Wally Paul-Nutz!
By Repair Man Jack Posted in 2008 — Comments (100) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"Ron Paul is a pencil head, leading a jacquerie of wicked idiots.” - Richard Brookhiser, The Corner on NRO
Brookhiser’s description of Ron Paul may have done injustice to Congressman Paul. It challenges my skills as a writer, and a sniper of snotty innuendo and snark, to write the paragraph that would actually do injustice to the followers of Ron Paul’s Quixotic run at the 2008 Republican nomination. Before Ron Paul ran for the nomination, I had always considered the concept of Libertarian Groupthink to be oxymoronic. Now we can drop the oxy.
The delusional Paulestinians who accosted Rudy Giuliani, on a ferry and asked him “what did you do with the Gold?” have been condemned by Ron Paul, himself. This, doesn’t stop them from bragging about their exploits on that Internet paragon of Libertarian originality, TheDailyPaul. Even Ron Paul backers who deny “9-11 Truther” sympathies themselves get indignant when asked why they don’t apply some condign moral opprobrium to these idiots and shut their traps.
Read on . . .
Ron Paul supporter BrianScheetz offered the readers of Redstate.com an interesting quid pro quo in return for efforts to shut down the “Truthers.”
”With regard to "policing" the Truthers - you do realize that Truthers are impossible to police, right? Do you know of any way to get them to keep quiet? Go over to RonPaulForums and you can see plenty of threads with Paul supporters telling Truthers to keep their traps shut, and the Truthers simply refuse. What are we supposed to do, beat them up? Gag them? When you manage to "police" Dinesh D'Souza into not writing any more books and Pat Robertson into not filming any more episodes of his TV show, come back and talk to me about policing the Truther guys.”
The same poster later opines on the political significance of the Ron Paul “movement.”
”...if Paul does not win the nomination, a Paul supporter might console themselves with the thought that if Paul can gather 4-6% of the Republican primary vote, it essentially makes it mathematically impossible for any of the other candidates to win the general election, because those voters will not return to the ultimate nominee.”
So aside from promoting noted Constitutional Strict-Constructionalist, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to The Presidency for the next four years, what is the point of Congressman Paul’s candidacy? Scheetz’s next post would seem to reinforce that conclusion.
“This time around, you need every last element of the Reagan coalition, and you just aren't going to get it. Every day Paul stays in the race and every dollar he raises makes it more and more impossible for you.”
Ron Paul supporter Indy Elephant joined the thread and offered a very reasonable and balanced repetition of similar sentiments.
“Preserving the staus quo of this current Republican party is the last thing that needs to happen. If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'll instead, be voting for my cat. His name is Irving, he's very even tempered and quite affectionate....
…Short of Ron Paul getting elected, the best thing for the party may well be for Hillary to get elected, in order to precipitate the monumental soul searching and change of direction that the Republican party needs. Actually, Ron Paul is this country's last hope, as the door is closing on the possibility of returning to the rule of the constitution and the government our founding fathers intended.”
I feel Irving’s pain. I’d almost rather live my next life as one of Michael Vick’s pet dogs than be him. Someone has sprinkled way too much LDS on the Cheerios of some of Ron Paul’s supporters.
In fairness to the stalwart supporters of Ron Paul, who have spent years of scholarly debate defending the deeply just and moral virtues of our nation’s great constitution, they do have their issues. Now stop it! That’s not what I meant! They raise vital and interesting issues that we all NEED to focus on as part of the national debate.
On another Redstate.com thread concerning the question of discretionary spending and fiscal discipline, Ron Paul advocate Tangoland offers what could be a stirring rationale for Ron Paul’s entry into The 2008 Presidential Race.
“Ron Paul is not anti-war. Nor does "nobody likes Ron Paul". Since you are interested in spending habits of government you wouldn't find a more fiscally conservative and concerned politician than Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a champion of conservative spending.
This would inspire me more, if it were entirely accurate. Ron Paul does cast symbolic votes against bloated spending bills that make their way to the House Floor with 80% support already lined up. I concede that this exercise has a symbolic value that prevents me from descrying the attempt as futile.
It’s just that Ron Paul’s own earmarks often adorn the very bills that he symbolically votes against. Ron Paul has earmarked spending in eight out of the thirteen appropriations acts sent before the house for FY 2008.
The man holds Lady Liberty’s Torch in one hand and picks the taxpayer’s pocket with the other. His stated position on discretionary spending is about as meaningful and honest as fellow Congressman Tom Lantos’ vote to condemn MoveOn.Org’s “General Betray Us” ad.
Tangoland then goes off the rail into the bad territory of internet conspiracy theories. He seems miffed that Ron Paul isn’t considered a top GOP contender. He also knows the real reason. It’s not “the bankers”, nor is it the fact that the man’s supporters have been accused of “not knowing the difference between the GWOT and a game of Halo3.” It’s the dreaded CFR.
