You have a point, because of course to say anything about anybody else than of oneself, that is, of 'myself' is always a generalization. (Even what I say of myself are classifications and generalizations most of the time.) All use of group-notions are always in a smaller or larger scale distortions, but of course we always use them. This means that 'classifications' are almost impossible to avoid in language.
But in my comment I meant particularly by 'us' fishy and myself, but also generally DPers, or Ron Paul supporters. What I meant by the phrase "Rand is not for US"? Rand is not for us as Rand speaks the compromised message. Rand speaks to the people who do not understand at all what Ron Paul is saying. Rand is FOR those (the majority) who think that Ron's message is crazy. Rand is doing important work. But for somebody who understands the Liberty message it is highly disturbing sometimes to hear some of the compromising statement of Rand (for example, endorsement of Romney, Israel-talk, Iran-sanctions, etc.)
You can of course also misunderstand the word 'for' in my phrase. It doesn't of course mean here the opposite of 'againts'.
"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--