Ron Paul...Don't Destroy Yourself
rdmatheny
2012/06/13 13:41:11
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
38% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
15% | |||
|
6 votes
|
|
46% | |||
goes double for the junior senator Rand Paul: you can't win by joining
the "lesser of two evils," because it is still a submission to evil. The
Paul family's grassroots supporters are pleading with them to reverse
the betrayal and turn back before a 30 year campaign to revitalize the
Constitution and save the Republic is heavily damaged.
The REAL CHANGE Ron Paul has instituted is a TAKE OVER of the GOP at the local and state levels. He has started a spark and this spark will continue. There is no doubt in my mind. Everything is going as planned. We will see if we have a country left after this next four years. I am not positive that we will, but at the same time I am not positive that we will not either. So I am lets wait and see how everything turns out. I am hedging my bets that Mitt Romney will ask Rand Paul to be his VP running mate. The question is, is that why the Builderbergs changed their meeting to Virginia was to endorse Rand Paul for Mitts running mate? Or is it someone else they were vetting for the process?
Ron Paul has too much integrity to ever jump on the bandwagon in this way. HE's proven himself as a man of conviction, and I'm not worried in the least that he would endorse that lame excuse for a conservative.
Paul is a politician. He's not an independent, he's a Republican. His goal was to stir up a grassroots foundation to pass onto his son - a candidate with broader apeal to the mainstream of the Party.
The Pauls clearly understand the differences between Romney and Obama.
Are you for real?
I think your suggestion that Ron Paul worked all that time to set his son up for success is a very long stretch. Ron has not, nor do I believe he will ever, endorse Mitt Romney.
And until Ron Paul himself comes out in favor of Mitt Romney, I will continue to believe he has proven himself a man of principle who will not abandon them by endorsing Romney. The fact that Rand did is inconsequential. He is his own person, not an extension of Ron Paul.
This is what I mean by letting your guard down.
Rand paul was always going to get behind his father if he Won the Nomination. But now that that is no longer a realistic option, His strategy is to get inside the circle and bring the legacy and fight for liberty into the belly of the beast.
You are the example of exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks.
and i love when people like you dont know a damn thing about someone and you try to act like you know the first thing about them.
I support Ron Paul because he happens to be (at the moment) THE only candidate who is supporting the ideas and concerns that i share, and if he so happens to sway in his ideas (which i doubt because hes been consistant in his stances for 30 yrs now) THen my support will no longer be behind him, ITs the support for the cause not the man. Get over yourself .
- Ron Paul is not a republican. He is running republican, but he is a libertarian.
- His strategy is to get inside the circle and bring the legacy and fight for liberty into the belly of the beast.
Ron is a Republican. If he were an libertarian and really believed in his causes then he'd leave the GOP and run third party. As it is, he's sticking with the GOP. Now that could mean that he's still supporting his causes BUT he does see the tactical advantage of supporting Mitt and trying to involve himself in a Romney Presidency. But that means his suggestion is that Mitt should have your support too, to defeat Obama and put the situation in place to be "inside the belly of the beast" as you put it.
And one minute you're claiming Rand is going to get inside the "belly" and the next you're saying you've never been much of a fan. Its wishywashy. Either Rand is principled or he's a politician.
Bottom line is that the Pauls are clearly GOP and clearly want to involve themselves with Mitt, either because they want to grow power or they want to fight for your cause. You can make your choice - support the Pauls and vote Romney to further their goals or realize the Pauls are just another political family and continue on outside the GOP for your cause.
Ron paul is libertarian, and has run two previous times as a libertarian, He ran republican this time and has said himself that he supports what REPUBLICANS used to be and could be again.
As far as Rand and your bogus assumptions of my "wishy washy" statements.
I stated Rand paul's strategy and what he "may" be trying to accomplish , and That statement is strictly coming from things he himself has stated! Knowing of his involvments and keeping current on what he is doing , doesnt mean i support him. You are just being ignorant.
RON Paul HASNT endorsed Mitt .
Rand , being the next in line to make any headway in the political arena needs to make nice with the team he will be working with if he wants to get anything done, (more flies with honey than vinegar) SO ofcoarse he is going to go with the GOP over the democratic liberals- who in absolutely no way resemble ANYthing the liberty movement is trying to accomplish.
Sure Ron isn't going to come out and directly endorse Romney. Thats going to put the true believers off of his brand and affect the mainstream Paul supporters. Rands endorsement is a defacto endorsement from Ron. That Ron isn't continuing on as an Independent candidate is a defacto endorsement of Romney.
Ron and Rand are two peas together. They are family. Ron takes the stronger point of view because he's older and near retirement and he can corral enough base support to pass to Rand for the future. They want you to believe that they are principled. They are just a certain type of Republicans and thats where they are going to stay, in the GOP in an effort to attain power.
You can have your own opinions for why and how they use that power, but they are not separate guys. They're family. Ron and Rand are together.
I Dont support only a man, i support the liberty movement whether that be RP or someone else. It is not the man per say that i am "hooked" on it is the idea they support. WITH or Without the Pauls i would support this movement!
But whatever.
The pauls' are human, NOT immune to mistakes, and ide be lieing to say that im not skeptical at all, BUT i can say that i believe that RON paul is someone with their head and heart in the right place when it comes to what this country needs as far as a cut back on needless wars, not running to the aid of every other country when we cant take care of our own, cutting unecessary spending, disapearing liberties and freedoms being restored, transperancy in gov and the fed, and a clean out of the leaders in office that neglect their jobs and obligations to our country.
