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.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: