you have had him say?

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> It sounded like he was dismissing all those that are unhappy with him as a tiny minority of dumbasses calling for violence (which I'm sure is a minuscule percentage of people, along with some shills).


Exactly.  He dismisses genuine, and substantiated, criticism and blows off everyone as disgruntled "crazy extremists."  Very poor rhetorical technique

----------


## Adrock

> Damn straight and they ARE.  He was talking about the few who were "preaching violence to me and my family."
> 
> What would you call them?  Besides $#@!s, that is.


They definitely can't be called libertarians.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm fine with Rand engaging in politics.  That sort of what you do when you enter politics... you engage in politics.  Like when Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich for SOTH, or when he endorsed Ted Cruz, who stands for Iranian sanctions.
> 
> And son, when you've helped elect half as many GOPers to office as I have, come and talk to me about being a brainless follower.  I know what tools are at our disposal, and what/who stands in our way.  And right now, what/who is the biggest obstacle in our way, is YOU.  YOU and the $#@!heads out there who think they know better than the people who have actually moved the ball down the field.  I'll work in the GOP with Rand Paul to move the ball down the field.  If it's with fellow libertarians, then great.  If not... hey, I'll work with the Tea Partiers, and accept half a loaf of Liberty for now.  And I'll laugh at the purist urchins looking desperately in the windows at the grown ups eating at the political table, downtrodden because the maitre d' won't let them in without a coat and tie.
> 
> Suck it up, cupcake!  Put on the coat and tie, sit down at the table, and act like a grown up.  Or, get used to playing the role of the urchin in the cold.


Agree^^^

I've said before that these people throwing bombs have probably never even volunteered on a campaign or even been to any kind of organizational meeting in their life.  It's so easy to never get involved and just sit on the internet and bit h and moan.   What a waste of time...

----------


## wongster41

> 1.  He had already spoken with Luke about the Bilderberg group.  I saw the video somewhere on here yesterday.
> 
> 2.  Rand was busy.  He was getting briefed before another meeting.  He asked them to make an appointment and they would talk.
> 
> 3.  Luke refused.  Luke was a jerk.
> 
> /end of story


You are speaking of an interview that was held TWO YEARS ago.

"This is a never before seen interview of Rand Paul in 2010 on the campaign trail right before becoming U.S Senator. It's pretty amazing seeing Rand Paul make such statements against the Bilderberg Group and Goldman Sachs but yet still endorse a Goldman Sachs flip flopping Bilderberg puppet. "

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It sounded like he was dismissing all those that are unhappy with him as a tiny minority of dumbasses calling for violence (which I'm sure is a minuscule percentage of people, along with some shills).


There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Agree^^^
> 
> I've said before that these people throwing bombs have probably never even volunteered on a campaign or even been to any kind of organizational meeting in their life.  It's so easy to never get involved and just sit on the internet and bit h and moan.   What a waste of time...


I have done a lot of work on the ground, another chance for you all to dismiss critics as noobs instead of the merits of the criticisms.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> You haven't moved the ball down the field mr wannabe bigwig.
> 
> Tell me how the people you have helped elected have changed the monetary policy or shrunk government?  Sure that will be crickets.


People I've helped elect have voted to repeal tax increases, to cap property taxes, to legalize medicinal cannabis, to support prison reform.  Real-world, on the ground steps towards Liberty and smaller government.  

As opposed to whining about Bilderbergers and vote fraud on the intertubez.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.


Notice how Randy never addresses the roots of the criticism, but spends his time ridiculing the "extremists".

----------


## Adrock

> Exactly.  He dismisses genuine, and substantiated, criticism and blows off everyone as disgruntled "crazy extremists."  Very poor rhetorical technique


They were talking about those who were acting a fool specifically. You know that already though. You posted the video.

----------


## Fredom101

> 1.  He had already spoken with Luke about the Bilderberg group.  I saw the video somewhere on here yesterday.
> 
> 2.  Rand was busy.  He was getting briefed before another meeting.  He asked them to make an appointment and they would talk.
> 
> 3.  Luke refused.  Luke was a jerk.
> 
> /end of story


Who's paying Rand's salary?
It's not like any other job man. These government employees, no matter what their last name, have to expect this kind of questioning because of the job they are in. After all, they are the ones "in power"- over you and me. I'm not sympathetic one bit here to Rand's schedule. He could have simply responded as he was walking. If he has a reasonable explanation for supporting the Builderberger Romney, why not make a quick statement and be done with it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You are speaking of an interview that was held TWO YEARS ago.


Thanks for finding that and posting it.  Ok, so what if it was 2 years ago?  He answered the questions then.  Why would Luke have ants in his pants about wanting him to tell him again?  What's more, it sounded like Paul was quite willing to do so, but WAS BUSY RIGHT THEN and asked them to make an appointment.  What the hell is wrong with that?  Now, if Rand refused to meet with him or to reiterate what he said 2 years ago when they did meet, that would be another thing.  But, that is not what happened.  At least, not yet.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> They were talking about those who were acting a fool specifically. You know that already though. You posted the video.


Yes they were, but you give him a pass for being duplicitous about Willard supporting Audit the Fed

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Who's paying Rand's salary?
> It's not like any other job man. These government employees, no matter what their last name, have to expect this kind of questioning because of the job they are in. After all, they are the ones "in power"- over you and me. I'm not sympathetic one bit here to Rand's schedule. He could have simply responded as he was walking. If he has a reasonable explanation for supporting the Builderberger Romney, why not make a quick statement and be done with it?


One more time.  The aide said he had just gotten out of a meeting and she was briefing him on some things.  I would assume before his next meeting.

Have you never had a high-pressure job?  I have.  Rand was nicer than I would have been.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Notice how Randy never addresses the roots of the criticism, but spends his time ridiculing the "extremists".


He has been on 3 interviews that I know of in the last few days, "addressing the roots of the criticism".

----------


## wongster41

> Thanks for finding that and posting it.  Ok, so what if it was 2 years ago?  He answered the questions then.  Why would Luke have ants in his pants about wanting him to tell him again?  What's more, it sounded like Paul was quite willing to do so, but WAS BUSY RIGHT THEN and asked them to make an appointment.  What the hell is wrong with that?  Now, if Rand refused to meet with him or to reiterate what he said 2 years ago when they did meet, that would be another thing.  But, that is not what happened.  At least, not yet.


Well, you were making a point that he already answered lukes bilderberg question like he did it last week or something, but the interview took place 2 years ago and obviously we were taken back from the endorsement and now people have questions.

----------


## Adrock

> Yes they were, but you give him a pass for being duplicitous about Willard supporting Audit the Fed


Glad you conceded the point.

----------


## green73

> There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.


I agree, and it sounded like he obfuscated reality in that interview.

----------


## specsaregood

> Who's paying Rand's salary?
> It's not like any other job man. These government employees, no matter what their last name, have to expect this kind of questioning because of the job they are in. After all, they are the ones "in power"- over you and me. I'm not sympathetic one bit here to Rand's schedule. He could have simply responded as he was walking. If he has a reasonable explanation for supporting the Builderberger Romney, why not make a quick statement and be done with it?


RPF's never ceases making me guffaw.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

The Rand apologists here are ridiculous.

You complain about mindless D's/R's and mindlessly follow Randy even as he supports use of Drones, sanctions, poor budgets and happily supports Willard Romney.

----------


## Adrock

> Yes they were, but you give him a pass for being duplicitous about Willard supporting Audit the Fed


I am not giving passes on anything. My beef is with the tactics being used. I am in a wait and see mode with Rand right now. In the mean time I am going to focus on advancing liberty at any level.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, you were making a point that he already answered lukes bilderberg question like he did it last week or something, but the interview took place 2 years ago and obviously we were taken back from the endorsement and now people have questions.


That's cool.  Rand asked him to make an appointment for them to talk, but that right that minute he was busy.

----------


## AuH20

> The Rand apologists here are ridiculous.
> 
> You complain about mindless D's/R's and mindlessly follow Randy even as he supports use of Drones, sanctions, poor budgets and happily supports Willard Romney.


You're right. He should just resign and let you run for his displaced office. What primary are you running in? Do you think you have a shot?

----------


## green73

> That's cool.  Rand asked him to make an appointment for them to talk, but that right that minute he was busy.


Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?


He has.

----------


## jmdrake

> Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.


"Rom" has no son.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?


Actually, yes.  In a different way, of course.  But, yes, I could imagine him asking them to make an appointment, because he was tied up at the moment.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> The Rand apologists here are ridiculous.
> 
> You complain about mindless D's/R's and mindlessly follow Randy even as he supports use of Drones, sanctions, poor budgets and happily supports Willard Romney.


I don't complain about mindless D's and R's.  I recognize that Rand Paul, and every single person who has ever gotten to the level of power and influence that he has, engages in politics.  I also recognize that those who decry the use of politics to attain political ends are always... ALWAYS in the cheap seats.

----------


## green73

> Actually, yes.  In a different way, of course.  But, yes, I could imagine him asking them to make an appointment, because he was tied up at the moment.


He would at least talk as he walked. He wouldn't just ignore somebody like that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Look guys, I know that a bunch of us are unnerved about Rand's endorsement of Romney, but to attack him for dumb $#@! like this is ridiculous.  Come on, now.

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?

----------


## Adrock

> Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?


The Bruno interview comes to mind.

----------


## PatriotOne

**Patiently waiting for others, like me, to come to the realization that Alex Jones and Co. have been controlled opposition all along.**  

Been about 2 years since I became suspicious and apprx. a year since I have known it.  It's hard to admit I could have been so wrong, but here it is folks.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He would at least talk as he walked. He wouldn't just ignore somebody like that.


I don't know that.  If Ron had told you that he was busy being briefed before the next meeting he was going to and asked you to make an appointment, and you persisted, do you think he would just buckle and give in to you?  I don't.

----------


## green73

> 


Not the same at all.

----------


## green73

> The Bruno interview comes to mind.


Not the same at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?





> The Bruno interview comes to mind.


Ummmm....I think the Bruno character was hoping that would happen.  (pun intended)

----------


## Adrock

Do we now have our own media wing that sensationalizes in order to get views, clicks, and money?

----------


## wongster41

> That's cool.  Rand asked him to make an appointment for them to talk, but that right that minute he was busy.


right... he looked so busy at 4:44.  More like he was dodging some tough questions.

----------


## green73

> I don't know that.  If Ron had told you that he was busy being briefed before the next meeting he was going to and asked you to make an appointment, and you persisted, do you think he would just buckle and give in to you?  I don't.


He wouldn't. He loves talking to people. It's not in his nature to just ignore someone like that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> right... he looked so busy at 4:44.  More like he was dodging some tough questions.


He told him NO at the very beginning, his aide explained that he was being briefed and Paul asked for him to call and make an appointment for them to talk.

He didn't "dodge" anything.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He wouldn't. He loves talking to people. It's not in his nature to just ignore someone like that.


Ron doesn't like rude people.  You know that.  What Luke did was rude and uncouth.

----------


## MJU1983

LOL wow.

I love this and the replies.  Rand is the new religion apparently, you just gotta have faith!

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Tom, in the past we didn't have so much to cut so it would be impossible to find someone in 1970 who proposed a 500 billion dollar cut.
> 
> Rand is wishy washy, do you support his drone stance?  He is in between Dick Cheney and Ron Paul


I was talking in relative terms..500 billion is 1/7th of the budget..not exactly a drop in the ocean.


Dick Cheney/Rand paul..maybe some where inbetween Jim Demit and Ron Paul...but Cheney?? That's a little to far. Granter I would prefer our boy Schiff on the Senate floor..I feel pretty good about Rand.


As far as the drone bill goes I haven't had the chance to look into that deeply..from what I heard Rand proposed a bill that would enforce the 4th as far as drone use goes...

----------


## green73

> Ron doesn't like rude people.  You know that.  What Luke did was rude and uncouth.


You've never seen a reporter pursue someone like that?

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

Jeebus, give me strength...

So many comments could be made but I have decided I will no longer engage with the willfully ignorant faction trying to divide us and derail our progress.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not the same at all.


Sure it is.  She wanted to keep talking to Ron about the newsletters and he was done talking about it.  WAC wanted to talk to Rand about Bilderberg and endorsing Perry and Rand was done talking about it.  Now we know good and well that Rand knows about the Bilderberg group.  So there are two possibilities.  1) He's trying to infiltrate the GOP and appeal to mainstream GOP voters in order to move the liberty movement forward ask Ron asked him to or 2) He's sold out to the "enemy".  Either way there's no way he would answer that question.  Now, I don't know if WAC is secretly working with Rand to distance him from the conspiracy movement by going after him like they go after everyone else.  If they are then good acting on their part and Rand's part.  If they aren't in on this with Rand then they are pretty stupid.  Imagine when Nathan Hale was spying on the British for George Washington, if a "fellow patriot" had gone up to him and said "Nathan.  Why are you hanging around with the British?  Didn't I see you having beers with George Washington and helping us plan the revolution?  Who's side are you on?  Come on Nathan tell me?  Did you sell us out?"

----------


## jmdrake

> You've never seen a reporter pursue someone like that?


Sure.  And it's rude.  You're point?

----------


## green73

> Sure it is.  She wanted to keep talking to Ron about the newsletters and he was done talking about it.  WAC wanted to talk to Rand about Bilderberg and endorsing Perry and Rand was done talking about it.  Now we know good and well that Rand knows about the Bilderberg group.  So there are two possibilities.  1) He's trying to infiltrate the GOP and appeal to mainstream GOP voters in order to move the liberty movement forward ask Ron asked him to or 2) He's sold out to the "enemy".  Either way there's no way he would answer that question.  Now, I don't know if WAC is secretly working with Rand to distance him from the conspiracy movement by going after him like they go after everyone else.  If they are then good acting on their part and Rand's part.  If they aren't in on this with Rand then they are pretty stupid.  Imagine when Nathan Hale was spying on the British for George Washington, if a "fellow patriot" had gone up to him and said "Nathan.  Why are you hanging around with the British?  Didn't I see you having beers with George Washington and helping us plan the revolution?  Who's side are you on?  Come on Nathan tell me?  Did you sell us out?"


So it wasn't about Rand being too busy to talk; it was about the nature of the questions. I'll say it again: Ron would never blow somebody off like that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LOL wow.
> 
> I love this and the replies.  Rand is the new religion apparently, you just gotta have faith!


No.  You critique him about real things that he has done.  Not make $#@! up and try to turn it into something.

----------


## jmdrake

> **Patiently waiting for others, like me, to come to the realization that Alex Jones and Co. have been controlled opposition all along.**  
> 
> Been about 2 years since I became suspicious and apprx. a year since I have known it.  It's hard to admit I could have been so wrong, but here it is folks.


Maybe everybody's controlled opposition.  Maybe Alex Jones and the Pauls are staging all of this.  Who knows?  Doesn't change what I need to do.

----------


## jmdrake

> So it wasn't about Rand being too busy to talk; it was about the nature of the questions. I'll say it again: Ron would never blow somebody off like that.


Except when he did.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> You've never seen a reporter pursue someone like that?


Someone who says call my office for an interview?  Doing so after that offer is rude, and obnoxious, and juvenile.

----------


## green73

> Sure.  And it's rude.  You're point?


Sure. If it was any other pol I'm sure you'd be on the side of the reporter.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So it wasn't about Rand being too busy to talk; it was about the nature of the questions. I'll say it again: Ron would never blow somebody off like that.


How can you say that when he has already been on the record being quite forthcoming about it?

----------


## wongster41

> Sure it is.  She wanted to keep talking to Ron about the newsletters and he was done talking about it.  WAC wanted to talk to Rand about Bilderberg and endorsing Perry and Rand was done talking about it.  Now we know good and well that Rand knows about the Bilderberg group.  So there are two possibilities.  1) He's trying to infiltrate the GOP and appeal to mainstream GOP voters in order to move the liberty movement forward ask Ron asked him to or 2) He's sold out to the "enemy".  Either way there's no way he would answer that question.  Now, I don't know if WAC is secretly working with Rand to distance him from the conspiracy movement by going after him like they go after everyone else.  If they are then good acting on their part and Rand's part.  If they aren't in on this with Rand then they are pretty stupid.  Imagine when Nathan Hale was spying on the British for George Washington, if a "fellow patriot" had gone up to him and said "Nathan.  Why are you hanging around with the British?  Didn't I see you having beers with George Washington and helping us plan the revolution?  Who's side are you on?  Come on Nathan tell me?  Did you sell us out?"


