80 votes

YouTube Update: Rand Paul on CNN Discussing Romney Foreign Policy

Video thanks to DPer kytyedye and the great MOX News:

http://youtu.be/FMlAD07_Dac

Twitter:

RT @NeelCNN: Tonight @OutFrontCNN 7p ET @SenRandPaul on calling out Romney on Middle East, defense spending... http://on.cnn.com/OUr9lI

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

K

From what I've seen, people get offended by a statement only when they think there is some slight possibility that they are wrong. The point being that if they THINK what you are saying is true, but they don't want to conform their lives to it, they get angry.

What if they think the statement is wrong? For instance, "all blacks vote for Barack Obama because he is also black." Is a false statement. It is also offensive because it shows ignorance and absolutism. However,
that doesn't mean that when applied selectively it isn't true. That doesn't make the statement any less offensive however.

Yes you should as I. I think that is precisely what Winston and you are doing. I happen to believe Winston has a better case. Rand has not apologized for what he did, so until then, I have to conclude he is just another politician.

Winston, in all the posts above, has made no case. He has taken the wrongness of Rand's actions en passant and gone directly to assaulting the character of the person who is showing appreciation for Rand. Seriously, read his posts again, regardless of if you agree that Rand is a turncoat or not, and read what Winston is writing to people. The gross vilification of any Rand supporter. The name calling, the "propagandist" and "GOP apologist" titles he throws out.

Rand won't be apologizing for endorsing Romney. He thinks Romney is a better person to have as President than Obama. He doesn't blindly follow Romney or say Romney is always right, and he is taking a stand on foreign policy which I seriously appreciate. He's picking his battles, and I understand that. I like Ron's style better, but that doesn't mean that Rand isn't doing the best from his viewpoint. It doesn't necessarily mean he IS doing the best he can either, it just doesn't mean he isn't either.

And to answer your last question. Yes Ron Paul and his supporters should be held to the exact same standards as Rand and his. If Ron endorsed someone and then regretted and apologized, and proved he was sincere by not doing the same over and over again, he could be trusted. If not, then no, we shouldn't support the man.

He endorsed Gingrich and Boehner. Both were known neocons WELL before he voted for them. He has not apologized.

Please understand, I don't think this is bad, as it really has no effect, the same as I don't think Rand's endorsement really does much for Romney, especially with him undermining him on foreign policy so strongly. Look at the good they've done and weigh what they had to do to do it, that's all I'm saying. Ron Paul has done a HUGE thing in waking up the Liberty movement. Rand Paul is carrying the torch in the Senate and he's the best we've got. He's been a huge thorn in the neoconservative and liberal backsides, and I'm proud of the work he's done. Endorsing Romney, or Gingrich, or Boehner, doesn't take all of that away to me.

Eric Hoffer

Very well put. Thankyou.

However, I stand by my assertion about truth. I do not get offended at statements I believe to hold no merit, and my experience with humanity tells me that most people react similarly.

I do believe Winston made a very good case concerning the technique Rand used in bringing us from one point("Rand lied")to the other ("Well, maybe he didn't REALLY lie"). It's called the Hegelian dialectic and has been used since the garden to get us to compromise on truth.

I sincerely hope you are right (again, my heart), but objectively (my mind) I have to say that I believe Winston is right. Like I posted in the past,
http://www.dailypaul.com/251669/the-announcement-from-ron-pa...

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

...right on schedule.

Typically, when propagandists have their "logic" kneecapped, they will resort to the name-calling and become grammar/style critics. The next step would be the ol' "go back to mommy's basement, smoke some more weed, put on the tinfoil hat, Paultard, Paulbot, Paulista, blah, blah, blah..." Unfortunately for the propagandist, this last step may not be an option on the DP. After all, this ain't Townhall, Hotair or The Blaze.

YES, SIR! I HAVE A BIG ISSUE! My Constitutional Republic's being RAPED AND KILLED BEFORE MY EYES! And if my elders BLED AND DIED for her... the least I can do is tickle a keyboard.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Please

Kneecapping those who use logic does sound like a good look for you there Winston.

Or were you trying to imply some logic that you were using? I don't think anyone here has seen too much of it. Your point seems to consist of:

"Endorsing a Neocon is evil. Therefore the endorser is evil."

