# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Rand Paul reserving judgment on Edward Snowden

## cajuncocoa

> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that hes reserving judgment on  Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who  leaked information regarding some of the agencys telephone and  Internet-tracking programs.
> 
> I think its a complicated issue, Paul said  on CBS This Morning. I  think when people choose civil disobedience, theyre at their wits end  and think theres no other choice. Weve had civil disobedience in our  history, sometimes they turn out that we laud them and other times we  say they went too far. I personally am trying to work within the law and  change the law, I think thats what my job is and I think we can  challenge the president on this, particularly his hypocrisy. Im  reserving judgment on Mr. Snowden, but I think he felt like something  like this was so wrong  millions of phone records being looked at.
> 
> You have to realize, Paul added later, by looking at your phone  records, they can actually track your movements all day long. So Ive  been jokingly saying Im leaving my phone at home when I go to  Republican leadership meetings, because the president doesnt need to  know where I am all day long.
> 
> The senators comments on Snowden differ from those of his father,  former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who said Monday that We should be  thankful for Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald, who first reported  details of the NSA program in the Guardian.
> 
> Father Paul, the former presidential candidate, and son Rand, the  senator, who is pondering a 2016 presidential campaign, often part ways  on issues of national security and foreign policy  but they appear to  agree that the U.S. government has gone too far.
> ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dward-snowden/



> I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not  bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.
> I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.
> I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.
> I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum. I will not bash Rand in his own forum.


Say your piece here, Kathy....I sure will.

This is yet another gutless move by Rand.  Thank God RON didn't reserve judgement; *he called Snowden a hero. * 

Maybe this is an example of that infamous 1% that we  keep hearing about.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Mods, please do NOT merge this with the topic in Rand's subforum.  Thank you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sorry, but I actually disagree with you on this one.  I'm in Rand's camp but you know I'm not a mindless Rand defender.

If Rand had said "Snowden was wrong, throw the book at him" I'd agree with you.  That's just going too far.

But he's not.  In fact, he seems like he's supporting Snowden here.  He's just being cautious about it and not flat out endorsing violations of the law, which if he did so would totally screw over his chances.

Even Ron Paul said that tax protestors should expect imprisonment if they disobey the law.

Now, do I prefer Ron Paul's style here?  Yeah.  But I honestly don't see what Rand said that's "Wrong" here.  Ron has nothing to lose politically anymore.  Rand has everything to lose, and as he said, it quite literally is his job to legally make change, as a senator.

I might wish he'd have flat out called him a hero but I don't see why its his job to do that.  So yeah, I think I'm going to have to give Rand a pass on this one.

I was almost certain he was going to say something middle of the road like this, and I wasn't surprised.  This is a stylistic issue, not a matter of principle.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Mods, please do NOT merge this with the topic in Rand's subforum.  Thank you.


To be clear, I'm not suggesting that bashing Rand is a bad thing in all cases... heaven knows I've done it.  I just don't have an issue in this particular case.

----------


## liberty2897

I was just starting to warm up to him again.  I see now that he doesn't get it.

----------


## erowe1

What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was just starting to warm up to him again.  I see now that he doesn't get it.


Oh my goodnesss those avatars are confusing me...

To be clear...

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I will be voting for Rand, but I do have some legitimate issues with him.  I don't like the way he talks about Israel, or his votes for sanctions on Iran, or his unwillingness to say that we should end entitlements, or his unwillingness to say we should legalize drugs.  Yeah, I get that some of that may be strategic but I still don't like it.

But I honestly have no issue with what he said here.  He actually seems like he's supporting Snowden, just doing it in a reserved sort of way that is consistent with his position as a US Senator.  I honestly do not expect a legal official to give an unqualified endorsement for breaking the law in this case.

For the record, I believe Snowden was a hero.  I honestly think Rand does too, and if you parse the text of what he said you can get the picture that he's fed up and that he sympathizes  with what Snowden did.

----------


## Zarn Solen

> What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?


His name isn't Ron.

----------


## cajuncocoa

It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?


Its unfortunate that he has to.  Snowden WAS a hero, and 49% of America are idiots for thinking otherwise.  

Rand Paul doesn't agree with those 49% though, he's just choosing his words carefully so maybe he can take some of their votes

I don't really see what he said that was wrong here...

----------


## kathy88

I think he's weighing the political climate before he "makes a judgement." That sucks.

----------


## Warlord

> It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....


Yes, they're hypocrites. Rand is not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's pretty bad when Rush, Beck, and Hannity are ahead of Rand on this...of course, I realize they only only take that stance because Obama is in the WH...but still....


Well, there's truth to that, but the thing is, Rand would be saying the same thing if Bush were in office, while Rush and Hannity at the very least (I honestly don't know enough about Beck, I'm too young and he really does sound good sometimes) would be screaming that he should  be sent to the gallows.

Rand never actually said Snowden did anything wrong.  He simply said that it was his own job as a US Senator to change things legally, which it is.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Its unfortunate that he has to.  Snowden WAS a hero, and 49% of America are idiots for thinking otherwise.  
> 
> Rand Paul doesn't agree with those 49% though, he's just choosing his words carefully so maybe he can take some of their votes
> 
> I don't really see what he said that was wrong here...


that's the problem, FF. He has a golden opportunity to educate that 49%…instead, he takes the safe road. Gutless.

----------


## jbauer

> What is there to criticize about reserving judgment?


no clue.  to me it seems like the easiest way to say you support it without pissing a bunch of people off.  If you're going to run for president you shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law even if you agree with it.

If Rand truly was against Snowden he would have said so, saying he's reserving judgment means he's in his corner.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, they're hypocrites. Rand is not.


Yes, they are hypocrites...but that's a subject for another thread. This one is about Rand lacking the courage to take a stand, as his Father has.

----------


## Warlord

> that's the problem, FF. He has a golden opportunity to educate that 49%…instead, he takes the safe road. Gutless.


His job is not to educate the dumbed down masses. This is a fruitless task.

----------


## donnay

Anyone who watched the interview with Snowden would understand that what Snowden did is extremely risky against this shadow government.  By exposing them, he put a light on them and the cockroaches are running for cover.

Rand should know better--seriously.  He, as a senator, should also be thankful that a light was shown on the corruption this hijacked government has been doing for years.  This is the same hijacked government who gathers information on their adversaries and blackmails them.  This is the same hijacked government who thinks they are above the law.

Reserving judgment?  I do not get it Rand?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> that's the problem, FF. He has a golden opportunity to educate that 49%…instead, he takes the safe road. Gutless.


The thing is, Ron just did take that opportunity.  If they won't listen to Ron I seriously doubt they'd listen to Rand...

My gut reaction was to say that the 49% were all idiots, but I also completely expected Rand to say something middle of the road.

I don't know.  Sometimes it does bother me.  When you're talking about foreign policy, it really does bother me when you support and vote for sanctions, or say "An Attack on Israel is an attack on the US" or whatever.  It does bother me  when Rand says he doesn't want to legalize drugs, or talks about "Saving" the entitlements (I know Ron did that last one to a limited extent as well.  I don't even agree with Ron on the issue but at least he wanted to eventually end it).  But this.. honestly, Rand did pretty much imply that he was cool with civil disobedience like this, he just did so in a somewhat less provocative way.  I honestly don't know if that was smart of him in this particular case but I don't see anything "Wrong" with it.

----------


## erowe1

> no clue.  to me it seems like the easiest way to say you support it without pissing a bunch of people off.  If you're going to run for president you shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law even if you agree with it.
> 
> If Rand truly was against Snowden he would have said so, saying he's reserving judgment means he's in his corner.


Seriously.

What is he supposed to do, come out and say in 2013 that if he gets elected in 2016 he'll pardon Snowden, without knowing much about him or what's going to happen between now and then?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Yes, they are hypocrites...but that's a subject for another thread. This one is about Rand lacking the courage to take a stand, as his Father has.


He's putting his neck on the line more than any other Senator. Wtf are you talking about?

You act like Rand is a radio-host talking to Libertarians and not an elected representative. If you haven't noticed according to most polls *HALF* of this country thinks this man is a traitor.

----------


## kathy88

> no clue.  to me it seems like the easiest way to say you support it without pissing a bunch of people off.  If you're going to run for president you shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law even if you agree with it.
> 
> If Rand truly was against Snowden he would have said so, saying he's reserving judgment means he's in his corner.


Break WHAT $#@!ing law? So signing a confidentiality agreement that requires you to do illegal things and calling people out on it is breaking the law, but warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance IS NOT? How $#@!ed up are you people in the head?

----------


## Warlord

> Yes, they are hypocrites...but that's a subject for another thread. This one is about Rand lacking the courage to take a stand, as his Father has.


Ron tried to educate them for 6 years and it didn't work.  Rand is not going down that route

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Break WHAT $#@!ing law? So signing a confidentiality agreement that requires you to do illegal things and calling people out on it is breaking the law, but warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance IS NOT? How $#@!ed up are you people in the head?


Snowden knew what he was getting himself in to joining the CIA and NSA. As much as I admire the man for what he did we don't know the entire story. We don't know all the things Snowden has done. You can't judge a man on one act alone. Rand is playing it safe.

----------


## kathy88

> He's putting his neck on the line more than any other Senator. Wtf are you talking about?
> 
> You act like Rand is a radio-host talking to Libertarians and not an elected representative. If you haven't noticed according to most polls *HALF* of this country thinks this man is a traitor.


Half of this country have the intelligence of my left knee.

----------


## V3n

Some people like the politics of winning.  Some people like yelling in the wilderness.

Yeah, it's politics, but it's also how you win.  His 'law-suit' should be enough evidence if you're really confused on where he stands.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Half of this country have the intelligence of my left knee.


And half of those morons will vote to elect Rand as president. Suck it up and read in between the lines... re-watch the interview. He clearly said we have a history of civil-disobedience, he said all he could but call the man a hero. He's not trying to polarize himself. It's that simple.