Seriously, how can you say both interviews are the same?  Rand dodge the interview right off the bat, Ron at least answered the question in that interview and the CNN bot wouldn't accept it as an answer about the newsletter.

----------


## green73

> Except when he did.


There's no use trying to communicate with you sometimes.

----------


## green73

> How can you say that when he has already been on the record being quite forthcoming about it?


Back in 2010?

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Jeebus, give me strength...
> 
> So many comments could be made but I have decided I will no longer engage with the willfully ignorant faction trying to divide us and derail our progress.


Don't you know?  We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office.  Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use.  HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!!  eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!

----------


## MJU1983

> Someone who says call my office for an interview?  Doing so after that offer is rude, and obnoxious, and juvenile.


LOL

For some reason I don't think you'd say that if it wasn't Rand Paul.  Every politician is going to say "call my office" knowing nothing will come of it.  Even Bill O'Reilly sends his boy out for these types of "interviews" but try the same tactic on O'Reilly himself...he'll report you to the police.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Back in 2010?


Are you worried that he changed his mind, or what?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LOL
> 
> For some reason I don't think you'd say that if it wasn't Rand Paul.  Every politician is going to say "call my office" knowing nothing will come of it.  Even Bill O'Reilly sends his boy out for these types of "interviews" but try the same tactic on O'Reilly himself...he'll report you to the police.


So, your argument is that because most other politicians do that, Rand will too?

----------


## jmdrake

> Seriously, how can you say both interviews are the same?  Rand dodge the interview right off the bat, Ron at least answered the question in that interview and the CNN bot wouldn't accept it as an answer about the newsletter.


Ron's never answered the question of who wrote the newsletters.  If WAC had simply gone with "Can you tell us why you endorsed Mitt Romney" without going immediately into a conspiracy land Rand might have given them some kind of answer before blowing them off.  Tell me this.  What do you possibly think might be gained for anybody by Rand talking about the Bilderberg group and this juncture?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't you know?  We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office.  Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use.  HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!!  eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!


Ha ha.  Well, I wish he would.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Don't you know?  We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office.  Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use.  HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!!  eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!


Wow, so you support the use of Drones in America?  Figured that a Rand apologist would be on this side but I'm glad you told us all this.

Wonder if all the other Randy apologists feel the same way

----------


## green73

> Are you worried that he changed his mind, or what?


Is he like that on all issues that he's previously addressed?

----------


## jmdrake

> There's no use trying to communicate with you sometimes.


Yeah.  I should apply for the job of Rand's press secretary.  Knowing when not to communicate is sometimes a virtue.

----------


## wongster41

> Are you worried that he changed his mind, or what?


He obviously changed his mind about supporting mitt for presidency.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Ha ha.  Well, I wish he would.


I have no problem with drones in general.  I can foresee a day when drones are used to do work in rescue situations and disaster situations that is simply too hazardous for humans, and I don't want to preclude their existence.  I just want the Fourth Amendment to keep pace with technology the Framers never could have imagined.

----------


## green73

> Yeah.  I should apply for the job of Rand's press secretary.  Knowing when not to communicate is sometimes a virtue.


Well reasoned as always.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Is he like that on all issues that he's previously addressed?


Are you wanting to ask him to reiterate every single thing he has every said?

Fair enough.

Make an appointment.

----------


## MJU1983

> So, your argument is that because most other politicians do that, Rand will too?


Why wouldn't he?  Do you think he hired morons to run his offices?  They aren't going to let him do an interview with Luke or anyone like Luke.  Rand is part of the team now, he's not "fringe" anymore.  Do you think he will take a picture of himself pulling the lever for Mitt in November?

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure. If it was any other pol I'm sure you'd be on the side of the reporter.


It depends on if I'm wanting the reporter to be rude or not.  I don't mind that people threw snowballs at Sean Hannity, but that's because I don't like Sean Hannity.  That doesn't mean that throwing snowballs at someone you don't personally know isn't rude.  I was glad to see the Iraqi reporter throw a shoe at Bush.  That doesn't mean shoe throwing isn't rude.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Wow, so you support the use of Drones in America?  Figured that a Rand apologist would be on this side but I'm glad you told us all this.
> 
> Wonder if all the other Randy apologists feel the same way


So, since you oppose waterboarding, do you also think we should outlaw water?

----------


## green73

> Are you wanting to ask him to reiterate every single thing he has every said?
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Make an appointment.


No. I'm saying Ron Paul would never treat someone like that. Since when is Rand shy and retiring about repeating himself?

----------


## wongster41

> Ron's never answered the question of who wrote the newsletters.  If WAC had simply gone with "Can you tell us why you endorsed Mitt Romney" without going immediately into a conspiracy land Rand might have given them some kind of answer before blowing them off.  Tell me this.  What do you possibly think might be gained for anybody by Rand talking about the Bilderberg group and this juncture?


Yes ron have actually, plenty of times before that interview.  He said he didn't write them, and disavows them.  People are up in arms right now from the endorsement and the alternative media is asking questions that the MSM aren't asking, there is nothing wrong with that.

----------


## truthsaga

Did anyone take into account that the Infowars / We are Change people are doing this to attract more audience to their brand?  How hard would it of been for them to schedule a meeting with Rand on a number of topics and brought up the bilderberg question?  Then, we can see his reaction - all I noticed from the start of the video is Rand greeting them and telling them to schedule an appointment.

If enough of us were in local positions and seated in Congress this endorsement would mean a lot more on the basis of principle, but we have someone representing us in the Senate and we want to cast him off for this?  It's like having the title shot and calling the fight before it starts.. all the time everyone has put in has been wasted.    

I am sure what everyone wants is Rand to spend 30 years isolated and being the NO vote in the Senate.

----------


## AuH20

> Yes ron have actually, plenty of times before that interview.  He said he didn't write them, and disavows them.  People are up in arms right now from the endorsement and the alternative media is asking questions that the MSM aren't asking, there is nothing wrong with that.


For what purpose?? _We Are Change_ has an agenda to portray to Rand Paul as an agent for an international cabal. All questions are funneled in that direction to make Rand Paul look bad no matter what he says. If he does agree with everything Radomski says he is later marginalized and put on the cover of Time as a kook, when he is locked in a fierce battle in the 2016 Republican primary. All our money is flushed down the toilet in an instant.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Maybe everybody's controlled opposition.  Maybe Alex Jones and the Pauls are staging all of this.  Who knows?  Doesn't change what I need to do.


I'll agree with that (except for the Paul part being opposition).  It doesn't change what we need to do and I was pleased to see you not jump on the "Rand Paul is the Antichrist" bandwagon.  Though some may disagree with what needs to be done.  Alex and Co. are attempting to derail Rand and divide because we are over the target now.  Controlled opposition has gone full monty trying to divide while trying to maintain "plausible deniability" at the same time.

Reading about how the hippy movement (free love, high on drugs all the time, anti-establishment, wears flowers in their hair, has sex in public) was inserted into the anti-war movement to create polarization of the conservatives and other regular people is interesting.  Keep them infighting!).

----------


## pcgame

......

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have no problem with drones in general.  I can foresee a day when drones are used to do work in rescue situations and disaster situations that is simply too hazardous for humans, and I don't want to preclude their existence.  I just want the Fourth Amendment to keep pace with technology the Framers never could have imagined.


The Framers covered it quite fine.




> 4th Amendment:
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


What concerns me the most are the exclusions that are in the bill.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall, the language in the bill insisted on warrants, but did have exceptions to that rule.  It is the exceptions that worry me.

----------


## wongster41

> For what purpose?? _We Are Change_ has an agenda to portray to Rand Paul as an agent for an international cabal. All questions are funneled in that direction to make Rand Paul look bad no matter what he says. If he does agree with everything Radomski says he is later marginalized and put on the cover of Time as a kook, when he is in the Republican primary in 2016. All our money is flushed down the toilet in an instant.


He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy.  We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No. I'm saying Ron Paul would never treat someone like that. Since when is Rand shy and retiring about repeating himself?


Who said he was?  He was busy, dude.  Have you never been busy?  He asked for Luke to call and make an appointment and that they would talk.  

Why are you trying so hard to make something out of this?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy.  We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?


So, your goal is to beat them to the punch and marginalize him right now?

----------


## AuH20

> He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy.  We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?


Rand plays it a lot closer to the vest than Ron. Even his opponent Trey Grayson bemoaned to a reporter that he was waiting for Rand Paul to make some highly controversial comment like Ron, but never did during the primary campaign. He even complimented Rand on his message discipline.

----------


## Pisces

Why should Rand answer questions about Romney being at Bilderberg when the evidence is really not clear that he was? Four anonymous people say they saw him, but the day they say he was there, he was actually in California doing his Solyndra photo-op. Rand would look like an idiot if he talked about this. Romney may be the Bilderberger's guy but there's no proof he was actually at the meeting and in fact the evidence against it is stronger than the evidence in favor of it. If Luke were a better journalist he would know this.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes ron have actually, plenty of times before that interview.  He said he didn't write them, and disavows them.  People are up in arms right now from the endorsement and the alternative media is asking questions that the MSM aren't asking, there is nothing wrong with that.


Ron has never answered the question *of who wrote the newsletters*.  Saying he didn't write them and disavowing them is different.  And Rand's already answered the question of why he endorsed Mitt Romney.  He said before we even got close to this point that he would endorse the eventual nominee.  He said when he was running for senator in KY that he would endorse his opponent Trey Grayson if he lost the primary.  So for Rand not to endorse Mitt Romney now would be for Rand to break a promise.  Is that what people want?  I think it's good that WAC has Rand on record for saying that he knows about the Bilderberg group.  Now people have to use their brains and figure some things out for themselves.  If you're trying an undercover operation you aren't going to say what you really think on video.

----------


## July

> I have no problem with drones in general.  I can foresee a day when drones are used to do work in rescue situations and disaster situations that is simply too hazardous for humans, and I don't want to preclude their existence.  I just want the Fourth Amendment to keep pace with technology the Framers never could have imagined.


People are still looking at the symptom, not the cause. The cause of the police state isnt drones, but the constant state of war/state of emergency, coupled with the subsidizing of companies who produce this technology--who must find and justify uses for it. Ron taught me that.

----------


## wongster41

> So, your goal is to beat them to the punch and marginalize him right now?


I'm saying he should redeem himself and stand on principle like his father.  Why cater to the establishment that have shut out the message of liberty and conservative values for so long?

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> The Framers covered it quite fine.
> 
> 
> 
> What concerns me the most are the exclusions that are in the bill.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall, the language in the bill insisted on warrants, but did have exceptions to that rule.  It is the exceptions that worry me.


And yet, nothing in the 4th about one's vehicle on public roads.  Plain text reading of the Constitution (and I assume we all believe in textualism) would not cover computer drives, as they are not made out of "paper".  Now, we have had judicial decisions covering these, which is good.  I for one would be happier if Congress participated in such upgrades.  Which is what Sen Paul is doing... asking that Congress lead the way on this.

And we should always be concerned about exceptions to BOR protections, and always vigilant about them.  But only the most foolhardy of us would argue against all time/place/manner restrictions on the First Amendment.

Unless of course you like people falsely shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater...

----------


## TomtheTinker

Obomney 12 marches forward and what use to be known as the liberty movement sits on the interweb and bickers with their closest allies.   


Rand is only one piece of the puzzle..suppport him if you want..wait and see if you will..turn your back on him if you must.  STOP FIGHTING EACH OTHER!!!

----------


## donnay

> The Rand apologists are out in full force.
> 
> Watch him with Glenn Beck.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw



Yeah that was some interview. Dr. Paul always praised the internet!  Rand seems to think the unhappy supporters on the internet are rather small?  Hmm...Interesting how he said this small group on the internet are these angry folks and are the ones preaching violence to him and his family?  WTH?  The extremist on the internet?  That seems a wee bit exaggerated and quite disingenuous--but I expected nothing less, really.




Commonality?  Even Doug Wead said in an interview this week; "There is nothing Romney can give em. Audit the Fed? You have got to be kidding, 80% of America wants to audit the fed. Asking Romney to audit the Fed is kind of like asking a 10 year old kid to eat an ice cream for me." Wead goes on to say, "Of course they won't really audit the Fed it will be some watered down phony version of auditing the Fed."

So who is lying?  I do not believe this is rocket science, anyone paying attention can see the mixed messages.  

I do question Rand's timing and how this message was delivered.  Those who have been in the Ron Paul movement know, in their heart of hearts, Hannity was no friend to the liberty movement whatsoever!  

If people would be honest with themselves for just a minute and break away from the false left/right paradigm, and realize the system is corrupt and to try and work within the system is futile.  It has been tried before and failed miserably.  Dr. Paul used the system to bring forth ideas, and ideas that are bullet proof.  Liberty is worth fighting for, and to make compromises to gain a little liberty or recoup what has already been taken by the corrupt system is a fools errand.

"Those who do not study history are DOOMED to repeat it."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm saying he should redeem himself and stand on principle like his father.  Why cater to the establishment that have shut out the message of liberty and conservative values for so long?


Watch how he votes.  That is what I am going to do.  The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak.

----------


## AdamT

Seriously lame....

----------


## wongster41

> Ron has never answered the question *of who wrote the newsletters*.  Saying he didn't write them and disavowing them is different.  And Rand's already answered the question of why he endorsed Mitt Romney.  He said before we even got close to this point that he would endorse the eventual nominee.  He said when he was running for senator in KY that he would endorse his opponent Trey Grayson if he lost the primary.  So for Rand not to endorse Mitt Romney now would be for Rand to break a promise.  Is that what people want?  I think it's good that WAC has Rand on record for saying that he knows about the Bilderberg group.  Now people have to use their brains and figure some things out for themselves.  If you're trying an undercover operation you aren't going to say what you really think on video.



He have also stated he don't know who wrote it

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...e-newsletters/


so the two interviews you're comparing is night and day, hardly the same.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll agree with that (except for the Paul part being opposition).  It doesn't change what we need to do and I was pleased to see you not jump on the "Rand Paul is the Antichrist" bandwagon.  Though some may disagree with what needs to be done.  Alex and Co. are attempting to derail Rand and divide because we are over the target now.  Controlled opposition has gone full monty trying to divide while trying to maintain "plausible deniability" at the same time.
> 
> Reading about how the hippy movement (free love, high on drugs all the time, anti-establishment, wears flowers in their hair, has sex in public) was inserted into the anti-war movement to create polarization of the conservatives and other regular people is interesting.  Keep them infighting!).


You know what?  Anything is possible, including the Pauls being controlled opposition.  Over the years after learning about illuminati handshakes and signals, seeing those from Dr. Paul didn't give me the warm fuzzies.  And of course there's the possibility that it was innocent.  After all the "diablo" and "I love you" signals are the same.  But Dr. Paul has to know that lots of his followers are into stuff like that, so why give ammo to the fringe?  I did wonder why Alex Jones never picked up on that, when he talks about the Michele Obama vogue cover that doesn't really look like any hand signal unless you have a super active imagination.  At the end of the day I go by what Dr. Paul does and what Rand does.  As for Alex Jones, so far I've consistently heard *him* support the Pauls (Rand an Ron) and just attack theirs strategy.  Some of his writers have gone overboard.  (Kurt Nimmo specifically).

----------


## jmdrake

> He have also stated he don't know who wrote it
> 
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...e-newsletters/
> 
> 
> so the two interviews you're comparing is night and day, hardly the same.


He can say that.  But there's no way that's true.  Or if it is true than he's taken no real effort to find out who did write it.  But hey, believe what you want.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And yet, nothing in the 4th about one's vehicle on public roads.  Plain text reading of the Constitution (and I assume we all believe in textualism) would not cover computer drives, as they are not made out of "paper".  Now, we have had judicial decisions covering these, which is good.  I for one would be happier if Congress participated in such upgrades.  Which is what Sen Paul is doing... asking that Congress lead the way on this.
> 
> And we should always be concerned about exceptions to BOR protections, and always vigilant about them.  But only the most foolhardy of us would argue against all time/place/manner restrictions on the First Amendment.
> 
> Unless of course you like people falsely shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater...





> *Where Is The Outrage Over the Domestic Use of Drones?*
> And where have all the Jeffersonians gone?
> 
> Andrew Napolitano | June 7, 2012
> 
> 
> For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government's use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if--had drones existed at the time--King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.
> 
> Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.
> ...


...

----------


## LibertyEagle

He has a deaf grandkid, Drake.

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> Don't you know?  We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office.  Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use.  HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!!  eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!