However, we've been over this NUMEROUS times in NUMEROUS threads and every time we get to the actual logic and reasoning portion you hit the road faster than we can blink.

"YES, SIR! I HAVE A BIG ISSUE! My Constitutional Republic's being RAPED AND KILLED BEFORE MY EYES! And if my elders BLED AND DIED for her... the least I can do is tickle a keyboard."

My my my, what a high horse you have! Holier than thou much? We're all watching the same thing here, but that doesn't mean you throw logic and careful reasoning to the wind in favor of the caps lock key and emotional diatribes.

If you'd like to examine the logic of your statements, I'm perfectly willing. Just PLEASE explain to me why you still support Ron Paul when he endorsed Newt Gingrich for Speaker of the House and John Boehner. Just explain me that and I'll be perfectly fine.

I don't mind people holding illogical and shortsighted opinions, as long as they apply those opinions universally and don't selectively toss them out there.

Eric Hoffer

Propaganda dessection is tedeous, but necessary...

"I don't think anyone here has seen too much of it."
This tactic is the basic Marginalization tactic. It's designed to position the target as insignificant and totally alone in their pov. While the FALSELY STATED "anyone here" implies complete agreement with the propagandists opinion.

"Endorsing a Neocon is evil. Therefore the endorser is evil."
A complete exaggerated, overly-simplified lie. The word applied to Rand was "sellout," not "evil."

"you hit the road"
This is another typical Establishment tactic. Conversation HAS TO END somewhere, so the propagandist will capitalize on this, by always claiming the conclusion was from their target's fear, lack of confidence or getting "zinged." The propagandist will also manufacture a FALSE "history" for their target of running away "NUMEROUS times" or similar behavior - to FALSELY reenforce this. Of course it's false, but the readers don't know.

"My my my, what a high horse you have!"
Another awkward lie. My original statement about bleeding and dying, as anyone can see, WAS TO CALL ATTENTION TO HOW LOW I AM! How LITTLE I am sacrificing to correct deception.

"when he endorsed Newt Gingrich for Speaker of the House and John Boehner"
When propagandists find themselves in a bind and way behind, they will SCOUR RP's history for ANY blemish to then use as some sort of contradiction "zinger." Like his Afghanistan vote "for war." I've become somewhat of an UNWILLING expert (as best I can) on his voting record to fend off the Establishment attacks during the primary. The Newt/Boehner Speaker support brings two thoughts. Number one, without my researching the issue, I'll wager he voted for their Speaker positions BEFORE their dreadful legislating (during their "promising" phase). I'll also wager AFTER THEIR DREADFUL LEGISLATING, RON PAUL NEVER AGAIN SUPPORTED ANYTHING THEY DID!!!! WE KNOW HOW ROMNEY/RYAN WOULD LEGISLATE AS THEY HAVE LOOOONG RECORDS!

And... number 2, for a real ZINGER... (are you listening)...

What did Ron Paul GAIN... from those Speaker votes? Did Boehner, Gingrich or the GOP nurture his Presidential run in 2008? 2012? Or did they PULVERIZE IT WITH THE DIRTIEST, MOST CORRUPT, ORGANIZED CHEATING THIS NATION HAS EVER SUFFERED? What was it Boehner said in Tampa... "The ayes have it"... right?

What did he gain?

What has Rand gained?

THE SAME!!!!!!! NOTHING!!!!!!! Nothing but ANNIHILATED CREDIBILITY!!!!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

This should be good

This tactic is the basic Marginalization tactic. It's designed to position the target as insignificant and totally alone in their pov. While the FALSELY STATED "anyone here" implies complete agreement with the propagandists opinion.

No, I literally thought no one here agreed with you. It seems, actually, in this thread you have a sole, if misguided vocal supporter. I'll be the first to admit that the sole voice can be the correct one, but in this case it's obviously not.

A complete exaggerated, overly-simplified lie. The word applied to Rand was "sellout," not "evil."

Way to nitpick. There wasn't a sole "word" used. You've been bashing Rand and Rand supporters for weeks now at least. No problem, lets just keep moving with the question:

If Rand is a sellout for endorsing Romney, is Ron a sellout for endorsing Gingrich and Boehner?