----------


## kathy88

> And half of those morons will vote to elect Rand as president. Suck it up and read in between the lines... re-watch the interview. He clearly said we have a history of civil-disobedience, he said all he could but call the man a hero. He's not trying to polarize himself. It's that simple.



Not trying to polarize himself = being a pussy in this case IMO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Break WHAT $#@!ing law? So signing a confidentiality agreement that requires you to do illegal things and calling people out on it is breaking the law, but warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance IS NOT? How $#@!ed up are you people in the head?


We're talking about what the law is, not what the law should be.  Under a just legal system we'd have over 400 House Reps and 98 senators being hanged in the public square, but that frankly just isn't realistic...






> Seriously.
> 
> What is he supposed to do, come out and say in 2013 that if he gets elected in 2016 he'll pardon Snowden, without knowing much about him or what's going to happen between now and then?


Yeah, pretty much.  I think Rand is playing it smart here.  Sometimes I have an issue with playing politics, other times its common sense.  I'd never actually say what I said directly above your quote if I was running for office.

In this particular case, I support what Rand did.  In other cases, like what he's said about Israel or drugs, I do not support, but it is what it is.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

I'm "reserving judgment" on Rand Paul.

But seriously, I won't praise him for this timid move but there are plenty others far more deserving politicos on whom I would spend my criticism.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Have you not heard the expression? "At wits end" means to be extremely frustrated over a situation and, as he says, feeling "there's no other choice" but civil disobedience... Of course one who engages in civil disobedience feels that they have no other choice but to break the law. No one would choose to incriminate themselves if they had other good options within the law. But please don't let me stop you from reading way more into it than what he said.
> 
> Ya know JFK, I was tempted to not even respond to you the way you've flinging insults at me and accusing me of making $#@! up, after I've defended your views MANY times against the conspiracy bashers, just the same as I'm doing here against unfair attacks on Rand. You really have the guff to call me an apologist, even after it turns out that the attacks against him were completely baseless?
> 
> What happened to you man? Are you so blinded by hate that you've become completely unable to engage in reasonable discourse? I've given you FACTS over and over in this thread, and you've not responded to any of them but rather just toss out baseless accusations.  I still think you're one of the good ones, but you need to regain some perspective before you go off the deep end and disavow your fellow liberty fighters as if we're the problem. 
> 
> I cannot believe I've had to spend 32 pages defending the ONE politician fighting for Snowden's cause, and even after being proven right, a person I thought was a friend and ally is still taking shots at me.
> 
> 
> ...



That went right over your heads apparently. I got a facepalm and an explanation of what wits end means. You guys aren't even trying.

----------


## TaftFan

Nice. Another worthless Rand thread. They will keep coming and they will never change anything.

----------


## TheGrinch

> That went right over your heads apparently. I got a facepalm and an explanation of what wits end means. You guys aren't even trying.


To the contrary, I've expended far far FAR too much energy wasting my day trying to reason with those who refuse to listen to reason.

Would you care to explain what exactly went over our heads, or would you prefer to just keep flinging insults? At least CC is attempting to justify her POV, feebly as it may be. You've offered no retorts, you're just being an $#@! flinging baseless accusations.

----------


## newbitech

> That went right over your heads apparently. I got a facepalm and an explanation of what wits end means. You guys aren't even trying.


Who isn't trying what?  You've spent all day bashing Rand Paul, what is this the tryouts thread for some 2016 GOP debate moderator gig?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> One last one, since you asked so very nicely . What that means is that just like anyone who criticized Obama was called a racist, anyone who defends  Rand (or frankyl tries to rationalize with gotcha-artists) is accused of being an apologist. For further reading, you can reference "loose analogy".
> 
> Now $#@! off if you can't play nice.


Way to yet again misrepresent reality. $#@! off to you too.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Who isn't trying what?  You've spent all day bashing Rand Paul, what is this the tryouts thread for some 2016 GOP debate moderator gig?


Bashing Rand Paul? When did I start doing that?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Who isn't trying what?  You've spent all day bashing Rand Paul, what is this the tryouts thread for some 2016 GOP debate moderator gig?






JFK is like the Carl Cameron of Rand Paul.

----------


## newbitech

> Bashing Rand Paul? When did I start doing that?


Yes, you are.  If I had to guess, I'd say maybe when you started living the perfectly principled life, but I'm probably way off.   Shed some light on that answer for us please.  When did the first thoughts of Rand Paul bashing come to your mind?

----------


## Carlybee

> He didn't fall short or have to clarify. You had a knee jerk reaction that was once again proven wrong as our interpretation is proven right. You'd think that'd cause you to reserve judgement, yet like clockwork you immediately jump on these things without putting it into perspective of what he's actually trying to say. This isnt a rand problem, its a you problem.
> 
> I'd happily put you on ignore, but I'm not just going to sit here and let you drag his name through the mud with out of context gotchas, like the god damn media. Youre not going to turn this forum into your own personal attack machine, and distract from the good things rand is doing.


She is hardly dragging his name through the mud.  Are you on his payroll or something?  If not, this is the general forum not the Rand forum and people have the right to their perception and opinions.  She's been a member here a hell of a lot longer than you and last I checked you don't run this place.

----------


## Brett85

I would say, who cares?  The only thing that matters is Rand's position on unconstitutional government surveillance, and on that Rand is really the only Senator who's doing everything he possibly can to fight for our rights and the Bill of Rights.

----------


## V3n

I don't know how I'm going to sleep tonight!!

----------


## Ender

> Honest criticism of Rand is BS trashing? And people wonder why the liberty movement went to $#@! after Ron...


You're funny.

Honest criticism is not taking a statement out of context and using it to vilify. Rand said a lot more than "reserving judgment" and we all know it. 

Rand may be saving Snowden's life by taking the spotlight off of him and putting it on the unconstitutional mire we are all in.

----------


## SilentBull

> Gotta love when people say the other side has zero credibility just because they disagree. By your logic you don't have any credibility either.
> 
> Us Ron Paul supporters had zero credibility according to everyone else. How about you stop you guys stop insulting us and just have a civil conversation for once.


Gotta love when you don't address any of the points I made, and then accuse me of not having a civil conversation. Fact: If Rand would have listened to most of the people that attack him he would not be a Senator today.

And it's quite the opposite. Ron Paul has been proven to be correct, which gives us plenty of credibility. When you are proven wrong, that's when you lose it. And when Rand Paul does the opposite of what the people that attack him would have preferred that he did, and then starts changing the republican party from the inside, that proves his strategy is working, and it proves that those who thought an endorsement was more important than changing the party from the inside, were WRONG!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *Us Ron Paul supporters* had zero credibility according to everyone else. How about you stop *you guys stop insulting us* and just have a civil conversation for once.


What in hell are you talking about?  ALL of us here are Ron Paul supporters.  The only difference is that some of us like Rand TOO and a few can't seem to deal with that.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Way to yet again misrepresent reality. $#@! off to you too.





> Bashing Rand Paul? When did I start doing that?





> She is hardly dragging his name through the mud.  Are you on his payroll or something?  If not, this is the general forum not the Rand forum and people have the right to their perception and opinions.  She's been a member here a hell of a lot longer than you and last I checked you don't run this place.


Sicne i've already wasted a day on this lunacy, allow me to address your concerns one by one:

*1. "She is hardly dragging his name through the mud.  Are you on his payroll or something?"*

I would say that purposely double-posting a sensationalistic headline and out-of-context statements from WaPo (that frankly aren't very damning even without proper perspective) for the sole purpose of calling him "gutless" is dragging his name through the mud, and frankly nothing new whatsoever for CC, who has many times before jumped to these brash conclusions only to be proven wrong about what Rand is saying or doing.

No I am not on his payroll, but when the guy is the ONLY senator putting forth legislation and lawsuits regarding these programs that Snowden has brought to light (and has been long before Snowden did so), then I will not stand for those trying to distract and undermine his efforts by falsely accusing him of not supporting him.  He's the ONLY one fighting Snowden's fight against the NSA in the Senate, so to claim he doesn't have the guts to support Snowden is patently false, even putting the knee-jerk reaction aside.

*2.  "If not, this is the general forum not the Rand forum and people have the right to their perception and opinions."*

Am I not also entitled to disagree and say why I think she's being unfair towards him? You can't have it both ways, and frankly these forums as a whole are here for the purpose of supporting fights for liberty, so to levy accusations without ample proof does not jive with the mission statement here. However, that doesn't mean that CC isn't free to have those opinions, just that she should expect massive blowback from those who DO support what Rand is doing on Snowden's behalf to shift the conversation away from him and towards what we can do about the government's crimes.

*
3.  "She's been a member here a hell of a lot longer than you and last I checked you don't run this place."*

Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been in the Senate far longer than many other senators. Does that mean that they are more right because of their seniority? 

I'm not sure where I said that I run this place, if I did I apologize.  What I did say is that I'm not just going sit back and ignore her like I'm sure she wishes I would. If she's going to be a thorn in Rand's side and levy these false accusations, I'm going to be a thorn in hers and call her out on it. I will not sit idly by, but again, I don't run the place, or else I probably would have removed all of the distractions long ago so we can get some real work done, instead of getting bogged down with drama queen BS like this.

I hope that clears things up. Time for me to log off. Have a nice night.

----------


## Carlybee

> Sicne i've already wasted a day on this lunacy, allow me to address your concerns one by one:
> 
> *1. "She is hardly dragging his name through the mud.  Are you on his payroll or something?"*
> 
> I would say that purposely double-posting a sensationalistic headline and out-of-context statements from WaPo (that frankly aren't very damning even without proper perspective) for the sole purpose of calling him "gutless" is dragging his name through the mud, and frankly nothing new whatsoever for CC, who has many times before jumped to these brash conclusions only to be proven wrong about what Rand is saying or doing.
> 
> No I am not on his payroll, but when the guy is the ONLY senator putting forth legislation and lawsuits regarding these programs that Snowden has brought to light (and has been long before Snowden did so), then I will not stand for those trying to distract and undermine his efforts by falsely accusing him of not supporting him.  He's the ONLY one fighting Snowden's fight against the NSA in the Senate, so to claim he doesn't have the guts to support Snowden is patently false, even putting the knee-jerk reaction aside.
> 
> *2.  "If not, this is the general forum not the Rand forum and people have the right to their perception and opinions."*
> ...



