"2 + 2 is 47 ...Of course, I support Ron Paul"

By Martin A. Knight Posted in | Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Let's make this as clear as possible so even someone as lacking in cognitive ability as practically every single "Ron Paul Supporter" that has registered on this site in the past month has proven to be.

In the past few weeks, I've only come across one - I repeat - only one Ron Paul supporter that was/is in any way rational or even genuinely a Republican or Libertarian. It got to the point that once I saw something stupid, I didn't even need to guess. A few lines down or up and I'd see the magic words that explained it: "I am a Ron Paul supporter."

I still cannot believe that there is someone so incandescently idiotic that he supports the argument that a person who happens to be religious being elected President is Unconstitutional - but there actually is - and, of course, he's a "Ron Paul supporter."

Get the %$#@ off our website and stay the %$#@ off ... Boycott this site. Get your loser friends to do so as well. Please have nothing henceforth to do with us or the GOP for that matter.

In fact, if you can pull yourself away from the porn you've been downloading in your mother's basement on Election Day please go and vote for Hillary. Vote for Reid, Kennedy, etc. Vote for sand. I would hate to have any Republican win thanks to the votes of anti-semites, Stormfronters, troofers, Code Pinkers and all the other assorted fools that "support Ron Paul."

Do you understand? Your votes are tainted. We don't want them. Sit at home. Vote for Hillary. Vote for Satan or the joint you just fried your brain dead with.

Just please do not vote GOP.

Laugh out loud funny.

The flood of posts about Ron Paul on this site is strange. Actually, it's becoming sad.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Probably somebody in a black helicopter did it.

What I meant to say was 5x5x5x5x5x5!!!!!

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Martin, most of these self-proclaimed supporters of he who should not be named, are leftist trolls. They regularly use leftist talking points, and diction, and appear to have no grasp of even elementary libertarian principles, such as property rights.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I always thought it was lurch is turning.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

about people dancing while the earth is turning... while he's dancing.

BTW Peter Garrett (big bald lead singer) is a member of the House of Representatives (Australia). He's a bit to the left of Kuchinich. And I still like their music.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Always curious about how libs react when they are the ones being robbed.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

as long as you only share country music.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I always thought it was Freddy Kruger singing this song.

in full form-
self-absorption, hypocrisy, historical ignorance, self-loathing, mediocre talent, reactionary one-liners, all on display in just one little vid. Very good.

I haven't listened to current music since 1987.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

OK, I rarely ever post at RS, but the Paultard hysterics brought me back.

Thank you for this post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

yep by MikeK

The arrogance of this poster is exactly what people see in us that they dispise. No value or logic in this post, just inflammatory rhetoric. As a republican voter over the last 33 years, I am deeply saddened to see that our party has allowed itself to be lead into this quagmire. The inability for our consituents to make sound judgement and use common sense has lead us to a point where we are following a doctorine that is both unsustainable and immoral. It is with great fear that I write this post. Mike Huckabee said it best the other night. Be clear that I am not a fan of Mr. Huckabee and differ from him on several of his major positions. However Mr. Huckabee hit it right on the head when he said "There is nothing funny about a Hillary Clinton Presidency." This was one of the most accurate statements I have heard this cycle. Yet our party is so stuck on the "stay the course" message in foreign policy, economic policy, and chastisement of all opposing views that we have completely alienated ourselves from mainstream America. If we don't want to see just how much Hillary (break out the checkbook, Im spending it all) Clinton can do to bankrupt this country, we better pull ourselves together, quit pandering to the special interest groups for campaign money, and get back in touch with the people who elected us in the first place. How much are we willing to give up while we stand there with our noses in the air pretending we were right when we all know deep in our hearts that we have lost our way. The terrorists are not our biggest threat. Neither are the democrats. Our foolish pride will be our undoing.

... I think this is something you just wanted to post (probably wrote it last week) and thought this thread would do to host your stream of consciousness.

This post is so saddening. Is it OK if I can't even register yet? I support Ron Paul. I'm going to be a Republican to vote him in and I'm going to continue being a Republican because the GOP is really the G-O-P. Maybe you have a point but lose the prejudices and swearing. And how are they not Republicans or Libertarians? Are they Democratic Fascists? Aristocratic Fascists? Cut the last one because they support Ron Paul. Heck, how about cut the first one because they support Ron Paul. So how are they not in line with the Republicans or Libertarians? The big problem is the spamming and you've been no better.

