I gave the max contribution to Rand during the early days of his senatorial campaign (erroneously) believing he would be a chip off the old block. After I saw him on O'Reilly later in the campaign where he said he would not take the use of nuclear weapons off of the table when dealing with Iran, I realized that my assumption (and support) had been a mistake.
While Rand has done some very good things as a senator, he is clearly not the heroic figure his dad is. Rand has decided to work the political process as it is. I won't support it, and few other Ron Paul fans will either.
The gulf between Rand and Ron is not nearly (yet) what it is/was between Warren and Howard Buffet, but the parallels are getting disturbingly close.
I'm really disliking this, not because I'm a fan of Rand but because I don't think this helps us. I think it makes us look like some kind of cult to go after people like this who never really changed.
Rand has always been less than Ron. He was never a successor and he always admitted he was willing to "play ball."
Now we have a bunch of people looking like fools whining about how he's a sellout when he never tried to lie and say he agreed with Ron on everything.
You can't look at the endorsement independently of what the campaign has been doing.
First they built up support for 'the delegate strategy,' then they sent out a letter saying they were going to quit campaigning. When the media reported it as the end of Ron Paul's run for president, Jack Hunter and Doug Wead said that interpretation was 'media spin.' Then, the next day they had a money bomb.
Now, a couple weeks later, the campaign sends out an email which appears to concede victory to Romney, and the next day Rand Paul endorses Romney.
Rand could've waited until days before the convention to endorse Romney. The timing was awful.
I do look at it independently, but I can understand if you want to say that my view on this is naive. I just don't have any reason to think Ron would have anything to gain from Rand making this announcement. What Ron said about "being polite" doesn't seem substantively dissimilar to what Lew Rockwell was telling people going to Tampa. There will be a huge amount of security there and people around the event looking to stir up trouble with the Paul people. In that kind of atmosphere Paul wants his people to be polite because to be otherwise is to potentially cause a real problem.
What a shame Ron could not debate Obama and bypass all these loser Republicrats. Obama never would have acceded to that, but it would have been great. Paul could have shown what a dirtbag ignoramus Obama is; that he has no answers except to escalate the drive for 21st century slavery and he knows he is violating the Constitution even while he's asleep. Sadly, we are surrounded by moral monsters, so I'm not sure a Paul presidency could have accomplished much. But I still would have reveled in it, and taken great risks to support Ron Paul in his attempted ROLLBACK of the general government.
I think our chance will come when U.S. checks no longer buy very much. Then we'll have to rebuild community life and defend against crime on a very wide/deep scale. After all, our school textbooks probably defend cannibalism as just another lifestyle choice.
Talk about being overshadowed by family and judged through what they did! Truth be told his voting record as far as I know has not reflected any back-room dealing. This was an unfortunate move on his part but it is too early to say if having him in the senate is good or bad for the liberty movement. His actions (voting etc) have mostly shown it is good. Believe it or not there is more than 1 way to advance liberty. If what he did was the right way or the wrong way or somewhere in between cannot be judged in the present. Rest assured the response to his actions will influence future behavior. In what way remains to be seen.
Add me to this list, Rand and Jessie Benton come across as sell outs and backstabbers. In other words, typical Americans, and their view is, Bomb them all, right? There ain't nothing like murder in the heart, eh? Psft.
This exchange from http://www.dailypaul.com/mod-suggestion-box seems to indicate that someone from the campaign has been monitoring for content critical of Benton, and persuading the mods to censor it.
-
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2535908
E Tu Benton? Submitted by LibertyBelle1776 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 09:54. Permalink
My forum post regarding my thoughts on Benton and his questionable actions was wrongfully unpublished. I was also given a, "warning," that the material contained within the post was possible, "slander?"
That is just bull. I was stating my opinion and also those up with a well written, sourced and already published article.
So what's the deal? I have never been out of line on this site/forum, nor will I ever be. I have been involved with Dr. Paul's message and campaign since early 2007. I am entitled to my opinions and I abhor censorship!
-
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2535933
Liberty, Submitted by bigmikedude on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:08. Permalink
It seems Paul trusts Benton enough to have hired him again this round. After all they are family to some extent.
And the other issue is, you probably don't realize what it is like to answer your phone one day, and find a rather irritated and disgusted Dr. Paul on the other end, not happy at all with you, telling you to remove a post.
Well, Michael does. It happened to him back in 08 over a Benton post of similar form. (he posted about it somewhere around here back then.)
That is why severe Benton bashing / name calling posts become unpublished at some point when they are found. Dr. Paul respects Jesse.
Michael doesn't need another phone call like that.
Romney is a bankster bought warmonger and now Rand Paul is his little bitch.
ReplyDeletewas it jefferson s or franklin s son who betrayed him?
ReplyDeletesigned mikey o
I gave the max contribution to Rand during the early days of his senatorial campaign (erroneously) believing he would be a chip off the old block. After I saw him on O'Reilly later in the campaign where he said he would not take the use of nuclear weapons off of the table when dealing with Iran, I realized that my assumption (and support) had been a mistake.