For peace of mind, retire as general manager of the universe.  Apparently you enjoy the drama or you wouldn't be so involved in it.  And what exactly are you being distracted from in the GENERAL POLITICS section of ronpaul.com?   When this becomes RandPaul.com then you can tell everyone to keep their mouths shut.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Meh. $#@! it.

----------


## newbitech

> For peace of mind, retire as general manager of the universe.  Apparently you enjoy the drama or you wouldn't be so involved in it.  And what exactly are you being distracted from in the GENERAL POLITICS section of ronpaul.com?   When this becomes RandPaul.com then you can tell everyone to keep their mouths shut.


haha, please type this in to your browser and then kindly keep your mouth shut.

randpaulforums.com

really, I don't mean that, but lol, what a stooge.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I don't know how I'm going to sleep tonight!!





> haha, please type this in to your browser and then kindly keep your mouth shut.
> 
> randpaulforums.com
> 
> really, I don't mean that, but lol, what a stooge.


This thread is the source of endless amusement.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Maybe he wants more facts before he makes a decision.

Some of you people are like $#@!ing vultures I swear.  3 days ago no one know who Snowden was.  Is all as it seems?  Who knows?

So someone wants a couple days to examine the evidence before reaching a conclusion and you want to sling mud at him.  I know it's easy to criticize from behind a computer but holy hell - back off.

----------


## bolil

Is it possible that this leak was designed to test the rest of the system?  To see how well people are indoctrinated ALA Boston Lockdown?  A contrived leak about data mining to... data mine?

I've not read any of the files, I can't seem to find them.  This wasn't the case with Wikileaks, that $#@! was readily accessible.

Rand Paul is a politician, and he is politicking, color me shocked.  My support was never his to lose... well for a brief moment after the filibuster.  I don't think support for him would be nearly so bold here if his surname wasn't Paul and Ron was not his father.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## newbitech

> Is it possible that this leak was designed to test the rest of the system?  To see how well people are indoctrinated ALA Boston Lockdown?  A contrived leak about data mining to... data mine?
> 
> I've not read any of the files, I can't seem to find them.  This wasn't the case with Wikileaks, that $#@! was readily accessible.
> 
> Rand Paul is a politician, and he is politicking, color me shocked.  My support was never his to lose... well for a brief moment after the filibuster.  I don't think support for him would be nearly so bold here if his surname wasn't Paul and Ron was not his father.


or if his father did not endorse him

----------


## bolil

> or if his father did not endorse him


Which is precisely why there is such support for everyone else, Dr. Ron Paul endorsed, here.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I don't think support for him would be nearly so bold here if his surname wasn't Paul and Ron was not his father.


Nor would the criticisms of him be nearly so harsh. As Ron's son and "heir-apparent" he's pretty much "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" ...

----------


## Carlybee

> haha, please type this in to your browser and then kindly keep your mouth shut.
> 
> randpaulforums.com
> 
> really, I don't mean that, but lol, what a stooge.


I'm aware there is a Rand forum here but the one this particular discussion is taking place in is general politics and the title of the *main* url here is ronpaulforums.com.  So I got your stooge and raise you a buttmonkey.  For crying out loud..comprehension please.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "Hi, I'm going to berate you for being illogical with a post that  starts with the best known  logical fallacy. "


Is that the best you've got?  I think we're all a little desensitized to that, and besides, it has nothing to do with the substance of my argument.  Please try again.

----------


## HigherVision

I just watched the interview clip of Rand on CBS and he defended Snowden more than this quote leads on. He did good i.m.o.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Is that the best you've got?  I think we're all a little desensitized to that, and besides, it has nothing to do with the substance of my argument.  Please try again.


There you are.

----------


## bolil

> Nor would the criticisms of him be nearly so harsh. As Ron's son and "heir-apparent" he's pretty much "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" ...


This sounds right, good point.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Maybe he wants more facts before he makes a decision.
> 
> Some of you people are like $#@!ing vultures I swear.  3 days ago no one know who Snowden was.  Is all as it seems?  Who knows?
> 
> So someone wants a couple days to examine the evidence before reaching a conclusion and you want to sling mud at him.  I know it's easy to criticize from behind a computer but holy hell - back off.


One side is rushing to demonize him, the other is rushing to turn him into a saint.  So stupid to wait more than two days to decide!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And again, the name calling because we aren't frothing at the mouth over Rand EVERY time his name is posted. I know I personally am not anti-Rand, at all. I spread his posts, I signed his "lawsuit" I have donated. But on THIS issue I think he should have taken a bit of a stronger stand. It's people like you that turn people like me off to Rand, quite frankly.


Hey, why don't you just pretend the little jab was never said, then maybe you could stop being so butt hurt about it and look at the actual point I was making, which had nothing to do with the minor jab.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wow Rand. Way to fight for liberty. He's even only saying they're tracking phones. That punk sold us out.


This is just unbelievable.  How can you be so dishonest to yourself without suffering from some sort of dissociative disorder?  

What part of my earlier post did not make sense?  THE ONLY LOGICAL WAY TO RESPOND TO SOMEONE WHO RESERVES JUDGMENT.... IS TO RESERVE JUDGMENT OF THEM ALSO!  

How thick do you have to be not to understand that?  I didn't even think this post would be this controversial, but the anti-Rand PEOPLE are out in force today.  It's just a never-ending spiral of downright vitriol from you folks.

----------


## Carlybee

> This is just unbelievable.  How can you be so dishonest to yourself without suffering from some sort of dissociative disorder?  
> 
> What part of my earlier post did not make sense?  THE ONLY LOGICAL WAY TO RESPOND TO SOMEONE WHO RESERVES JUDGMENT.... IS TO RESERVE JUDGMENT OF THEM ALSO!  
> 
> How thick do you have to be not to understand that?  I didn't even think this post would be this controversial, but the anti-Rand PEOPLE are out in force today.  It's just a never-ending spiral of downright vitriol from you folks.


I can't speak for anyone else but I do not consider myself anti-Rand.  I do think that in the general politics forum people should be able to question his actions just as they would any other member of congress.  The Pro-Rand people keep falling all over themselves worried that one false move or one disagreeable thing said is going to ruin his chances at a presidential bid.  Well good Lord, I would certainly hope that's not all it would take.  Some of you need to put your big boy panties on and learn to debate instead of trying to lay this authoritarian bull$#@! on people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am confident in Rand, but Ron is clearly going senile. Calling Snowden's efforts heroic to reveal the unconstitutional prism program is aggressive and dangerous. Ron would do good to follow his son on this one. We need to ensure that an objective decision is made off all available information (probably in a few months).


Kudos for being the first one to say it.  However, I did notice you have one of those "HERO" avatars, which seemed a little ironic when you're telling us that calling him heroic is "aggressive and dangerous."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Kudos for being the first one to say it.  However, I did notice you have one of those "HERO" avatars, which seemed a little ironic when you're telling us that calling him heroic is "aggressive and dangerous."


Pffft...LOL.

Yah, Ron is senile.

Successful troll was successful.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> This is just unbelievable.  How can you be so dishonest to yourself without suffering from some sort of dissociative disorder?  
> 
> What part of my earlier post did not make sense?  THE ONLY LOGICAL WAY TO RESPOND TO SOMEONE WHO RESERVES JUDGMENT.... IS TO RESERVE JUDGMENT OF THEM ALSO!  
> 
> How thick do you have to be not to understand that?  I didn't even think this post would be this controversial, but the anti-Rand PEOPLE are out in force today.  It's just a never-ending spiral of downright vitriol from you folks.


Lol this coming from the dude who fled the alien thread like a little child. How about getting back over there and having a civil discussion. Maybe it will stop you from throwing a fit the next time a similar thread pops up. And then of course running away again when it doesn't go your way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> As if Snowden has not *already* done this.
> 
> Weaksauce Rand, weaksauce.


Oh, it's AF, the "hot-sauce" guy around these parts.  Jesus Christ, AF, even with your hard-headedness I expected you to be able to follow the reasoning that the only reasonable way to judge someone who reserves judgment is to reserve judgment on them as well.  How do you not understand this?

----------


## J_White

i think he is doing the smart thing again.
just wait and watch how the smear campaign against Snowden gains steam.
they must be looking into anything he might have done and crush his image.
Rand supporting him at this time would give more fodder to the MSM later.
at this time what Rand is doing is not getting associated by the messenger, but by the message.
he came back to the same point again and again - about the principles of liberty and privacy.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I fully intend to support this man, with financial support, once (and if) the channels are open to do so.
> 
> If The System declares him a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant", that will open me up to numerous felony charges as well, and very quickly end my career, remove my family's sole source of income and more than likely end in a divorce as well, worst case scenario. 
> 
> And *you* are chastising *me* because I made a mild criticism of a man in office, *that I helped put there*, can't stand up on the line and declare this man to be the hero he is?
> 
> SMMFH...


AF, you're just too bold-headed.  Declaring anyone to be a hero would be a detraction from the real issue, surely you can see that?  What's more, you are willing to make judgment on someone FOR RESERVING JUDGMENT!

No, no.  You don't get to S your MFH.  I am SMMFH.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am well aware of what he said.
> 
> I've listened a couple of times.
> 
> He did *not* say, 
> 
> *"This man is an American Hero, who has risked everything, including his life, to expose what this criminal government does every single day, violating the very core, the most basic of freedoms, that every human being has. God Damn the man who calls him a traitor and God Damn the man who tries to prosecute him!"*
> 
> *I'd* say that, if I were in his shoes.


I'm sure you would, and you would be a damned fool.  You're like the proverbial impatient soldier who has no wisdom.  And this isn't just about being cautious, this is about real, tangible stuff.  Widsom is important.  How is not wise to withhold judgment on someone who withholds judgment?  That is the ONLY reasonable way to treat someone who withholds judgment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then Ron Paul knowingly lied.


