Ron Paul Is Wrong

"I've read this three times now, and it still

Submitted by ckpac on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 01:27.

doesn't sit right with me. Something is off. It just doesn't sound like Ron Paul to say something like "Don't they trust me?" He stood alone for 30 years, never concerned with what others thought. Why would he, all of a sudden, get "depressed" because an affiliate organization acted badly and caused an uproar with his supporters? Was the debacle at C4L HIS doing? Did he give the orders? If not, then why would he take it personally and be "hurt" by it? It would seem much more likely that he would "dress-down" those in charge at C4L and then speak to us directly to clear things up. At least that's the Ron Paul I thought I knew.

And, as others here have mentioned, the reference to working across aisles for 1207 is completely out of context with the C4L issue in question. Absolutely "apples and oranges". Actually, "grapefruits and cats" is more like it. It's a disingenuous argument, and not one I would EVER expect to come from a man with Dr. Paul's integrity.

Furthermore, this post by Michael feels emotionally manipulative to me, especially the melodramatic closing paragraph;
"Imagine working diligently towards something for 30 years, being in striking range, with all the accumulated tactical wisdom under your belt of how to achieve it, having a huge organization that you built up at your disposal, being completely focused on your goal, and then suddenly, some of your most ardent supports turn on you, start second guessing you, rabidly attacking you, and threatening to tear down everything you've built."

Who is trying to tear down everything he's built? How do blog comments have the power to destroy 30 years of work? And who "turned on" Dr. Paul? Are you saying that to question C4L is to attack Dr. Paul? That the political organization, C4L, and the good doctor are one and the same? If so, then this is not the revolution I signed up for. C4L was called on the carpet by DP members, and rightly so. Surely, Ron Paul would have expected nothing less from his principled host of supporters.

Lastly, I didn't feel that Jesse Benson's "explanation" provided real satisfaction or resolution.
$350K from "private donors" for a specific ad. Why?
Why did they come to C4L, why didn't they just do the ad themselves? Were they members of C4L? If so, why were they allowed to act as a special interest group using the C4L brand name?....because C4L is trying to establish the importance of their survey? Are you kidding me?
This isn't about whether Buck is the better choice or not, (and I am in Colorado) or whether it is a justifiable "tactic". It is about the fact that C4L compromised their "brand", which represents ALL OF US. They used that brand, which implies our endorsement, to support a candidate who advocates a political position which we deplore.... war. To surrender one's principles by an inch is to surrender one's principle's in total. I agree with Regnad Kcin....this incident leaves me greatly disturbed and unsettled."

There is just on big wall of text...

We'll you might want to watch this and then listen to the neo-con running against him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2GVZX_CdJQ

He sounds better than most serving Republicans in the Senate.

Reading between the lines is so important in politics. On his website he states, "We are told this effort will take at least 10 years."

He never said he supported being in Afghanistan for ten years. In fact, in the video, he says something different AND he sounded to me like he has no love for the Fed. He can promise whatever he wants but, if he is for ending the Fed, he deserves some support.

No Fed --> No War. Buck knows this.

So, really, Ron isn't "wrong" he is a chess master, while you sit on the sidelines bitching, complaining and giving our enemies posts to use against us.

Nothing I have read nor heard from Ken Buck would lead me to believe he is if for "perpetual war". Where is the "great liberty candidate" in Colorado??? That person doesn't exist and reality must be faced. Supporting Buck isn't a compromise if there is no other choice. His opponent, Jane Norton, is the card-carrying, pro-war candidate in Colorado. Buck must defeat her.

Politics and football are games of inches. Every step we take forward is a good step. If you don't understand tactics and strategy, maybe you should think twice about making a "Ron Paul is Wrong" post.

Thanks, Anisha, for the link.

Not an organization, but our self is the best tool we have.

often the enemy soldier shook hands with a Liberty lover and became his friend.

who says Ken Buck is a neo-con forever!

they say he read Ron's books and woke up...

how many of you patriots here voted for Bush in the past elections?
and yet you are here with us under one roof in the Liberty BIG tent!!!

CFL is not perfect
but still it is perhaps the best tool we have to attain freedom in our generation.

I was sometimes critical of the CFL leadership it's often poor skill level communicating with the grassroots and so on...
by their fruits we shall judge them as Jesus said.

if anyone wants to abandon the ship and stop their activism - give me the flag of the Republic you carry on the inside of your heart - I will carry it for you - it shall not drop to the ground.

peace patriots*))

You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.

Some people can admit that Paul was wrong. They can also claim he isn't a cult figure to them yet make ridiculous statements to the contrary. This is effectively a case where some of us are being pulled back into the Matrix. Our friends who joined us on the issue of war are now scratching their heads and taking their leave. Why support a "conservative" candidate when you were most interested in Paul's message of ending Empire, Non-Intervention, and blowback for our actions. Why do we continue to listen to those that would have us all believe that these represent 1%, 10%, or 20% of the issue? YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELVES! This is likely the greatest debates presented to us at this time. Intervention in foreign policy is why there is the Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act, GITMO, TSA, Fusions Center reports (MIAC), border insecurity, AIPAC, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, torture, rendition, Homeland Security, drug wars, CIA corruption, silly threat charts, the military industrial complex, trillions in aid and war funding, millions of people maimed or killed, and why many people helped elect Barack Obama, the list goes on. What percentage of your opinion does this reflect?

There will be blowback for our actions here just as there has been from decades of collusion with and in the business of other countries Many have decided to take the expedient road to victory and compromised the very essence of the movement. No surrender, no defeat? In the last few months we have lost significant ground philosophical and I personally want the movement back. We are sowing the seeds of our decline.

Yell at me and those that have held the line all you like. It doesn't hide the fact that your principles are tarnished. Why does it matter who is delivering the message that we are going the wrong way? The fact that someone is raising it should be a sign that you should be concerned and you need to get your house in order. In my own circle of friends I've seen what this is doing to us and the neo-con sympathizers who would have us sacrifice our share to appeal to theirs have aided in this divide. This problem will not go away and neither shall I. I am your conscience calling you to your senses. Knowledge of the truth only makes this crime against the rest of us that much more vile.

Just as Paul poses the question that we should be concerned by our foreign policy and the long term ramifications that it might have, we should continue to question the direction of this movement and the long term affects that it will have. Friendship and trade with all people but a non-intervention policy. This is true of campaigns as well, especially when we have hardened Constitutionalist who adhere to the key planks of the message waiting for the support to send them to victory. Why can't we give support to those that adhere to the message? What record does Ken Buck have to warrant your support and blind eye to the current situation? What did he do for liberty lately?