Former Ron staffer: "Rand Must Denounce His Father To Win The Nomination"

LibertyEagle said:
Huge difference between Jones and Massie. Get real. Were you listening to Jones around the time that 9-11 happened?
Click to expand...

What's the difference? They are both sitting congressmen.

http://ivn.us/2014/09/08/rep-walter-jones-leads-effort-declassify-full-911-report/
Last December, Walter Jones, a Republican from the Tar Heel State, introduced the simply titled HR 428: Urging the president to release information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States.

In a discussion on the Ron Paul Channel, Jones cited the need to understand the relationship with the Saudis and said it would be “embarrassing for the [Bush administration] if this information was released to the public.”

Introduced in December, Jones’ bill was moved to committee and remains there with 10 cosponsors.

Kentucky U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, one of Jones’ House supporters, said in a television interview that the redacted pages of the report changed his “understanding of history.” It also led him to ask, “Why did my government keep this from me for 13 years? What were their motives?”
 
Ron Paul clearly doesn't believe the government's official story, as the video I posted shows:


And, with Ron Paul now wanting more government transparency on this issue, with him getting behind the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission (Fraud) Report, I think we should DOUBLE our efforts in regards to 9/11.
If we were able to get the GOP to add something about the Federal Reserve to its platform planks in 2012, I think we should make it an effort to get a REAL investigation into 9/11 as a platform plank for 2016. I'm sure both the Federal Reserve audit and the real 9/11 investigation will happen at the same time when we elect the next Republican President, because the GOP is becoming the party of Liberty.
 
jmdrake said:
What's the difference? They are both sitting congressmen.

http://ivn.us/2014/09/08/rep-walter-jones-leads-effort-declassify-full-911-report/
Last December, Walter Jones, a Republican from the Tar Heel State, introduced the simply titled HR 428: Urging the president to release information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States.

In a discussion on the Ron Paul Channel, Jones cited the need to understand the relationship with the Saudis and said it would be “embarrassing for the [Bush administration] if this information was released to the public.”

Introduced in December, Jones’ bill was moved to committee and remains there with 10 cosponsors.

Kentucky U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, one of Jones’ House supporters, said in a television interview that the redacted pages of the report changed his “understanding of history.” It also led him to ask, “Why did my government keep this from me for 13 years? What were their motives?”
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and that's good. But, that's a far cry from missiles being fired from the plane, the passengers being alive and being housed at some undisclosed place, bombs being planted all over the place by our government, etc. You know, the various stuff that Alex Jones has pushed over the years.

It's sad you know, because it was in large part all the crazy stuff that Jones pushed, that gave anyone questioning 9-11 a bad name. I personally think that was the objective.

As always on this subject, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
 
sgt150 said:
The left also said he worshipped aqua buddha and raped a girl in college. I don't think the conspiracy theory label is sticking. The worst thing he could do is come out and validate his opposition's defamation and throw dedicated passionate supporters under the bus at the same time, which is what the political hack Rasmussen wants.
Click to expand...

The "conspiracy theorist" pejorative label (it's not pejorative to me, but I digress..) isn't sticking by any objective measure, except that lots of "progressives" believe he is a conspiracy theorist and will proclaim it from the highest mountain tops of the Huffington Post. So the meme exists and has an incubation chamber at this time. I agree that Rand should do as you say and not validate any defamation. That was a great way to phrase it. Side note: I think the only accusations regarding aqua buddha was that he kidnapped and forced drugs upon someone. No sexual misconduct that I recall.
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
Let's phrase this another way.... would you be willing to "renounce" your parents' views in order to have a chance to reverse statism nationwide?
Click to expand...

The loss of integrity is too high a price to pay. For anything.

People who trade their integrity for some goal, whatever it is, rarely get what they thought they were paying for.

Integrity. It matters.

for something. Not being for rent.

Being true -- period, no matter what, come what may
 
OP is bad advice. Here is good advice, at 34:24:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66419

Unsurprisingly, it is essentially the opposite advice. Look, I' going to tell you something that may come as a great revelation to self-important narcissist creeps, but I'm going to say it anyway. Americans value familial loyalty. Human beings value familial loyalty. No one will like, no one will listen to, no one will vote for, no one will have an ounce of respect for a creature that doesn't have the decency to stand up for his own dad. You can't trust someone like that. No one can.
 
helmuth_hubener said:
The loss of integrity is too high a price to pay. For anything.

People who trade their integrity for some goal, whatever it is, rarely get what they thought they were paying for.

Integrity. It matters.

for something. Not being for rent.

Being true -- period, no matter what, come what may
Click to expand...
I am not referring to integrity
 
Matt Collins said:
I am not referring to integrity
Click to expand...

And I believe you are. You ask "would you be willing to 'renounce' your parents?" I see that as an issue in which integrity is highly relevant.