And what exactly does that make him?  I mean, you're bashing Rand, and now all of a sudden you're calling Ron Paul a liar.  Why are you here again?

----------


## Carlybee

Calling him a hero might keep him from being hunted down and exterminated.  They have already launched a manhunt for him. If something happens to him all it will do is help prevent any other whistleblowers from coming forward.  It is important that there is a distinction be made between hero and traitor. By not making that distinction it lends credibility to the illegal acts against the citizenry. IMO.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

[QUOTE=John F Kennedy III;5070332]


> ^^^ Can we all 
> 
> 
> Lol there you go twisting $#@! again. You won't get anywhere with me by being disingenuous.


How do you expect to be taken seriously if you don't actually give examples and back up your statements about "twisting $#@!"?  He put forward relevant and meaningful facts about what Rand Paul is doing and all you can say is that he's "twisting $#@!"?  What the hell is you problem?

----------


## Ender

> I can't speak for anyone else but I do not consider myself anti-Rand.  I do think that in the general politics forum people should be able to question his actions just as they would any other member of congress.  The Pro-Rand people keep falling all over themselves worried that one false move or one disagreeable thing said is going to ruin his chances at a presidential bid.  Well good Lord, I would certainly hope that's not all it would take.  Some of you need to put your big boy panties on and learn to debate instead of trying to lay this authoritarian bull$#@! on people.


I am neither for or against Rand. 

I am against twisting a couple of words out of context and using them to push one's own hate and discontent. There is nothing to debate about Rand's words- if you read them all, it is perfectly sensible. Using them as the flimsy excuse to bash and show one's extreme prejudice is what I am against.

Period.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Lol I knew you wouldn't be able to resist using that quote over and over again. Like a child with a toy. You're too easy LE.


To be fair, it's pretty easy bait.  You said something pretty dang stupid.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is it possible that this leak was designed to test the rest of the system?  To see how well people are indoctrinated ALA Boston Lockdown?  A contrived leak about data mining to... data mine?
> 
> I've not read any of the files, I can't seem to find them.  This wasn't the case with Wikileaks, that $#@! was readily accessible.
> 
> Rand Paul is a politician, and he is politicking, color me shocked.  My support was never his to lose... well for a brief moment after the filibuster.  I don't think support for him would be nearly so bold here if his surname wasn't Paul and Ron was not his father.


How do you know that?  I would support him whether he was a Paul or not.  Many here supported Gary Johnson, and he's not nearly as ideologically pure as Rand.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I can't speak for anyone else but I do not consider myself anti-Rand.  I do think that in the general politics forum people should be able to question his actions just as they would any other member of congress.  The Pro-Rand people keep falling all over themselves worried that one false move or one disagreeable thing said is going to ruin his chances at a presidential bid.  Well good Lord, I would certainly hope that's not all it would take.  Some of you need to put your big boy panties on and learn to debate instead of trying to lay this authoritarian bull$#@! on people.


That's a straw man.  I'm not falling over myself for that $#@!.  I just think people are trying to be rebels and they want to be the most anti-Rand of the bunch so they can one-up the purists and say "Ha!  I don't even support Rand Paul's own son!  So I'm going to find every little nit pick I can and pick the $#@! out of that nit!"  It's just ridiculous.  Even amateur wisdom here is not applied because people are too busy caught up in the bull-headed hype.  Reserving judgment is not a bad thing.  If someone reserves judgment on something you are passionate about, then you should reserve judgment on them as well.

I think all the attention this is getting is just evidence of what I'm saying.  If the Rand skeptics (for lack of a better word) really didn't care about Rand anymore, they would stop getting so upset every time he says something because every time they complain, they are implying that he's supposed to agree with them.  You'd think after a while they'd get the point, but they still think that he's supposed to agree with them, so I'm convinced that this is just another one-upmanship game where the vitriol against a popular libertarian is evidence of the viotriol-spewer's rebelliousness.  It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and sad.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Lol this coming from the dude who fled the alien thread like a little child. How about getting back over there and having a civil discussion. Maybe it will stop you from throwing a fit the next time a similar thread pops up. And then of course running away again when it doesn't go your way.


Who said I fled?  Maybe I lost interest?  You are making allegations without knowing what's really going on.  Shame on you.  I visit quite a few threads each day and sometimes I forget to keep participating in one.  So sue me, douche bag.

----------


## Warlord

*Rand Paul: Snowden performed 'noble gesture'* 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtp3dItllB8 

Probably not enough for the trolls.  It seldom is.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lol I knew you wouldn't be able to resist using that quote over and over again. Like a child with a toy. You're too easy LE.


When you retract your assertion that Ron Paul is a liar, I will cease to use it.  Until you do, you can count on me reminding people what you are all about.




> Then Ron Paul knowingly lied.

----------


## jclay2

> I'm sure you would, and you would be a damned fool.  You're like the proverbial impatient soldier who has no wisdom.  And this isn't just about being cautious, this is about real, tangible stuff.  Widsom is important.  How is not wise to withhold judgment on someone who withholds judgment?  That is the ONLY reasonable way to treat someone who withholds judgment.


Say it like it is and admit that Rand is not there to rock the boat. He is a politician and will never be able to accomplish what Ron did, mostly because he lacks the standards of the Father. While everyone on here continually defends Rand for his soft and politically motivated positions, they forget about why they were so attracted to Ron in the first place. Reserving judgment and not making waves when they need to be made will not ignite a movement. I would much rather prefer Rand to be a complete brick wall as a one term senator then have him softball his way to more terms/political offices.

----------


## kathy88

> Hey, why don't you just pretend the little jab was never said, then maybe you could stop being so butt hurt about it and look at the actual point I was making, which had nothing to do with the minor jab.


Butt hurt? Hardly. Don't be a child.

----------


## Warlord

> Say it like it is and admit that Rand is not there to rock the boat. He is a politician and will never be able to accomplish what Ron did, mostly because he lacks the standards of the Father. While everyone on here continually defends Rand for his soft and politically motivated positions, they forget about why they were so attracted to Ron in the first place. Reserving judgment and not making waves when they need to be made will not ignite a movement. I would much rather prefer Rand to be a complete brick wall as a one term senator then have him softball his way to more terms/political offices.


There's a lot more going on with Snowden than meets the eye.  His circumstances have nothing to do with Rand who said in his interview his job is to work within the law and change thngs which is what is actually going to happen after all this has been revealed/digested and members of Congress realize whats been going on. He let something slip there.  

See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ull-of-secrets

I've laid the whole thing out for you and its all based on the profiles and info that the Guardan itself is publishing and the events in the last few days. The whole thing is mind blowng. Basically Ed has set this whole thing up to expose and escape.  He's playing everyone in this including the president and even Greenwald though I'm sure Greenwald is happy to help and put an end to whats going on.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Who said I fled?  Maybe I lost interest?  You are making allegations without knowing what's really going on.  Shame on you.  I visit quite a few threads each day and sometimes I forget to keep participating in one.  So sue me, douche bag.


 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...1000s-of-years

----------


## newbitech

what a waste of time.  it should be clear to anyone posting in this thread by now, if you want to "win" this "argument", walk away.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Kudos for being the first one to say it.  However, I did notice you have one of those "HERO" avatars, which seemed a little ironic when you're telling us that calling him heroic is "aggressive and dangerous."





> Pffft...LOL.
> 
> Yah, Ron is senile.
> 
> Successful troll was successful.


fyi, a couple of posts later in this thread jclay2 stated that the post to which PaulConventionWV is replying was meant to be sarcasm.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5069646

----------


## Carlybee

> what a waste of time.  it should be clear to anyone posting in this thread by now, if you want to "win" this "argument", walk away.



Yes and some keep coming back and posting to inform us of that.  The authoritarianism is becoming quite rampant. Keep wrangling.

----------


## Carlybee

> I am neither for or against Rand. 
> 
> I am against twisting a couple of words out of context and using them to push one's own hate and discontent. There is nothing to debate about Rand's words- if you read them all, it is perfectly sensible. Using them as the flimsy excuse to bash and show one's extreme prejudice is what I am against.
> 
> Period.


I know CajunCocoa personally..since 2004. I know she gets annoyed with the uber Rand rhetoric but I know she does not hate him, she just holds him to a high standard. I know for a fact she worked her butt off during Ron's campaign and would do the same for Rand if he stops wiffle waffling as would I. For people to keep calling her a hater and a troll is ridiculous. All I see are people trying to squash dissent here.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I know CajunCocoa personally..since 2004. I know she gets annoyed with the uber Rand rhetoric but I know she does not hate him, she just holds him to a high standard. I know for a fact she worked her butt off during Ron's campaign and would do the same for Rand if he stops wiffle waffling as would I. For people to keep calling her a hater and a troll is ridiculous. All I see are people trying to squash dissent here.


Yep. Authoritarians love to squash dissent. These people are gonna love me when it becomes Randpaulforums and i still won't stop honestly criticizing him. 

I'm not anti Rand. He still has my vote currently. And i think we can all agree Rand will be the best candidate in 2016.

And Cajun is not a hater or a troll.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Say it like it is and admit that Rand is not there to rock the boat. He is a politician and will never be able to accomplish what Ron did, mostly because he lacks the standards of the Father. While everyone on here continually defends Rand for his soft and politically motivated positions, they forget about why they were so attracted to Ron in the first place. Reserving judgment and not making waves when they need to be made will not ignite a movement. I would much rather prefer Rand to be a complete brick wall as a one term senator then have him softball his way to more terms/political offices.


Maybe I would if there was anything to "say like it is".  All Rand Paul did is reserve judgment, and no amount of bull-headed "time fer action!" stuff is going to change the fact that the only wise response to someone reserving judgment is to not judge them.  If someone doesn't judge others, why would you judge them simply for that fact?  You know... do unto others...?  I thought that was something we held in pretty high esteem around here.

----------


## Barrex

> what a waste of time.  it should be clear to anyone posting in this thread by now, if you want to "win" this "argument", walk away.


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! Cointelpro. I win.

I am "outsider" on this forum and I get so confused/amused/frustrated/annoyed at the same time in some of "lets spit on each others" threads.

