Why I’m Tired of Defending Rand Paul. BY JONATHAN BYDLAK

This doesn't win elections.




This is happening in Iowa and around the country, patience.


If Rand loses, I hope you compare how much change Ron inspired versus Rand. History will show that Ron Paul changed politics and the debate in a big way. If Rand loses, history won't really take note of him. Again, I would rather LOSE the election while standing for principle and inspiring MILLIONS of YOUNG LOVERS OF LIBERTY than lose having not done jack shit...
 
The law and punishments have to be as objective as possible like Hayek says. Snowden did not go through the proper channels and he ran. You can't let individual people be the arbiter on the law and what is Constitutional. I don't think almost any government regulation is Constitutional. But if someone doesn't comply with OSHA or minimum wage laws, they are still going to get punished no matter what I think.

Whistle blower protection laws should be given to contractors that work for government but as of now, they don't. Snowden has said himself that he would come back if he was promised a fair trial, so far the government has refused that request.

In regards to the proper channels, Snowden said he did try.

http://www.techeye.net/business/snowden-tried-proper-channels-before-whistleblowing

In testimony to the European Parliament, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but since he was a contractor, he had no legal avenue to do anything. The officials ignored him of course.
- See more at: http://www.techeye.net/business/sno...ls-before-whistleblowing#sthash.S7iQph9F.dpuf

In the nbc interview Snowden gave to Brian Williams he brought up that he sent emails regarding his concerns. The NSA did not refute this, they admitted that there was at least 1 email from Snowden that brought up concerns.

And then this is a good article here about how there really aren't any proper channels for whistleblowers. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ough-proper-channels-to-blow-the-whistle.html

Details what has happened to others that have tried to blow the whistle through "proper means" and are subject to retalliation.

For example, when NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake tried to blow the whistle on fraud and corruption within the NSA – based upon the NSA spying on all Americans instead of targeting only suspected criminals – he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

Drake notes:

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he’s been following this for years: he’s seen what’s happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You’re identified as someone they don’t like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.
 
Last edited:
If Rand loses, I hope you compare how much change Ron inspired versus Rand. History will show that Ron Paul changed politics and the debate in a big way. If Rand loses, history won't really take note of him. Again, I would rather LOSE the election while standing for principle and inspiring MILLIONS of YOUNG LOVERS OF LIBERTY than lose having not done jack shit...

Uh, what has changed since Ron's two attempted runs for president, save a slightly better informed minority of the voting public and a few congressional victories. Apart from barely avoiding outright conflict with Syria (we're still causing carnage there indirectly), I can't really see any of Paul's ideas being implemented anywhere, we have less privacy now than we did before Paul's first campaign. Rand managed to temporarily kill several parts of the Patriot Act and now several people on this site are fit to throw him under the bus.

This fanaticism and cult-like hero-worship is not a good thing, and Ron himself would probably denounce it if he was reading this. Standing for principle is fine, committing suicide over it is another matter.
 
No. Some of these people were never part of any true Liberty Movement.

Of course, the "true Liberty Movement." That one.

I'm a libertarian not a religious fanatic. The fact that you are so bigoted toward any view that doesn't meet your narrow criteria is a character flaw. It isn't because you are principled. It is because you are intolerant.

I disagree strongly with both Rand and Ron on numerous issues. I disagree with a lot of the stuff on immigration and trade that I see here. I think Bradley Manning is a traitor but somehow I am able to function when people here disagree. Instead of sulking about ultimately very minor grievances, I'm thankful there are other people I agree with on the other 90% of issues. Liberty is not a math problem where there is one correct solution.
 
Of course, the "true Liberty Movement." That one.

I'm a libertarian not a religious fanatic. The fact that you are so bigoted toward any view that doesn't meet your narrow criteria is a character flaw. It isn't because you are principled. It is because you are intolerant.

I disagree strongly with both Rand and Ron on numerous issues. I disagree with a lot of the stuff on immigration and trade that I see here. I think Bradley Manning is a traitor but somehow I am able to function when people here disagree. Instead of sulking about ultimately very minor grievances, I'm thankful there are other people I agree with on the other 90% of issues. Liberty is not a math problem where there is one correct solution.

Careful Krugminator, you might get labeled a Neo-con if you keep talking like this. ;)
 
Of course, the "true Liberty Movement." That one.

I'm a libertarian not a religious fanatic. The fact that you are so bigoted toward any view that doesn't meet your narrow criteria is a character flaw. It isn't because you are principled. It is because you are intolerant.