Only...if you are a member of the Council on Foriegn Relations as in "top tier" on both sides as decided by the media. CFR's platform is open to the public and is very interesting in it desires to alter the constitution and destroy soviergnty of our nation. And we wonder why our borders are less protected today.
These neocon-Republicans sound they should cast there vote for Hillary as she is pro war, pro big government, pro special interests and pro destruction of the constitution and thats her voting record. Oh an she is a member of the CFR. Perfect!
So I’ll wrap this up with my own conspiracy theory about who REALLY supports Ron Paul. 95% of them have never voted in a GOP primary before. They tend to support Democrats in elections not contested by Gus Hall’s poltergeist or Ralph Nader. They may have been forced into reading a few snippets of The US Constitution in order to pass High School civics, but promptly forgot about it as soon as they had their second hit off the bong at their graduation party.
The one or two Ron Paul supporters who can correctly differentiate between The Puerto Rican Flag, The Texas State Flag and The Star-Spangled Banner are owed an apology. There isn’t very many of those people, so I won’t have to live in fear. It might just be awhile before I go on any ferry rides in Michigan. Wally Paul-Nutz is out there somewhere.
Cross-Posted At: THE MINORITY REPORT
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Translation: I am a cheerleader for the Iraq war. Now Ron Paul is making me look like a fool. I and my over-credentialed colleagues are discredited so now we are stooping to juvenile behavior. We call our critics stupid names.
You're speaking with a decided non-cheerleader for the Iraq war here, and I can't freaking stand Ron Paul supporters. The reason is that I've met them. Ron Paul is certainly making a lot of people look like fools, but unfortunately, we aren't them.
And also, you and the rest of your chanting liberal friends should inquire as to why this particular piece was promoted to the front page, especially as it relates to your responses to it. In other words, Life is Not Fair™. Blam.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
Did you mean LSD, or was that some really odd Romney joke? :)
One of the Star Trek Movies had Spock ask Captain Kirk if a crazy human being had taken too much LDS.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
You sound like a frightened child. I love the post where the guy says he has met all of Ron Paul's supporters. Sure you have. I have voted Republican for 24 years and the more I read on this blog the more I am considering Ron Paul. You know, I'm a Raiders fan and most people hate Raiders fans too. Only a punk would root for another team because they don't like the fans. Far as I can tell, people hate on Ron Paul because he wants to leave Iraq and because he believes in states rights to regulate drugs and abortion. Sounds good to me. Thank you for helping me switch my vote. Does the money I have already donated to Thompson count toward the max I can donate to Paul?
I bet you like the Notre Dame Fighting Irish as well !?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Notre Dame is too easily devalued, when they can go and wear their greenbacked uniforms anytime they want.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
been there many times...ND fans are a joke...mean, violent.
I had a 65 y.o. father (of an ND player) wanna go bare knucks with me in the stands cause I was rooting for BC
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
me, or does it seem the RP following is getting a bit " Jim Jone ish"?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I don't know what's actually going on with him and his campaign, but if I had to guess, he's just letting his swell of popularity get to his head, enjoying the rush. He just doesn't WANT to look at where it's coming from.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I should feel embarassed calling for Prawn Paul mean and nasty names.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
Bravo, Hoof-Hearted. The Republican Party needs more independent thinkers like you, Yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter.
To join the rEVOLution. go to http://RonPaul.meetup.com
Hinz rule in effect.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I never believed the "conspiracy theory" that the Rep. party had been taken over by the LIBs, until I read this thread. It's like reading the daily KOS, with the labeling, and the logic stretching. Weird. The Rep. party I grew up in always mocked the Dems for this behavior. You are acting just like the Paul supporters you are trying to excoriate. Just like a Dem. You are engaging in petty name calling w/ heavy doses of pseudo-intellectual vitriol. Just like a Dem. You are stretching logic to indict at least a million people, by the actions of 50. Just like a Dem. You, and your three minions are blindly closed minded, to any commonality you may have with Ron Paul supporters or to Ron Paul's views, to justify your hate. Just like a Dem. No, I think you and your ilk are saboteurs in the Republican party. You should sell your sad brand of crazy back over at the KOS.
This will serve also as a response to your comment upthread - I never said that I had met *all* of Ron Paul's supporters, I just said I've met them. At several campaign events, in NH, IA, and SC.
Conservatives do not have a natural tendency to gather together, wave signs, and chant down our opponents. Sure, there's some of that at any political rally, but it's the first instinct of the Ron Paul supporters. Which is also the first instinct of liberals. Also, conservatives do not shout things at people in cars as they are driving by ("IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US!!") - that's standard liberal fare - and every Ron Paul supporter I've seen does this. There's more, but I've seen what I've seen - I know liberal activists when I see them, and they are totally indistinguishable from Ron Paul activists.
Now, we come to the relevant part of this post:
You should sell your sad brand of crazy back over at the KOS.
