The Importance of the Virginia Governor's Race for Libertarians

erowe1 said:
We all know for certain that it's true, including the author of the OP.
Click to expand...

LOL. I guess you can read minds now. Well, I can't, and I'll admit that I don't know if it's true. I suspect it's not as Ron as allowed Ron Paul Inc. to lead him to a couple of bad decisions in the past, and this just smells like another one to me. There IS personal political gain to be had for the people of Ron Paul Inc. in a Cuccinelli win, so I have to go with my instinct which is to agree with the author of the OP.
 
erowe1 said:
There's no need to read minds. We have Ron Paul's words.
Click to expand...

You must think Ron Paul is God. I guess I just realize he's a human being with the same faults everyone else has....and that he wants to help his son to secure the GOP nomination no matter what he might have to do for the cause. It's a parent thing.
 
cajuncocoa said:
You must think Ron Paul is God.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. You can disagree with Ron. You and the OP obviously do. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend you're not really disagreeing with him. Don't pretend that the people you're accusing of being hypocrites don't include him. We don't need to be mind readers to know this.
 
erowe1 said:
That's not what I said. You can disagree with Ron. You and the OP obviously do. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend you're not really disagreeing with him. Don't pretend that the people you're accusing of being hypocrites don't include him. We don't need to be mind readers to know this.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it includes him (and neither do you). If it does indeed include Ron, then YES I DISAGREE WITH HIM.

Now why don't you be honest and stop pretending that Ron Paul Inc hasn't made questionable decisions in Ron's name before? This could be another of those. Just sayin'.
 
I was hoping this wouldn't turn into an inquisition on Ron. He's been kinda quiet for a while and I've been waiting for his next political pick. The last endorsement I remember was for Broun 4 Senate back in August and he certainly hasn't stumped for him yet like he's doing here in this time sensitive race.
 
cajuncocoa said:
I don't know if it includes him (and neither do you).
Click to expand...
Of course we all know it includes him. We have his own words and actions.

cajuncocoa said:
If it does indeed include Ron, then YES I DISAGREE WITH HIM.
Click to expand...
That's fine. Then stop hiding behind this "Ron Paul Inc." label, and just say you're really talking about Ron Paul himself.

cajuncocoa said:
Now why don't you be honest and stop pretending that Ron Paul Inc hasn't made questionable decisions in Ron's name before? This could be another of those. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Do you have specific cases in mind where Ron Paul said something, and you know that Ron Paul didn't really mean what he himself said, but was merely parroting what "Ron Paul Inc." told him to say, which he himself didn't really agree with? We're not talking about somebody else doing something in his name in this case.

I'm not pretending here. If there are cases of this, I'm not familiar with them.
 
Last edited:
The purists at it again. You see, they care so much about liberty that they want to choose the path that advances liberty the least, or none at all. Makes no sense to me. Help give Rand Paul an ally so he can continue to change the Republican party? Who wants that? Ugghh.
 
erowe1 said:
Of course we all know it includes him. We have his own words and actions.


That's fine. Then stop hiding behind this "Ron Paul Inc." label, and just say you're really talking about Ron Paul himself.


Do you have specific cases in mind where Ron Paul said something, and you know that Ron Paul didn't really mean what he himself said, but was merely parroting what "Ron Paul Inc." told him to say, which he himself didn't really agree with? We're not talking about somebody else doing something in his name in this case.

I'm not pretending here. If there are cases of this, I'm not familiar with them.
Click to expand...

You may be right that this is not one of those times because Ron himself is going to speak on Cuccinelli's behalf....so I'll just say I disagree with Ron's endorsement in this case (not the first time he's made a questionable one...see: Michele Bachmann).

This race is really for those who live in Virginia to decide...that doesn't include me, thank God because I think I would have to stay home on election day with those candidates as my choices.

One thing is certain: it seems that every decision, every word, is carefully crafted with the political benefit to Rand in mind. OK, I support him too...but I wouldn't go so far as to vote for KC if I lived in VA. I hope Rand proves to be worth all this compromise.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
Do you have specific cases in mind where Ron Paul said something, and you know that Ron Paul didn't really mean what he himself said, but was merely parroting what "Ron Paul Inc." told him to say, which he himself didn't really agree with? We're not talking about somebody else doing something in his name in this case.

I'm not pretending here. If there are cases of this, I'm not familiar with them.
Click to expand...

There have been specific cases in the last two years where the staff or CFL and Paul himself definitely gave off different messages (the famous late spring 2012 signals about the campaign being one of them). I think sometimes the 'Inc' folks come to a decision and talk Ron into robotically going forward with an endorsement, or write a email or donation message first, then get Paul to sign off on it without him necessarily being intellectually onboard with it.

This concept explains a lot of things, from the old newsletters, to past campaign mixed signals, to endorsements of people who are closer to being Santorums than they are Paulians. It would not mean that Paul is 'lying' but simply is very deferential in going along with his team's recommendations.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
There have been specific cases in the last two years where the staff or CFL and Paul himself definitely gave off different messages (the famous late spring 2012 signals about the campaign being one of them). I think sometimes the 'Inc' folks come to a decision and talk Ron into robotically going forward with an endorsement, or write a email or donation message first, then get Paul to sign off on it without him necessarily being intellectually onboard with it.

This concept explains a lot of things, from the old newsletters, to past campaign mixed signals, to endorsements of people who are closer to being Santorums than they are Paulians. It would not mean that Paul is 'lying' but simply is very deferential in going along with his team's recommendations.
Click to expand...

Well,it's getting worse.They are actually giving him mind control drugs and forcing him on to an airplane to Virginia,where he is endorsing Cooch at a rally in Richmond the night before the election.

That's if your theory holds water...
 
Peace&Freedom said:
There have been specific cases in the last two years where the staff or CFL and Paul himself definitely gave off different messages (the famous late spring 2012 signals about the campaign being one of them).
Click to expand...

This isn't a case of them giving off different messages. This is a case of Ron Paul himself personally giving off the message that he supports Cuccinelli. For some, this makes him a hypocrite. Only they don't dare say so, so instead they say it's not really him, it's someone else.

Stop hiding behind codes. People think Ron Paul is a hypocrite. They think he doesn't care about liberty, but only pretends to. They should say it. Or else shut up about it. That's the only possible conclusion to draw from the OP.
 
Last edited:
logikal said:
The purists at it again. You see, they care so much about liberty that they want to choose the path that advances liberty the least, or none at all. Makes no sense to me. Help give Rand Paul an ally so he can continue to change the Republican party? Who wants that? Ugghh.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that part of my purity test includes whether or not the guy is trying to put me on a sex offender list and take away all my guns for getting a blowjob from my wife.
 
fisharmor said:
Let's just say that part of my purity test includes whether or not the guy is trying to put me on a sex offender list and take away all my guns for getting a blowjob from my wife.
Click to expand...

When they come for the non-purists there will be no one left to stand up for them.

Where have we heard that before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Why Do Some Libertarians Support Socialism?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
280
acptulsa
acptulsa
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
371
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Last Rights: The Death of American Liberty
Replies
0
Views
712
PAF
PAF
PAF
The “Libertarians” Who Say the Private Sector Is the Real Threat to Freedom
Replies
1
Views
78
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Libertarian Party is on the Verge of ‘Full Collapse,’ Party Chairman Tells Board
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
520
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top