I disagree strongly with both Rand and Ron on numerous issues. I disagree with a lot of the stuff on immigration and trade that I see here. I think Bradley Manning is a traitor but somehow I am able to function when people here disagree. Instead of sulking about ultimately very minor grievances, I'm thankful there are other people I agree with on the other 90% of issues. Liberty is not a math problem where there is one correct solution.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that calling me "bigoted" might be against board rules. But whatever.

My view of Liberty is quite simple, not complicated....maybe you could even understand it. Are you free to come and go as you please? To do as you please? To speak as you please? All those things without fear of government harassment? If yes, than you have Liberty. Is anyone spying on you? Invading your privacy? Not respecting your boundaries? If so, you don't have Liberty. If you make compromises on any of that stuff you are compromising on Liberty. When you're willing to imprison Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on our government spying on us, you're basically saying that it was OK for them to do so. I consider Edward Snowden a hero. I would never advocate for his imprisonment. I would do whatever I could do to help him stay out of prison.

If this was 1855 instead of 2015, would you join the Underground Railroad to help slaves escape? Or would you turn them in to slave catchers because the law in the Southern states demanded it?

It's not about the law; it's about right and wrong. What Snowden did was right. In my (bigoted) opinion.
 
Last edited:
He said gay marriage “offends” him, and called for tent revivals to combat America’s “moral crisis” while simultaneously supporting ending marriage licenses altogether. He supports lowering sentences for drug offenses, and is publicly courting the marijuana industry, while very consistently making clear he opposes legalization. And in recent weeks, he’s gone so far as to apparently jump onto the Trump bandwagon in seeking to defund “sanctuary cities.”

He spent months reaching out to minority communities and branding himself as a “different kind of Republican” on police brutality and criminal justice reform—but when Baltimore was burning following Freddie Gray’s suspicious death in police custody, Paul couldn’t have been more tone deaf, scoffing how glad he was his “train didn’t stop” in Baltimore, and offeringwhat seemed to be 1990s-era Moral Majority musings on the downfall of the family.

I agreed with some of the article, but these two paragraphs shoot everything he said in the foot. It's obvious this guy is in lala land if he thinks the path to victory in the Rep party is to be more of a left-leaning libertarian than a right-leaning one.
 
Last edited:
I agreed with some of this, but these two paragraphs shoot everything he said in the foot. It's obvious this guy is in lala land if he thinks the path to victory in the Rep party is to be more of a left-leaning libertarian than a right-leaning one.

Most of the stuff he cites is Bernie Sanders oriented crap. Apart from the fact that I think he made a blunder regarding the whole "train not stopping in Baltimore" joke, Rand is largely mirroring where I'd go on these subjects.
 
If Rand loses, I hope you compare how much change Ron inspired versus Rand. History will show that Ron Paul changed politics and the debate in a big way. If Rand loses, history won't really take note of him. Again, I would rather LOSE the election while standing for principle and inspiring MILLIONS of YOUNG LOVERS OF LIBERTY than lose having not done jack shit...

This is true, but I would venture that many "Ron Paul supporters" supported him for reasons that are different than what you think. Many "supporters" ended up voting for Obama.
 
If Rand loses, I hope you compare how much change Ron inspired versus Rand. History will show that Ron Paul changed politics and the debate in a big way. If Rand loses, history won't really take note of him. Again, I would rather LOSE the election while standing for principle and inspiring MILLIONS of YOUNG LOVERS OF LIBERTY than lose having not done jack shit...

And if Rand wins, you will do what?

Whether Rand wins or not, I like his father will be proud that we voted for the only candidate running for the GOP Presidential nomination who comes closest to Ron's philosophy of liberty....

“His philosophy is close to my philosophy,” Ron Paul told Breitbart News of Rand Paul in a recent interview in Houston, Texas, at a fundraiser where several family members attended. “It’s for less government, for liberty, and nobody else even has the vaguest understanding if you compare what his understanding is for free markets and Austrian economics. Nobody else even comes close.”
 
My view of Liberty is quite simple, not complicated....maybe you could even understand it. Are you free to come and go as you please? To do as you please? To speak as you please? All those things without fear of government harassment? If yes, than you have Liberty. Is anyone spying on you? Invading your privacy? Not respecting your boundaries? If so, you don't have Liberty. If you make compromises on any of that stuff you are compromising on Liberty.