How about, instead, you let us know how they receive your "THEY BANNED ME!! MEEE!!!!" diary. We keep a collection.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I've made it clear in comments the past 6 months here that I support Paul - actively so. I've voted "R" since 1980. While it is true my local group of 'Paulites' (or whatever you want to call them today) includes a few lefty converts, we also have a number of true conservatives who have worked on past campaigns of conservatives and have had political jobs in the federal government as a result. And yes Leon, they have not only made a few signs, they've waved them too. In public gasp!
The bottom line here is that what passes for the Republican establishment today is scared to death of Paul and what he represents. They certainly can't be happy about his ability to raise money - $600K in just past three days online, no dialing for dollars, no strong arming, at this pace he will have $1M in the last week of the summer quarter. Of course, Romney could just cut a check that size for a few cars - or maybe he has to float 50% of his campaign this quarter.
Say what you want about Paul supporters (there cant possibly be anything left bad to say that RedState owners haven't done themself), but they are the only motivated political supporters of any candidate, D or R.
And last - I find it all to funny how many on RS practically fawn over Rudy - the same ones who mocked me a year and more ago when I said he was a credible candidate and they would be foolish to misunderestimate him. Perhaps you are doing the same thing with Paul now.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/features/quarter3/
3rd Quarter Online contributions as of 9/24 were just under $117K. So, good job with that last-minute fundraising drive you guys are having, but it doesn't, you know, impress people who remember Howard Dean. At this point last campaign season he had raised, and then thankfully potlatched, $7.4 million in 3Q 2003.
Perspective's a funny thing, nu?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you argue that Ron Paul is in the race to give Illinois' third Senator a pass to the White House because his supporters are too libertarian to support any of the other candidates. On the other you argue that his supporters are Democrats anyway. Pick one.
I started to reply to the rest of this, but it ended up much longer than would be appropriate for a reply, so I posted it as a diary.
The only reason Ron Paul is in the race is to wave his ego about in public. It's a good thing the libertarians have succeeded in watering down public obscenity statutes.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
There is a place in the race for the "basic constitutional principles" theme. But the Ron Paul crowd appear to be successors to the "know-nothings" of earlier in the century. They appear to be complete isolationists, a bit intentionally or unintentially bigotted, and completely closed to even the consideration of other truths(like the 9-11 conspiratorialists).
It is too bad--we need some real constitutionalists.
A lot of what is wrong with the Federal Government has to do with the fact that it gets involved in things that government could do, but are perhaps not done best by the national government. Ron Paul's shrimp earmarks are a prime example. Shouldn't the Texas State legislature concern itself w/ the Texas Gulf of Mexico fishing industries?
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
It sounds like you haven't really listened to what Ron has said. And he has been very clear.
He does not want to be a "complete isolationist" as you said. Ron has said that trade with other countries is a good thing, and he provided numerous examples. Just watch a couple of the debates.
Ron just doesn't want use our military to police the world. That is not being isolationist.
Ron Paul is the *only* choice.
Richard Brookhiser is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR. As such he does well to berate Ron Paul, but it will do little or no damage. Most Paul supporters are wise to the CFR, its noxious and pervasive influence and the CFR is, for the most part, running scared these days.
Since 1919 the Council has sought to undermine U.S. sovereignty and has been quite successful. Thanks to its efforts of achieving a one world government, the U.S. is a member of the United Nations, GATT, NATO, NAFDA and perhaps the North American Union (currently on schedule for 2010). The CFR is an insidious old boys' club which has top members of government, the media, industry and the Arts among its 4,500 members. As well, it is closely allied with The Tavistock Institute, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission and The Aspen Institute.
Ron Paul represents a threat to all that, and obviously cannot be tolerated by the Council members. Since Paul cannot be stopped in his astonishing grass-roots support, straw poll wins or towering internet presence, the best any CFR member can do is to stand on the sidelines and call him names.
RonPaul™ please save us from the Jooooooooooos!!!!!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Wonder if his zany army is getting Soros-cide or Scientology money. So much weirdness & remember what crazy-aunt-in-the-attic RossP did to Poppy Bush.
That isn't reasonable (I started to say fair, but who says that life is fair?). I don't like the CFR either, and it has nothing to do with the ridiculous "Joooooos" cry that comes out whenever anyone says anything about it.
...declaring it to be part of an insidious conspiracy to destroy the United States of America. We've heard that particular song often enough that we don't particularly need to wait for the chorus.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
conspiracy theorists. By and large the folks who promote the evil CFR are wearing tinfoil hats and have a basement full of extra tinfoil just in case.
And, just for sake of correctness there are eleven "o"'s in Jooooooooooos.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
that the CFR is evil and its not a theory. Google "CFR Giuliani" or "CFR Gingrich" or "CFR Hillary" if you don't believe me.
http://RonPaul.meetup.com
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
mbecker
I'd be careful if I were you mocking the forces behind the Black Helicopters. They are after all behind the move to stop. Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul...spit (gotta spit after saying that name three times).
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I work with the guy who dispatches them.