Oh yeah..... I guess I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.

----------


## wongster41

> He can say that.  But there's no way that's true.  Or if it is true than he's taken no real effort to find out who did write it.  But hey, believe what you want.


I was just pointing out that those two interviews are different and for you to try to connect them together was a weak arguement.  Ron have been stating for the longest time he doesn't know who wrote the newsletters and disapproves it, and when the CNN reporter kept pushing the issue hoping to get a different answer, thats when he bailed on the interview.

Rand on the other hand haven't given a recent interview about bilderberg, and bailed from the very beginning of the interview and dodging some legitimate questions that have raised due to his endorsement.

----------


## jmdrake

> He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy.  We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?


Because Rand is playing an entirely different game than Ron played.  Someone who says the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was not necessary is easy to marginalize.  (See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...in-laden-raid/)  Oh sure, I agree the raid was not necessary, but that's because I believe Osama Bin Laden was already dead.  And of course I have no political viability because I am open about that belief.  If I was advising someone who was running for public office I would tell them *never* to say anything critical of the OBL raid or that you believed it was a fake.  And I would keep WAC as far away from my candidate as possible.  (Unless I wanted the word to get out that WAC didn't like my candidate).

----------


## truthsaga

I think we are still going through the stages of Grief like Doug Wead talked about earlier this week.  

Soon we are just going to have to "hug it out" and get back to what I have been doing the last six years of my life.  

How awesome would it be if Rand tweeted to all of us - ::Hug it out:: lol

----------


## jmdrake

> He has a deaf grandkid, Drake.


And the explanation for the strange handshake is....?  Regardless that's not a rabbit hole I'm interested in going down.  In fact judging people based on hand signals is another thing I disagree with Alex Jones on.  Either Alex should have been on Ron about that or he should have assumed that other famous people might have deaf relatives.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was just pointing out that those two interviews are different and for you to try to connect them together was a weak arguement.  Ron have been stating for the longest time he doesn't know who wrote the newsletters and disapproves it, and when the CNN reporter kept pushing the issue hoping to get a different answer, thats when he bailed on the interview.
> 
> Rand on the other hand haven't given a recent interview about bilderberg, and bailed from the very beginning of the interview and dodging some legitimate questions that have raised due to his endorsement.


Three questions.

1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?

2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?

3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?

----------


## No Free Beer

When I first saw what Rand had done, I was upset/mad/sad/etc. , just ask LibertyEagle.

Since it first happened, I have calmed down and rationalized the decision and realized it was the right one. Well, not entirely. I still disagree with the timing, but that's a whole different argument.

I found myself damning Rand on the one thing I admired about him when I was first introduced to him: his ability to play politics. 

Whether you all want to admit it or not, you have to play the game in order to bring about real change. If you think a person can just get into office and ignore everyone, and get stuff done, you are wrong. So you have a choice, take your hits to put yourself and your movement into a position of high significance, or remain on the sidelines, yelling..."HERE! OVER HERE!" Not gonna happen.

Either way, people like We Are Change and Alex Jones are just acting like a bunch of little children who didn't get their lollipops. They are just dividing people. 

Don't forget what it took for us to declare our independence. If you don't know what I am talking about (the deals that were made), than you need to go do your own research. 

As to the Glenn Beck interview, I don't seem to understand what the hell some of you are talking about. I completely agree with LibertyEagle, Rand is pissed at all the irrational people who have said some pretty hurtful and stupid things. It's one thing to voice your opinion, it's another to make threats and to tell him to go to hell. Again, children without their lollipops. Rand's interview with Beck was great. You wanna know why? Because he has them all right where he wants them.

To be honest, for all of you who live and die by everything Alex Jones says and who write hurtful things to Rand and/or Ron, we don't want you in this movement, regardless of how long you've been in it. You are the reason we run into problems. The establishment is going to be watching our every move now, and when you do something as stupid as writing such nonsense on Rand's FB page, you are only hurting our cause because you allow the establishment to point and say, "look at those crazies!"

Grow up.

----------


## wongster41

> Because Rand is playing an entirely different game than Ron played.  Someone who says the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was not necessary is easy to marginalize.  (See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...in-laden-raid/)  Oh sure, I agree the raid was not necessary, but that's because I believe Osama Bin Laden was already dead.  And of course I have no political viability because I am open about that belief.  If I was advising someone who was running for public office I would tell them *never* to say anything critical of the OBL raid or that you believed it was a fake.  And I would keep WAC as far away from my candidate as possible.  (Unless I wanted the word to get out that WAC didn't like my candidate).


This is all speculations, and only time will tell what's going on but I HIGHLY doubt the GOP establishment will hand the nomination to Rand if he decides to run in 2016 because he's being nice to them.  The two party system is for wars, more spendings, more welfare, everything rand is not.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Im not ron paul revolution, I am for revolution. I trust what is going on, and frankly the only way to really get change in the system is to infilterate it in the way rand is doing. There is no element of sell out.
> 
> He is doing what is necessary to bring credibility to the liberty movement. Its a step in the right direction. Total change wont ever happen overnight, to think otherwise is delusional.


I agree. It's as ridiculous as calling Ron Paul a sellout for joining the republican party.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> This is all speculations, and only time will tell what's going on but *I HIGHLY doubt the GOP establishment will hand the nomination to Rand* if he decides to run in 2016 because he's being nice to them.  The two party system is for wars, more spendings, more welfare, everything rand is not.


They didn't just hand it to Romney, either.  He had to work for it.  He's been doing so for five years.  I have to imagine he is growing to hate chicken at this point.

To quote that great student of power, Jock Ewing: "Nobody gives you power.  Real power is something you TAKE!"

----------


## wongster41

> Three questions.
> 
> 1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?
> 
> 2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?
> 
> 3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?


I think you're asking the wrong questions, why is he dodging the questions and what is his true intent behind the endorsement?  Nobody knows and that is why we're trying to get answers from the horses mouth.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is all speculations, and only time will tell what's going on but I HIGHLY doubt the GOP establishment will hand the nomination to Rand if he decides to run in 2016 because he's being nice to them.  The two party system is for wars, more spendings, more welfare, everything rand is not.


Who said that they would?    Of course it's going to be a fight.  The question is do you go into the fight with your shoes tied together and one are taped to your body or not?  Rand already has strong name recognition so a "blackout" won't work.  The other trick used against Ron was the "He's outside the party mainstream" argument.  Rand is working hard to avoid that.  They may dig up something from Rand's past to try to derail him.  The "AquaBuddha" thing didn't work, but they might dig up other "victims".  If all else fails there's the Dealay Plaza option.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think you're asking the wrong questions, why is he dodging the questions and what is his true intent behind the endorsement?  Nobody knows and that is why we're trying to get answers from the horses mouth.


I'm asking the right questions.  You're just dodging them.

----------


## JK/SEA

1. these 'politicians' work for the people. Someone has a chance to ask some questions on video, then by god they need to be polite, and answer the motherfuckin interviewer. What is 2 minutes of time going to do?...prevent him from starting world war 3?....

2. All you Rand apologists would have no problem with Luke doing the same tactic with say Rumsfeld or McCain, or Graham, or Holder....riiiight?

3. Rand endorsed Mitt, and thats not a problem?....please explain to me how that isn't a problem, and stop with the BS of he's trying to build bridges to get his agenda through...it doesn't pass the smell test, and from here it smells like an open sewer.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I think you're asking the wrong questions, why is he dodging the questions and what is his true intent behind the endorsement?  Nobody knows and that is why we're trying to get answers from the horses mouth.


Watch the Peter Schiff and Ben Swann interviews with Rand. They actually set up appointments with him, and got real legitimate answers (really way more seemingly honest answers than you'd expect for a public interview about his stealth strategy).

----------


## wongster41

> Who said that they would?    Of course it's going to be a fight.  The question is do you go into the fight with your shoes tied together and one are taped to your body or not?  Rand already has strong name recognition so a "blackout" won't work.  The other trick used against Ron was the "He's outside the party mainstream" argument.  Rand is working hard to avoid that.  They may dig up something from Rand's past to try to derail him.  The "AquaBuddha" thing didn't work, but they might dig up other "victims".  If all else fails there's the Dealay Plaza option.


Or maybe there won't be a fight, we can only speculate right now as to what Rand will or won't do.  I just have to go by the facevalue right now and question his recent action.

----------


## jmdrake

> Or maybe there won't be a fight, we can only speculate right now as to what Rand will or won't do.  I just have to go by the facevalue right now and question his recent action.


Yeah.  But you still haven't answered my questions.  Rand showed that he would answer reporters who are respectful and don't go off into conspiracy theory lala land.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> ...


It's like arguing at the dawn of recording technology that because such technology can be used to listen into somebody's home, the state should be precluded from owning tape recorders.  Not only is it not going to happen, there are some uses of recording technology I want the state to have access to.  I want 911 to be able to record phone calls for emergency responders.  I want the Mafia to have to worry about being bugged.  

But I also want both mafioso and car crash victims to be broadly (and I mean very broadly) protected by the Fourth Amendment.  

Likewise, I like the idea of drones monitoring traffic on the roadways.  Surely we can agree that is a legitimate responsibility of the State.  Why shouldn't we expect them to undertake their task in the cheapest, most efficient manner possible, so long as the people are properly protected from the possible abuses that such efficiency might enable?

----------


## July

> The establishment is going to be watching our every move now, and when you do something as stupid as writing such nonsense on Rand's FB page, you are only hurting our cause because you allow the establishment to point and say, "look at those crazies!".


That's pretty much what happened. I'm glad Rand defended us, saying it was just a small number.

----------


## wongster41

> Yeah.  But you still haven't answered my questions.  Rand showed that he would answer reporters who are respectful and don't go off into conspiracy theory lala land.


so you're suggesting bilderberg is a conspiracy theory?

----------


## wongster41

> I'm asking the right questions.  You're just dodging them.


No, Rand is dodging them.

----------


## PatriotOne

> You know what?  Anything is possible, including the Pauls being controlled opposition.  As for Alex Jones, so far I've consistently heard *him* support the Pauls (Rand an Ron) and just attack theirs strategy.  Some of his writers have gone overboard.  (Kurt Nimmo specifically).


If Ron was controlled opposition, he would be the GOP nominee in August.  The media would not have spent the last 5 years marginalizing him, calling him a kook and fringe candidate every chance they got and we wouldn't have had to fight for every inch we have gained.  

Alex is trying to maintain "plausible deniabilty" as far as his support of Ron/Rand by giving his writers and lapdogs the dirty work.  Alex has control over the content on his website.  In espionage, plausible deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party.

----------


## Brett85

> Did you all see Rand on Glenn Beck show?
> 
> What a prick


I listened to it.  It was a fantastic interview.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> 1. these 'politicians' work for the people. Someone has a chance to ask some questions on video, then by god they need to be polite, and answer the motherfuckin interviewer. What is 2 minutes of time going to do?...prevent him from starting world war 3?....
> 
> 2. All you Rand apologists would have no problem with Luke doing the same tactic with say Rumsfeld or McCain, or Graham, or Holder....riiiight?
> 
> 3. Rand endorsed Mitt, and thats not a problem?....please explain to me how that isn't a problem, and stop with the BS of he's trying to build bridges to get his agenda through...it doesn't pass the smell test, and from here it smells like an open sewer.


1) Rand Paul works for the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not wearederanged.org.  As an officeholder, he has an office.  In polite, adult society, someone who would like to speak with that (very busy) officeholder makes arrangements through that office.  That way the Senator's very valuable time isn't wasted... especially by someone who, quite frankly, doesn't rate.

2) If Graham or McCain or Holder told them to call thier office for an interview, and they persisted, it would still be rude, obnoxious and juvenile.  Yeah, I have a problem with all three of those, no matter who suffers.

3) Rand endorsed the man who has garnered enough delegates to the RNC that he is going to be the nominee of our party.  And by our, I mean Ron Paul's party, Rand Paul's party, and my party.  Sometimes politics dictates that you get your ass in line behind the leader of your party.  Given that the current occupier of the White House maintains he has the authority to sic death robots on American citizens without judicial or Congressional oversight... yeah, this is one of those times.

----------


## jmdrake

> so you're suggesting bilderberg is a conspiracy theory?


You're suggesting it's not?  Don't get me wrong.  I believe it's real.  People have theories about what's going on.  Hence conspiracy theory.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, Rand is dodging them.


Ummm....how is Rand dodging the questions I asked *you*?

----------


## Brett85

> Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?
> 
> Rand has no charisma or real desire for change.  He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)


A 500 billion budget cut is "halfass?"  Wow, you're something else.

----------


## Brett85

> Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now is one of those times.


The anarchists/liberals have taken over the movement.

----------


## jmdrake

> If Ron was controlled opposition, he would be the GOP nominee in August.


Ummm....do you know what controlled opposition means?  You don't let the controlled opposition win.  That's the point.  It's someone designed to take a dive from the beginning.  Ron's lack of attacking Mitt Romney is questionable.  When Mitt opened himself up for attack on more than one occasion Ron actually came to Mitt's *defense*.  Why did Ron release the "etch-a-sketch" ad that attacked Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich instead of dog piling on Mitt like he was supposed to do if he was serious about winning?  Why did Ron defend Mitt on the Bain capital attack when he could have just kept silent?  People inside and out of the movement were raising the question of whether Ron was in some sort of alliance with Mitt.  Folks said "their just good friends".  Well Ron was friends with Michelle Bachman too.  That didn't keep them from robustly attacking each other.

Edit: And let me reiterate I'm not saying I know Ron is controlled opposition.  In fact I don't think he is.  But if we're going to start questioning everyone.....

----------


## wongster41

> You're suggesting it's not?  Don't get me wrong.  I believe it's real.  People have theories about what's going on.  Hence conspiracy theory.


Well, we know the Bilderberg meetings are happening so it's no longer a theory, we know people in high power or the elites of the world are getting together for annual meetings, we know for a fact that they do now.  As to what's being discussed, we can only speculate but to call Bilderberg a conspiracy theory and dismissing it as nothing important and discrediting it as 'lala land' as you put it, just makes you look ignorant on the subject.

----------


## BamaAla

Oh look - a bunch of social rejects crying because someone they thought loved them has rejected them like everyone else. These hate Rand threads could be a great study for a psychology graduate student. Get over it...

----------


## ShowMeLiberty



----------


## jmdrake

> Well, we know the Bilderberg meetings are happening so it's no longer a theory, we know people in high power or the elites of the world are getting together for annual meetings, we know for a fact that they do now.  As to what's being discussed, we can only speculate but to call Bilderberg a conspiracy theory and dismissing it as nothing important and discrediting it as 'lala land' as you put it, just makes you look ignorant on the subject.


Looking ignorant about conspiracy theories is politically smart.  As I said, I have no personal political viability.  If I was helping someone run for office I would want them to appear ignorant on the subject.

----------


## wongster41

> Three questions.
> 
> 1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?
> 
> 2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?
> 
> 3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?


I think I've already answered these questions you want me to answer so bad, but as I've already said, people have questions about the recent endorsement.  His endorsement went against everything he stood for, so people now have questions, why is that hard to understand?  Yes, rand might have said he would endorse the nominee but the timing is waaaaay off, we are still fighting the delegate process and working with lawyers to unbound those delegates to tampa.  Rand's endorsement is just way off base and people have questions.

----------


## TruthisTreason

> I have done a lot of work on the ground, another chance for you all to dismiss critics as noobs instead of the merits of the criticisms.


You came to Kentucky and helped Rand? Only noobs would cry traitor over an endorsement of the GOP nominee, especially considering Sen. Paul had been saying for MONTHS he would endorse the nominee....  OH Bilderberg!!!!!!

----------


## jmdrake

> I think I've already answered these questions you want me to answer so bad, but as I've already said, people have questions about the recent endorsement.  His endorsement went against everything he stood for, so people now have questions, why is that hard to understand?  Yes, rand might have said he would endorse the nominee but the timing is waaaaay off, we are still fighting the delegate process and working with lawyers to unbound those delegates to tampa.  Rand's endorsement is just way off base and people have questions.


No you haven't.  But let me see if I can answer them for you.
_1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?_

Let's see.  You want Rand to ruin his political viability?  You want more people to know about Bilderberg and having someone semi-famous talk about it helps that cause even if it ruins their political viability?

_2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?_

You're not satisfied with the "I promised I would do it" answer and so Rand keeping a promise doesn't matter to you?

_
3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?_

See above.

----------


## TruthisTreason

Noobs = those unfamiliar with WINNING elections.

