Comment: I disagree with the divisive title of this post

(See in situ)

In post: Deleted

Michael Nystrom's picture

I disagree with the divisive title of this post

And the simplistic nature of its message, to steal a phrase from a comment below.

Some here are not "on board" with anything and everything that Rand Paul has ever done, or will ever do. Count me among them. That does not make them, or me, a "neocon shill," and I resent the fact that you would refer to intelligent, deep-thinking, and sensitive people as such.

You may as well be George W. Bush all over again in that idiotic, twangy drawl: "Either your wid us, or your again' us."

BS! I call BS on W, and I call BS on you.

To quote Rand himself, "It is possible for good people to disagree."

Rand put on a great show last week with the Filibuster. It was good, and it was exciting. But the emotionally hijacked here want to push that into "Rand Paul 2016!"

Well, it isn't that simple. The jury is still out. Don't hand over your wallet and your emotions just yet. It is still far too early for that. There is plenty of time to be patient and to watch and wait.

Give praise where it is due - as the Daily Paul did. And criticize where it is called for. Elected officials, after all, are p u b l i c . s e r v a n t s . I agree it is nice to see a public servant standing up for the people every once and a while. But this should be the norm, not something to wet your pants over.

This is not going to become an echo chamber for Rand Paul, as it was for Ron Paul, because that is not useful. If you've learned nothing over the past 6 years, you've wasted 6 years of your life.

He's the man.