It's really a simple question. You'll probably try and hem and haw around it, but it's very simple. To make it clear my position, I have no problem whatsoever with Ron endorsing Gingrich and Boehner, just as I have no problem with Rand endorsing Romney. I know endorsements are meaningless except to unthinking people. No one in the movement will be voting for Romney "because Rand said so."

This is another typical Establishment tactic. Conversation HAS TO END somewhere, so the propagandist will capitalize on this, by always claiming the conclusion was from their target's fear, lack of confidence or getting "zinged." The propagandist will also manufacture a FALSE "history" for their target of running away "NUMEROUS times" or similar behavior - to FALSELY reenforce this. Of course it's false, but the readers don't know.

Of course my rear end. Your established pattern is to come in at the beginning of the conversation, begin wailing with the caps lock key, and then when you've been logically destroyed you sulk back to your cave to wait for the next Rand post so you can go full bore again with the same tired hypothesis. Why does the conversation always end when your logical fallacies have been beaten like a rented mule?

Another awkward lie. My original statement about bleeding and dying, as anyone can see, WAS TO CALL ATTENTION TO HOW LOW I AM! How LITTLE I am sacrificing to correct deception.

I'm sure. If you patted yourself on your back any harder you may have dislocated your shoulder. Your emotive feelings of anguish over the state of the country are honestly not our problem, we're all dealing with the same over here and to try and hold that up as how righteous you are or how clean you are in your motives is slightly insulting.

When propagandists find themselves in a bind and way behind, they will SCOUR RP's history for ANY blemish to then use as some sort of contradiction "zinger."

Just to start here, you realize that labeling your opponent in conversation as part of some group called "propagandists" is... propaganda right? As for scouring for any blemish... what the heck? The point is directly relevant to our discussion at hand. I'm just trying to establish some sort of logic here.

Do you see it as a contradiction and a zinger? Because I honestly don't. I don't think endorsements for office really mean all that much. You however seem to think they invalidate everything else the person does in office.

Number one, without my researching the issue, I'll wager he voted for their Speaker positions BEFORE their dreadful legislating (during their "promising" phase).

You would lose that wager. Both Gingrich and Boehner had spent plenty of time in congress voting for unconstitutional garbage. In fact, Gingrich had tried specifically to take Dr. Paul down in his own district by supporting his opponent. You don't get to be Speaker of the House without moving up the ranks.

I'll also wager AFTER THEIR DREADFUL LEGISLATING, RON PAUL NEVER AGAIN SUPPORTED ANYTHING THEY DID!!!!

Sooo... how much did you wager and where can I collect? Awesome use of the caps locks key, and I think the 4 exclamation points really helped to emphasize your point. Which was wrong.

What did he gain?

What has Rand gained?

THE SAME!!!!!!! NOTHING!!!!!!! Nothing but ANNIHILATED CREDIBILITY!!!!

Again, awesome use of the exclamation point to emphasize your point. Most people stop at 1-2, but you're really leading here.

So your point isn't that the endorsement itself is bad, it's that they didn't gain enough in return for the endorsement? I may be misunderstanding you here. As for annihilated credibility... you really think that Ron Paul has no credibility? Honestly think about that for a second and come back to us.

Eric Hoffer

The LAST RESORT of the propagandist...

One of the final, wobbling tactics an Alisnkyite has in their online quiver, is boredom. This tactic is, admittedly, a tough one for me - as I've said before, I can't stand liars and am compelled to correct them. It takes confidence to thwart...

When an Alinskyite has exhausted the broken logic... the name-calling... the Marginalization... the Projection... they resort to BORING THE HELL out of the readers. They will wrestle the conversation into a circle-jerk of personal attacks. "You said this" "No, you said that..." kinda thing. Most of the time the Alinskyite will STRAIGHT-UP MIMIC your style - to make conversation EVEN MORE BORING AND HARD TO TRACK! It's designed to render the conversation SO TEDIOUS, SO MEANINGLESS... people lose all interest. It's also a tactic that gets you kicked from many sites - the Alinkyite doesn't fear this, as they will never get kicked - they're Establishment.