Tell me: would you renounce your dead father in order to do XYZ regardless of what XYZ is?
 
helmuth_hubener said:
And I believe you are. You ask "would you be willing to 'renounce' your parents?"
Click to expand...
No, you are being dishonest here... quote me in full... I said "would you be willing to 'renounce' your parents' views in order to have a chance to reverse statism nationwide?


I am not talking about renouncing one's parents, I am talking about renouncing one's parents' VIEWS.
 
helmuth_hubener said:
OP is bad advice. Here is good advice, at 34:24:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66419

Unsurprisingly, it is essentially the opposite advice. Look, I' going to tell you something that may come as a great revelation to self-important narcissist creeps, but I'm going to say it anyway. Americans value familial loyalty. Human beings value familial loyalty. No one will like, no one will listen to, no one will vote for, no one will have an ounce of respect for a creature that doesn't have the decency to stand up for his own dad. You can't trust someone like that. No one can.
Click to expand...

I generally agree. But if we were talking about the son of Adolf Hitler, rather than Ron Paul, I think denouncing would be totally appropriate. In other words, the reason I oppose Rand denouncing Ron is not JUST because Ron is Rand's father, its a combination of that and the fact that Ron is a man of integrity. Would you disagree?
 
Matt Collins said:
No, you are being dishonest here... quote me in full... I said "would you be willing to 'renounce' your parents' views in order to have a chance to reverse statism nationwide?


I am not talking about renouncing one's parents, I am talking about renouncing one's parents' VIEWS.
Click to expand...

We've come a long way from the days when people were trying to convince me that there was so little difference between Rand and his father, haven't we? Now here you are discussing whether it would be politically expedient to renounce the views you tried to convince me that Rand shared (he just can't let on until he gets elected *wink, wink*)
 
helmuth_hubener said:
And I believe you are. You ask "would you be willing to 'renounce' your parents?" I see that as an issue in which integrity is highly relevant.

Tell me: would you renounce your dead father in order to do XYZ regardless of what XYZ is?
Click to expand...

Would you be willing to renounce your father's constitutional positions, simply because you can't explain them to voters? If you can't explain them to voters, perhaps you are the problem, not your father's positions, or his supporters that understand them. After all, I thought the latter was supposed to be better at explaining positions than the former, and yet he gets fewer votes than Rick Santorum at the Values Voters Summit?

Now, perhaps had Ron Paul 2012 used funds to try and explain certain issues to voters, instead of spending funds to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, Rand wouldn't seem like a fish out of water on certain topics now? And maybe he wouldn't be being called on to renounce certain CONSTITUTIONAL positions of his father?

Rand Paul, delivering messages the GOP wants to hear so well, he's being told he might want to denounce/renounce/run from a constitutional position, of one of the most conservative, constitutional, Congressmen ever. And, with his own words and actions, he has basically done it.
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
I am talking about renouncing one's parents' VIEWS.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Matt, for cooperatively and predictably following my script. Supporting the person even while making it clear the view is different is precisely what Tom Woods recommends. "Look, we don't agree on everything, but he's my dad, and a good man, and how dare you dishonestly smear and attack him like that?!?" That is what Rand Paul should do. That would be a total political plus.

The advice given in the OP, the advice you say you haven't made up your mind about, that advice is so unbelievably bad it would sink the campaign of anyone who did it. There are a whole lot more people (try: everyone) who care a whole lot more deeply about fathers and fatherhood as an institution than will ever care about any policy nonsense you think they should care about.

Summary: Tom's advice is good; Rasmussen's is poison.

Now, you didn't answer my question. Tell me: would you renounce your dead father in order to do XYZ regardless of what XYZ is?
 
helmuth_hubener said:
Thank you, Matt, for cooperatively and predictably following my script. Supporting the person even while making it clear the view is different is precisely what Tom Woods recommends. "Look, we don't agree on everything, but he's my dad, and a good man, and how dare you dishonestly smear and attack him like that?!?" That is what Rand Paul should do. That would be a total political plus.
Click to expand...
Tom Woods is a great historian and economist, but he doesn't know anything about effective politics. Statements like this and others he made from 2012 are proof of that.
 
helmuth_hubener said:
Thank you, Matt, for cooperatively and predictably following my script. Supporting the person even while making it clear the view is different is precisely what Tom Woods recommends. "Look, we don't agree on everything, but he's my dad, and a good man, and how dare you dishonestly smear and attack him like that?!?" That is what Rand Paul should do. That would be a total political plus.
Click to expand...

It would be effective because it would push back the framework the MSM is trying to create of "Rand's naive father is an albatross burdening his campaign" by countering it with one of "stop smearing my great father!" Rand is at least partially aware he has to answer attack memes, not just finesse questions, but he also has to shatter the frameworks, before their imagery sets in like stone regardless of the merits.
 
amy31416 said:
You don't know anything about effective politics or being a decent human being. Your posts are proof of that.
Click to expand...
LOL, yeah, ok.... how many legislative bills have you killed? How many liberty people have you been involved in getting elected? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top