I think this excerpt from the first chapter of the Road to Serfdom is very applicable to Rand, liberty, and a strategy for a free society. I think Hayek would apply this to foreign policy and every other political debate. And I think his view is much different from your view.

"There is nothing in the basic principles of liberalism to make it a stationary creed, there are no hard-and-fast rules fixed once andfor all.......Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire.....

And since a strong presumption in favour of industrial liberty had undoubtedly been established, the temptation to present it as a rule which knew no exceptions was too strong always to be resisted.But with this attitude taken by many popularisers of the liberal doctrine, it was almost inevitable that, once their position was penetrated at some points, it should soon collapse as a whole."
 
Last edited:
I can understand both sides of the argument here.

What neither side seems to realize is how little we have accomplished in this whole thing and how likely it is that Rand might get close to the same amount of support in this election as his dad did last time, no matter which strategy is used.
 
If Rand loses, I hope you compare how much change Ron inspired versus Rand. History will show that Ron Paul changed politics and the debate in a big way. If Rand loses, history won't really take note of him. Again, I would rather LOSE the election while standing for principle and inspiring MILLIONS of YOUNG LOVERS OF LIBERTY than lose having not done jack shit...

^ This.

What neither side seems to realize is how little we have accomplished in this whole thing and how likely it is that Rand might get close to the same amount of support in this election as his dad did last time, no matter which strategy is used.

^ And this.

The same group that ran Iowa in 2012 are running the campaign today. That is the problem.

^ And this.
 
This is true, but I would venture that many "Ron Paul supporters" supported him for reasons that are different than what you think. Many "supporters" ended up voting for Obama.

All RP supporters I know ended up not voting.
 
If Rand loses, I hope you compare how much change Ron inspired versus Rand. History will show that Ron Paul changed politics and the debate in a big way. If Rand loses, history won't really take note of him. Again, I would rather LOSE the election while standing for principle and inspiring MILLIONS of YOUNG LOVERS OF LIBERTY than lose having not done jack shit...
This is true, but I would venture that many "Ron Paul supporters" supported him for reasons that are different than what you think. Many "supporters" ended up voting for Obama.

This is true, but I would venture that many "Ron Paul supporters" supported him for reasons that are different than what you think. Many "supporters" ended up voting for Obama.

I don't think who any of them ultimately end up voting for in one election really even matters. What matters is he instilled the basic concepts of liberty in a whole shit load of young adults. In 20 or 30 years when that generation grows up and are the ones running the country, they will still keep with them a bit of what Ron Paul taught them. They may not become libertines, but when they evaluate a problem in their every day life they just may reach back onto the concepts of peace, free markets, and civil liberties that Ron Paul showed them in their youth.

That is the true long game. Ron Paul was playing chess. Rand is playing checkers. Ron was about the message, the philosophy. Rand is about winning at all costs. He's about putting himself before the message.

I mean, what even happens if Rand Paul wins? Maybe he passes a couple pieces of legislation we like? And maybe he starts a war to appease the establishment? Maybe not? Does it even matter? He'll do his 4 or 8 years, get out, and everything will be exactly the same. Then what? Start trying to groom Rand's son to continue the dynasty with another trojan horse campaign?
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it's been stated before, but don't forget there are more anti-establishment candidates in both parties this year. 2012 was devoid of any in all honesty. Ron was the only truth teller. Just look at how many Bernie supporting lefties now were claiming to be Paul supporters 4 years ago, when in reality the two have very little in common. Even on issues of civil liberties Bernie is almost invisible in Congress. He is a big economic socialist and that is his platform. Now was it good that Ron got them to support him in 2008 and 12? Perhaps. But were many of those minds changed if they're running right back to Bernie? Bernie doesn't know a thing about sound money or the dangers of the Fed. Or centralized government for that matter. So arguably the answer to the question is no. Many of those libertarians are the same who claimed Jesse Ventura was/is a libertarian, when in all honesty he is a giant statist/conspiracy theorist.

Even on foreign policy, where many of us would argue are Rand's biggest disagreements with Ron (in some areas), Bernie is no trailblazer. He usually amounts to the yes-man for Democratic misadventures. Even on Iran, Jim Webb came out against the deal...Have you heard Raimondo and others attacking him lately? He is easily the biggest anti-war guy declared....

Was Ron inspiring? Yes, of course. But I'd argue he did more to change the minds of former neocons/fascists like myself than your traditional campus leftist.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top