Who ardently supports Franz.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sorry, man. Voices in the head. You understand.
(rereading)
Heh. Yeah. Possibly, at that.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Since Paul cannot be stopped in his astonishing grass-roots support, straw poll wins or towering internet presence, the best any CFR member can do is to stand on the sidelines and call him names.
A question comes to mind. Is RonPaul™ in favor of the legalization of hallucinogenic drugs? My guess is YES!
A question comes to mind. Is RonPaul™ in favor of the legalization of hallucinogenic drugs? My guess is YES!
My guess is NO! I think Paul would leave drug laws up to the states. He strongly opposes the Federal War on Drugs which creates a huge black market, a huge police state, [drug] intervention in foreign countries and the erosion of our Freedoms.
Steve
This is true about the coalition of people voting for Paul.
In NH, he has at least 10% of the GOP - judging from the focus group Luntz ran on the night of the last debate.
Then you have all the L's, I's and even D's who are voting for him.
Now then, PJB won NH in '96 with only 6% according to these bogus UNH polls... but trounced Dole with 27%...because he had the 'coalition'.
And if this coalition doesn't get to have Paul as their candidate, who can easily beat Hillary, then what you will get is, Hillary.
Because, we will NOT VOTE FOR A PHONY REPUBLICAN like Rudy, Mitt or the Nutcase himself, McNuts, er, McCain.
Ron Paul is TOP TIER NOW.
Get used to it!
http://www.redpills.org/?p=365
How many delegates will he send to the convention?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Ron Paul has NO ego so what you are saying is ludicrous.
There is not once ounce of malice, bigotry or isolationist about this man.
He is one of the most charitable people anyone could know.
He hasn't taken a penny of the taxpayers' money.
Please do some research before you talk out of your butt and sound stupid.
If there is anyone who sounds stupid, it's the people who so put themselves out to trash Paul, which must mean he's a threat to the crop of republican unacceptables we have running.
- Long Time NH GOPer
You're right. When he takes the taxpayers' money, the demonimation is way larger than mere pennies.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
So it's all about The Coalition™, eh? First it was Ron Paul™ and now it's The Coalition™. It's a juggernaut, I tell 'ya...
And if this coalition doesn't get to have Paul as their candidate, who can easily beat Hillary...
You should be banned for this statement, alone.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Are you going to ban all fans of fantasy, science fiction, and alternate history?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Anyone dim enough to believe RonPaul™ can beat Saint Hillary cannot be trusted with heavy machinery - or a RedState account.
Just saying.
Of course, if he's being snarky then perhaps he needs to think about changing his handle...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
as someone who actually *believed* Harry Browne could get a whopping 1% of the popular vote in 1996 - and campaigned to that end - I'm a big believer in fantasy.
I think he did manage to win a straw poll or two, though.
Alternate history on the other hand...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
George Soros? See, that just shows how ignorant you people are. You don't even have your facts straight so your criticisms are empty and baseless.
Ron is a strict conservative and Soros is the mad liberal globalist...study my boy, study.
Soros would be Paul's mortal enemy, indeed Soros is the #1 enemy we have in political circles these days.
Money from Soros? You must be kidding. Paul gets no money from anyone other than human, individual donors...small donors.
(If I had my way, Soros would be in jail, permanently, for all the damage he has done to our country)
Brookheiser is a CFR whore, sorry but that's what they are. Carrying water for the globalists.
Paul supporters are among the best informed people I know.
And yes we ARE THE GOP.... at least here in NH...
zenpiper sums it up nicely:
"Since Paul cannot be stopped in his astonishing grass-roots support, straw poll wins or towering internet presence, the best any CFR member can do is to stand on the sidelines and call him names."
What other candidate has 930 Meetup groups?
I'd also add this...
Obama (the #1 or #2 fundraiser in the entire race so far) and Ron Paul are both running the same $500,000 push on the front pages of their websites. The amount coming in can be monitored in realtime. For the past 2-3 days, Obama is seeing $200-400 per hour on average. Paul is seeing $10,000 per hour. He'll be reaching his goal more than 3 days ahead of time. This guy has a lot more supporters than you guys would ever dare admit, and yes, you should be afraid if you really disagree with his platform.
That said... I am a Republican. I've always been for small government and against social programs. With that in mind... I think the "mainstream" GOP candidates are so far off from what it means to be a conservative Republican that Hillary (who I despise) is a better choice than any of them. That is the sad truth. You guys laugh at suggestions that Ron Paul could beat Hillary. Do you honestly think a pro-war candidate is going to beat her in today's America? Wake up.
"and yes, you should be afraid if you really disagree with his platform."
You are delusional if you think Paul could even make it to the arena that puts him against Hillary. $10K per hour from now until next November isn't going to change that.
That being said, I'm more afraid of supporters who are delusional than any politicians platform.
