The ship was sinking for Rand and RJ's intention was clearly to settle everyone down, give Rand the benefit of the doubt, and awaken him to a new approach.
You can be anti-war/pro-peace and strong on National Defense. I think Ron Paul showed a lack of strength on national security during his campaign and it was detrimental to his candidacy. Rand, I think, is trying to avoid that mistake but took it too far. RJ is coming off as the voice of reason here while you are running around trying to defend the unconstitutional position that Rand put forth. RJ is offering a constitutional... yet not cowardly... position on dealing with this issue.
I see this as a friend helping a friend. Of course you could say ... "keep your comments to yourself" but what a poor leader and friend that would make.
Sorry RJ if I spoke for you, but this worship of Rand by some and this hatred by others... is troublesome... I want to see some balance and I think you were trying to provide that.
"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of