The way to combat this is to have the confidence to KNOW you've fileted the Alinskyite and made your points CRYSTAL CLEAR... then walk away, giving the Alinskyite the "last word." It will ALWAYS be more lies... but most of the time, the lies have already been addressed in previous comments. Confidence will beat the lies!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

LOL

Yes, I'm sure people are bored silly of your continual tirade. Undoubtedly in my mind. However, I'm enjoying this quite thoroughly. From your ironic use of the "propagandist" title which is itself propaganda, to your inability to actually acknowledge logical points. Are you sure you aren't running for election somewhere?

When an Alinskyite has exhausted the broken logic... the name-calling... the Marginalization... the Projection... they resort to BORING THE HELL out of the readers. They will wrestle the conversation into a circle-jerk of personal attacks. "You said this" "No, you said that..." kinda thing. Most of the time the Alinskyite will STRAIGHT-UP MIMIC your style - to make conversation EVEN MORE BORING AND HARD TO TRACK! It's designed to render the conversation SO TEDIOUS, SO MEANINGLESS... people lose all interest. It's also a tactic that gets you kicked from many sites - the Alinkyite doesn't fear this, as they will never get kicked - they're Establishment.

So... not addressing the points then? Oooh... Alinskyite. What a cunning linguist you are. You realize terms like that are actually collectivist dehumanization right? A form of propaganda? Oh the irony...

The way to combat this is to have the confidence to KNOW you've fileted the Alinskyite and made your points CRYSTAL CLEAR... then walk away, giving the Alinskyite the "last word." It will ALWAYS be more lies... but most of the time, the lies have already been addressed in previous comments. Confidence will beat the lies!

You mean ignore objections, points of order, and just continue spouting the same garbage you've been proven wrong on before? John Boehner? Is that you?!

What you're describing isn't confidence, it's bull headed obstinance. You're not engaging in discussion, you're just waiting your turn to get on the soapbox and yack. You don't care when you're wrong, you just keep going anyways. Slowing down to examine your points would show weakness right?

So just answer the question: Do you support Ron Paul even though he supported Gingrich and Boehner for Speaker of the House?

You're obviously so hung up on this endorsement thing you can't get past it, except for when Ron did it you completely ignore it. That makes your input worthless and conversation with you meaningless, because every time you'll run back to this "propagandist" BS instead of having an actual conversation.

You're not Freud. No one here is lying down on the couch for you. Give it up.

EDIT: And where is my cash from that wager you made above? I don't even get the nearly obligatory, "Oh wait I'm wrong, you won the bet" speech? People these days...

Eric Hoffer

Unfortunately, there are so few people like you.

My husband is one of the great men in this world who will keep saying it like it is, no matter who gets offended. The rest of humanity just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that there is SO MUCH evil in this world. It's too painful. It makes my husband's mere presence in most groups, offensive. He has learned through the years how to speak kindly to people though, and although they may think he's crazy and pessimistic, they walk away knowing his motives are sincere and that he truly cares about their plight. We now just pray for God himself to open their eyes.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Wonderful words.

Truth be told though the Heavans fall kinda thing. I'm kind, until I run into propagandists. I CAN'T STAND LIARS. When that happens (online), I will begin to talk PAST THEM and to people like yourself, so you understand the tactics being implemented - using the propagandist as sort of a case study. Drives 'em BATTY! You will NEVER "win" an argument, but at least you can help people see how their game is being played.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

If you are waiting for a perfect person

You will have a long wait. Remember, he who is without sin cast the first stone. Or as the Apostle Paul said, We are in the world, not out of it. Fortunately for us all, God forgives our sins. Rand Paul is a conservative and expresses his views well (and they are our views) I've said before, if 50% of the Senate thought and voted like Rand Paul we could all relax.

We are in another war for our Independence.

funny, this is the same line i hear from local GOPers

wanting me to vote for romney. whatever happened to 'no compromise'?

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

"I CAN'T STAND LIARS"--sounds just like my husband :)

The difficult part is that some people propagating a lie don't realize what they're doing. They just want to believe that most people are basically good and kind. They have been lied to all their lives and it's extremely painful to break out of the matrix, so to speak.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

As I Said Before

Let's give Rand the benefit of the doubt.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Hmmm... yeah... "we've" (not me) been doing that for decades...