You didn't address my last question. The real delusion comes from people like yourself who think a pro-war candidate can beat Hillary. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, you can blame yourself and others like you when the Democrats have complete control over our federal government. If you don't think it takes an anti-war Republican to beat her, you are on another planet.
can you see that matchup in '08? The Republican Party chooses Ron Paul, a man who promises to not only pull our troops out of Iraq, but out of all bases all over the world.
Meanwhile the Dems field The Hildebeast™ who has admitted that SHE would NOT remove our troops, since even SHE is bright enough to know it would destabilize the entire Mideast -- and probably the entire world.
SO, if you want to GUARANTEE a Hildebeast™ victory, just keep working for a RonPaul™ candidacy!
NOW, if he wants to go Libertarian again, I would be all for it! He did so well in '88 after all. Third behind Dukakis is pretty good, doncha think?
"yes, you should be afraid if you really disagree with his platform."
Why don't you explain to all of us why this shouldn't be taken as a threat? Next post, please - and, free hint? You have no margin on this.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"Do you honestly think a pro-war candidate is going to beat her in today's America?"
If Paul is the best we can bring to the table then Hillary wins hands down.
Unfortunately for you, I believe that your reference to "todays America" is actually yesterdays America and the America that votes next year will see the positive results of the WOT.
A question for you: If the WOT situation continues to improve over the next year and troops are coming home victorious would you stand by your man? Why?
"That being said, I'm more afraid of supporters who are delusional than any politicians platform."
I suppose you are right. You should be afraid of his supporters, because it is they who will be at voting in the primaries. 20% of Republicans actually vote in a primary. 100% of Ron Paul's supporters will be there. So you'd better hope the candidate you like has 5x the support that Ron Paul does.
Wow. Let's see. That would be Rudy, Fred, McCain, Mitt and Huckabee. At least.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I sure hope I don't have to stand in line behind you and the other guy.
Or perhaps it should read. "100% of Ron Paul's supporters will be 20% there."
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Not all states have open or blanket primaries.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"100% of Ron Paul's supporters will be there"
I must have missed something because I didn't realize that Paul has the 70,000,000+- supporters he would need to occupy the White House in the general election...so what's the point of giving the election to Hillary?
sreams: I'm sure you have good intentions...but do you not see the odds are so far against RP that your comments come across delusional? The odds would have you get struck by lightning a dozen times standing in the same place before RP becomes CinC of the US. Whether he could win the GOP nomination is not even relevant in the big picture.
The GOP candidate I like already has 5X's more supporters than RP. The sad thing is that I would guess that even Lyndon Larouche has 5X the supporters of RP which should tell you alot.
Let me know on the 11th lightning strike so I can start to become afraid.
- "They may have been forced into reading a few snippets of The US Constitution in order to pass High School civics, but promptly forgot about it as soon as they had their second hit off the bong at their graduation party.
The one or two Ron Paul supporters who can correctly differentiate between The Puerto Rican Flag, The Texas State Flag and The Star-Spangled Banner are owed an apology."
- "There ISN'T very many of those people, so I won’t have to live in fear."
- "Someone has sprinkled way too much LDS on the Cheerios of some of Ron Paul’s supporters."
- "It’s just that Ron Paul’s own earmarks often adorn the very bills that he symbolically votes against."
Ah, yes.
Its interesting that you indict all Ron Paul's supporters as idiots who are so stupid they cant diffrentiate between the PR, Texas and USA Flags. Where might you have gotten this information? Where have you ever seen evidence that Ron Paul supporters' intelligence level is lower than others...I mean, besides out of your own spite at them stubbornly refusing not to endorse your favorite candidate?
Was Milton Friedman one of the "one or two" you exempted from this sweeping "Paul Supporter = idiot" claim? How about Bill Maher, Walter Williams, Judge Napolitano, Ronald Reagan- oh thats right, Paul was one of the delegates that fought to get Reagan the nomination from the beginning...and one of the only Republicans who can say he was a friend of Reagans and received multiple personal and professional commendations from the man. We wont speak of the thousands and thousands of supporters Paul has attracted online, nor the 35% winning text vote he got on Fox News' last debate watched by over 3.2 million people...after all, those people dont really exist because we say so.
But surely ALL these people couldnt have destroyed their brain cells with a second bong hit or gone insane after their Cheerios "was" spiked with Latter Day Saints? Sorry, but you have NO room at all here to brand others as idiotic and stupid.
And since you brought up the Council on Foreign Relations, why not elaborate on why you believe noting its existence and its influence falls into the realm of "conspiracy theory?" That would have been interesting to see you explain, especially since (oops) there IS a Council on Foreign Relations and nearly all the other current candidates ARE indeed affiliates. By wholly neglecting a fact like that, you commit the opposite fallacy from that conspiracy nuts themselves often are guilty of- instead of believing that there "are absolutely no coincidences," you submit that "there are absolutely no such deliberate cooperations between these people." Both are completely wrong.
- The last person to oppose Bush in an election was an extended cousin of his.
- The last 18 years have progressed like so: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush...and now we're hearing how none other than "Clinton" has the best shot at winning?