... No doubt refers to the ably murdered coherence. The crime? Deathing the smiled smartness. When? That's right. Why? When. Does that make them Demofascists? Short answer: antidisestablishmentarianism.


... a bridge.

Please go do it.

And how are they not Republicans or Libertarians?

Asking this question says everything I need to know about you.

Please ... be sad.

In thinking about, probably not. You have such a much nicer way of saying "idiot" than I do.

CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I am a bit confused in regard to the censorship during primaries. How does one promote a candidate in a given party if he or she is not permitted too? I understand that this is a private forum and anyone could be asked to leave or be forcibly removed. Although traditionally republicans are believers in the Republic and for the constitutional values that have been set forth in law by which this country presumably lives by. Our second amendment secures our right as citizens too free speech. To my knowledge if you don't believe in free speech for everyone then you don't believe in it at all. The ability to weather differing opinions is part of what makes this country great. Perhaps someone could shed some light on how censorship makes this site better?

As the Paul supporter Martin mentioned in his post, I'd be happy to.

I see that you've been a member for less than an hour, but I have no idea how long you've been visiting the site. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't been visiting long.

The editors have come down hard on Paul for his anti-war stance. While I've taken a middle ground on the issue (check my blog history if you're interested in more on that), I can appreciate that. At times I think they've gone too far in assigning the characteristics of almost all of the Paul supporters who have visited the site to the candidate himself, but it's their site and they can do what they want.

More importantly, a rediculous number of fly-by members have flooded the site with posts that have insulted long-time members and the directors without putting together a coherent argument. This has proven a major distraction from serious discussion on a host of issues and has limited opportunities to discuss the actual candidate himself and his ideas, especially those on domestic policy, which are the basis of his support among just about all of his Republican supporters. Personally, I have spent way too much time distinguishing between people who accused the Jews of planning the 9/11 attacks, Ron Paul, and myself.

While agreeing with most of the people here on most issues, I have had plenty of disagreements with people on this site, including the directors, on Paul and other issues. I've been here for a while. I've put together arguments, left comments, posted blog entries, etc. Although my speech has been attacked on a regular basis (outside of Paul discussions, this hasn't been any more than what takes place in the normal course of discussion and debate for anyone else here), there have been few if any instances in which I have been personally attacked or in which I have launched a personal attack against a member of the community. At no point have I been told to "just shut up".

As to the Constitutional argument, I'd encourage you to go back and read it again. Free speech is in the First Amendment, and it applies to government restrictions, not private property. The Second Amendment is about gun rights. Finally, pretty much everyone (I think everyone, but I might have missed something) here believes in free speech. If people don't like the rules here, I don't think any member would have a problem with those people going to blogger.com and starting their own blog, which they can do for free, and posting anything that doesn't involve planning of a terrorist plot. In fact, if those people actually wanted to help Paul's candidacy, they'd be better off doing so that way. If they did so, those of us who have built up some credibility on this site (I) could state a case without it turning into a circus that is more about Paul supporters attacking the people they're supposedly trying to convince and RS long-time members mocking them for doing so than about Rep. Paul and his ideas.

That answer your question?

Uh, I think you're confused.

The First Amendment is the one about freedom of speech and religion.

The Second Amendment is BLAM!

And there isn't any censorship going on. The absence of mindless spamming helps make discussion possible and threads readable. That's what this is about.

So, just don't rant about the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and conspiracy theories or scream that RP is the only "true conservative," and that everyone else are zionist neocons, etc, etc, etc.

Discuss the issues without being a pushy Paulie and you can say just about anything you like, especially if it's on topic. It's not that hard to be a polite guest in someone else's home.

Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!

Our second amendment secures our right as citizens too free speech.

This is a Ron Paul supporter, people!

About the last thing you tell a man with a gun is shut up. ;-)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The man has a point.

Despite the obvious Constitutional Faux Pas, an argument could be made that the second amendment is the one that secures all others.

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

I am going to be kind and assume you made a homophone error here, but it is one of my all time favourites. If speech is too free, just how free did you want it to be?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

...not throwing open a debating society to drunkards, madmen, and fools. I suspect, given your attempts at logic, sentence structure, and citation to the wrong freaking Amendment, that you are all of the above.

