Comment

Comment by Andy Anduer on March 17, 2013 at 10:59pm

Rand Paul wins The Washington Times-CPAC 2013 Straw Poll

http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-paul-wins-the-washington-times-cpa...

He said all the right things?

Comment by Andy Anduer on March 17, 2013 at 10:57pm

Looks like I jumped the gun! I was listening to R.Paul speech this morning and he sounds like he got it right. 

Perhaps the dino media was just trying to smear him on 1st amendment issues with Ms. Martin?

Comment by Cryptocurrency on March 17, 2013 at 3:56pm

apeman2502, your comments are always the best.

You got any links to the RP freemasonry thing? I've seen stuff over the yrs making that claim, but nothing substantial. Freemasonry really gets a bad rap. This nation was founded by them and there are plenty of good masons, they're just misunderstood.

Comment by Andy Anduer on March 17, 2013 at 10:49am

Wow! I am surprised that R.Paul voted for NDAA even if it wasn't the one to detain American it one step closer to totalitarianism.There is obviously something wrong with R.Paul if he won't talk about any of the these happenings and even with the interrogation of the above reporter Ms. Martin. So strange he seemed to be with  the Liberty movement  and people supported  him thinking he was going to come to the aid of his country but instead turned his back on his supporters and even his own father.

I hate to think that, but it is true. He is silent about these things.

Like St. Paul once said; They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19

Psalm 55:12-14

For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him:But it was you, a man my equal, my guide, and my close friend.We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.

When the wicked rise, a man is hidden. Proverbs 28:28

Comment by truth on March 17, 2013 at 9:02am

F RAND

 

Comment by apeman2502 on March 17, 2013 at 12:39am

  Dr. Ron Paul campaigned three times long enough to wrap up the third party ticket. Then each time, he bailed out. Like Lucy pulling away the football leaving Charlie Brown laying flat on his back, like us. Rand Paul will most likely present himself convincingly to many, but to me, he will be another placebo candidate in the Dr. Ron Paul tradition. Never underestimate the insidious power of freemasonry and its leader, queen lizard of England. Dr. Paul comes from a long line of freemasons, not true masons. This is worth noting. Queen lizard wants England back as the center of the largest power structure on earth. The Mossad was started by her partner in conquest and bigotry, the Rothschild bank, in 1927. Israel did not start the Mossad. Nor does Israel direct the Mossad.

Comment by Cryptocurrency on March 16, 2013 at 11:45pm

Due to the ambiguity of the language, there are interpretations befitting both sides. NDAA does not create a legal basis for the indefinite detention of American citizens. It says something like, " nothing to be construed to affect existing laws." The language is very misleading however. The fact of the matter is, indefinite detention already exists.  It's called the Patriot Act. The patriot act already allows for arrest and detainment without trial for an indefinite period. NDAA technically doesn't create it, it simply allows it and sort of reaffirms it.

Thus the amendment Paul mentioned that he endorsed stopped the detention of US citizens under the authority of that law, it doesn't change the fact that non-U.S citizens may be detained without trial under that authority, nor does it change the reality of the Patriot Act.

Right back where we started.

Comment by Cryptocurrency on March 16, 2013 at 11:24pm

An excerpt from the article you just posted above this comment:

This notion of detaining U.S. citizens has people screaming on both sides of the aisle, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - Calif.) and Senator Rand Paul (R - Ky.). Some argue that the bill does not allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens because one part of the bill states that it will not change the law in regards to the detention of U.S. citizens. However, with further examination, it becomes clear that another part of the bill actually states that it will change the law. From this, another argument arises which is that the provisions are too vague. With all this in mind, it should be noted that it is left up to the executive branch to decide whether or not it will adopt these powers. The president has made it clear that his administration will not be detaining U.S. citizens.

Comment by Cryptocurrency on March 16, 2013 at 8:36pm

Big Red light? Why? NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It doesn't have any indefinite detention provision for US citizens and limits detention powers otherwise. Rand Paul fought against the 2012 indefinite detention provision and even brought it up during his 13 hour filibuster. He explains his decision to vote for it here, "... This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year's bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.

That provision was in last year's NDAA bill.

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained."

http://www.dailypaul.com/265603/rand-paul-explains-ndaa-vote

Comment by Cryptocurrency on March 16, 2013 at 7:52pm

Far as the Abby Martin thing, there is a lot of gray area there. We don't know how much Rand was involved in the heckling of Abby. We also don't know the politics behind any of this. People attacked him for his endorsement of Mitt Romney, and I defended it as a smart political chess move. Seems I was correct in that analysis. Thus far anyway.

I worked for the Paul campaign for liberty. So I saw a lot coming I don't think others did that failed to participate. Such as the backdoor deals with Romney that basically set Paul up for 2016. One example right there.

I don't agree with the Abby Martin thing at all, not from what we see on the surface. Though I am smart enough to know, there are more layers to that onion just like any onion. I steer away from conspiracy theory, best I can, and stay with what is logical, and for the most part verifiable or reasonable. Thus I take into account what the Paul's have done to block the establishment and their tireless effort to do far more for this country than any of us, so I reserve my judgments until they may be justly appropriated. We do have a system of checks and balances based on a free society, and I believe those weights and measures of law, may be applied to logic as well.

Time will tell. Until then, I am judging this tree by it's fruits, and they look, taste, and feel, like the fruits of liberty.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page