----------


## wongster41

> No you haven't.  But let me see if I can answer them for you.
> _1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?_
> 
> Let's see.  You want Rand to ruin his political viability?  You want more people to know about Bilderberg and having someone semi-famous talk about it helps that cause even if it ruins their political viability?


You're just speculating there.  It didn't ruin rons when he spoke about the Bilderberg, the video below is from 2008 btw.








> _2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?_
> 
> You're not satisfied with the "I promised I would do it" answer and so Rand keeping a promise doesn't matter to you?
> 
> _
> 3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?_
> 
> See above.


He could have endorse after tampa, like I said, timing is all wrong when we have grassroots still fighting the process.

----------


## JK/SEA

> 1) Rand Paul works for the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not wearederanged.org.  As an officeholder, he has an office.  In polite, adult society, someone who would like to speak with that (very busy) officeholder makes arrangements through that office.  That way the Senator's very valuable time isn't wasted... especially by someone who, quite frankly, doesn't rate.
> 
> 2) If Graham or McCain or Holder told them to call thier office for an interview, and they persisted, it would still be rude, obnoxious and juvenile.  Yeah, I have a problem with all three of those, no matter who suffers.
> 
> 3) Rand endorsed the man who has garnered enough delegates to the RNC that he is going to be the nominee of our party.  And by our, I mean Ron Paul's party, Rand Paul's party, and my party.  Sometimes politics dictates that you get your ass in line behind the leader of your party.  Given that the current occupier of the White House maintains he has the authority to sic death robots on American citizens without judicial or Congressional oversight... yeah, this is one of those times.


1. Rand is a U.S. Senator, his votes and actions affect all of us.

2. ambush journalism is a part of the free press ideal. 1st amendment applies. I'm fairly certain our founders had to and did deal with it. 

3. I'm in this 'party' because of Ron, as are millions more. The 'party' is not where it needs to be for me to start licking boots just yet.  Party over Principle , party before country. The beat goes on, and sadly too many swallow the lies and deceit and like good little boys and girls they follow, giggling and laughing all the way thinking they are right because someone who doesn't give a crap about you keeps their boot on your neck and tells you how to think, act and live your life all the while telling you how good things are....

$#@! rand.

----------


## Aratus

stuttering john had his brief day in the sun when jennifer flowers became a houseshold world.
even so this amature video looks less slick & clever than mr. stuttering john's better efforts!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> $#@! rand.


An example of biting off your nose to spite your face.  Rand is, BY FAR, the best Senator in D.C.  BY FAR!!!  Why don't you take your f comments and go direct them towards the open communists and socialists that are there.  That wasn't a question; it was a statement.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Ummm....do you know what controlled opposition means?  You don't let the controlled opposition win.


Did Obama not feign opposition to the wars?  He's President.  Did George Bush not feign opposition to nation building wars?  He was President.

----------


## JK/SEA

$#@! rand, and the communists, and the nazis, and the NEOCONS....this place is being over run by them. I don't need to direct my comments at D.C.

----------


## cheapseats

> Get over it...



...and GET WITH THE PROGRAM?

----------


## patriot2008

For all you know anyone who caused trouble like that could be even Obama supporters, neocons that really hate Paul or whatever.  This "shilling" goes on all the time on the internet.  Hope anyone who is a victim of this realizes this.  Anyone who really stands for what Dr. Paul represents would not be that type!
  I despise Romney and have mixed feelings on all of this till it plays out.  I will only support a freedom candidate on how they vote!  

  The knuckelheads could be anyone and really support anything.  We are seeing way more of this.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're just speculating there.  It didn't ruin rons when he spoke about the Bilderberg, the video below is from 2008 btw.


A. Rand has already talked about the Bilderberg group.  Why does he need to *keep* talking about it?

B. Has Ron won a state primary by 23 points yet?  Has he won a state primary at all?  




> He could have endorse after tampa, like I said, timing is all wrong when we have grassroots still fighting the process.


He talked to his dad about the timing.  That's why Ron and other members of Ron's campaign have been pissing off the grassroots by slowly letting everybody in on the fact that the campaign is basically over.  Sure, keep taking over local party committees because that's good for the long haul.  But Ron hasn't been planning for a Tampa fight for a while now.

----------


## jmdrake

> Did Obama not feign opposition to the wars?  He's President.  Did George Bush not feign opposition to nation building wars?  He was President.


I'm sorry.  Maybe you don't know what controlled opposition means.  And I'm not saying this to be mean.  Controlled opposition means that you are in a contest against someone else, but you aren't really planning on winning and you and your "opponent" both know it.  Lot's of people have been questioning for a while now why Ron didn't really campaign against Romney.

----------


## jmdrake

> 1. Rand is a U.S. Senator, his votes and actions affect all of us.


Yes.  And those votes have so far been most helpful.  Rand almost killed the Iran sanctions bill and got language in it that there's no authorization for an attack against Iran.  Rand's sponsored bills to end the TSA and drones spying on his.  He's leading the charge in the senate for end the fed.  I love Rand's votes (most of them anyway).  It's Rand's statements that suck.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> $#@! rand, and the communists, and the nazis, and the NEOCONS....this place is being over run by them. I don't need to direct my comments at D.C.


We don't need no more socialists, communists, or libertarians in our libertarian movement!

----------


## wongster41

> A. Rand has already talked about the Bilderberg group.  Why does he need to *keep* talking about it?
> 
> B. Has Ron won a state primary by 23 points yet?  Has he won a state primary at all?  
> 
> 
> 
> He talked to his dad about the timing.  That's why Ron and other members of Ron's campaign have been pissing off the grassroots by slowly letting everybody in on the fact that the campaign is basically over.  Sure, keep taking over local party committees because that's good for the long haul.  But Ron hasn't been planning for a Tampa fight for a while now.


I personally don't care for the bilderberg group question, but luke was obviously using that as a lead-in to the endorsement question incase you didn't pick it up.  People have questions, plain and simple and luke and abby was asking some really hard questions.

 The popular vote doesn't matter so I don't know why you even brought up about Ron winning a primary, what matters is the delegates and last I heard, the grassroots is still working hard to unbound those delegates.

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

I am just happy I am voting for Ron Paul and don't need to vote on rand this election cycle.

To me all he did was say some words but like many things TALK IS CHEAP but lets see what he actually puts into ACTION.

I think Rand can do and say whatever he so chooses and based on that he will either get votes or NOT and at that time he will see if his strategy was the best idea or not.

I however get the issue of playing politics especially when you dad never really did. I can see the GOP trying to almost MAKE SURE rand isn't another ron causing headaches for another 30-40 years just like his dad. If rand had to play nice to get in without him wanting to, I see that being due to his dads amazing uncorrupted career which odds are scares the poop out of the establishment.

I will wait for his votes, his records and everything else just as we did with ron paul and any other politician for that matter. Most will say and do anything to get into office, kind of like we will say and do anything during a job interview to secure that job. We all waiver at times with our morals but we hold rand to a higher standard due to his dad imo and odds are the gop does as well.

I can hope he is playing the game to get inside the beast but haven't politicians been trying to do that forever?

I do know that if Ron Paul endorsed Mccain in 08 due to "promising to endorse" I would have assumed him like every other politician out there and without being mean to rand as I am done with that stuff, if rand was the one who I first saw versus his dad and saw him endorse this guy, and vote for sanctions over here I don't see the rEVOLution really catching fire in the least because even if it was good intentioned compromisation it still would not have had the affect that his father was able to create from a NO COMPROMISE campaign in 07/08.

either way, I will vote for Rand in 2016 if he runs and if he proves to be yet another politician who then goes back on his word, at that time we will know it but until then all I hear are just "words".

Ron Paul for President

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> 1. Rand is a U.S. Senator, his votes and actions affect all of us.
> 
> 2. ambush journalism is a part of the free press ideal. 1st amendment applies. I'm fairly certain our founders had to and did deal with it. 
> 
> 3. I'm in this 'party' because of Ron, as are millions more. The 'party' is not where it needs to be for me to start licking boots just yet.  Party over Principle , party before country. The beat goes on, and sadly too many swallow the lies and deceit and like good little boys and girls they follow, giggling and laughing all the way thinking they are right because someone who doesn't give a crap about you keeps their boot on your neck and tells you how to think, act and live your life all the while telling you how good things are....
> 
> $#@! rand.


1) By that logic, if Ron Paul were elected POTUS, he would have to stop and answer every peon on the street with a camcorder.  Does that really sound like a good operating philosophy of government to you, or are you just pretending to be an idiot.

2) You think the Founders would have put up with rude juvenile punks interrupting their private conversations as they walked down the street?  No.  They would have ignored them, and then cut off any access they would have had to their office.  Which is, I suspect, exactly what Sen Paul is about to do.  Something that people who don't know the first thing about politics and the press clearly fail to grasp.

3) Grow up.  You want to sit at the adult's table... learn how to behave as an adult.  And in this case, that means not trying to take the politics out of politics.

----------


## JK/SEA

> We don't need no more socialists, communists, or libertarians in our libertarian movement!


libertarian?...never mentioned libertarian. What i support is a Constitutional Republic and let the chips fall where they may.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Noobs = those unfamiliar with WINNING elections.


I'm convinced many people in this movement don't want to win.  They see winning itself as a "compromise".


Where can I get a Hightower 2012 sig?

----------


## jmdrake

> I personally don't care for the bilderberg group question, but luke was obviously using that as a lead-in to the endorsement question incase you didn't pick it up.  People have questions, plain and simple and luke and abby was asking some really hard questions.


And his lead in question caused Rand to tune him out.  Ben Swann, DailyPaulRadio and Peter Schiff, on the other hand, did good interviews and got the answers for those seriously wanting answers.  Rand endorsed Romney because he said he would endorse the eventual nominee.  The timing issue was discussed with his father.




> The popular vote doesn't matter so I don't know why you even brought up about Ron winning a primary, what matters is the delegates and last I heard, the grassroots is still working hard to unbound those delegates.


One thing that Alex Jones has correctly pointed out is that the delegate strategy wasn't really worth a hill of beans.  And Ron's statements about "be respectful" and "don't upset the convention" leads me to believe that he has no intention of staging a floor fight in Tampa.  But hey, I could be proven wrong in August.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> libertarian?...never mentioned libertarian. What i support is a Constitutional Republic and let the chips fall where they may.


Well, do you see Rand as a figure that stands against a constitutional republic?  I don't.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> ...and GET WITH THE PROGRAM?


Do something constructive, yes.

But, then again, you are here to shill for Johnson.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> $#@! rand, and the communists, and the nazis, and the NEOCONS....this place is being over run by them. I don't need to direct my comments at D.C.


Huh?  You think anyone who isn't running around saying f Rand is a communist, nazi or neocon?

----------


## JK/SEA

> 1) By that logic, if Ron Paul were elected POTUS, he would have to stop and answer every peon on the street with a camcorder.  Does that really sound like a good operating philosophy of government to you, or are you just pretending to be an idiot.
> 
> 2) You think the Founders would have put up with rude juvenile punks interrupting their private conversations as they walked down the street?  No.  They would have ignored them, and then cut off any access they would have had to their office.  Which is, I suspect, exactly what Sen Paul is about to do.  Something that people who don't know the first thing about politics and the press clearly fail to grasp.
> 
> 3) Grow up.  You want to sit at the adult's table... learn how to behave as an adult.  And in this case, that means not trying to take the politics out of politics.


ahhh, i see. The ol' grow up comeback. 

1. no, that statement borders on hysteria and lacks common sense. The vid with Rand and Luke is one case only. I'm not hearing and seeing this as some kind of epidemic. One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions. Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?

2. ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?

3. hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?....lol

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...and GET WITH THE PROGRAM?


Yep.  Get involved and win.  Change the direction of the wind.  No one here is saying vote for Romney (not me at least).  I hope Romney's campaign goes down in flames.  

But I have seen with my own eyes what happens when libertarians infiltrate the GOP and use GOP-sounding language to win.  I've been a part of it twice in the past 2 years.  IT DOES WORK!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

Guys, guys, maybe Rand isn't what we think he is.  But, don't you think that is better determined from his votes?  Why can't we just watch his votes?  Why do some want to hang him out to dry, already?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Well, do you see Rand as a figure that stands against a constitutional republic?  I don't.


look, he endorsed your favorite constitutional scholar didn't he?. Not i.

----------


## Inkblots

> Guys, guys, maybe Rand isn't what we think he is.  But, don't you think that is better determined from his votes?  Why can't we just watch his votes?  Why do some want to hang him out to dry, already?


Because loudly condemning the leaders of the movement is an easy and gratifying alternative to actually doing the hard and messy work of advancing liberty in the political sphere?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> look, he endorsed your favorite constitutional scholar didn't he?. Not i.


Obligatory party endorsements don't change what the endorser believes or how he votes.  Ron Paul is the best example of this.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> look, he endorsed your favorite constitutional scholar didn't he?. Not i.


He had to or he would have been marginalized.  Just like his father.  He gave his word that he would endorse the nominee.

I still have issue with when he did it, but not that he did it.  I also don't like some of the things he said.  But, I'm not willing to throw in the towel on him.  Not yet.  His voting record thus far, while not perfect, is pretty damned good.

But, I am not looking for a messiah.

----------


## trey4sports

i didn't see anything bad about his interview on GBTV. Seemed rather good actually.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Because loudly condemning the leaders of the movement is an easy and gratifying alternative to actually doing the hard and messy work of advancing liberty in the political sphere?


I understand their concerns.  I do.  Well, not about this stupid Luke deal, but about a couple of other things.  But, it's ridiculous to want to throw him out at this point.  Watch him, yes.  Throw him out?  Hell no.

----------


## r3volution

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

----------


## LibertyEagle

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


Oh, please don't do that.  It's just going to further the divide and conquer that appears to be some kind of agenda being played on us.

----------


## Inkblots

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


Eh, things will calm down in a few weeks.  Most people, "Rand skeptics" included, will get back down to business preparing for November, and, in the long view, 2016.  And those few who can't or won't accept the realities of the political process will leave, and we'll be a stronger movement for it.  I don't see much cause for concern.

----------


## Bruehound

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


Truer words have not been spoken.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> ahhh, i see. The ol' grow up comeback. 
> 
> 1. no, that statement borders on hysteria and lacks common sense. The vid with Rand and Luke is one case only. I'm not hearing and seeing this as some kind of epidemic. One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions. Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?
> 
> 2. ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?
> 
> 3. hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?....lol


_ One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions._ 

And he tells them to $#@! off, as is his right both as a citizen and a Senator to do.  And they do not, but rather continue interrupting his private conversation.  If someone interrupts my private conversation as I walk down the street, I too will tell them to $#@! off.  And if they continue being rude, juvenile and obnoxious, I will threaten them, and if necessary get physical with them.  Perhaps an ass-kicking would instill some manners, not to mention a respect for laws against harassment, in them, something their parents failed rather badly to do.

_Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?_

I think manners should be encouraged.  And if that means some "journalist" (sorry, I can't help but snicker at the use of that word in this case) gets his ass kicked while engaging in harassing behavior, I certainly wouldn't cry any tears.

_ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?_

They marginalized themselves.  Rand has granted an interview to DP radio on this subject, and it was great, respectful, informative, and handled by adults from every perspective.  A lesson that the children in this movement would do well to learn.

You want to know why Ron Paul was marginalized?  Start by finding yourself a mirror.

_hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?_

I look forward to working on policy and politics with people who are willing to work with me.  That there are more Romney and less Paul people than there would otherwise be save for the tantrum the Liberty brats are throwing will be my only regret.  

And yeah... when you grow up, maybe you'll learn you sometimes have to do things you don't like doing, but you do anyways to make progress.  Until you grow up, however, you can find me at the local GOP, working with the adults.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I'm sorry.  Maybe you don't know what controlled opposition means.  And I'm not saying this to be mean.  Controlled opposition means that you are in a contest against someone else, but you aren't really planning on winning and you and your "opponent" both know it.  Lot's of people have been questioning for a while now why Ron didn't really campaign against Romney.


I'm not trying to be mean either but there are different ways to use "controlled opposition" and that is just one of many.  Ron is not controlled opposition and it's getting a bit difficult to read you all of a sudden contemplating it.  Ron did campaign against Romney and then switched tactics because he had to get through Santorum to get to him.  Then it was decided they would never win the popular vote due to lack of billions of dollars so they went the delegate route instead.  We just couldn't get it done so now they are switching tactics again with Rand.  All the while increasing Ron's support the whole way.  No one threw the race Drake, we just didn't win it.  All this "Ron making an alliance with Romney" was nothing more than a smear tactic (in the eyes of his supporters) pushed by the media.  There was not an ounce of truth to that.  It worked on waaaaay too many people and I would have thought you would not have been one of them.  