Gingrich was given the benefit of the doubt.
Santorum was given the benefit of the doubt.
McConnell was given the benefit of the doubt.
Boehner was given the benefit of the doubt.
Bush was given the benefit of the doubt.
Cheney was given the benefit of the doubt.
Hatch was given the benefit of the doubt.
McCain was given the benefit of the doubt.
Armey was given the benefit of the doubt.
Cornin was given the benefit of the doubt.
Lugar was given the benefit of the doubt.
Cantor was given the benefit of the doubt.
Bachmann was given the benefit of the doubt.
Scott Brown was given the benefit of the doubt.
Graham was given the benefit of the doubt.
Daniels was given the benefit of the doubt.
Spector was given the benefit of the doubt.
Crist was given the benefit of the doubt.
Voinovich was given the benefit of the doubt.
Schwarzenegger was given the benefit of the doubt.
Giuliani was given the benefit of the doubt.
Ryan was given the benefit of the doubt.
Grassley was given the benefit of the doubt.
Romney was given the benefit of the doubt.
Portman was given the benefit of the doubt.
Coburn was given the benefit of the doubt.
Inhofe was given the benefit of the doubt.
Perry was given the benefit of the doubt.
Hutchinson was given the benefit of the doubt.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

not people like us, my

not people like us, my friend. we have not been fooled. if we don't stand behind Rand, no one is else is doing this either.

None Of Those People Had Rand's Parents.

.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

oh so not you, but we...

I like how you you speak for phantoms; anyone here care to admit (since you do not) that you ever gave these puppets the benefit of a doubt? None of those names have ever been trusted by honest constitutionalists. Rand proves here that hes not Romney's lapdog. Hes picking his battles in order to awaken those that are reluctant to see the light. We dont need to wake up infowarriors, wearechange, and even dpers - they already are. Those of us who have been awake can choose how to move forward, but to attack Rand's strategy is hardly helping anyone. Let Rand play politics, he is on the inside and can do serious damage to the MIC. When all this Syria nonsense (inevitably) backfires, Rand will be the only one in either party that can say he dared to oppose terrorists.

I admit it- I gave G.W. Bush the benefit of the doubt his 1st

election. That's what convinced me to NEVER do something like that again!

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

i respect that

But i guess i hold Rand to a higher standard (first) because of his father. I trust someone who was raised by Ron Paul muuuuch more than i would trust someone raised by GHW Bush. (Second) when has Bush ever said the things which Rand says? i know he bluffed the whole non-intervention thing, but Rand goes muuuch further out on the limb than he would have.

Correct. NOT ME!!!!!

I have VOTED, SUPPORTED AND CONTRIBUTED AS A REAL CONSTITUTIONALIST HAS! While APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU were preaching the "genius strategy" of GINGRICH AND SANTORUM IN THE 90's, I WAS SUPPORTING PEROT, BUCHANANN AND KEYES! While APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU were preaching the "genius strategy" of Bush, Dole IN THE 00's, I WAS SUPPORTING Constitution Party Peroutka and Baldwin! While APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU were preaching the "genius strategy" of Bachmann, West, Cain, Rubio in 2010, I WAS SCREAMING "NO!!!!!!! THESE CLOWNS ARE ESTABLISHMENT!!!!!! THEY'RE TRICKING YOU!!!!!!!!!! THEY WILL GIVE YOU MORE WAR, MORE POLICE-STATE, MORE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!"

And now, while APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU are AGAIN preaching the "genius strategy" of Rand, I'm going back to building my Constitution Party. It's gonna be REAL TOUGH GOIN' though, because most of the people WHO SHOULD BE HELPING ME, will STILL BE FCKN AROUND... AFTER THE DECADES OF SELLOUTS AND TREACHERY... with the LEFTIST, PROGRESSIVE, WAR-MONGERING, CONSTITUTION-SHREDDING GOP.

And my American heart breaks every time. God have mercy on your STIFF-NECKED children!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

you do not know me.