Contemplate this wherever else you post.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The less said about him the better.
The sooner he is voted out of office in the upcoming primary, the better.

His name is painted on decrepit structures that serve no other purpose than signage and his slogans just like Rock City's "See seven states!" are scientifically unproven (and nobody really cares to try).

Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

the place has a number of tableaux of strange little elves and dwarfs. But the reassuring thing about them is that they are confined to their little caves and not allowed to mingle with the visitors.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

for 50 years, from Michigan to Florida. to Pennsylvania to Kansas. That HAD to be the greatest advertising gimmick ever devised!

We used to watch for them. I'm sure my parents sent donations to keep the signs up, just to keep me from pestering them on long trips.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

[We were never counting on the Ronulans to begin with: so their outraged declarations that they're going elsewhere now ring hollow. But far be it from me to deny a troll his release. - Moe Lane]

I was previously a little torn; while I'm not excited about the GOP field, I was considering supporting Thompson, McCain, and possibly even Romney if nominated. But you are persuading me to do the other thing I was considering: write off the GOP as a pretty small tent determined to get smaller.

It continues to surprise me that Paulnuts ever thought their brand of crazy is actually wanted, much less needed.

Get it through your thick skulls; we don't WANT your votes. So saying you're giving it to Hillary really causes me no loss of sleep.

Months ago, based on the little knowledge I had of Ron Paul, I actually supported the diminutive Texas Congressman's presidential bid. To boot, I designed and began selling STRONG PAUL™ merchandise at my online store.

As I learned more about him and his crackpot ideology, my genuine support for the little man disappeared. As a result, I designed and began selling WRONG PAUL™ merchandise.

Today, I sell both STRONG PAUL™ and WRONG PAUL™ merchandise. Heck, I might as well make a buck or two off the wacky man whose chances of winning the White House are about equal to those of Al Gore's global warming predictions coming true.

I thought we were at core of the Zionist-Amero-Commie-Nazi conspiracy.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

It is what I have been banking on.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

If you'd like to debate, I'm willing. In reference to the recent actions detailed here http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/ron_paul I realize that even mentioning my support for the man will invite ridicule, and perhaps an immediate ban but I'd like to keep the debate rational.

I would mention that I don't lack in cognitive ability at all, clocking in with an IQ of approximately 135.

You therefore know what it's like to be surrounded by criminal levels of stupid daily.

If you'd like to discuss Paul, then take one month, per the guidelines in the piece you linked, and show us you can debate other topics meaningfully. If not, we have to presume you're like the typical Austinite, and show you the door.


We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I very much resent the broad brush but I'll remain silent on [Forbidden to mention Candidate] in order to debate you.


...is aimed at the waves of stupid we've had who believe "neocon" means "Republican with whom I disagree," who believe the Zionist overlords are running our foreign (and domestic!) policy, and/or who believe that they're entitled to post here, even though they don't pay for the bandwidth.

As long as you don't espouse these, and similar views, you are neither intended to be caught by the broad brush, nor are you unwelcome.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'm just hoping that well reasoned critique of AIPAC (which may potentially be engaged in) does not become an immediate bannable offense. I fear though from viewing commentary here that there is a hair-trigger bandying about of the term Anti-Semite when one argues certain positions around here.

And I know the difference between Neocons (George W Bush) and Paleoconservatives (Pat Buchanan) and Libertarians (Neal Boortz) and Populists (Bill O'Reilly) who were all welcome in the "Tent" last I noticed.

I'm definitely the enemy of your enemy when it comes to the Democrats. Most of my disgust with certain Republicans stems from accumulated identification of hypocrisy, and a visceral sense of betrayal I experienced when they wouldn't actually even attempt to make the tax-cuts permanent.

I actually rooted for Bush because of the strength of his and the Vice Presidents rhetoric during the 2000 elections, though I did vote Libertarian for the president in the national election in that time frame. I voted for Kay Bailey Hutchison years later.

I'm also bending a site policy here. Please don't make me go unbending.

Consider AIPAC-exegeses off-limits here; they usually go ugly, then tend to be ugly at the start, and they produce a lot of ugly. AIPAC is not some communion of saints, but just stay away from it. It can only end badly.