I've always admired your intellect, but from experience I know the best of us, including myself, can be fooled.  I was one of them admittedly and I have freaking got an IQ of 135.  I learned a $#@! load of information from Alex Jones.  After all, propaganda isn't made out of whole cloth and probably ~ 90 truth.  And it's wierd because I am still in awe of him because he's freaking brilliant at his job.  Damn impressive.

Just trying to be honest here with everyone in hope's it will stem some of the bleeding of the movement's support when it comes to Alex Jone's supporter's.  We need to come together once again to finish the job and not divide and I see Alex purposely attempting it by using his writers and lapdogs so he can maintain plausible deniability, IMHO.

Anyways, peace out.  Don't want to make an enemy of you....I want to work with you.

----------


## PatriotOne

Double post.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Guys, guys, maybe Rand isn't what we think he is.  But, don't you think that is better determined from his votes?  Why can't we just watch his votes?  Why do some want to hang him out to dry, already?


The problem LE, and i respect your attempts at cooling things down, BUT, damn,,,you've heard that statement..honey, honey, poison, i'm sure many times, and for me Rand has tainted himself whether he knows it or not, and the bottom line is if he wants to get re-elected, or further the cause of Liberty, he really needs to show more principle than he's exhibiting. Mitts endorsement has driven lots of us to question Rands motives. Thats not my fault, or anyone elses..its Rands cross to bear. Believe me...i REALLY want to believe the Liberty movement has a chance. We can ill afford guys like Rand to play fast and loose with his bully pulpit. We need him. But not like this.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

There will be no "infiltrating".  That would assume that the PTB or "establishement" or whatever is stupid, and that is not so.

----------


## wongster41

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


If anything they're trying to keep the movement on course, but apparently to you Rand endorsing romney is the right course for this movement.

----------


## PatriotOne

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


STFU moron.  Truthers have friggin rocked as movers and shakers of this movement and been the leaders of many successful activites and fundraisers over the past 5 years.  No doubt there is a bunch of them representing RP as delegates in Tampa.  I have no desire to lose them.  And I am not talking about Alex Jones, Adam Kokesh and We Are Change.

----------


## TruthisTreason

> If anything they're trying to keep the movement on course, but apparently to you Rand endorsing romney is the right course for this movement.


 There are those that heard Ron's call and are working inside the GOP party to implement change on a bottom up level. Then there is everyone else. That is the movement. Those in the movement who want to bitch and groan about nothing ever changing can stay on the internet and do that. Some of us are becoming the change, or attempting to. Romney is but a few month fad who will be old news in a few months. The anti-Obama supporters can remember Ron Paul people as the $#@!s or the guys that were against Obama. There are things we agree with Romney on, at least those of us who are fiscal conservatives.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> If anything they're trying to keep the movement on course, but apparently to you Rand endorsing romney is the right course for this movement.


On course?  For what?

----------


## TheGrinch

> The problem LE, and i respect your attempts at cooling things down, BUT, damn,,,you've heard that statement..honey, honey, poison, i'm sure many times, and for me Rand has tainted himself whether he knows it or not, and the bottom line is if he wants to get re-elected, or further the cause of Liberty, he really needs to show more principle than he's exhibiting. Mitts endorsement has driven lots of us to question Rands motives. Thats not my fault, or anyone elses..its Rands cross to bear. Believe me...i REALLY want to believe the Liberty movement has a chance. We can ill afford guys like Rand to play fast and loose with his bully pulpit. We need him. But not like this.


Look, when we have a majority or he gets into whitehouse, then we won't have to comprimise. 

But when you are trying to make change with a minority, you simply cannot go in and say "my way or the highway". Particularly with something as trivial as this... All it really is is a gesture like a friend would make, to say "Okay, if this is what you guys choose, I will back you on it". He's said all along he would endorse the nominee, whoever it was, because that's who the party chose. Our chairmen have to the same thing unfortunately to keep their positions.

The goal is to reform the republican party, and you're not going to do that by undermining and painting yourself as "hijacking" it. 

So if you don't want comprimise, then get behind a local candidate, get them into office, and lets start getting a majority, so we don't have to play their game anymore... Until then, the stakes are too high to just take our ball and go home and not even try to play.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> On course?  For what?


Perpetual failure.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The problem LE, and i respect your attempts at cooling things down, BUT, damn,,,you've heard that statement..honey, honey, poison, i'm sure many times, and for me Rand has tainted himself whether he knows it or not, and the bottom line is if he wants to get re-elected, or further the cause of Liberty, he really needs to show more principle than he's exhibiting. Mitts endorsement has driven lots of us to question Rands motives. Thats not my fault, or anyone elses..its Rands cross to bear. Believe me...i REALLY want to believe the Liberty movement has a chance. We can ill afford guys like Rand to play fast and loose with his bully pulpit. We need him. But not like this.


We will just have to agree to disagree, then.  I will keep my eye on Rand.  But, I think he is exactly what we DO need.  We need someone who can get through to the traditional conservatives who didn't understand the message from Ron.  This has to happen, or we will never make much progress.  And I think Rand can do it.  I know he can do it, because I have seen him do it.  His role is also to make us less downright scary to mainstream America.  And Luke isn't helping that much...   Please note that I did not say that he should sacrifice principle, because that should not happen.

If he ends up selling out, I will be at the forefront hanging him out to dry.

----------


## JK/SEA

> _ One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions._ 
> 
> And he tells them to $#@! off, as is his right both as a citizen and a Senator to do.  And they do not, but rather continue interrupting his private conversation.  If someone interrupts my private conversation as I walk down the street, I too will tell them to $#@! off.  And if they continue being rude, juvenile and obnoxious, I will threaten them, and if necessary get physical with them.  Perhaps an ass-kicking would instill some manners, not to mention a respect for laws against harassment, in them, something their parents failed rather badly to do.
> 
> _Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?_
> 
> I think manners should be encouraged.  And if that means some "journalist" (sorry, I can't help but snicker at the use of that word in this case) gets his ass kicked while engaging in harassing behavior, I certainly wouldn't cry any tears.
> 
> _ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?_
> ...


Yeah, as a PCO in my 3rd term, i've been around the GOP faithful. They turn my stomach, and you sound just like them.

----------


## Inkblots

> STFU moron.  Truthers have friggin rocked as movers and shakers of this movement and been the leaders of many successful activites and fundraisers over the past 5 years.  No doubt there is a bunch of them representing RP as delegates in Tampa.  I have no desire to lose them.


Oh, there's no doubt that the current campaign for liberty received important early support - one might even say "vital" - from truthers, Alex Jones-types etc.  But, even though that sort helped to bring us to where we are to day, if we want to continue to move the ball down the field, we've reached the point where such people - especially if they insist on tying their issues, be it 9/11 trutherism, Bilderberg conspiracism, or any other ill-founded fringe idea, to the liberty brand generally, and the Paul brand in particular - do far more harm than good.

Basically, we've reach the point where supporters of that type need to decide what's more important: talking about their pet issues and antagonizing our opponents, or building coalitions and creating a strong liberty-minded coalition in our nation's capital, and indeed in all 50 states.  I think most people here will rally around the latter goal.  Some people who are only in it for the attention, or who honestly think they're right but completely fail to understand how people work and how to build alliances, will of course yell 'betrayal!' and storm out.  But, harsh though it may sound, at this point it's good to lose such people, whatever their past contributions.

----------


## wongster41

> Perpetual failure.


On the course of freedom and prosperity.  I guess what you're saying is Ron's 30 years of no compromising was a perpetual failure?

----------


## JK/SEA

> If he ends up selling out, I will be at the forefront hanging him out to dry.


fair enough. I'm leaning your way, but my feet to the fire burning barrel is now red hot.

----------


## Aratus

if senator rand just gave mister mitt the benefit of the doubt so that he can tear
into him totally legitimately when potus mitt backslides before 2015 then 
lets do say that rand thinks ahead and has BR@$$BALLZ when he then takes on 
an incumbant potus for being president barack obama's third term tacitly. 
this could be like a chess game at midpoint rather than into its actual endgame.

----------


## r3volution

> STFU moron.  Truthers have friggin rocked as movers and shakers of this movement and been the leaders of many successful activites and fundraisers over the past 5 years.  No doubt there is a bunch of them representing RP as delegates in Tampa.


 proof ? btw , never said truthers . guilty conscience ?




> And I am not talking about Alex Jones, Adam Kokesh and We Are Change.


 then why are you replying to me ? can you not read or do you just see what you want ? (truther pun not intended)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> On the course of freedom and prosperity.  I guess what you're saying is Ron's 30 years of no compromising was a perpetual failure?


IF YOUR DEFINITION OF "NO COMPROMISE" MEANS NEVER ENDORSING AN ESTABLISHMENT PARTY GUY THEN RON PAUL IS A FAILURE TOO.

Come on guys....at least try to make your arguments consistent here.  Rand didn't compromise anything.  His endorsement of Romney was not a compromise, just like Ron's endorsement of Gingrich wasn't a compromise.  Stop using emotional, illogical arguments.

----------


## wongster41

> IF YOUR DEFINITION OF "NO COMPROMISE" MEANS NEVER ENDORSING AN ESTABLISHMENT PARTY GUY THEN RON PAUL IS A FAILURE TOO.
> 
> Cone on guys....at least try to make your arguments consistent here.  Rand didn't compromise anything.  His endorsement of Romney was not a compromise, just like Ron's endorsement of Gingrich wasn't a compromise.  Stop using emotional, illogical arguments.


It was a compromise from the very beginning, he explained it in this video at 0:35





Ron might have supported newt for SOTH, but he never supported mccain in 07 on the presidential level and stood his grounds of principle.

----------


## Aratus

half this site had been truther before i arrived after supertuesday in 2008!!!
doctor ron paul was backed by very many of the more perceptive truthers.
even the truthers have their fringe people so i don't blanket brush paint all
into the same monotonous conformity. i've heard several intelligent arguments.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> IF YOUR DEFINITION OF "NO COMPROMISE" MEANS NEVER ENDORSING AN ESTABLISHMENT PARTY GUY THEN RON PAUL IS A FAILURE TOO.
> 
> Come on guys....at least try to make your arguments consistent here.  Rand didn't compromise anything.  His endorsement of Romney was not a compromise, just like Ron's endorsement of Gingrich wasn't a compromise.  Stop using emotional, illogical arguments.


1.Rand voted yes to sanction Iran
2.Rand has vocally taken the "middleground" on Iran sanctions 
3.Rand lied about Romney's platform
4.Rand's Anti-Drone bill sets up the legality for using drones rather than just banning them.

Its okay if you wan't to keep pretending Rand didn't do any kind of compromising

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Ron might have supported newt for SOTH, but he never supported mccain in 07 on the presidential level and stood his grounds of principle.


So... what?  An endorsement for SOTH is just fine, but endorsing for POTUS is a bridge too far?

----------


## EBounding

Was Schindler not principled because he was part of the Nazi party and didn't publicly denounce Hitler?

----------


## Aratus

did rand give the nod to mitt now so that if mitt backslides by 2015
then rand can point out he gave the future potus the benefit of the
doubt but that things are way worse than he thought back in 2012?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I originally believed Rand was playing politics, but this recent video really didn't sit well in my stomach. It's almost like the man I campaigned for and supported when we were trying to get a liberty lover into office has _completely changed._

Everything about his demeanor, attitude, walk, and blatant disregard for the truth really left a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. See for yourself here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtO5I...layer_embedded

----------


## Aratus

i take it you don't often create threads when there are at least two active ones on the same topic and that you are really PO'ed?

----------


## Adrock

Edit: nm

----------


## TruthisTreason

Once you come in, you never come out the same at Build-a-Burgers!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Didn't see it this morning. I have a job  Nice of you to make assumptions, though....Feel free to point me in the direction of the previous thread.

All I said was this is very unsettling and concerning.

----------


## Smitty

Rand Paul represents the division of the liberty movement and he always will. There's no denying it and there's no turning back from it.

You can continue with the liberty movement or you can support Rand Paul.

----------


## Aratus

personally i feel the muckraker journalist found an opening and slammed rand with a question
that mitt has handed a "no" answer to concerning a certain conference and the question of
him being spotted sneaking into the same. the dude expected rand to give him a nugget on
a fringe issue the romney campaign folk would send their mitt~surrogate to the doghouse on.
we know rand has backed mitt, but mitt may not have entered that building that day at all!!!

----------


## TheGrinch

> Rand Paul represents the division of the liberty movement and he always will. There's no denying it and there's no turning back from it.
> 
> You can continue with the liberty movement or you can support Rand Paul.


GTFO... You don't speak for  me or us. Kind of the beautiful thing about liberty is that we can disagree, but yet still fight for it together. 

It only splinters the mvoement if you let it. I'm with all of you and I'm with Rand until his voting record suggests otherwise... See how easy that is?

----------


## Smitty

> GTFO... You don't speak for  me or us. Kind of the beautiful thing about liberty is that we can disagree, but yet still fight for it together. 
> 
> It only splinters the mvoement if you let it. I'm with all of you and I'm with Rand until his voting record suggests otherwise... See how easy that is?


You're dreaming.

A huge percentage of the liberty movement will never accept Rand Paul. That's just the way it is regardless of what anybody thinks about it.

Rand can do whatever he wants in Congress,...but the liberty movement needs to get over him if it is to survive.

----------


## Aratus

everyone around alex jones assumes the eyewitness was correct outside the building about who
was trying to physically furatively sneak into the same and for what reason they were doing it.
rand knows dr. ron's schedule right now much better than he does mitt's and he is well aware of
mitt's many and myriad public stances over the years almost to the degree of being an honorary
baystater. the "build-a-burger" question presumes mitt is more of an insider than the real actual
insiders, and yes, when the group meets, monitary policy often changes. this is mitt's question 
and poor rand is being treated like as if he's mitt's surrogate. the reporter had time on his hands
as rand had a very busy day in d.c and was polite at first. i assume rand has met mitt only a few
times and really can't speak for him as a spokesman not without mittsters being really BVLL if he
says something stupid. i admit rand took the safer route in terms of not giving our potus ammo.

----------


## cheapseats

> Rand can do whatever he wants in Congress,...but the liberty movement needs to get over him if it is to survive.



There is spearheading the "Republican Party Takeover", and there is being in the vanguard of the Liberty Moovement.  BOTH are credible career choices, but it's an EITHER/OR thing.

Lovin' Spoonful:  "...pick up on one and let the other one ride...did you ever have to finally decide?"

----------


## TheGrinch

> You're dreaming.
> 
> A huge percentage of the liberty movement will never accept Rand Paul. That's just the way it is regardless of what anybody thinks about it.
> 
> Rand can do whatever he wants in Congress,...but the liberty movement needs to get over him if it is to survive.


Okay, let me put it another way.... I'll reserve judgement on Rand, as is anyone who's "standing with him", while I stand with all of you for the present.

I'm sick of how so many paint this as if it's black and white. There is a vast amount of grey that we aren't going to agree on, but this "you're either for us or against us" is the same kind of propaganda they use to get us into wars. One sides terrorist is another side's freedom fighter. The world is not so black and white that you have to divide people into groups, and it's a dangerous line of thinking. It's entirely possible to have differing opinions about things and still be allies with one another. I don't see why it shouldn't at this point.

----------


## Aratus

if there now is a movement "litmus test" where you need to be at a 100 percentile, then 
lets just run Alex Jones and not put others thru the misery of the same. do call me logical.

----------


## TheGrinch

> There is spearheading the "Republican Party Takeover", and there is being in the vanguard of the Liberty Moovement.
> 
> BOTH are credible career choices, but it's an EITHER/OR thing.
> 
> Lovin' Spoonful:  "...Pick up on one and let the other one ride..."


No, it's not an "either/or" thing. See my post above. All rhetoric liek that does is serves to be divisive... Disagreements are a part of life, but we need not divide and marginalize eachother over it, but rather embrace that we're all individuals with one common goal: liberty.

If/when Rand turns his back on getting legislation through for our causes, then he will be an enemy of that. Until then, there is no need to make this more than a respectful disagreement (unless of course you're a Gary Johnson supporter here to stir the pot of course )

----------


## cheapseats

> ...this "you're either for us or against us" is the same kind of propaganda they use to get us into wars...