I don't go around attacking constitutionalists. I don't go around cursing in ALLCAPS. I don't go around name-calling people and I most certainly don't go around name-calling someone's children! I do not do these things because I actually believe in the Love of the r3volution. If you have something to say, how bout being respectful and loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Pride is obviously getting you nowhere. I am not your enemy and you aren't mine; from reading your posting history (something you have not done for me before you call me and my children names), you are my brother in Christ. How about dropping the sensationalism, division, and personal attacks and focus on what you want to say.
Now that that is out of the way, nice to meet you. When I turned 18 I found hope in Ron Paul. When Ron dropped out of the race I was devastated. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin and I threw my support behind him, voted for him, and got others to do the same.
In the 90's I was being brainwashed in elementary school by these apologists of whom you speak. In the 00s i was being brainwashed in middle school, high school, and college by your apologists. I somehow overcame. No one taught me what I know now, I had to search for the truth. I found it through Ron Paul and the Daily Paul community. These people strengthened my philosophical and religious education and faith. I have never remotely supported or apologized for any of the evil people you mention. I also hope I have never let my emotion get the best of me as you have.
If you think that Rand Paul is going to give us more war, police state, and government - you can start by watching the video on this thread, and several others. Why is he attacking Romney for his evil foreign policy less than a month before the election?!?! He speaks of the police state and big government more than any politician excepting his father, Ron Paul.
Good luck, my friend.

^ lol ^

Does anyone have the definition of "unhinged" handy?

Don't dislocate that shoulder patting yourself on the back there guy.

Eric Hoffer

Question...

If Rand Paul found this endorsable:

Leftist judges
UNCONSTITUTIONAL redistributed wealth for student loans
UNCONSTITUTIONAL NDAA
Bain wrecking ball, manufacturing jobs overseas
Bankrolled by the SAME TOP bailed-out CONTRIBUTORS AS OBAMA
Touchback Amnesty
Dream Amnesty
Hired illegal alien criminals (and DAMN WELL knew it).
COMPULSORY, SOCIALIST Romneycare (HALF-funded by feds - unconstitutional)
Romneycare-funded illegal alien criminal healthcare
UNCONSTITUTIONAL nation-building
UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Patriot" Act
Global warming (when politically useful)
Abortion (when politically useful)
Instituted sodomite/lesbian "marriage" (and tried to blame courts)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TARP
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Brady Bill
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Assault Weapons ban
Notorious Flip-flopper
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE "Federal" Reserve
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY Assassinating citizens without Due Process

... why would Syria be a problem?

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

the whole interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlAD07_Dac&feature=share

Really loving my Senator today. I hope this helps the haters to be more understanding that Rand is following a strategy. One he shared with me personally during the election. Lead them with baby steps. This is one of those steps. While appearing to still be "Republican" and loyal to the party, pointing out the error of their ways.

Look, folks, we don't have 30 more years for Rand to play the way his Dad did. It never hurts to try a new approach. Have some faith.

The Thing I have a Problem With

Is the WAY Rand chose to announce his endorsement of Rombombya. On HANNITY of all places and WHILE his dad was speaking in Texas.

skippy

Actually Rands "strategy" is quite burned out.

1980's:
"Lead them with baby steps" Reagan Revolution
RESULT:
Bigger government, less freedom, shredded Constitution.

1990's:
"Lead them with baby steps" Contract With America
RESULT:
Bigger government, less freedom, shredded Constitution.

2000's:
"Lead them with baby steps" Compassionate Conservative
RESULT:
Bigger government, less freedom, shredded Constitution.

2010:
"Lead them with baby steps" Tsunami
RESULT:
Bigger government, less freedom, shredded Constitution.

2012:
"Lead them with baby steps" R&R Revolution
RESULT (**SPOILER ALERT**):
Bigger government, less freedom, shredded Constitution.

See the pattern?

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

all of these were lead by

all of these were lead by neocons. not liberty people.

Look, this is what we HAVE. Do you interact with regular people, misguided citizens, ever? They are listening to him. The PEOPLE are asking for smaller, less expensive government. he is taking their cue and building on it to work to reign in the foreign policy. What Rand is doing doesn't compare with the above.

Incorrect.

You can call yourself "Liberty" "Tea Party" "Conservative" Compassionate Conservative" "Libertarian Conservative" Libertarian Conservative with a twist of Compassionate Constitutionalist"...

IF IT'S REPUBLICAN PARTY... IT'S GONNA END THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Agree with all of your great

Agree with all of your great points except tying Ron with Rand via R&R revolution. They are two distinct strategies, and Ron's is not baby steps.

Ventura 2012