Politician (Ryan, Rubio, Mitt)= says all the right things- does all the wrong things.
Rand                                  = says all the right things-does all the right things.

*Lets bash Rand?* 
Why? 
He said nothing bad. He said that he will make his mind up later about person he can not help if he talks about him. 
*TRAITOR!!!* 
He speaks about real problem: USA spying on every person on earth.
*Nevermind he is traitor!!!!* *How dare he to have 2 brain cells to recognize that it would hurt him to go "full Monty" on issue that more than half MSM talkingheads are calling treason? TRAITOR!!!* 
But he is going against NSA and starting a lawsuit and he wants every american to join him.
*NVM he is traitor!!!*
Ok. Explain what did he do?
*He said...*
No. What did he do?
*Well he didnt do anythin he said th...*
Wait. He didnt do anything.
*No Traitor sai...*
WOW...
*$#@! you retard.*
What? You are cointelpro.
*What? You moron you probably dont even believe in chemtrails.*
Ha? You are not even libertarian.
You are.....

Author: Resistance is futile.... with some of rebels like these...Remindes me of Palestinian suicide squad or some conversation from Monty Python.. 

P.s.Can someone help me with a picture to finish this story

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I know CajunCocoa personally..since 2004. I know she gets annoyed with the uber Rand rhetoric but I know she does not hate him, she just holds him to a high standard. I know for a fact she worked her butt off during Ron's campaign and would do the same for Rand if he stops wiffle waffling as would I. For people to keep calling her a hater and a troll is ridiculous. All I see are people trying to squash dissent here.


That's exactly it...I do hold Rand to a high standard. I guess I had unreasonable expectations of him due to the fact that he's Ron's son. I guess Ron spoiled some of us; I know he spoiled me.  Thanks for the words of support...you know me better than anyone else here. 



> Yep. Authoritarians love to squash dissent. These people are gonna love me when it becomes Randpaulforums and i still won't stop honestly criticizing him. 
> 
> I'm not anti Rand. He still has my vote currently. And i think we can all agree Rand will be the best candidate in 2016.
> 
> And Cajun is not a hater or a troll.


Thanks to you too, JFK3...I agree that many here don't seem to handle dissent well. But, like you, I'm not going to shut up anytime soon!

----------


## CPUd

> CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! Cointelpro. I win.
> 
> I am "outsider" on this forum and I get so confused/amused/frustrated/annoyed at the same time in some of "lets spit on each others" threads.
> 
> Politician (Ryan, Rubio, Mitt)= says all the right things- does all the wrong things.
> Rand                                  = says all the right things-does all the right things.
> 
> *Lets bash Rand?* 
> Why? 
> ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand                                  = says all the right things-does all the right things.


Gotta stop ya right here, 'cause Rand does *not* always say "all the right things". Therein lies the problem!

And while I will admit that he *does* _mostly_ ​"all the right things" I can't discount his words, as they may be indicative of future actions.

----------


## newbitech

> CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! Cointelpro. I win.
> 
> I am "outsider" on this forum and I get so confused/amused/frustrated/annoyed at the same time in some of "lets spit on each others" threads.
> 
> Politician (Ryan, Rubio, Mitt)= says all the right things- does all the wrong things.
> Rand                                  = says all the right things-does all the right things.
> 
> *Lets bash Rand?* 
> Why? 
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 


LOL...always a good idea with these threads.

----------


## belian78

> Yep. Authoritarians love to squash dissent. These people are gonna love me when it becomes Randpaulforums and i still won't stop honestly criticizing him. 
> 
> I'm not anti Rand. He still has my vote currently. And i think we can all agree Rand will be the best candidate in 2016.
> 
> And Cajun is not a hater or a troll.


This is where I'm at too.  Rand still has my vote, and possibly monetary donations (if I'm able to afford it at that time), but I'm not ready to commit to putting my life on hold to work for him like I did his father.  But I will not stop being critical of him, this is exactly the thing we used to claim was all important around here.  To not only support, but also watch and keep check on the representatives that we vote for.  Now all the sudden we're not supposed to?  Sorry, you can thump your chest and call names and whatever else you want, I'm going to still be critical of anyone in DC.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Oh, it's AF, the "hot-sauce" guy around these parts.  Jesus Christ, AF, even with your hard-headedness I expected you to be able to follow the reasoning that the only reasonable way to judge someone who reserves judgment is to reserve judgment on them as well.  How do you not understand this?


And how do you not understand that my position all along has been that there is no more time for polite words and well thought out letters of disapproval?

It is time for actions of civil disobedience *EXACTLY* like Snowden undertook.

Assuming all the facts thus presented are true, and I have no reason to doubt that they are not, there is no reason, other than the greasy dissimulation of politics, to back away from supporting the actions of this man, who has now put his life on the line to bring this information forward and the full fury and wrath of The System on his head to do so.

Yes, I am rough and hot headed, I'm just a working man, a sailor with a 10 grade education.

But I don't need a bunch of sluts in suits to tell me what's what.

Or to pipe down.

----------


## kathy88

> And how do you not understand that my position all along has been that there is no more time for polite words and well thought out letters of disapproval?
> 
> It is time for actions of civil disobedience *EXACTLY* like Snowden undertook.
> 
> Assuming all the facts thus presented are true, and I have no reason to doubt that they are not, there is no reason, other than the greasy dissimulation of politics, to back away from supporting the actions of this man, who has now put his life on the line to bring this information forward and the full fury and wrath of The System on his head to do so.
> 
> Yes, I am rough and hot headed, I'm just a working man, a sailor with a 10 grade education.
> 
> But I don't need a bunch of sluts in suits to tell me what's what.
> ...


Can't speak for everyone but when the SHTF I will be forever grateful that AF is on MY team.

----------


## Ender

> CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! Cointelpro. I win.
> 
> I am "outsider" on this forum and I get so confused/amused/frustrated/annoyed at the same time in some of "lets spit on each others" threads.
> 
> Politician (Ryan, Rubio, Mitt)= says all the right things- does all the wrong things.
> Rand                                  = says all the right things-does all the right things.
> 
> *Lets bash Rand?* 
> Why? 
> ...


Best post on this entire thread! 

Go Barrex!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm sure you would, and you would be a damned fool.  You're like the proverbial impatient soldier who has no wisdom.  And this isn't just about being cautious, this is about real, tangible stuff.  Widsom is important.  How is not wise to withhold judgment on someone who withholds judgment?  That is the ONLY reasonable way to treat someone who withholds judgment.


Says the man who came charging into this thread like a bull in a china shop and didn't even realize he was being trolled.

"Ron Paul is senile"...LOL

----------


## Occam's Banana

> LOL...always a good idea with these threads.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ

----------


## newbitech

great lyrics totally on topic

----------


## Origanalist

//

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> That's exactly it...I do hold Rand to a high standard. I guess I had unreasonable expectations of him due to the fact that he's Ron's son. I guess Ron spoiled some of us; I know he spoiled me.  Thanks for the words of support...you know me better than anyone else here. 
> 
> Thanks to you too, JFK3...I agree that many here don't seem to handle dissent well. But, like you, I'm not going to shut up anytime soon!



Glad to hear it

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> This is where I'm at too.  Rand still has my vote, and possibly monetary donations (if I'm able to afford it at that time), but I'm not ready to commit to putting my life on hold to work for him like I did his father.  But I will not stop being critical of him, this is exactly the thing we used to claim was all important around here.  To not only support, but also watch and keep check on the representatives that we vote for.  Now all the sudden we're not supposed to?  Sorry, you can thump your chest and call names and whatever else you want, I'm going to still be critical of anyone in DC.


Exactly. We're just holding him to the same  standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul. You can defend and apologize for his every move  just because of his name.

----------


## newbitech

> Exactly. We're just holding him to the same  standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul. You can defend and apologize for his every move  just because of his name.


when I hold people accountable, I usually call them sell out punks and liars too.

and cowards, and pussies, etc etc.

and gutless,

come on lets make a list of our techniques for holding people accountable, we can use this thread as a guide.

----------


## ZenBowman

> Say it like it is and admit that Rand is not there to rock the boat. He is a politician and will never be able to accomplish what Ron did, mostly because he lacks the standards of the Father. While everyone on here continually defends Rand for his soft and politically motivated positions, they forget about why they were so attracted to Ron in the first place. Reserving judgment and not making waves when they need to be made will not ignite a movement. I would much rather prefer Rand to be a complete brick wall as a one term senator then have him softball his way to more terms/political offices.


Ron was the spark and the firestarter, but to keep the fire going you need slower burning wood and coal which takes a little longer to heat up, but is sustainable in the long run. It's pretty obvious that Rand is sympathetic to Snowden, but cannot come straight out and endorse breaking the law.

----------


## V3n

> Exactly. We're just holding him to the same  standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul. You can defend and apologize for his every move  just because of his name.


If you call this thread the "same standard" as everyone else, you are totally blind to the amount of over-compensation you are displaying.

We don't need a 400+ comment thread on anyone else who says nothing more than they are *"reserving judgment"* regarding a controversial issue.

Get real.

----------


## Carlybee

> Ron was the spark and the firestarter, but to keep the fire going you need slower burning wood and coal which takes a little longer to heat up, but is sustainable in the long run. It's pretty obvious that Rand is sympathetic to Snowden, but cannot come straight out and endorse breaking the law.


Some of us think the NSA is breaking the law. I do not consider alerting the taxpayers to that as treason.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Some of us think the NSA is breaking the law. I do not consider alerting the taxpayers to that as treason.


And that has to do with Rand how? He hasn't called it treason, and has now even called his actions noble. What are we even arguing about here anymore?




> Exactly. We're just holding him to the same  standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul. You can defend and apologize for his every move  just because of his name.


Not true, it seems that he gets held to the impossible Ron Paul standard strictly BECAUSE he's his son. You'll notice that there's not 1 thread and barely a mention of Mike Lee calling him a traitor, yet Rand "reserves judgement" while implying that he understands and sympathizes with it (and clearly he does when he's leading the fight against these programs), and it's a total $#@! storm from some here. What does that tell you?