And making exuses for him? how so?? Has he done something that calls for the need of someone to make exuses for him?
Benton may go down as quite possibly the worst campaign manager in history.
Rand is a well grounded man and these assaults are unfounded and, well, just plain sad
Wow, talk about a bunch of cheap bitter fair weather good time buddies... sheese!
You and a lot of other Paul supporters are cutting tail and running and calling them traitors at the first sign of the Paul's bargaining with the powers that be for political position. I suppose you all would be happier doing as Jones suggest and have them tell the party to just go fxck itself, create a split and lose any and all gains that were made?
Ron Paul stated from day one that his campaign for the nomination was a long shot at best and that his secondary focus was to use the national stage to spread the ideas of liberty. It logically follows that he would also use this new political leverage as a bargaining tool for what changes are politically possible within the system at this time.
Ron Paul has succeeded beyond all hope in paving the road for the millions of liberty minds individuals who will be changing politics in this country for generations to come and yet instead of celebrating or being grateful for what he has accomplished you are all pissing and moaning like a bunch of spoiled welfare brats about what he didn't or hasn't done for you yet.
If you and some others turned his campaign into some quick mythical Alex Jones inspired final ba...
You and a lot of other Paul supporters are cutting tail and running and calling them traitors at the first sign of the Paul's bargaining with the powers that be for political position. I suppose you all would be happier doing as Jones suggest and have them tell the party to just go fxck itself, create a split and lose any and all gains that were made?
Ron Paul stated from day one that his campaign for the nomination was a long shot at best and that his secondary focus was to use the national stage to spread the ideas of liberty. It logically follows that he would also use this new political leverage as a bargaining tool for what changes are politically possible within the system at this time.
Ron Paul has succeeded beyond all hope in paving the road for the millions of liberty minds individuals who will be changing politics in this country for generations to come and yet instead of celebrating or being grateful for what he has accomplished you are all pissing and moaning like a bunch of spoiled welfare brats about what he didn't or hasn't done for you yet.
If you and some others turned his campaign into some quick mythical Alex Jones inspired final battle to the suicidal end then that is your own delusional mistake. The fight for liberty is a longer term battle than one or two election cycles and if you and others are too shallow, unappreciative and slow to hang then feel free to tuck your tails, spit your cheap childish insults and go back to the porch with your mama's and your Alex Jones videos. The grown ups still have work to do.
And if that also means some of us need to part ways then so be it, I find it really hard to trust or place a terribly high value on "friends" who lose confidence and rush to mob judgment at the drop of a hat anyway.
So why the need to use the term?
And I never argued that Paul was a truther. My point on him is that he's an average politician, building a name to pass to his son. I've always wondered at truthers out there that follow him blindly when he clearly isn't one.
Now, with Iraq, I don't believe it was a tactical error. I believe it was either a false flag war (this isn't some conspiracy term, it is a common international relations term, and as an IR college student, I tend to use those terms) in that it was clearly used to turn people away from the fact that we had not found Osama Bin Laden, or that it was an attempt to finish what his father started. There was clear evidence, both from our own and from other nations investigations and intelligence, that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons. Bush was no stupid enough to have made that big a tactical blunder.
Of course false flag isn't just a conspiracy nutter term. However, conspiracy theorists are usually more preoccupied with the concept than average people. They do tend to toss around the concept, and blame every conflict we're in on it.
As for Iraq. What is the actual false flag event that sent us in there? What event did the US carry out pretending to be someone else to use as a justification to enter Iraq?
See, if you think they weren't working off faulty intell and went ahead anyway under the motivations you claim then I'd call that lying us into war. Not false flagging us there.
If it was used to distract from failures in Afghanistan then its merely a distraction.
I struggle to see the single "faked" event used as a means of starting a conflict. This is why hammering you as a truther was the logical response. Faking that terrorist attack would be the biggest false flag ever. US means used to attack its own under the "flag" of terrorists. Thats an understandable (if unbelieveable) claim.
But you haven't laid out what military action we've faked in the name of someone else yet. So I'll wait on that.
I don't admit anything about anyone except that they are politicians. This is what I love about Paul supporters. They are overly critical of everything involving politics yet they are incapable of holding Paul to the same scrutiny/potential.
False flag events aren't necessarily military events faked, but can frequently be a redirection of focus based on a previous military event. One of the first arguments to justify the war in Iraq was that they had sponsored or aided Al-Qaeda in preforming the attacks on 9/11.
False flags are named specifically because they are events faked by a government under the guise of another - hence the term of false flag.
What you describe is purely a war of distraction.
And the al Queda link was purely that Saddam had given money once and aid to a few terrorists from the group. Thats all I ever heard, with no link to 9/11,
Cheney, on Meet the Press in 12/9/2001, said that Iraq was harboring an a 93 trade center bombing suspect.
He said: "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.
And your understand of False flags is false. That is one type of false flag. A war of distraction is a war which turns people away from focus on the administration. This used false information to blame an event on a nation to justify going to war. The event doesn't have to be faked.
Using false information, as I said previous, is purely lying to go to war. Not a false flag.
false means faked, and flag means ties to and organization or government. You're not the only one whos spent extensive time studying history and politics. And to this point I've got my degree.
What you're describing is either lies into war or a conflict of distraction. Neither are false flags.