Alright, lets not call it "conspiracy" at all. Lets just say that for the past two decades we've had the same two immediate families in the white house, are told we're about to get another member, and all our choices this time around come from the same council with the same ultimate ideas and goals for foreign policy. Call it what you want- those are the facts.
Its funny that you condemn Paul's supporters as all liberals and democrats as well. After all, we all know how much your average Democrat would like to downsize the federal government by nearly 80% and get rid of all those programs and entitlements. And democrats and liberals absolutely FLOCK to candidates that want to abolish the income tax and have never voted for a tax increase in their lives, dont they?
Could it POSSIBLY be that the Republican party has moved to the left? What other explanation is there when an anti-abortion, anti-interventionist, anti-tax man who is the most conservative (by record and by principle) candidate on the stage gets insults while the kudos go to a 3x married, cross-dressing, pro-abortion, pro-war, pro-gun control ex-mayor of a sanctuary city?
You're trying to use Bill Maher as a supporter to bolster your argument that the Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! campaign is not full of crazy people. You're trying to do this on a conservative and Republican weblog.
I know that abject stupidity is not per se sufficient reason for banning, but in this case I think that for this one I'm simply just going to ask the Directors to forgive me.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Wow, tearing up your own candidate for the nomination... That's rough. Ron Paul has created more excitement in the GOP then most candidates combined. But, if you want to discount that with little puns and jokes, then go ahead. This is the opportunity for all Americans to get behind a man whose only guiding principles are the Constitution and the Bible, maybe we should realize that anyone who tries to condemn that or his supporters is, GASP!, not a true American. So, try to shut us up or demean us, but we're coming for ya and it's not going to be pretty....
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Send it care of the Council on Foreign Relations, please.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
didn't realize that would actually create a link. moderators feel free to edit or delete if you wish. that is, if I was incorrect in inferring Moe's suggestion. ahem.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
just for kicks and immediately found this:
Republican National Committee Places Paul Among Top Tier
Posted September 26th, 2007 by retrorepublican
GOP PRESIDENTIAL TRUST DINNERFeaturing the 2008 GOP Presidential Candidates
The Honorable Rudy Giuliani
The Honorable John McCain
The Honorable Ron Paul
The Honorable Mitt Romney
The Honorable Fred Thompson
They think he is "Top Tier" because he is listed third in the presentation ahead of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson! LOL!
ROFL! Can anyone say, "alphabetical?"
Wrong. No one is talking about what order the list is in. Everyone is talking about who is in the list.
You may not agree with his positions and that is ok, but to name call him and his supporters (me) and state inaccurate comments about him discredits only yourself.
Here's something I've wanted to hear asked to all the major candidates of both parties:
We're told that our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is intended to "spread democracy" to the Middle East. At the same time, we are giving billions of dollars worth of foreign aid to Muslim dictators in the Middle East. Doesn't our support for dictatorship in the Middle East undermine our attempts to spread democracy there?
I mean, honestly: More than half the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and a majority of the Al Qaida operatives in Iraq right now are Saudis, and we've given foreign aid to the Saudi Prince, who runs one of the least democratic countries in the world. The government of Pakistan has sold nuclear technology to North Korea, and we continue to give them a billion dollars in foreign aid every year, most of it military aid, while they sell military secrets to unstable regimes. Doesn't the fact that your tax dollars go to foreign dictators bother you?
If it doesn't bother you, it certainly bothers people in the Middle East. The Saudi people have no love for their dictator, and when they see us giving him money and sending our troops to defend him from Iraq, as we did in the Gulf War (and it should be pointed out that in that war we asked American troops to fight and die to protect Muslim dictators from each other), they see us as an obstacle to any political change in their country and hate us by association. When they see us having more control over their government than their own people have, they resent it. They don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because they're not free and they see us as an obstacle to their freedom because we support dictatorship.
Sadly, if we had listened to the Republicans of the Newt Gingrich era and actually ended foreign aid and stopped policing the world and conducting nation building, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened. If we had brought our troops home from the Middle East then, and stopped supporting Muslim dictators then, Muslims would have resented us far less, and we would no longer have been making ourselves a target for their aggression. Instead, we let the Democrats get their way, and we saw a government so willing to give American tax dollars to dictators that we even gave millions of dollars to the Taliban when we knew they were hiding Al Qaeda terrorists who had bombed US embassies! The worst part of seeing so many Republicans reject Ron Paul now is that if the Republicans had gotten their way 10 years ago, there would have been no 9/11. You were right in the 1990s, and 9/11 reinforced that point! Why can't you admit that you were right?
many are sickened by Islamo facism. They do not understand that "freedom" does not mean one vote for a loony dictator, but the ability for an opposition party to thrive. I have no problem with supporting kings he support moderation when their own populace has been mentally abused by murderous theocrats.