Just let this go already, and let's get back to important things.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> And how do you not understand that my position all along has been that there is no more time for polite words and well thought out letters of disapproval?
> 
> It is time for actions of civil disobedience *EXACTLY* like Snowden undertook.
> 
> Assuming all the facts thus presented are true, and I have no reason to doubt that they are not, there is no reason, other than the greasy dissimulation of politics, to back away from supporting the actions of this man, who has now put his life on the line to bring this information forward and the full fury and wrath of The System on his head to do so.
> 
> Yes, I am rough and hot headed, I'm just a working man, a sailor with a 10 grade education.
> 
> But I don't need a bunch of sluts in suits to tell me what's what.
> ...


Amen bro.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Some of us think the NSA is breaking the law. I do not consider alerting the taxpayers to that as treason.





> And that has to do with Rand how? He hasn't called it treason, and has now even called his actions noble.


Carlybee didn't say that Rand called it treason....her comment was a reference to what others (idiots) have said.




> What are we even arguing about here anymore?


I have no idea.  Mostly it's Rand supporters who are intent on keeping this thread going.  I was satisfied with the clarification Rand gave last night and was ready to let the thread go.

----------


## Ender

> Exactly. We're just holding him to the same  standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul. You can defend and apologize for his every move  just because of his name.


Uhh.....no.

Rand would be accepted on his own merits, instead of his dad's, if his last name were not Paul.

The ranting and raving on this thread would not exist if Rand had no "Paul" attached to his name. We all watch someone like Mike Lee and praise him as he progresses in liberty but let Rand do one thing that someone in the "liberty" movement thinks isn't enough, (like withholding judgment) and he is immediately called the biggest scumbag on the planet. So much for "liberty", eh?

As far as "holding a standard" I think everyone should look to themselves first.

----------


## newbitech

> Carlybee didn't say that Rand called it treason....her comment was a reference to what others (idiots) have said.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  Mostly it's Rand supporters who are intent on keeping this thread going.  *I was satisfied with the clarification Rand gave last night and was ready to let the thread go.*


Perhaps you should have "reserved judgement".  I will be awaiting "clarification" from the OP and others who snapped at Rand for his comments about Snowden.  

Nice way to draw the demarcation line between Rand supporters and ? what do you call your self?  

Come on.  You call the guy all kinds of names and bash him up and down this thread, and now just want to walk away cause you completely misjudged the man in this particular context?  I think on this particular issue, you and many others ought to apologize for your rabid shredding of the man's character for no apparent reason at all.

Clarification... really?  were you not paying attention to anyone else who explained Rand's position to a "t"?  You dis the guy for coddling or pandering to fence sitters and then are satisfied when he coddles and panders to you as you call it "clarification".  

What is that?

----------


## jclay2

How is alerting american's to unconstitutional 1984 like surveillance breaking the law?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Perhaps you should have "reserved judgement".  I will be awaiting "clarification" from the OP and others who snapped at Rand for his comments about Snowden.  
> 
> Nice way to draw the demarcation line between Rand supporters and ? what do you call your self?  
> 
> Come on.  You call the guy all kinds of names and bash him up and down this thread, and now just want to walk away cause you completely misjudged the man in this particular context?  I think on this particular issue, you and many others ought to apologize for your rabid shredding of the man's character for no apparent reason at all.
> 
> Clarification... really?  were you not paying attention to anyone else who explained Rand's position to a "t"?  You dis the guy for coddling or pandering to fence sitters and then are satisfied when he coddles and panders to you as you call it "clarification".  
> 
> What is that?


No one "snapped", no one "bashed (all up and down the thread)", and -- as OP -- I've already said I consider his original statement a bit gutless, but am satisfied with his remarks on O'Reilly last night.  

As for what to call me, I am and will remain a RON Paul supporter.  Period.  

And as far as misjudging Rand in "this particular context"...if only that's all it was.  This kind of thing has become a pattern for Rand.

If you're waiting for anything else, you're going to wait a long time.

Anytime Rand supporters are ready to let this thread die, I'll be happy to oblige.  But if you keep calling me out, I *will* respond.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> How is alerting american's to unconstitutional 1984 like surveillance breaking the law?


Because Americans are the enemy.

----------


## V3n

> This kind of thing has become a pattern for Rand.


From my perspective, it's more of a pattern with _you_.

You said you agree with most of what he says, but you take that 1-15% (whatever you consider the remainder from "most") and blow it up, make threads about, attack anyone who offers the opposing viewpoint, and overall create a divisive and time wasting thread that only results in separating us when we should be spending our time and treasure on supporting the efforts of Ben Swann and Glenn Greenwald rather then these tar-pits you create out of thin air.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> From my perspective, it's more of a pattern with _you_.
> 
> You said you agree with most of what he says, but you take that 1-15% (whatever you consider the remainder from "most") and blow it up, make threads about, attack anyone who offers the opposing viewpoint, and overall create a divisive and time wasting thread that only results in separating us when* we should be spending our time and treasure on supporting the efforts of Ben Swann and Glenn Greenwald rather then these tar-pits you create out of thin air*.


I can multi-task.  

If you can't, put me on ignore.

----------


## V3n

> I can multi-task.  
> 
> If you can't, put me on ignore.


So you're not going to deny the rest of what I wrote.  The only answer is to ignore you.  That's quite an insight into your character.
I believe I shall bookmark this.  Thanks.

----------


## kathy88

> Perhaps you should have "reserved judgement".  I will be awaiting "clarification" from the OP and others who snapped at Rand for his comments about Snowden.  
> 
> Nice way to draw the demarcation line between Rand supporters and ? what do you call your self?  
> 
> Come on.  You call the guy all kinds of names and bash him up and down this thread, and now just want to walk away cause you completely misjudged the man in this particular context?  I think on this particular issue, you and many others ought to apologize for your rabid shredding of the man's character for no apparent reason at all.
> 
> Clarification... really?  were you not paying attention to anyone else who explained Rand's position to a "t"?  You dis the guy for coddling or pandering to fence sitters and then are satisfied when he coddles and panders to you as you call it "clarification".  
> 
> What is that?


Uhhh.... Cajun WAS the OP Einstein.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you're not going to deny the rest of what I wrote.  The only answer is to ignore you.  That's quite an insight into your character.
> I believe I shall bookmark this.  Thanks.


I'm not going to engage in it because you're trying to make this about me, and that's NOT what this thread is about.  So, yeah, you can take my advice to ignore me in the future if you can't handle it when I speak out about something.  We'll leave it at that.

----------


## V3n

> I'm not going to engage in it because you're trying to make this about me, and that's NOT what this thread is about.  So, yeah, you can take my advice to ignore me in the future if you can't handle it when I speak out about something.  We'll leave it at that.


All you ever speak out about is to bash Rand Paul.  You see, I'm here to promote Liberty, to promote Liberty candidates, to build coalitions and help them win.  You're here to bash the most Liberty oriented Senator currently serving, and the most Liberty minded Senator I've seen in my lifetime.  So I really don't know why your here except to create division, and you didn't deny that when I put it forth to you.  So, sorry, but I'm not going to "ignore" someone attacking liberty on Ron Paul forums.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> All you ever speak out about is to bash Rand Paul.  You see, I'm here to promote Liberty, to promote Liberty candidates, to build coalitions and help them win.  You're here to bash the most Liberty oriented Senator currently serving, and the most Liberty minded Senator I've seen in my lifetime.  So I really don't know why your here except to create division, and you didn't deny that when I put it forth to you.  So, sorry, but I'm not going to "ignore" someone attacking liberty on Ron Paul forums.


We're here for the same reason, but we have a vastly different threshold of what is acceptable in the cause of liberty.  Contrary to what keeps getting said about me, I am not here to "bash" the "most Liberty oriented Senator currently serving".   But when he says things that make me cringe, I will criticize (not bash!) him for it.  

Again, if you don't like hearing that, there is a solution.

----------


## V3n

> We're here for the same reason, but we have a vastly different threshold of what is acceptable in the cause of liberty.  Contrary to what keeps getting said about me, I am not here to "bash" the "most Liberty oriented Senator currently serving".   *But when he says things that make me cringe*, I will criticize (not bash!) him for it.  
> 
> Again, if you don't like hearing that, there is a solution.


"reserving judgment" really?  -don't answer that, there's been now over 425 comments answering that- but really?  really??  makes you cringe?

This subject has been beaten to death and back.. I'm done.  I think we're all done.  Guess I'll see you again next time Rand wears a tie you don't like, or orders a pizza topping you disagree with... later.

----------


## Carlybee

CC you best be gettin with the program here at Thoughtcrime central.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> "reserving judgment" really?  -don't answer that, there's been now over 425 comments answering that- but really?  really??  makes you cringe?
> 
> This subject has been beaten to death and back.. I'm done.  I think we're all done.  Guess I'll see you again next time Rand wears a tie you don't like, or orders a pizza topping you disagree with... later.


No, I am going to answer that because I'm not going to allow you to define my meaning.  Rand has said many things over the months that have made me cringe:  his comment about naked drug-induced libertarians, his comment about drone strikes on someone coming out of the liquor store (clarified later), his comment about an attack on Israel....the list goes on.  The remark he made yesterday about "reserving judgment" wasn't necessarily cringe-worthy, but it did make me shake my head.  Considering how many comments there are in this thread from people who agreed with me, I'm not alone.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> CC you best be gettin with the program here at Thoughtcrime central.


Reported, eh? LOL

----------


## V3n

> No, I am going to answer that because I'm not going to allow you to define my meaning.  Rand has said many things over the months that have made me cringe:  his comment about naked drug-induced libertarians, his comment about drone strikes on someone coming out of the liquor store (clarified later), his comment about an attack on Israel....the list goes on.  The remark he made yesterday about "reserving judgment" wasn't necessarily cringe-worthy, but it did make me shake my head.  Considering how many comments there are in this thread from people who agreed with me, I'm not alone.