Yep.

And REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER people slinging that $#@! at Non Republican Freedom Fighters.

----------


## jmdrake

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


I think you meant "their" supporters.  Regardless, if things are so bad why are you still here?

----------


## jmdrake

> You're dreaming.
> 
> A huge percentage of the liberty movement will never accept Rand Paul. That's just the way it is regardless of what anybody thinks about it.
> 
> Rand can do whatever he wants in Congress,...but the liberty movement needs to get over him if it is to survive.


Or the various factions of the liberty movement can realize that we don't all have to be on the same page all of the time.  Seriously the "my way or the highway" folks need to chill.  And that goes for people on both sides of the argument.

----------


## AuH20

> Yep.
> 
> And REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER people slinging that $#@! at Non Republican Freedom Fighters.


 The nonrepublican freedom fighters who possess neither the tact nor the decorum to even get a slightest part of their platform passed in the current political environment.

----------


## Libertea Party

Brought to you by Abby Martin's (and indirectly Luke Rodowski's) sponsors:

https://www.google.com/search?q=putin+murders





Do Abby and Luke endorse murdering journalists or war crimes? Maybe. Maybe not. Why won't Russia Today let them address that question on air? Why are they running away???

Interesting how those accusing others of hypocrisy cash a paycheck from war criminal Vladamir Putin without thinking twice about it. 

Oh and how they whine about Rand's response to the 3rd time he's already addressed the issue but cry when Alex Jones is given similar (if not better) treatment: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/bi...estions-video/

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not trying to be mean either but there are different ways to use "controlled opposition" and that is just one of many.  Ron is not controlled opposition and it's getting a bit difficult to read you all of a sudden contemplating it.  Ron did campaign against Romney and then switched tactics because he had to get through Santorum to get to him.  Then it was decided they would never win the popular vote due to lack of billions of dollars so they went the delegate route instead.  We just couldn't get it done so now they are switching tactics again with Rand.  All the while increasing Ron's support the whole way.  No one threw the race Drake, we just didn't win it.  All this "Ron making an alliance with Romney" was nothing more than a smear tactic (in the eyes of his supporters) pushed by the media.  There was not an ounce of truth to that.  It worked on waaaaay too many people and I would have thought you would not have been one of them.


That's certainly one way to look at it.  It stretches credulity, but it's one way to look at it.  It should have been obvious to anyone early on in the race that there wouldn't be "billions" of dollars to work with.  And post Iowa (especially post Super Tuesday) there was all of this talk of a "delegate strategy".  Well a "delegate strategy" only makes sense in a brokered convention.  And a brokered convention would have only been possible if there were enough candidates still running to keep Romney from getting a clear majority.  So either the Ron Paul campaign was incompetent beyond belief (clearly possible) or there was some other reason for not attacking Romney.




> I've always admired your intellect, but from experience I know the best of us, including myself, can be fooled.  I was one of them admittedly and I have freaking got an IQ of 135.  I learned a $#@! load of information from Alex Jones.  After all, propaganda isn't made out of whole cloth and probably ~ 90 truth.  And it's wierd because I am still in awe of him because he's freaking brilliant at his job.  Damn impressive.


Sure.  The best of us can be fooled.  I still support Ron Paul.  Maybe I'm being fooled?  Maybe I've been fooled all along?  Alex Jones is still supporting Ron Paul.  He's still supporting Rand at least directly.  (Some) of his writers and associates have gone off the deep end.  With Alex's pushing behind the scenes?  I don't know.  But my concerns regarding Ron don't come from Alex.  Frankly I haven't been listening much lately.  Fellow RPF member coffeewithchess brought up some very good points yesterday that I can't shake.  The campaign strategy employed this time just doesn't make sense.  Regardless of bad advisers, media attacks etc., Ron just made some moves that just don't make sense.  I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I still think this movement has accomplished a lot.  But at this point I have more questions for Ron than I do for Rand.




> Just trying to be honest here with everyone in hope's it will stem some of the bleeding of the movement's support when it comes to Alex Jone's supporter's.  We need to come together once again to finish the job and not divide and I see Alex purposely attempting it by using his writers and lapdogs so he can maintain plausible deniability, IMHO.
> 
> Anyways, peace out.  Don't want to make an enemy of you....I want to work with you.


If Alex Jones didn't exist, a lot of people would still be pissed at Rand and confused about Ron.  And don't worry, questioning my argument won't make me an enemy.  I appreciate a thoughtful discussion.

----------


## r3volution

> Or the various factions of the liberty movement can realize that we don't all have to be on the same page all of the time.  Seriously the "my way or the highway" folks need to chill.  And that goes for people on both sides of the argument.


 after you have told multiple people to leave over that last few days . lmao , good 1 .

----------


## jmdrake

> after you have told multiple people to leave over that last few days . lmao , good 1 .


Ummmm....you've been the one telling people to leave.  And since you think that's the answer for everyone that says something negative about the forum I just threw that back at you.  Who are these "multiple people" you speak of?  I don't think they exist.  If they do they were probably being jerks like you and trying to run others off.

----------


## Aratus

alex jones is coming into his own as we speak as a political entity inside our presidential politics if he is asking a sitting senator to toe the line.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh, please don't do that.  It's just going to further the divide and conquer that appears to be some kind of agenda being played on us.


+rep!  While we've clashed in the past LE I've come to understand and respect your position and I'm sure you have mine.

----------


## July

> I'm sick of how so many paint this as if it's black and white. There is a vast amount of grey that we aren't going to agree on, but this "you're either for us or against us" is the same kind of propaganda they use to get us into wars. One sides terrorist is another side's freedom fighter. The world is not so black and white that you have to divide people into groups, and it's a dangerous line of thinking. It's entirely possible to have differing opinions about things and still be allies with one another. I don't see why it shouldn't at this point.


Agreed....the world isn't black and white, and as Rand said, not just good and evil people. I don't think Ron sees the world that way either. He advocates for diplomacy and non aggression, and he is civil and a gentleman with his opponents, and willing to compromise on the right issues. Ron brought a lot of people together who don't normally agree on everything, because we were able to find common ground. Ron suggested we run for office like he did...Now, don't you think it is strange how we have come this far picking up positions at state conventions, and now suddenly people are telling us to turn on Rand, to stay away from the Republican party, that it is useless to try, that the platform is meaningless, etc. Really?? If it is so useless and meaningless, then what exactly do we stand to lose?

----------


## Crotale

> There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.


You still support Rand despite his endorsement of Romney. May I remind you that Romney is a big government candidate? He supports NDAA, the Drones, big taxes, Wall Steet Cronyism, illegal wars and the counterfeiters of the Federal Reserve. An endorsement of Romney is an endorsement of the violent gang calling themselves the government.

Your steadfast defence of Rand is condoning the endorsement of violence so don't even try pull the 'violence' card. Because it was a small vocal minority of irrational idiots who posted things like that. You could count them on one hand. I oppose Rand's endorsement, as do the majority of liberty activists. The tone of you posts (not just this one but I've been going through your post history, it is a common theme) are trying to paint the R3VOLUTION as violent thugs who threatened Rand. We're not. Just because we have integrity, principles and aren't willing to compromise on our values because we understand that those who stand for nothing will sell-out for anything - doesn't mean that we are violent and hypocritical towards those who would rather sell out.

Yes, there were a few prats who hurled abuse and let their emotions override their senses. They are a tiny minority. The majority of individuals in the R3VOLUTION are disgusted at this betrayal and have questioned Rand is a civil manner. You seem put off by the fact that liberty-minded folk will hold supposed allies to account. Well I've got news for you, we do this because we are fighting for something worth fighting for. Liberty. 

How much compromise is acceptable for you?

----------


## soulcyon

It's not an "interview" when you walk up to him out of nowhere and push questions on him :\

thats just douchebaggery

----------


## Crotale

> we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .


Your post reeks of collectivism.

----------


## radiofriendly

*WeAreLame*

This guy phrases his question with, *"We know you're playing politics, but tell us...."* and you expect Rand to submit to a taped conversation with someone like that?? knowing full well the bias intent of the guy who will control the selective editing of the video?

Plus, Rand has already talked to this guy several times and knows full well the attack mode that he, Kokesh and Alex Jones are all in.

Folks, hate to break it to you, but there is a whole industry making money in the conspiracy peddling world. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy listening to Coast to Coast AM as much as the next guy, but don't form your world view from these people.

*If you want to engage in the political process to advocate for rule-of-law and constitutional principles, take note: Distancing yourself from people motivated purely by pushing a grand conspiracy narrative intersecting all aspects of life, will be one of the wisest things you'll ever do.*



If you think these guys should be leading a political movement, you probably need a very long vacation.

----------


## cucucachu0000

im not so worked up about it. sometimes you need a guy to do some dirty work. i think more people are upset because they wanted him to be another Ron Paul or another never wavering focal point for our movement and he clearly wont be hell just be another part of the revolution machine (a big part but still only a part). people are upset because of his potential kind of like people have a special hate for NFL hyped up draft picks that turn out to be busts but dont really care if the 7th rounder doesnt make the team. it doesnt mean he wont or cant help us get the ball rolling which is the hardest part but once its actually rolling we can have more of us Hard Core's out there really making changes. theres a saying the hardest part of any journey is the first step, were still getting this first step stop being so hysterical and move on do what YOU think you need to do to and Rand will do what he thinks he needs to do.

----------


## Fredom101

> One more time.  The aide said he had just gotten out of a meeting and she was briefing him on some things.  I would assume before his next meeting.
> 
> Have you never had a high-pressure job?  I have.  Rand was nicer than I would have been.


Yes, I have had a high pressure job, but I wasn't taking extortion money to do it.

----------


## Aratus

the problem is... rand by even quietly getting on the rolling romney (admittedly RINO) bandwagon has
agreed to back the GOP nominee & he cannot simply make off the cuff remarks that could accentuate
president barack h. obama's fall campaign like ole joltin' jim bunning in his kentucky~wise political prime.
could we keep in mind that if jim bunning had won the 2010 senate race he'd have been where rand is, 
and that jim bunning was well known on capital hill for giving an unvarnished piece of his mind to all cub
reporters? jim bunning would have spent 2 to 5 minutes doing a very quotable video clip. rand held back.
jim bunning's press clippings adds a further dimention to this as rand's votes have been more edgy than
the retired senator even if most of rand's have been almost identical to the way he may have voted!!!(if)

----------


## Fredom101

> im not so worked up about it. sometimes you need a guy to do some dirty work. i think more people are upset because they wanted him to be another Ron Paul or another never wavering focal point for our movement and he clearly wont be hell just be another part of the revolution machine (a big part but still only a part). people are upset because of his potential kind of like people have a special hate for NFL hyped up draft picks that turn out to be busts but dont really care if the 7th rounder doesnt make the team. it doesnt mean he wont or cant help us get the ball rolling which is the hardest part but once its actually rolling we can have more of us Hard Core's out there really making changes. theres a saying the hardest part of any journey is the first step, were still getting this first step stop being so hysterical and move on do what YOU think you need to do to and Rand will do what he thinks he needs to do.


No. The problem is that Rand is not a libertarian, so we're getting a watered down conservative "Bush Lite" approach, and Ron Paul supporters know far better. Bob Barr was for small government too. So were a few other congress people. But you don't see us rallying around these guys. Why? Principles. They actually matter.

----------


## Crotale

> *WeAreLame*


What a mature start to your post....




> This guy phrases his question with, *"We know you're playing politics, but tell us...."* and you expect Rand to submit to a taped conversation with someone like that?? knowing full well the bias intent of the guy who will control the selective editing of the video?


What selective editing of the video - I haven't noticed any selective editing on any of the videos? Perhaps you could point out evidence for this claim before making accusations.

I'm pretty indifferent to the whole 'truth movement', I don't particularly follow the whole Alex Jones-Bildeberger saga. I'm more interested in Austrian Economics and the philosophy of liberty than the "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!" side. I don't have anything against them, in fact, I feel that they're an ally. 

I fail to see, though, the harm in WeAreChange and Alex Jones, nor do I feel that they have any alterior motive. I think that Luke Radowski (sp?) is merely a college kid with a camera trying to make a name for himself in a field that he's passionate about. He hasn't violated the non-agression principle, so what's the problem? In fact, suggesting that he has a 'bias intent' seems pretty similar to those who cry "Conspiracy!".




> Plus, Rand has already talked to this guy several times


Has he? There's that brief video from two years ago, but I can't find any other ones. I'm happy to be corrected so perhaps you would post the videos to support the claim that they've conversed "several times".




> and knows full well the attack mode that he, Kokesh and Alex Jones are all in.


Laughable. No offence but to say Adam Kokesh is in an 'attack mode' is ridiculous. You don't think politicians should be held to account? You don't think it's okay to disagree with Rand's endorsement? Get rid of the emotive language, Adam Kokesh eloquently presented his distaste with Rand. It's not an 'attack' to disagree with someone. I don't know about WeAreChange other than this video but I'll agree with you that Alex Jones seems in a bit of an attack mode - he seems to have gone out his way to blaming everyone and anyone, including Ron Paul himself, for this endorsement and overstate his outrage and generally kick up more of a fuss than it's worth. 

Also, I don't see how you can group Adam Kokesh in with Alex Jones and WeAreChange. Adam has a completely different style and the subject which he focuses on is completely different. Adam Kokesh isn't a truther, he's an ancap (not mutually exclusive, I know, but the content of Adam Versus The Man is about the voluntarist philosophy and current affairs, not the "exposing the NWO"). In fact, I would suggest that Adam is more comparable to Stefan Molyneux and the folks at FreeTalkLive than Alex Jones and WeAreChange.




> Folks, hate to break it to you, but there is a whole industry making money in the conspiracy peddling world. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy listening to Coast to Coast AM as much as the next guy, but don't form your world view from these people.


Well, thanks for the words of wisdom o wise sage.




> *If you want to engage in the political process to advocate for rule-of-law and constitutional principles, take note: Distancing yourself from people motivated purely by pushing a grand conspiracy narrative intersecting all aspects of life, will be one of the wisest things you'll ever do.*


....and support those who endorse tyranny? I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't mean I find them anything but harmless. Slightly deluded, a bit caught up and gullible - yes - but at least they don't try and deny me my right to self-ownership. The same cannot be said for policians like Rand and Romney.





> If you think these guys should be leading a political movement, you probably need a very long vacation.


I think you should take a vacation yourself - to PorcFest where you can meet Adam and air your complaints to his face. Btw, he is a reasonable gent who enjoys debate so don't be put off by his arms.

----------


## Fredom101

> You still support Rand despite his endorsement of Romney. May I remind you that Romney is a big government candidate? He supports NDAA, the Drones, big taxes, Wall Steet Cronyism, illegal wars and the counterfeiters of the Federal Reserve. An endorsement of Romney is an endorsement of the violent gang calling themselves the government.
> 
> Your steadfast defence of Rand is condoning the endorsement of violence so don't even try pull the 'violence' card. Because it was a small vocal minority of irrational idiots who posted things like that. You could count them on one hand. I oppose Rand's endorsement, as do the majority of liberty activists. The tone of you posts (not just this one but I've been going through your post history, it is a common theme) are trying to paint the R3VOLUTION as violent thugs who threatened Rand. We're not. Just because we have integrity, principles and aren't willing to compromise on our values because we understand that those who stand for nothing will sell-out for anything - doesn't mean that we are violent and hypocritical towards those who would rather sell out.
> 
> Yes, there were a few prats who hurled abuse and let their emotions get in the way of them. They are a minority. The majority of individuals in the R3VOLUTION are disgusted at this betrayal and have questioned Rand is a civil manner. You seem put off by the fact that liberty-minded folk will hold supposed allies to account. Well I've got news for you, we do this because we are fighting for something worth fighting for. Liberty. 
> 
> How much compromise is acceptable for you?


Bingo, head on the nail, hit.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> No, it's not tangent at all.  Rand actually is the one who stopped the forthcoming sanction from, in any way, being seen as authorizing war with Iran.  If you want to disagree with him on that, fine.  Just like I disagreed with Ron on some of his votes.  But, I never ever went around calling him a traitor.


 You really fail.

sanctions =pre-emptive acts of war

----------


## Aratus

heck... i was despairing about our dearth of talent looming for 2016 and i thought to run matt collins as a traditional
favorite son who'd be hopefully honest and sworn to bow out to dr. ron paul at the next gop shindig after tampa. just
four or five or six regional candidates like adam kokesh & matt collins or maybe even alex jones could hand dr. ron paul
delegates and a nomination on a silver platter with far less physical effort by he as we stay together and build on 2012.

