So let me understand, because I’m just a professional mathematician and so this might be too hard for me:
Poster says, “Rand Paul said he believes X”.
Your response is, “No, Rand Paul — spokesman for his father’s campaign — said Ron Paul believes X.”
I suppose this is true but it doesn’t wholly absolve Rand Paul. He was working as a loyal soldier for his father’s campaign. He chose to associate with him and he is using his father’s organization.
Therefore, as both a son and disciple of Ron Paul, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the son, who communicated his father’s views, holds the same ones unless told otherwise.
It’s a reasonable assumption, for example, to assume that Robert Gibbs holds the views that he expresses everyday if he were to run for office.
Unfortunately for the Birchers-cloaked-as-libertarians that comprise the Paul camp (and note that for all of the differences we are to assume that Ron and Rand have with each other, a Paulbot will invariably defend both) the Pauls never have to be confronted with their views.
They never have to respond directly. They are always permitted the most generous interpretation of their remarks and are always permitted to say “that’s not what I said” without having to say what they really mean.
If you have factual information that you want to post and can give credible sources for then please do, that is why most of us are here, to read it and incorporate it into our own knowledge.
If you want to make your personal “assumptions” that you seem to value so much, then please spare us, but at least don’t try and pass them off in a form as useful facts that we can take with us and use in other discussions and have ourselves looking like fools when a more precise person proves us to be not credible.