Ok.. I'll let you get the last word.  It's cool.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We're here for the same reason, but we have a vastly different threshold of what is acceptable in the cause of liberty.  Contrary to what keeps getting said about me, I am not here to "bash" the "most Liberty oriented Senator currently serving".   But when he says things that make me cringe, I will criticize (not bash!) him for it.  
> 
> Again, if you don't like hearing that, there is a solution.


I don't agree with you on this particular issue, but what you describe is still most definitely a problem.  And you know me well enough to know I don't always apologize for Rand either.  Rand Paul IS the most liberty oriented senator right now, but that doesn't make him perfect or above criticism.  
Of course, when I feel he's correct, I will defend him if he's being criticized and I don't agree with the criticism.  That's not the same thing as saying "Thou shall not criticize."  + rep for being brave enough to actually start this thread...

----------


## Barrex

> 





> 





> LOL...always a good idea with these threads.





> Go Barrex!





> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ





> great lyrics totally on topic


  Another thread got a little bit weirder thanks to me....

...and if you read between the lines they all want me gone from this thread....
Such a statists.

How many quotes does it take to annoy 90% of the people?
Funny thread.

----------


## newbitech

> Uhhh.... Cajun WAS the OP Einstein.


which is why i addressed Cajun in that post, my dear Oppenheimer.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> We're just holding him to the same standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul.


That is such bullsh-- it boggles the mind.  Where were the long threads about Mike Lee or Ted Cruz when that 100-0 meaningless Iran resolution passed?  Look at _this_ thread.  The usual suspects are flinging their feces all over the place because Rand Paul said he's reserving judgment, meanwhile Mike Lee implied he's a traitor and there is no big thread on it, and you want to pretend Rand Paul's name is preventing criticism on this site?  How in the hell could you even make such a demonstrably false statement?

All this garbage stems from "he's not like his dad in my mind, boo-hoo!"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is such bullsh-- it boggles the mind.  Where were the long threads about Mike Lee or Ted Cruz when that 100-0 meaningless Iran resolution passed?  Look at _this_ thread.  The usual suspects are flinging their feces all over the place because Rand Paul said he's reserving judgment, meanwhile Mike Lee implied he's a traitor and there is no big thread on it.  And you want to claim Rand Paul's name is preventing criticism?  How in the hell could you even claim such a demonstrably false statement?
> 
> All the garbage stems from "he's not like his dad in my mind, boo-hoo!"


That resolution wasn't "Meaningless" and although I've since let it go, I don't appreciate that Rand voted for it.  That said, in this particular case... yeah, its true, Rand Paul is talked about on here way more than Lee, whether positive or negative.  In this particular case, Lee needs a good slap across the face.  Yeah, I like him in general, but that was an absolutely idiotic statement.  My opinion on him just dropped significantly.  I was fine with what Rand Paul said here.  I might have preferred that he went in guns blazing but I don't expect him to, "Reserving judgment" is taking a neutral stance and Rand implied that he supported Snowden, just not as vocally so as Ron.  Which, considering Rand's position, I can understand.  On this particular one, Rand Paul passes and Mike Lee fails...

----------


## Christian Liberty

As for the "Usual Suspects."  I'm surprised you didn't instantly throw me in that category, even though I defended Rand here...  Some of us, imagine that, are individuals and we have different opinions on the particulars regarding strategy and such.  The horror!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That is such bullsh-- it boggles the mind.  Where were the long threads about Mike Lee or Ted Cruz when that 100-0 meaningless Iran resolution passed?  Look at _this_ thread.  The usual suspects are flinging their feces all over the place because Rand Paul said he's reserving judgment, meanwhile Mike Lee implied he's a traitor and there is no big thread on it, and you want to pretend Rand Paul's name is preventing criticism on this site?  How in the hell could you even claim such a demonstrably false statement?
> 
> All the garbage stems from "he's not like his dad in my mind, boo-hoo!"


I don't really care about Mike Lee, and have had no expectations about him due to the fact that Ron Paul is not Sen. Lee's father.  No one labels Mike Lee as a libertarian, nor is he considered the newly crowned standard-bearer of the liberty movement.  None of Mike Lee's words or actions will have a negative effect on the liberty movement in the mind of anyone outside of a handful of people (myself excluded) on this board.

Does that answer your question as to why the same outrage does not apply?

----------


## Christian Liberty

To be perfectly honest... I get most of my news here first.  So if you guys aren't talking about Mike Lee or Ted Cruz or wherever, its possible that I'll miss what they said.    After reading Lee's comment, is he even on this planet?  Is he a moron?  "According to what I've been told"?  Are you kidding me?  Surely you should know better than to simply believe what they tell you.  Where Marco Rubio withheld judgment you practically called him a traitor.  Shame on you...

----------


## TheGrinch

> I don't really care about Mike Lee, and have had no expectations about him due to the fact that Ron Paul is not Sen. Lee's father.  No one labels Mike Lee as a libertarian, nor is he considered the newly crowned standard-bearer of the liberty movement.  None of Mike Lee's words or actions will have a negative effect on the liberty movement in the mind of anyone outside of a handful of people (myself excluded) on this board.
> 
> Does that answer your question as to why the same outrage does not apply?


Thank you for confirming the point that Rand gets more scrutiny, not less, because of who his father is.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Thank you for confirming the point that Rand gets more scrutiny, not less, because of who his father is.


Did I say he doesn't?    I don't hold him to a different standard than anyone else though...just that I'm more likely to discuss Rand here.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Lol damn authoritarians still in here trying to silence Cajun.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't really care about Mike Lee, and have had no expectations about him due to the fact that Ron Paul is not Sen. Lee's father.  No one labels Mike Lee as a libertarian, nor is he considered the newly crowned standard-bearer of the liberty movement.  None of Mike Lee's words or actions will have a negative effect on the liberty movement in the mind of anyone outside of a handful of people (myself excluded) on this board.
> 
> Does that answer your question as to why the same outrage does not apply?


I'm pretty sure that article did label Lee as a libertarian.  Of course, both Rand Paul and Mike Lee are conservatives, not libertarians.  That said, I'm kind of annoyed that I never heard  about what Lee said from this forum.  Lee's comment was genuinely "Horrible".  Rand, at worst, gave a watered down version of the truth.  Mike Lee flat out said something moronic...




> Thank you for confirming the point that Rand gets more scrutiny, not less, because of who his father is.


I think it goes both ways.  Some people will excuse everything that Rand does because of Ron.  Others won't excuse anything that Rand does because of Ron.  The reality is, Ron Paul =/= Rand Paul and each should be evaluated on their own merits.  Honestly, sometimes that's tough, but its only fair.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Lol damn authoritarians still in here trying to silence Cajun.


Don't take it out on us because every statement you've made in this thread has been utter bull$#@! with absolutely nothing to back up your hateful POV. What happened to you dude? You've gone off the handle.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Did I say he doesn't?    I don't hold him to a different standard than anyone else though...just that I'm more likely to discuss Rand here.


JFk did, his comment wasnt addressed towards you.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

My main problem is with Rand worshippers jumping all over anyone that doesn't worship their God properly.

My problems with Rand's initial statement was him making light of the NSA spying on his phone, suggesting that everyone who resorts to civil disobedience is at their wits end. And i don't understand why he needed to reserve judgement, but that's a minor issue. All 3 i would have had issue with no matter who said it. Even if it was Ron.

Grinch, how about me and you reset on this Rand thing? I think we both went overboard on this thread. I like and respect you alot bro. An honest critique for future reference, please step back and think about what is being said before deciding a person is attacking Rand for no reason. I put 5 people from this thread on ignore for now in an attempt to not get automatically pissed off when the next thread starts in a few days. I think you've gotten caught up overdefending Rand and i just let myself get pissed off too easily at all these people attempting to silence all dissent of Rand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Its hard to tell through internet text, but I didn't think Rand was "Making light" of it at all.  Did his statement have a more humorous tone than I thought he did?  I thought Rand was condemning the adminstration with that comment, just being subtle about it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I don't really care about Mike Lee, and have had no expectations about him due to the fact that Ron Paul is not Sen. Lee's father.  No one labels Mike Lee as a libertarian, nor is he considered the newly crowned standard-bearer of the liberty movement.  None of Mike Lee's words or actions will have a negative effect on the liberty movement in the mind of anyone outside of a handful of people (myself excluded) on this board.
> 
> Does that answer your question as to why the same outrage does not apply?


Well, I will thank you for backing up my point and essentially calling the recently-unhinged John F Kennedy III out on his crap:




> We're just holding him to the same standard we hold everyone else to. Rand would get ALOT more criticism around here if his name wasn't Paul.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Mike Lee's comment was a million times worse.  Seriously.  RUBIO did better than Mike Lee on this particular issue, and that's just sad.  Lee should be ashamed of himself for even making the statement he made.  Rand, by contrast, basically did say he agreed with Snowden, he just took a less radical, less provcoative approach to doing so, and I honestly don't object to what he said.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Its hard to tell through internet text, but I didn't think Rand was "Making light" of it at all.  Did his statement have a more humorous tone than I thought he did?  I thought Rand was condemning the adminstration with that comment, just being subtle about it.


Maybe I'm over nitpicking with that one. But all anybody in MSM does is talk about the cellphone part and ignore the rest.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Mike Lee's comment was a million times worse.  Seriously.  RUBIO did better than Mike Lee on this particular issue, and that's just sad.  Lee should be ashamed of himself for even making the statement he made.  Rand, by contrast, basically did say he agreed with Snowden, he just took a less radical, less provcoative approach to doing so, and I honestly don't object to what he said.


What did Lee say?

----------


## Origanalist

> What did Lee say?


Pipe down you, you're unhinged. (don't make me taze you)

----------


## RickyJ

Hmm, would it be appropriate for us to also reserve judgment on Rand Paul?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well, I will thank you for backing up my point and essentially calling the recently-unhinged John F Kennedy III out on his crap:


Here we go with more insults from the Rand supporters (unhinged).

I'm not calling out JFK3; I speak only for myself when I explained why I don't scrutinize Mike Lee as much as Rand.  