ReplyDeleteWhile Rand has done some very good things as a senator, he is clearly not the heroic figure his dad is. Rand has decided to work the political process as it is. I won't support it, and few other Ron Paul fans will either.
The gulf between Rand and Ron is not nearly (yet) what it is/was between Warren and Howard Buffet, but the parallels are getting disturbingly close.
"you are a trader" wins for best comment
ReplyDeleteNo, it was "your are a trader". Even worse.
DeleteHe may have indeed traded his endorsement for his something. I hope he is a good trader.
DeleteI'm really disliking this, not because I'm a fan of Rand but because I don't think this helps us. I think it makes us look like some kind of cult to go after people like this who never really changed.
ReplyDeleteRand has always been less than Ron. He was never a successor and he always admitted he was willing to "play ball."
Now we have a bunch of people looking like fools whining about how he's a sellout when he never tried to lie and say he agreed with Ron on everything.
You can't look at the endorsement independently of what the campaign has been doing.
DeleteFirst they built up support for 'the delegate strategy,' then they sent out a letter saying they were going to quit campaigning. When the media reported it as the end of Ron Paul's run for president, Jack Hunter and Doug Wead said that interpretation was 'media spin.' Then, the next day they had a money bomb.
Now, a couple weeks later, the campaign sends out an email which appears to concede victory to Romney, and the next day Rand Paul endorses Romney.
Rand could've waited until days before the convention to endorse Romney. The timing was awful.
I do look at it independently, but I can understand if you want to say that my view on this is naive. I just don't have any reason to think Ron would have anything to gain from Rand making this announcement. What Ron said about "being polite" doesn't seem substantively dissimilar to what Lew Rockwell was telling people going to Tampa. There will be a huge amount of security there and people around the event looking to stir up trouble with the Paul people. In that kind of atmosphere Paul wants his people to be polite because to be otherwise is to potentially cause a real problem.
DeleteWhat a shame Ron could not debate Obama and bypass all these loser Republicrats. Obama never would have acceded to that, but it would have been great. Paul could have shown what a dirtbag ignoramus Obama is; that he has no answers except to escalate the drive for 21st century slavery and he knows he is violating the Constitution even while he's asleep. Sadly, we are surrounded by moral monsters, so I'm not sure a Paul presidency could have accomplished much. But I still would have reveled in it, and taken great risks to support Ron Paul in his attempted ROLLBACK of the general government.
ReplyDeleteI think our chance will come when U.S. checks no longer buy very much. Then we'll have to rebuild community life and defend against crime on a very wide/deep scale. After all, our school textbooks probably defend cannibalism as just another lifestyle choice.
'Of all the people I have never met. YOU SUCK THE MOST'...Rand.
ReplyDeleteEt tu, Rand?
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty good article on the "betrayal"..... http://truthalert.net/How%20Do%20You%20Spell%20Traitor.htm
ReplyDeleteGood call for the guy Tarpley
Talk about being overshadowed by family and judged through what they did! Truth be told his voting record as far as I know has not reflected any back-room dealing. This was an unfortunate move on his part but it is too early to say if having him in the senate is good or bad for the liberty movement. His actions (voting etc) have mostly shown it is good. Believe it or not there is more than 1 way to advance liberty. If what he did was the right way or the wrong way or somewhere in between cannot be judged in the present. Rest assured the response to his actions will influence future behavior. In what way remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteCool, thanks for the FB relay. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAdd me to this list, Rand and Jessie Benton come across as sell outs and backstabbers. In other words, typical Americans, and their view is, Bomb them all, right? There ain't nothing like murder in the heart, eh? Psft.
This exchange from http://www.dailypaul.com/mod-suggestion-box seems to indicate that someone from the campaign has been monitoring for content critical of Benton, and persuading the mods to censor it.
ReplyDelete-
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2535908
E Tu Benton?
Submitted by LibertyBelle1776 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 09:54. Permalink
My forum post regarding my thoughts on Benton and his questionable actions was wrongfully unpublished. I was also given a, "warning," that the material contained within the post was possible, "slander?"
That is just bull. I was stating my opinion and also those up with a well written, sourced and already published article.
So what's the deal? I have never been out of line on this site/forum, nor will I ever be. I have been involved with Dr. Paul's message and campaign since early 2007. I am entitled to my opinions and I abhor censorship!
-
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2535933
Liberty,
Submitted by bigmikedude on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:08. Permalink
It seems Paul trusts Benton enough to have hired him again this round. After all they are family to some extent.
And the other issue is, you probably don't realize what it is like to answer your phone one day, and find a rather irritated and disgusted Dr. Paul on the other end, not happy at all with you, telling you to remove a post.
Well, Michael does. It happened to him back in 08 over a Benton post of similar form. (he posted about it somewhere around here back then.)
That is why severe Benton bashing / name calling posts become unpublished at some point when they are found. Dr. Paul respects Jesse.
Michael doesn't need another phone call like that.