The reality is Western Civilization grew over 3000 years, many in the Middle East have cell phones and the internet, yet live in the stone age. The problem is NOT realists, but purists such as Paulbots who can never see the gray, only black ans white.
I think we should support democracy when people respect their opponents and want to act as civil people. I have no problem supporting authoritarians in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan when their people are mentally warped and need to learn about civilization. It is not nice, it is not "our way", but if you really understand the greatness of Western Civilization, you would understand. Look at a post colonial India, a nation with millions of Muslims, and compare it to the radicalized wastelands in the Middle East.
Molon Labe!
Yes, democracy is about more than voting rights, a lesson that we've had to re-learn recently. However, I don't see how giving support to foreign dictators somehow teaches their people to respect freedom and civilization.
Yes, sometimes when democracy sprouts in the middle east, the people make mistakes and elect extremist dictators who are harmful to their country. That's the type of mistake people have to make before they can learn. People only learn by doing things the hard way, if the US tries to hold their hand the entire way on their path to freedom they'll never learn anything. All our involvement in the middle east only serves to undermine their learning experiences. Stop babysitting the middle east and let them make their own mistakes so they can learn from them.
"I think we should support democracy when people respect their opponents and want to act as civil people."
Right, because you would never be disrespectful to your political opponents, you'd never call them names like "Paulbots".
"Sadly, if we had listened to the Republicans of the Newt Gingrich era and actually ended foreign aid and stopped policing the world and conducting nation building, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened."
quit blaming America and pick up a book not written by Noam Chomsky
Molon Labe!
I've never read Noam Chomsky, in fact most of the authors I've read extensively have been conservatives.
America isn't perfect, and this idea that any criticism of our past is "blaming America" is idiotic. Every individual and every nation makes mistakes. I believe that, as Jesus said, we should pull the log out of our own eye before trying to remove the speck from our neighbor's.
Thanks for contributing to an intellectual debate rather than resorting to mindless name calling. You do conservatives proud.
Because even if we "ended foreign aid" back in '95 we'd probably have still been supporting The Joooooooooos™ in some way.
Look, Anon - based on this tirade I'm forced to conclude that you are laboring under the (insanely, suicidally naive - IMO) assumption that They Hate Us because of what we do - i.e.: support The Joooos™. And yet, there is an already large and daily growing body of evidence to suggest that the real reason They Hate Us is because we exist - and that they will continue to Hate Us no matter how little we support The Joooos™.
And if that's the case, I have not even a single solitary clue what does Ron Paul™ think we should do about that. But I'm of the mind that many of his supporters are down with the notion that all we need to do is toss The Jooos™ under the bus and sit back and watch while Jihadistan turns into Dubai - a proposition I find to be far, far, far more unlrealistic than those of the dreaded neo-cons.
YMMV.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
They hate us because we exist? That's hardly enough reason for the average Muslim, or even the slightly crazy Muslim, to strap a bomb to him ass and run into a US army base and try to blow it up. At least when you conservatives were claiming they hate us "for our freedoms" you gave a reason that would make a very, very tiny portion of the Muslim population willing to consider killing us. However, if they really only hated us for our freedom, they'd have hated the Netherlands more, and the red light district in Amsterdam would be dust right now.
There's a tiny portion of Muslims who hate us simply because we're different or have different beliefs or value freedom, but even they aren't motivated to throw away their lives attacking us simply on that basis, and even the very tiny handful that are willing to kill strictly on that basis have just as much reason to hate Europe and Japan as they have to hate the US. So why was America the target? Same reason most of the Muslim world really hates us: because we can't keep our noses out of their business. Same reason why the countries that sided with us on the Iraq war have seen increased terrorism since 2003, while the countries in Europe that are just as free and just as ideologically and religiously different from the Middle East but who didn't support the war have not seen terrorist attacks on their soil.
When you corner an animal, it attacks you. When you leave an animal alone, there's a much, much smaller chance it will attack you. If we hadn't been provoking Muslims by supporting the dictators who oppress them, and if we hadn't been meddling in their affairs and had simply left them to sink or swim on their own, a much smaller portion of the Muslim population would have been willing to attack us.
Anyway, let me ask you something: Were it not for Al Qaeda and had 9/11 never happened, would you still see a reason for a US troop presence in the Middle East?
But it's Friday and actually kinda slow in the office today so I'll burn some more bandwidth on you.
They hate us because we exist? That's hardly enough reason for the average Muslim, or even the slightly crazy Muslim, to strap a bomb to him ass and run into a US army base and try to blow it up.
0) Mind the language, kid.
1) Are we talking about "the average Muslim"?
2) Sure, they think they have 72-reasons for doing just that.
3) You realize that 1% of the world's Muslim population is still about 10,000,000 people - right?
At least when you conservatives were claiming they hate us "for our freedoms" ...
And again, I'm wondering aloud why I'm bothering...
...you gave a reason that would make a very, very tiny portion of the Muslim population willing to consider killing us.
How's that mouse in your pocket?