Similarly, I'm being nice, for reasons lost on me, by telling you that you actually need to use the word "neocon" correctly. George W. Bush is many things, but "neocon" is not one of them. The word has a specific meaning. It is neither an insult, nor even a description of someone with some kind of conservative tendencies with a certain foreign policy outlook.

On top of that, though I'm not one, I'm quite fond of the neocons. (The real ones, not "the mass of the Party in favor of the invasion of Iraq" -- although I have nothing against them, either.)

Please don't misuse the word again.

I hope we can agree that KBH is no conservative.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

makes it OH so much more interesting

About the Author

Vegas picture

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.

We can, I was sorely reminded of my mistake in voting for her when she assisted Rick Perry in his campaign of instituting kick back based Perpetual-Toll-Road financing here in TX.

I'm just hoping that well reasoned critique of AIPAC (which may potentially be engaged in) does not become an immediate bannable offense.

But nonetheless, your one month starts now.

to post their IQ to demonstrate their superiority over us mere peons.

About the Author

Vegas picture

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.

You want to debate? Please tell me about your views on private property rights.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Of the three subjects of the fundamental rights mentioned in the constitution: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Property is the mechanism that defines what the Pursuit of Happiness is, and should have been used in the stead of the existent term in my opinion. If I remember correctly a major statesman wanted the language to read as Life Liberty and Property, but I don't trust my memory totally on that point.

From The Philosophy of Ownership by Robert LeFevre I would quote the following [Chapter V. Rights and Property page 28]:

All rights to property, once established totally, preclude the necessity
of asking permission of anyone concerning its use or disposal.
If a man orders a meal at a restaurant, he does not have to ask permission
of the restaurant owner as to whether he can eat. He is the
owner. He may utterly demolish this property which he has acquired.
If he purchases a suit of clothes, he does not inquire of his
tailor whether he can wear the suit or burn it up or give it away.
It is his. He may do as he pleases with it, wisely or foolishly, once
he has paid for it in full. All rights of the seller have been satisfied.
The owner has all rights to the property.

Not to say that this philosophical position should be construed as allowing one to pollute your neighbors ground water by opening up a private landfill, or similar. This is (but is not completely limited to) where law and government become necessary (ideally in a strictly limited fashion) to protect the rights of it's constituency.

Sprinkle "Declaration of Independence" and "John Locke" into that long winded post. Zap constitution as the specific phrase "Life, Liberty..." ain't in that there constitution thingy. Though the text: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," does appear right up in the preamble.

I do agree that most of the new posters have been trolling about Voldemort, but as you pointed out, they're easy to spot and are simple enough to ignore. (though it does make me wonder if Redstate would be better served with a slashdot style of moderation (I know i've mentioned it before, but it does seem to work, I'll try not to mention it too often ;))) (I'd be curious to see if Redstate maintains ip logs and if track to see which accounts have been banned and how many ip addresses have multiple accounts banned from redstate)(and there are a ton of parenthetic notes on this post!)

Sure, I'm something of a Voldemort supporter, but I'm not a Fanatic. I also like McCain and Fred Thompson. (I also know what a d30 is, and no I don't smoke clove cigarettes, and yes I wear black... a lot ;)

But please remember that not all of us are the way you describe, just as for example all hispanics aren't Illegal (and I have a right to mention that, as I have been hit by a beer bottle while out running be a pair of idiots who told me to 'to back to Mexico you W*tb**k', but I wouldn't consider all people in a truck with a confederate flag on the back and georgia tags to be racists).

I'm not trying to crack on you in any way shape or form, I'm simply trying to relate that not everyone is as you're describing.

"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

You'll learn.

When I was your age, I might have leaned towards "you know who" as well. But I've learned that can't make HUGE changes overnight (rarely do you get that oportunity). You have to chip away at socialism a little at a time until it collapses under it's own weight.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

These guys just don't get it, do they? I can't wait to see their hopes crushed by real Republicans in the primaries. May I suggest the nickname wRonG Paul? I think that sums him up: wrong on the federal government, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on foreign policy, etc.