----------


## Crotale

> heck... i was despairing about our dearth of talent looming for 2016 and i thought to run matt collins as a traditional
> favorite son who'd be hopefully honest and sworn to bow out to dr. ron paul at the next gop shindig after tampa. just
> four or five or six regional candidates like adam kokesh & matt collins or maybe even alex jones could hand dr. ron paul
> delegates and a nomination on a silver platter with far less physical effort by he as we stay together and build on 2012.


Have you considered running yourself? There's a thread in the '2012 Candidates' subforum talking about the need more activists in the R3VOLUTION to stand up and run themselves. If you reckon you would be suitable, then absolutely go for it. You would have the backing of this movement. If you don't think others would do a good job, maybe you should lead by example and run yourself?

----------


## Aratus

if i run up here near boston and matt collins runs in tennessee as adam kokesh runs in the four corners area 
as john dennis runs in and near 'frisco, we might emerge with delegates! if more of us do this and cut loose
our delegates that we have carefully hand-picked to doctor ron paul, we might be a big block of delegates!!!

----------


## anaconda

> These "reporters" look like a bunch of tools.


I don't know why Rand just politely refer him to the interviews he did recently. They pretty much answered all his questions.

----------


## Crotale

> Please note that I did not say that he should sacrifice principle, because that should not happen.


But that's what he's been doing.

----------


## Lucille

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw
> 
> Please watch and share.
> 
> Around 330-5 in.
> 
> Very condescending


No it wasn't.  He's right.  Most of us don't scream obscenities, threaten, and/or call the Pauls traitors.  Rand's work in the Senate is more important than any endorsement ever will be.

ETA:  I don't like that he endorsed Obamney.  I wish he hadn't endorsed anyone and I'm not sure why he felt the need to.  Were people asking him?  I also wish he were as anti-interventionist and principled as Ron, but he's not.  Ron is great.  Rand is good.

When Romney loses in Nov., Rand will be at the top of my list for POTUS 2016.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


How many times do they have to do it? Now they're just following him around asking the same $#@! he has already answered and then pretending he is bad because he won't answer questions he has already answered.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


Lol what they have been doing with Rand is not real journalism.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out.  If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support?  The liberty movement?


Lol he didn't sell out. And he gained far more sheeple GOP voters than liberty voters he lost. Playing the "where will his support come from? It's all gone." card doesn't jive with reality.

----------


## Revolution9

> Yep.
> 
> And REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER people slinging that $#@! at Non Republican Freedom Fighters.


Yer a mouthpiece that appears to be a virtual keyboard device. 

Rev9

----------


## Libertea Party

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


Is this painful for you as well (@3:57). Or is Rudowski's hot dog going down too easy for you?

----------


## SewrRatt

This "interview" is obnoxious. The woman with Rand explicitly offers to set up a real interview, you know, one that doesn't interfere with Rand's schedule because it's on his schedule, and isn't some douche stalking him as he walks down the street trying to have a conversation with his peer, and the "interviewer" claims that Rand won't do an interview with him. So he's following Rand... attempting to get an interview... is offered an interview... and refuses to schedule an interview... and claims that Rand isn't willing to do an interview. Makes tons of sense to me!

----------


## cheapseats

> The nonrepublican freedom fighters who possess neither the tact nor the decorum to even get a slightest part of their platform passed in the current political environment.


Tact and Decorum ain't this Board's strong suit.  It is politically CONVENIENT to pretend that I ARRIVED here speaking the way I do now, but it ain't CORRECT.  Who WOULD do that? Who COULD?  I'da been banned lickety-split.

This Board is NOTORIOUS...as in, people TALK about it and NOT in a flattering way...for having a critical mass of Internal Heavyweights who are as impudent, arrogant and disrespectful as they are inexperienced, gullible and unrealistic. 

I know, I know . . . respect has to be EARNED.  Which is why "we" are now rationalizing DEAL-MAKING WITH BAD GUYS.  We WORKED to be this close to Corruption.

As for playing paddy-cake, footsie, back-scratch and bend-over to "get ahead", the SUCK UP way has catapulted PLENTY of Aspirants into office without securing even ONE stated objective.  Other than GETTING INTO OFFICE.

----------


## wongster41

> Is this painful for you as well (@3:57). Or is Rudowski's hot dog going down too easy for you?


What does luke's personal life have anything to do with this?

----------


## cheapseats

> ...he gained far more sheeple GOP voters than liberty voters he lost. Playing the "where will his support come from? It's all gone." card doesn't jive with reality.



MORE "Sheeple" and FEWER Liberty Lovers is now a GOOD thing?

I know, I know . . . YES, IF YOU WANNA WIN!!

----------


## Libertea Party

> What does luke's personal life have anything to do with this?


What does a possible fraudster ambushing Rand Paul with issues he's already addressed in multiple interviews have to do with anything?

----------


## TheGrinch

> What does luke's personal life have anything to do with this?


That he's probably more interested in profiting from our controversy, then actually having an interview they offered to give him.

But regardless of the truth, it should raise a big red flag when people are directly profiting (through misappropriation if not fraud) from these noble movements, particularly when there's controversy surrounding them.  The reason the media resorts to sensationalism (aside from other agendas) is because it's very profitable to create a spectacle, particularly when that spectacle can contribute to people buying into you instead of a "competitor" (i.e., this campaign and Paul-centric movement).

Again, this might not be the case here, but between the way he was pestering Rand and then ran with this to create a faux-story, and him misappropriating funds for his personal use, certainly doesn't lend credibility to him being noble in his pursuit here, does it?

----------


## RickyJ

> Real journalism? LOL! How about Bilderberg Journalism? * Rand's endorsement is the best thing for this movement, why?* Because there are some of us, like Rand, who heard Ron's call to work and influence the Republican party, then there is the rest of us.


If it is the best thing for the movement then why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed Romney too?

Rand Paul revealed he is not one of us with that endorsement. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If it is the best thing for the movement then why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed Romney too?
> 
> Rand Paul revealed he is not one of us with that endorsement. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts.


The best thing right now is that Rand endorsed, and the other best thing is that Ron doesn't endorse....imho

----------


## TheGrinch

> If it is the best thing for the movement then why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed Romney too?


Ron = ideological leader

Rand = political leader

Their roles are different, particularly as we are still a minority. We're unable to bring about purity until we're in positions of power.

Judge Rand by whether he makes gains for liberty through legislation, because he's already told us that this was the reasoning behind why they agreed he needed to make the endorsement, and not close the door on support that we DO need until we're in a majority position.

Fine if you disagree, but just stop with the "us vs. them" rhetoric. Everyone is not going to agree on the solutions, but it's plenty enough that we agree on the problems and work together towards solutions. Outcasting someone (ironically just like the establishment would have if he hadn't made the endorsement) is only counterproductive to getting our ideas into the public discourse, which is much more than you can say for not playing the game at all and remaining "pure" as our country goes down the crapper.

----------


## cheapseats

> Ron = ideological leader
> 
> Rand = political leader



Ideology + Politics = Irreconcilable Differences

----------


## jmdrake

> What does luke's personal life have anything to do with this?


Luke (allegedly) dipping in the funds of an organization set up by someone else (who died mysteriously) and then blowing off questions about it is not "his personal life".  But more importantly, it's hypocritical of him to demand answers from other people when he won't answer questions himself.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> If it is the best thing for the movement then why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed Romney too?
> 
> Rand Paul revealed he is not one of us with that endorsement. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts.


And when/if Ron Paul endorses Romney, in some way shape or form, what then will you say?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron = ideological leader
> 
> Rand = political leader
> 
> Their roles are different, particularly as we are still a minority. We're unable to bring about purity until we're in positions of power.
> 
> Judge Rand by whether he makes gains for liberty through legislation, because he's already told us that this was the reasoning behind why they agreed he needed to make the endorsement, and not close the door on support that we DO need until we're in a majority position.
> 
> Fine if you disagree, but just stop with the "us vs. them" rhetoric. Everyone is not going to agree on the solutions, but it's plenty enough that we agree on the problems and work together towards solutions. Outcasting someone (ironically just like the establishment would have if he hadn't made the endorsement) is only counterproductive to getting our ideas into the public discourse, which is much more than you can say for not playing the game at all and remaining "pure" as our country goes down the crapper.


I see Rand as the implementer.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If it is the best thing for the movement then why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed Romney too?
> 
> Rand Paul revealed he is not one of us with that endorsement. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts.


That is not true.

They have different roles, as Grinch said.  Ron couldn't get much of anything implemented, but he was able to open the eyes of a number of people.  Interestingly enough, it was largely leftists and independents.  Now we have to get the traditional conservatives.  Ron wasn't too successful at that, I think because he used way too leftist jargon.  It made conservatives ears shut.  Rand will be able to get them to listen.  I've heard him explain part of the message to conservatives and they will cheer, when with Ron they just shake their heads in misunderstanding.

Ron is the purity gauge.

Rand is the implementer.

We need both.

Note:  I understand that you want another Ron.  But, they come along maybe once in a lifetime.  That is, if you are very lucky.  I am in my 50s and he is the only one of his type that I have seen.  And as much as you love him, he wasn't able to get legislation through.  We need that.  If we want to get things turned around.

Please give Rand a chance.  We do way too much shooting of our own guys.

----------


## No1butPaul

Ha, his dad wasn't afraid to answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBqCYqZE40

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Rand Paul represents the division of the liberty movement and he always will. There's no denying it and there's no turning back from it.
> 
> You can continue with the liberty movement or you can support Rand Paul.


Have fun wherever you are going, because I am in the liberty movement and I am supporting Rand Paul.  At least right now, I am.  You aren't the grand master of the movement, you know.  Sheesh.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ha, his dad wasn't afraid to answer.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBqCYqZE40


Rand answered quite substantially 2 years ago.  Damn.  The video has been posted a couple of times.  This time, he was frickin' busy and asked Luke to call and make an appointment and they would talk.  That would have been fine with any rational person, but nooooooooooooooooooo.

Geez guys, you seem to want to make this molehill into a mountain.  What's wrong?  Are we doing too well and you feel uncomfortable?  That's what it's starting to seem like.

For the record.  Only a dumbass or someone who was trying to wreck Rand's chances at being a successful implementer, would be going around demanding that he give a frickin' oratory on Bilderberger, 9-11, or lizard people.  Sheesh.  Don't you remember what the media did to Ron?  

You should be furious at that little Luke wanker.  I know I am.  Don't you see that he is just amping this to try to stay relevant?  It's how he gets his money.  And he is not the only opportunist in this movement that is doing this crap.  You must see it.  Surely, you can.

I'm really starting to believe there are people we believed were in our movement, who for some reason or another, are trying to get us at each other's throats to destroy any momentum we had going.  Divide-and-conquer.

----------


## No1butPaul

give me a break, he wasn't too busy. Ron was busy signing books and he answered.

----------


## Libertea Party

> Ha, his dad wasn't afraid to answer.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBqCYqZE40


Neither was Rand. He said Bilderberg attendees (i.e. Goldman Sachs execs) used government for their own profit at public expense . He said it then and I'm confident he'd say it now. This B.S. about putting up a video of his Goldman Sachs comments next to his Mitt Romney comments and claiming he changed his position is just that: B.S.

It's like the liars who say Ron Paul is against the federal Civil Rights Act because he is a racist. Then when he says he for a reform benefiting persons of color (i.e. federal drug laws) they say he's "flip-flopping" on being a racist. It's muddying the waters and interjecting your own agenda to smear someone. It's true Ron Paul is against the CRA but it's _because it's a violation of constitutional rights_ AND it's true that he's against federal drug laws _because it's a violation of constitutional rights._  Not because of _anything_ having to do with race. 

Rand Paul is against Bilderberg attendees who use government to profit themselves because he's against using government for private profit. Rand Paul is also against Solyndra execs using government to profit themselves. Not because he has a political issue with finance execs or green energy execs meeting privately but with ANY individuals or groups lobbying a public institution for private gains whether at Bilderberg or not.

----------


## r3volution

> Rand answered quite substantially 2 years ago.  Damn.  The video has been posted a couple of times.  This time, he was frickin' busy and asked Luke to call and make an appointment and they would talk.  That would have been fine with any rational person, but nooooooooooooooooooo.
> 
> Geez guys, you seem to want to make this molehill into a mountain.  What's wrong?  Are we doing too well and you feel uncomfortable?  That's what it's starting to seem like.
> 
> For the record.  Only a dumbass or someone who was trying to wreck Rand's chances at being a successful implementer, would be going around demanding that he give a frickin' oratory on Bilderberger, 9-11, or lizard people.  Sheesh.  Don't you remember what the media did to Ron?  
> 
> You should be furious at that little Luke wanker.  I know I am.  Don't you see that he is just amping this to try to stay relevant?  It's how he gets his money.  And he is not the only opportunist in this movement that is doing this crap.  You must see it.  Surely, you can.
> 
> I'm really starting to believe there are people we believed were in our movement, who for some reason or another, are trying to get us at each other's throats to destroy any momentum we had going.  Divide-and-conquer.


 they will never get it . they will just keep regurgitating what they hear from those 3 people i mentioned earlier . i wont mention them again because everytime i do i get a -rep from John F Kennedy III & jmdrake but i get like 5 +reps from random others , so it would be rep whoring .

----------


## BlackTerrel

> say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc.   It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


No it isn't.  That's kids who want to feel important and enjoy being $#@!s and harassing people.  Sort of like TMZ.

----------


## Brett85

> So you are fine with Rand wanting continuation of Social Security, Medicare, supports Drone use in America etc.
> 
> It's more like you are a brainless follower of Ron Paul and following Rand simply because of family ties, betraying your "galt" nametag


Rand introduced a bill that effectively makes the drones useless.  He's probably the only U.S Senator who opposes the drones.

----------


## Brett85

> If it is the best thing for the movement then why hasn't Ron Paul endorsed Romney too?
> 
> Rand Paul revealed he is not one of us with that endorsement. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts.


The fact that Ron Paul didn't win a single primary or caucus proves that his strategy failed.  Rand is trying something different.

----------


## whippoorwill

Bump.

----------


## Libertea Party

> No it isn't.  That's kids who want to feel important and enjoy being $#@!s and harassing people.  Sort of like TMZ.

----------


## Southerner

LOL!

----------


## Aratus

KY's Jake of PageOne is brainier than this Luke R dude with the roving camera

----------


## donnay

> The fact that Ron Paul didn't win a single primary or caucus proves that his strategy failed.  Rand is trying something different.


It couldn't be that the elections were rigged?  No it couldn't possibly be.  <Sarcasm OFF>

----------


## Crotale

> ....


You return, respond to all the others replies but you seem to have ignored mine....

I asked you a direct question: how much compromise is acceptable for you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You still support Rand despite his endorsement of Romney. May I remind you that Romney is a big government candidate? He supports NDAA, the Drones, big taxes, Wall Steet Cronyism, illegal wars and the counterfeiters of the Federal Reserve. An endorsement of Romney is an endorsement of the violent gang calling themselves the government.


That is your opinion.




> Your steadfast defence of Rand is condoning the endorsement of violence so don't even try pull the 'violence' card.


Nope.  I stated a fact.  




> Because it was a small vocal minority of irrational idiots who posted things like that. You could count them on one hand.


I saw quite a few.  But, even beyond them, there were also all the comments calling him a TRAITOR and worse.




> I oppose Rand's endorsement, as do the majority of liberty activists.


Agreed.




> The tone of you posts (not just this one but I've been going through your post history, it is a common theme) are trying to paint the R3VOLUTION as violent thugs who threatened Rand. We're not. Just because we have integrity, principles and aren't willing to compromise on our values because we understand that those who stand for nothing will sell-out for anything - doesn't mean that we are violent and hypocritical towards those who would rather sell out.


Some are and some are not.  And no, I am not attempting to paint this movement as anything.  What's more, this forum does not represent "the movement".  Considering how many people acted after the endorsement, it's a good thing.




> Yes, there were a few prats who hurled abuse and let their emotions override their senses. They are a tiny minority. The majority of individuals in the R3VOLUTION are disgusted at this betrayal and have questioned Rand is a civil manner. You seem put off by the fact that liberty-minded folk will hold supposed allies to account. Well I've got news for you, we do this because we are fighting for something worth fighting for. Liberty.