However, if they really only hated us for our freedom, they'd have hated the Netherlands more, and the red light district in Amsterdam would be dust right now.
Theo van Gogh couldn't be reached for comment.
Skipping a bit because I'm starting to realize just how pointless this is (your second paragraph for example is, stunningly, even more self-contradictory and nonsensical as the first) ...
When you corner an animal, it attacks you. When you leave an animal alone, there's a much, much smaller chance it will attack you.
Interesting analogy. Can't wait to see where this is going...
If we hadn't been provoking Muslims by supporting the dictators who oppress them, ...
All of them? Really? I can think of more than a few who would, erm, dispute that.
...and if we hadn't been meddling in their affairs ...
Life in the big old world - or is it only OPEC that gets to meddle? Moving on...
...and had simply left them to sink or swim on their own,
How's that working out for Africa? Oh, not so well? Sucks for them.
...a much smaller portion of the Muslim population would have been willing to attack us.
You know, you keep saying that, and I keep saying "Based. On. What?"
So let's move to the grand finale...
Anyway, let me ask you something: Were it not for Al Qaeda and had 9/11 never happened, would you still see a reason for a US troop presence in the Middle East?
1) Ludicrous hypothetical.
2) I have no flipping idea.
3) And neither do you.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
pointless, but so what, sometimes you just can't help yourself.
They don't hate us because we meddled, they don't hate us because propped up dictators, they don't hate us because, well, because of any of the junk you mentioned.
They hate us because we are free and they don't us to be free. So either we submit or we die. Me? I choose to see them die instead until they leave us alone. You? You can keep on looking for reasons to submit until you find yourself washing your feet and facing Mecca 5 times a day.
as you can see, I now and then forget to hit the 'reply to this'....whatadope
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
it for the same reasons most of us do--your mind moves faster than your fingers. It spells better, too, at least in my case.
however, I have learned in other areas to ...ehem...relax, control, ...take your time...stay at ease...
If you know what I mean....but...it's Friday...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
what great insight...not
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Why all the vitriol and disdain for Ron Paul? Except for his view on the Iraq war, he is arguably more conservative than any of the other candidates with a chance at the nomination. He is pro-life, anti-amnesty, pro-Second Amendment, anti-tax, pro-smaller government, pro-Constitution, and pro-free market.
Giuliani is pro-choice and anti-gun, McCain is pro-amnesty and anti-speech, Romney has a well-earned reputation as a flip-flopper, and Huckabee raised taxes. Thompson talks a good game, but his record in Congress can't match Paul's. Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback, and Keyes are all solid conservatives, but all trail Paul in the polls, fundraising, organization, volunteers, and buzz.
The insults are particularly puzzling when the main issue where Ron Paul differs from Republican orthodoxy is on the war, the one issue where the GOP is out of step with the majority of Americans, and which lost us the control of Congress in 2006.
If a pro-war Republican is bound to lose, what is the downside to nominating Ron Paul? He obviously has stronger appeal to independents and moderate Democrats than the other contenders, even though he speaks clearly and consistently for smaller government, lower taxes, the Constitution, and the free market.
I have heard from several former Democrats who joined the Paul campaign because of the Iraq war who admit they are starting to agree with him on economic issues, too, because he explains them so well. Even if you think Ron Paul is too far from the mainstream to win the general election, it couldn't hurt to have him explaining the principles of freedom to America on the presidential campaign stage for several more months.
you have not yet read a complete enough explanation of why so many here think Ron Paul is ineffective as even as congresscritter, much less as POTUS, then there is nothing left to say to you. Search the archives for more information.
I did a search on Richard Brookhiser. Yes, he's a member and a top writer for The National Review. So why is he engaging in name-calling?
I posted a reply (as I often do at various news sites). In it I explained that Brookhiser was CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and that, since 1919, it has a long and successful history of steering U.S. policy. It is the CFR we have to thank for the U.S. being involved in the United Nations, NATO, GATT, the WTO, NAFDA and the likely North American Union (on schedule for 2010). It is an insidious organization with extraordinary power. David Rockefeller is a key leader in the CFR and has written in his memoirs that not only does he think a one world government is an excellent idea, he is proud of it. Well fine, except nobody voted for David Rockefeller, or Richard Brookhiser or any of the other 4,500 members. This reeky organization also includes the following presidential candidates: Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd and (maybe) Huckabee. This is not good.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
because HE wrote THIS over at DailyPaul
I posted a reply (as I often do at various news sites). In it I explained that Brookhiser was CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and that, since 1919, it has a long and successful history of steering U.S. policy. It is the CFR we have to thank for the U.S. being involved in the United Nations, NATO, GATT, the WTO, NAFDA and the likely North American Union (on schedule for 2010)....
That looks similar to what you said above...which is why I wondered if you knew the guy -- you seem to think a lot alike and all.
You know, zenpiper was over here for a short while, but I haven't seen him post since he got BANNED!
Or....have I?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"Paulestinians" alone is worth it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.