Yes, Lee's remark was much worse, as if that needs to be stated explicitly.

----------


## Ender

> What did Lee say?


Here 'tis.

Words? Hmmm.... Actions? Good.




> WASHINGTON  Libertarian Republicans may be unified in their distaste for domestic spying operations, but so far theyre divided  or avoiding the subject altogether  when it comes to whether the source of leaks about the programs is a hero or a traitor.
> 
> For some, it appears that Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who exposed a series of domestic programs, may be a traitor.
> 
> *From what I know, yes, but I usually dont call people a traitor without knowing all the facts, Sen. Mike Lee said Tuesday. From what Ive been told, the guy broke a whole bunch of laws, and its a problem.*
> 
> *Others, like Sen. Rand Paul, argue the programs he leaked may have been technically legal but the laws that allow them to exist need to be changed.
> 
> I think its a side point, I think the Bill of Rights is being violated, our privacy is being violated, Sen. Rand Paul told CBS on Tuesday when asked if he felt Snowden was a hero. We need to hold the president accountable and say, look, we dont want the government following us around every day. When people choose civil disobedience, they are at their wits ends. They have no choice.
> ...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Pipe down you, you're unhinged. (don't make me taze you)


Lol $#@! the TSA is here!

----------


## Origanalist

> Lol $#@! the TSA is here!


That's right buster....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But former Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Paul’s father and the original libertarian standard-bearer in the House, praised Snowden and the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald for bringing the story to light.
> *
> “They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret,” the elder Paul said.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hmm, would it be appropriate for us to also reserve judgment on Rand Paul?


Oh, I am too.  And he's the best we've got, but I've still criticized him many times.  Its just that in this particular case I don't object to what he said.



> Here 'tis.
> 
> Words? Hmmm.... Actions? Good.


That's true, and I guess actions do speak louder than words.  The statement was still mind blowingly stupid though (Lee's, not Paul's, if anyone misses the context.)  I'm not saying that it discounts every good thing he does, but I am saying that what he said was, to be frank, stupid.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 


God i love Ron Paul.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't really care about Mike Lee, and have had no expectations about him due to the fact that Ron Paul is not Sen. Lee's father.  No one labels Mike Lee as a libertarian, nor is he considered the newly crowned standard-bearer of the liberty movement.  None of Mike Lee's words or actions will have a negative effect on the liberty movement in the mind of anyone outside of a handful of people (myself excluded) on this board.
> 
> Does that answer your question as to why the same outrage does not apply?





> Thank you for confirming the point that Rand gets more scrutiny, not less, because of who his father is.





> Well, I will thank you for backing up my point and essentially calling the recently-unhinged John F Kennedy III out on his crap:





> Here we go with more insults from the Rand supporters (unhinged).
> 
> I'm not calling out JFK3; I speak only for myself when I explained why I don't scrutinize Mike Lee as much as Rand.  
> 
> Yes, Lee's remark was much worse, as if that needs to be stated explicitly.


Let me explain all of this better from the laptop as the last couple of comments were made from my mobile (and that doesn't always work well for me!)

There is no double standard for Rand vs. Mike Lee vs. John McCain vs. Lindsey Graham vs. (insert name of dumbass Dem Senator here)

All are held to the same standard by me.

If this were a Lindsey Graham message board where Lindsey Graham supporters are hanging out, and if I had registered for such a forum (why?) then I would be posting feverishly about all the stupid ass things Sen. Graham says (daily) and debating his stupidity with people who would probably be calling me a troll and a Lindsey-hater (and they would be right in that case).  But I would never register to participate on a Lindsey Graham forum.  I don't think I have anything to say to his supporters; I have NOTHING in common with them.

  So here I am on the Ron Paul forum where I signed up to donate to, work for, and cheer on RON Paul.  Somewhere along the way, Rand decided to run for the Senate, and I was happy about that...supported him, donated in 2010, etc....really wanted to like him.  And I don't dislike him.  Hell yeah, he's better than the other 99 Senators...and maybe better than any other Senator that has served in my lifetime, and I'm not exactly a youngster!   I just don't like some of the things he says to gain favor with questionable people.

So here we are on the RON Paul message board, but since Ron has retired from the political scene we have less and less to talk about what he's doing daily.  

Now the focus has shifted to his son's probable campaign for the presidency.  And he keeps saying these things to impress the audiences of Beck (where his Dad's supporters have been called "terrorists") and Hannity (where Sean still brings up the "snowball incident") and Levin (who has said so many insults about Ron it would be  hard to itemize them).  And I know why he's doing it, but it still pisses me off given what I think needs to be said (those people need to be educated, not pandered to).  

There is no double standard, it's just that we talk more about Ron and Rand Paul here...because....it's the RON Paul forum and probably soon to be the Rand Paul forum given that it already has a url (randpaulforums.com) that redirects to Rand's own subforum here.

Makes sense yet?

----------


## UWDude

Every libertarian knows this should be a no-brainer.  It is no small issue.  

This better be a feint, where Rand is showing a retreat because he has a massive counterattack planned.

----------


## fr33

Being mad about this statement is the equivalent to being a 9/11 truther that would not support Ron Paul.

----------


## UWDude

If Rand calls for Snowden's head, or calls Snowden a traitor, you know damn well I, and many here, would be done with him... ...forever.  Right now, Snowden has shown uncommon courage, and deserve nothing short of a medal of Freedom.  It will take an iota of that courage for Rand to stand with him.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If Rand calls for Snowden's head, or calls Snowden a traitor, you know damn well I, and many here, would be done with him... ...forever.  Right now, Snowden has shown uncommon courage, and deserve nothing short of a medal of Freedom.  It will take an iota of that courage for Rand to stand with him.


Gotta agree with this.

It would be a deal breaker for me as well.

----------


## FrankRep

> I was just starting to warm up to him again.  I see now that he doesn't get it.


Rand Paul must treat this issue very carefully because he's in a position of power and influence, maybe you don't get it.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Gotta agree with this.
> 
> It would be a deal breaker for me as well.


I hope it would be a deal breaker for everyone on this forum.

----------


## FrankRep

> I hope it would be a deal breaker for everyone on this forum.


Rand Paul shows wisdom by "Reserving Judgment." He didn't condemn Edward.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Every libertarian knows this should be a no-brainer.  It is no small issue.  
> 
> This better be a feint, where Rand is showing a retreat because he has a massive counterattack planned.





> If Rand calls for Snowden's head, or calls Snowden a traitor, you know damn well I, and many here, would be done with him... ...forever.  Right now, Snowden has shown uncommon courage, and deserve nothing short of a medal of Freedom.  It will take an iota of that courage for Rand to stand with him.



I'm sure you didn't catch it amongst all of this bickering, but in a later interview he also called Snow dens actions noble, it was even to CC's satisfaction, so let's let this thread die already.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Being mad about this statement is the equivalent to being a 9/11 truther that would not support Ron Paul.


Ron wisely distanced himself from that.  




> Gotta agree with this.
> 
> It would be a deal breaker for me as well.


Dealbreaker for what?
It would annoy the crap out of me, but honestly, I wouldn't really believe that Rand Paul meant it, even if he did say it.  It would be so obviously a political ploy.  From Mike Lee its not as obvious, but I'm still not sure Lee REALLY believes Snowden is a traitor considering how he's reacted to it in general.
If Rand Paul pulled a Mike Lee I'd be ticked off as heck and I'd be saying that he was a total idiot, exactly like I did regarding Mike Lee, but I'm not certain he'd actually lose my vote.  If he pulled a Stossel, on the other hand...


> Rand Paul must treat this issue very carefully because he's in a position of power and influence, maybe you don't get it.


Yeah, pretty much this.  I may not love it, but it is what it is, in this instance.  Even Ron Paul said that tax protestors should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.  And no duh, since its going to happen whether I or Ron Paul like it or not.




> I hope it would be a deal breaker for everyone on this forum.


Well, again, I called Mike Lee a MORON because of his statement, since that's exactly how he was acting, but I don't think you can absolutely judge someone's career on a statement.  Maybe on a vote, if its serious enough, but not on a statement.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

////

----------


## TheGrinch

> I am allowed to say i love Ron Paul without it somehow being a criticism of Rand and without having to for some reason acknowledge that Rand called Snowden noble. Seriously, calm the $#@! down. I'm doing my best to not put you on ignore as well.


Sorry, I was responding from my phone. It was in response to this quote from UWDude, who probably hadn't been following the thread like all of us:




> *If Rand calls for Snowden's head, or calls Snowden a traitor, you know damn well I, and many here, would be done with him.*.. ...forever.  Right now, Snowden has shown uncommon courage, and deserve nothing short of a medal of Freedom.  It will take an iota of that courage for Rand to stand with him.


I felt the need to share the more recent news because it had gotten buried in this thread, and I didn't want people to think that there was still any ambiguity about Rand "reserving judgement" when he's made it very clear which side he sympathizes with.

That's all. It was a mistaken quote. I'm not being an apologist, I'm not trying to be rude, but I can't take this kind of infighting over what amounts to absolutely nothing, and has been proven as such.

(ETA: I even edited the post with his quotes I was responding to, before he too got more outraged)

----------


## John F Kennedy III

No worries bro. I know had bad it is to post from a phone. Also yes i do like Rand's 2nd statement much better.

----------


## TheGrinch

And JFK, I tried to rep you earlier regarding burying the hatchet, but I agree. I went overboard here too, but my issue is that it's ALWAYS in response to what I feel are over-reactions, and it almost always turns out that it's the case that was. 

Hopefully we can all start to come to a mutual understanding, but we're all frustrated.

----------


## liberty2897

> Rand Paul must treat this issue very carefully because he's in a position of power and influence, maybe you don't get it.


I'm sure I don't get it.
He can tread carefully like a politician (while making jokes about NSA phone taps in this reference)
It won't impress me. 
Don't worry, he will still have my vote in 2016  (assuming I decide to keep voting)

I do regret making that comment, but it was what I was thinking after I read the quotes in the OP.  

I will say that Rand's op-ed that came out the day after this thread started was very good in my opinion.

----------