Actually, all you are doing is blathering on an internet forum.




> How much compromise is acceptable for you?


I'm not compromising.  I'm just not willing to kick Rand to the curb for something as stupid as a meaningless endorsement.

----------


## Revolution9

> MORE "Sheeple" and FEWER Liberty Lovers is now a GOOD thing?
> 
> I know, I know . . . YES, IF YOU WANNA WIN!!


They have begun the conversion process. It sticks unlike most of the other political garbage. Your boy included.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> That is not true.
> 
> They have different roles, as Grinch said.  Ron couldn't get much of anything implemented, but he was able to open the eyes of a number of people.  Interestingly enough, it was largely leftists and independents.  Now we have to get the traditional conservatives.  Ron wasn't too successful at that, I think because he used way too leftist jargon.  It made conservatives ears shut.  Rand will be able to get them to listen.  I've heard him explain part of the message to conservatives and they will cheer, when with Ron they just shake their heads in misunderstanding.
> 
> Ron is the purity gauge.
> 
> Rand is the implementer.
> 
> We need both.
> ...


Pay attention to LE here. She is a pain in the butt sometimes but that is her job. Most of the hard core sticklers do not have the same bulldog grip on anything in their lives except this nitter nattering of Rand Paul.. It is obvious due to the amount of thought experiment that is engendered in their outbursts.  Luke deserved no reply. Seems you young farts don't know anything about civility and manners. If he was really a journalist he would have made an appointment el pronto and got an in depth interview instead of the street mugging attempt he filmed and is trying to pass off as journalism..



Rev9

----------


## Brett85

> It couldn't be that the elections were rigged?  No it couldn't possibly be.  <Sarcasm OFF>


No, would you have claimed that the elections were rigged if Ron had won?  The election results were almost exactly the same as the polls showed, so your conspiracy theory would also have to extend to rigged polling data.

----------


## Dianne

> Well, I will never support Rand Paul he is done in my book. Sell OUT!!
> 
> We The People are the Ron Paul R3volution!!


Same with me.    Endorsing Romney was bad, enough; but the insults he hurled at us and his Dad's hardline supporters was totally uncalled for !!

----------


## donnay

> No, would you have claimed that the elections were rigged if Ron had won?


Yes! I would have claimed the voting is rigged even if Ron Paul won because he is anti-establishment.  The establishment has control, if you cannot see that you are in denial.  Dr. Paul's message, alone, should have made you see this for the last five years, let alone the past thirty he has been basically the lone voice in Congress.  Have you not been paying attention?




> The election results were almost exactly the same as the polls showed, so your conspiracy theory would also have to extend to rigged polling data.


If they can rig an election, which has been proven they can, why couldn't they rig the polls?  Do you honestly think the powerful elite are going to give up their power structure easily? That is what I loved about Dr. Paul's message, he was making people aware of their liberties lost and one of them as been the liberty to choose a person who will represent us the most.

Here are some examples of the first polls that came out and yet the results were not even close...

*As his poll numbers climb, so the does commitment of Ron Paul’s Iowa supporters*
*Ron Paul vaults to lead in two Iowa polls: Newt Gingrich in freefall*
*Iowa Poll Shows Paul-Romney-Santorum Dead Heat* 
*Ron Paul, Just in the Nick of Time*
*Paul's serious challenge in Iowa could rock the GOP race* 
*Paul leads in Iowa (PPP Poll -- Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10)*
*MAINE CAUCUS --- WatchTheVote2012 Results*
*Ron Paul Takes Commanding Early Lead in Maine Caucus [Paul 43% Over Romney 33%]*





And the narrative from the corporate controlled media was if Ron Paul wins Iowa, the caucus will not matter.  When the corporate controlled media set the narrative it is easier to rig the election.

Let's not forget governor Glassley plea before Iowa's state convention:

_U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said today he’ll make an appeal for party unity at this weekend’s state convention of the Iowa Republican Party, which has seen Ron Paul loyalists dominate the organization’s management structure.

Some Republicans think it would be an embarrassment if Paul gets the most national delegates from Iowa as Mitt Romney sails towards capturing the Republican Party nomination at the party’s national convention at Tampa, Fla., in August. Romney was originally declared the winner of January’s Iowa GOP caucuses, but former Sen. Rick Santorum was later confirmed as the victor by party officials.

“I am going to have a message to all of the delegates, not just to the Paul people, that we have to join arms in order to win this election and carry Iowa,” Grassley said.
_
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/d...te-convention/

Well we can't be an embarrassment now can we? Ron Paul supporters were made to feel like they were the proverbial red-headed step child.  Are you made yet?  You should be.






















I guess Rand wasn't paying attention either. Oh I know it is some super stealth way of getting into the GOP to be heard and right the wrongs--yeah riiiight. If we keep telling ourselves that over and over again then it must be true, right?

Isn't it time we stop kidding ourselves and move forward to advance liberty? By waking people up to the fact that, we have a corrupted group that has taken over the system, hijacked our government to advance total tyranny. Otherwise it is politics as usual and more of the same and the end of our liberties.


Are you mad yet?  You should be.  I have chosen to take my angry and turn it into passion for liberty and press forward.  I will not delude myself into thinking we can play a corrupt system.

----------


## SilentBull

> Real journalism? LOL! How about Bilderberg Journalism?  Rand's endorsement is the best thing for this movement, why? Because there are some of us, like Rand, who heard Ron's call to work and influence the Republican party, then there is the rest of us.


Don't waste your time explaining this to people. Some people really think this movement is their own personal club. It's just something for them to do. They don't really want things to change.

----------


## Brett85

If Ron Paul is so anti establishment that the establishment resorts to rigging the vote against him, why didn't they rig the vote against him every time he ran for Congress?  You would think that the "establishment" would've wanted to get Ron out of Congress and would've rigged the vote to make him lose his Congressional race.

----------


## donnay

> If Ron Paul is so anti establishment that the establishment resorts to rigging the vote against him, why didn't they rig the vote against him every time he ran for Congress?  You would think that the "establishment" would've wanted to get Ron out of Congress and would've rigged the vote to make him lose his Congressional race.



Because the power elite had the other 534 members in their pocket, he posed no threat.  It's clear, to those paying attention, he started to pose a threat with his first Republican Presidential campaign, that is why he was constantly marginalized and dismissed as a kook.

----------


## Crotale

> You still support Rand despite his endorsement of Romney. May I remind you that Romney is a big government candidate? He supports NDAA, the Drones, big taxes, Wall Steet Cronyism, illegal wars and the counterfeiters of the Federal Reserve. An endorsement of Romney is an endorsement of the violent gang calling themselves the government.





> That is your opinion.


Er no, it's fact. Are you trying to suggest Romney isn't a big government candidate?

----------


## Crotale

Bump.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Er no, it's fact. Are you trying to suggest Romney isn't a big government candidate?


No, you are wrong about your inferences about Rand.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ha, his dad wasn't afraid to answer.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBqCYqZE40


Let's see.  I didn't see Ron Paul asked the question "Why did your son endorse Bilderberg attendee Mitt Romney".  Rand already answered the general question about the Bilderberg group prior to the endorsement the same way Ron did.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9sctUOlOw8

All of the "Rand is betraying us" folks are afraid to ask the really tough question of Ron which is *did Rand do what he did with your blessing*?  The follow up question is *Why didn't  you attack Romney during the campaign?*  Either we trust both of the Pauls or we trust neither of them.  Better yet don't "trust" anybody.   Analyze each action individually and hope for the best.

----------


## jmdrake

> they will never get it . they will just keep regurgitating what they hear from those 3 people i mentioned earlier . i wont mention them again because everytime i do i get a -rep from John F Kennedy III & jmdrake but i get like 5 +reps from random others , so it would be rep whoring .


 It's funny that I get nothing but +reps from LibertyEagle lately, so I don't think she's buying into the crap you're selling.  It's one thing to disagree with people like Alex Jones or Luke Rudowski.  If you've followed what I've said in this thread (instead of being an ass) you'd see that I've not been agreeing with this attack by Luke.  Finally as for the whole "rep" thing, you're the rep whore.  You neg repped me long before I neg repped you.  I don't know what problem is, but you need to let go of your hate before it eats you up.

Edit: Actually I do know.  You're as much of a sycophant "fan boy" as the Alex Jones supporters you hate so much.  Lot's of people have legitimately criticized what Rand did.  Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Chuck Baldwin, all of them have expressed grave concern.  The first video Alex Jones released was a fair criticism of both Ron and Rand Paul over the handling of the situation.  Some of the latest stuff that has come out of Infowars.com is crap.  But that doesn't change the fact that there are fair criticisms.  Once you grow up you'll realize that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Rand apologists are out in full force.
> 
> Watch him with Glenn Beck.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw


Yeah, thanks.  I thought that was a FANTASTIC interview.    Great job, Rand!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's funny that I get nothing but +reps from LibertyEagle lately, so I don't think she's buying into the crap you're selling.  It's one thing to disagree with people like Alex Jones or Luke Rudowski.  If you've followed what I've said in this thread (instead of being an ass) you'd see that I've not been agreeing with this attack by Luke.  Finally as for the whole "rep" thing, you're the rep whore.  You neg repped me long before I neg repped you.  I don't know what problem is, but you need to let go of your hate before it eats you up.
> 
> Edit: Actually I do know.  You're as much of a sycophant "fan boy" as the Alex Jones supporters you hate so much.  Lot's of people have legitimately criticized what Rand did.  Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Chuck Baldwin, all of them have expressed grave concern.  The first video Alex Jones released was a fair criticism of both Ron and Rand Paul over the handling of the situation.  Some of the latest stuff that has come out of Infowars.com is crap.  But that doesn't change the fact that there are fair criticisms.  Once you grow up you'll realize that.


You and I disagree about Alex Jones.  I think it is likely he works for the government.  We also disagree about 9-11.  Besides those two things, I think we agree on most everything else.

----------


## HigherVision

I've been thinking and I think Rand's strategy is bad. I think it's better to stay pure, even if it means sacrificing some short term pragmatic benefit. I don't think it's worth the demoralizing of the liberty movement in order to do so. We have to be in this for the long haul and force the establishment to bend in our direction, not vice versa. I'll still support Rand in the good that he does but he'll never be an icon like his father.

----------


## radiofriendly

Thanks for the response. I have interviewed Adam when I was doing interviews with RevPAC--and also later covered the veterans march. I had a debate with Adam in person about the Super Brochures--of course he's capable of lively and passionate debate--I appreciate that. He's still a terrible person to take political advice from -- and     'super brochures' are a great example of bad political advice.  

Looks like we just have different opinions about taking these guys seriously. 




> What a mature start to your post....
> 
> 
> 
> What selective editing of the video - I haven't noticed any selective editing on any of the videos? Perhaps you could point out evidence for this claim before making accusations.
> 
> I'm pretty indifferent to the whole 'truth movement', I don't particularly follow the whole Alex Jones-Bildeberger saga. I'm more interested in Austrian Economics and the philosophy of liberty than the "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!" side. I don't have anything against them, in fact, I feel that they're an ally. 
> 
> I fail to see, though, the harm in WeAreChange and Alex Jones, nor do I feel that they have any alterior motive. I think that Luke Radowski (sp?) is merely a college kid with a camera trying to make a name for himself in a field that he's passionate about. He hasn't violated the non-agression principle, so what's the problem? In fact, suggesting that he has a 'bias intent' seems pretty similar to those who cry "Conspiracy!".
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> You and I disagree about Alex Jones.  I think it is likely he works for the government.  We also disagree about 9-11.  Besides those two things, I think we agree on most everything else.


We disagree on MLK as well.  And personally I don't think a "conspiracy about a fake conspiracy" makes sense.  I doubt the government wants people to believed there was a government conspiracy involved in 9/11 if there wasn't one.  The idea that AJ could be "poisoning the well" to keep people from finding the truth about 9/11 is of course possible.  I am disappointed in the what Alex has allowed other writers to put on Infowars.com.  I think his initial point that the Pauls have a good record but that the strategy they're pursuing is risky and the implementation has been poor is a fair criticism that's been echoed by people that to my knowledge are not conspiracy theorists.

----------


## PatriotOne

> We disagree on MLK as well.  And personally I don't think a "conspiracy about a fake conspiracy" makes sense.  I doubt the government wants people to believed there was a government conspiracy involved in 9/11 if there wasn't one.  The idea that AJ could be "poisoning the well" to keep people from finding the truth about 9/11 is of course possible.  I am disappointed in the what Alex has allowed other writers to put on Infowars.com.  I think his initial point that the Pauls have a good record but that the strategy they're pursuing is risky and the implementation has been poor is a fair criticism that's been echoed by people that to my knowledge are not conspiracy theorists.


Did you watch this video yet?  Start around 9:15, watch how Alex says he thinks "they" have something on him and Rand is being blackmailed and his gut tells him..he then laughs saliciously implying it's some sexual dalliance.  Then goes on to say "they" have really dug into things and he thinks they are blackmailing Rand.  Then goes on to imply he's on the verge of going to the dark side, etc.  Quite an interesting video...honey, honey, poison all the way through but particularly starting around 9:15 to the end.

----------


## RDM

> Did you watch this video yet?  Start around 9:15, watch how Alex says he thinks "they" have something on him and Rand is being blackmailed and his gut tells him..he then laughs saliciously implying it's some sexual dalliance. * Then goes on to say "they" have really dug into things and he thinks they are blackmailing Rand.*  Then goes on to imply he's on the verge of going to the dark side, etc.  Quite an interesting video...honey, honey, poison all the way through but particularly starting around 9:15 to the end.


That IS the MO in politics and used extensively by the Oligarchy to keep the "scheme" going and those that try to "buck" the scheme ALWAYS and almost always face detrimental consequences i.e. political career killed, jail, personal humiliation, death, etc.

----------


## abruzz0

I'll support a presidential run for Rand in 2016 if and only if he stays on course with what he's done in the Senate so far; i.e., bills against drones, the TSA, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc...but if he starts drifting into neo-con land, then it won't matter, cuz by then he will have pissed away all his support.

Whether for or against Rand at the moment, we're all liberty principled people who are willing to make varying degrees of compromise.  Overall, Rand has done a marvelous job for us in the Senate, with the exception of a couple things like his endorsement of Romney and the Iran sanctions.  That aside, though, he's done a great job and overall is on target with advancing the liberty movement.  

Our job is to support him and also keep him on the straight and narrow for liberty.  

Also beware that trying to pull him too close may end up pushing him away from us.  Keep the balance.

----------


## jmdrake

> Did you watch this video yet?  Start around 9:15, watch how Alex says he thinks "they" have something on him and Rand is being blackmailed and his gut tells him..he then laughs saliciously implying it's some sexual dalliance.  Then goes on to say "they" have really dug into things and he thinks they are blackmailing Rand.  Then goes on to imply he's on the verge of going to the dark side, etc.  Quite an interesting video...honey, honey, poison all the way through but particularly starting around 9:15 to the end.


Which video?  You didn't post a link.  The OP video is only 6 minutes long.  Anyhow I don't have time to watch all of the hours of video Alex Jones has done post the Rand Paul endorsement.  The fact that he's allowed Nimmo and Rudkowski to post garbage is bad enough.  Then again this all seems to be helping Rand in a way.  People who might still be pissed at Rand for the endorsement and wondering what the hell is going on might feel more sympathy because of the hatchet journalism.  It could be staged in more ways than one.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Which video?  You didn't post a link.  The OP video is only 6 minutes long.  Anyhow I don't have time to watch all of the hours of video Alex Jones has done post the Rand Paul endorsement.  The fact that he's allowed Nimmo and Rudkowski to post garbage is bad enough.  Then again this all seems to be helping Rand in a way.  People who might still be pissed at Rand for the endorsement and wondering what the hell is going on might feel more sympathy because of the hatchet journalism.  It could be staged in more ways than one.


Sorry...skip to 9:15.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=BDtDMfehv6M

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Thanks for the response. I have interviewed Adam when I was doing interviews with RevPAC--and also later covered the veterans march. I had a debate with Adam in person about the Super Brochures--of course he's capable of lively and passionate debate--I appreciate that. He's still a terrible person to take political advice from -- and     'super brochures' are a great example of bad political advice.  
> 
> Looks like we just have different opinions about taking these guys seriously.


A terrible person? Like when he says to support Ron Paul? I think you went a little overboard.

----------


## cmstealth

I believe he might have actually answered the question if it was one of the first two posed. Busy man, he answered two, not going to answer a third. I understand.

----------