I am a Ron Paul supporter because he is a true Constitutionalist and is for fiscal responsibility, something that has been sorely missing for too long. I voted for Bush and I supported the war but it has become obvious that we are spreading our financial and human resources too thin. Let's forget the Iraq war, what about the President's resistance to building a physical barrier on our Southern border with Mexico? Oil prices just hit the $90 mark and we are headlong into an inflationary period. The US dollar is continually being devalued, creating a deficit in US exports which is due in large part, to the Fed keeping the interest rates down and running it's printing presses to keep liquidity in the market in order to fund these and thousands of other programs that our Constitution does not and was not meant to contemplate. Regardless of where you stand, issues such as allowing gay marriages and a woman's right to an abortion will become non-issues when (not if) our economy sinks into a sort of depression. It may not be what we saw in the 30's but it won't be pretty.

Please have nothing henceforth to do with us or the GOP for that matter.

Do you understand? Your votes are tainted. We don't want them. Sit at home. Vote for Hillary. Vote for Satan or the joint you just fried your brain dead with.

Just please do not vote GOP.

That comment validates All's concern about the ban:

But think of it this way. Ronald Reagan inspired an entire segment of Democrats who lived in Macomb County, Michigan to become "Reagan Democrats." Just this past cycle on a campaign in Michigan that I was working on, we went after those same voters with a message that we thought could win their support. We knew a Republican had done it before and we were willing to give it our best effort because we knew that every vote mattered.

Regardless of which Republican emerges after the nomination process, they need as much support as they can get. That's going to take bridging some gaps based on issues.


As I blogged in my original post on the matter, I feel that Redstate plays a strong, iconic role in the conservative blogosphere. For many, Redstate is the conservative blogosphere. By shutting off all XXX XXXX comments/discussions they sent a very loud signal to all XXX XXXX supporters -- even those that aren't crazy blog commenters and spammers -- that they were excluded from the discussion and were not wanted in the Republican Party.

I'm almost afraid to post this but it's a risk I feel I have to take. I think the ban was a mistake, too, especially since negative blogs like this one are welcome and recommended by TPTB, and that reflects negatively on the site and so-called big tent Republicans (as well as on the R politicians blogging here) in general.

Wouldn't it have been more effective and pragmatic to just let the more zealous and whacky XXX XXXX supporters' posts and blogs be met with *crickets*, and in the event they violated RSs' posting rules, ban the offending individual and/or remove the offending comments/blogs?

The long-standing and proven effective solution to internet trolling is, "Don't feed the trolls." The way I see it, rather than starving the beasts, RS has served them a 7 course meal and one which left them with a serious case of indigestion. From what I've seen around the blogosphere, I think the ban had the opposite effect that RS was going for. They are now more determined than ever, and a negative attitude toward RS, by a variety of political factions, has been another less-than-desirable result.

(I dared post this response because I just want what's best for the Republican party and RS is an influential entity toward that end, but it can also run counter to that end, which IMO, is the case here. My hope is that I can persuade TPTB to rethink their position.

That said, I suspect this will be my last as well as my first comment so I'll preemptively bid RS farewell and also save you the trouble of having to post a video in its place!)

Jeebus, I don't know what's worse: the histrionics, or the continual inability to grok what the heck "private property" means.

...And there was more, but shoot, that was pretty much it, nu? Your opinion is noted; ignored, but noted.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I understand the concept of "personal property" just fine. It's your house. You are free to paint it fluorescent orange if you want to. Just don't expect the neighbors to like it, or you, or expect them to invite you to the annual block party. But you most likely can expect an annual Halloween TPing, which has obviously come early for RedState!

My point (which was obviously lost in my "histrionics*") is that the decision is viewed as extreme and it's reflecting badly on RS as well as Republicans.

Grok that?

*Violate your own RS posting rules and project much?

We sincerely appreciate your input, and your concern. We note that the people for whom this reflects badly on RS and Republicans are the sorts of people for whom a joint RS-RNC venture to set up free infant-care clinics on every continent would reflect badly on RS and Republicans.

Put differently: Your opinion is noted. We have spent a good two minutes longer than needed thinking about it. You may move along now.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...of thinking that you can give moderators an attitude.

You will now type out "Yes, Moe. I'm sorry I did that" and behave like an actual functioning adult.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"Yes, Moe, I'm sorry I did that" and I promise to behave like the actual functioning adult I am, and I won't be snarky toward the RS moderators, ever.

Now give us a kiss!

And please don't ban me for that kiss thing! I was trying to be friendly and light-hearted, not snarky.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service