Ron Paul Fan Mail

By Erick Posted in Comments (112) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Most of them contain the F-word or claim some Zionist conspiracy, but dang if this one isn't brilliant:

It is my understanding that you are banning Ron Paul Supporters from talking about him on your site on the grounds of "private property". If this is the case and you are using your "private" site to subvert our constitutional right to free speech, thereby subverting our government, then you are crossing the line and acting treasonous. When we win, and we will, be sure there will be ramifications.

Of course, of the one's that aren't calling us female body parts or telling us to engage in intimate acts with ourselves, this one is par for the course:

A bunch of liberals pretending to be republicans? How about a bunch of republicans pretending to be Americans?

What are you so scared of you that would ban even a mention of Ron Paul?

Its brainwashed cowards like you that will be the end of this country. Censorship is fascism, and bowing to it because your on the losing side (minority) of an argument is a little bit worse than cowardice. Once again, a bunch of republicans pretending to be Americans.

Its said that the people get the government they deserve. We shall see.


And yes, we've gotten well over 500 of these today.

« Today is worthy of celebrationComments (7) | A front page blegComments (10) »
Ron Paul Fan Mail 112 Comments (0 topical, 112 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

is this the full extent of what they collectively had to say?

Yes. Leon and I are apparently Nazi Jewish K*kes who should go f**k ourselves. That's the meta message from them.

Have I told you about my Ron Paul t-shirt?

Commie Nazis?

That's Red State.

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

Almost as difficult to pull off as a Commie Nazi.

On an entirely different note, Bobby Bowden was asked about the great parity in college football. He replied "It's great - if you like Communism."

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

A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are made for.

I knew it! I just knew you both were simultaneously communists and fascists. The "Jewish K*ke" part explains so much as well (at least I think it does, though, frankly, I'm not totally sure).

Couple of quick questions though: do you adhere to any particular brand of fascism? National Socialism, Francoism? Along the same vein are you more Trotskyist, Leninist, or Maoist in leaning? Musn't forget Juche I suppose (much as we might want to)?

There really is a lot to explore here and inquiring minds do want to know!

I've always been partial to Marxism of the Groucho variety, myself. Every time Ron opens his mouth, I have to fight the urge to waggle a cigar and say "thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard."

"thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever hoid." You have to get the accent right to really make it work!

I was going to write it that way, and even did the first time I typed it, but it didn't look right, and I figured 10 people would get the joke. :)

So, if you excuse me, I have a good mind to join a club and beat myself over the head with it.

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

A lot of badly spelled missives calling us either Commies or Facists (I think that we actually got more of those than "Fascists," but that may be just subjective), various primal shrieking, and enough petulance to choke a horse.

It's fascinating, in its way.

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

Jewish Imperialist Nazi site with the AAA credit rating from the Gnomes of Zurich!

No wonder we love this place! :>)

candidates ad nauseum.

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

discussions of vital national issues and serious candidates,

except of course, my blogs

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

"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

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

Here's a bit of a sampling of what they've had to offer us -- again, very few can be published on this family site because the vast, vast majority are both graphic and extraordinarily profane, even for lib hippies.

from the "Prison Planet" link

Paul offered his take on why the government seemed to be acting in a deranged and reckless manner on every issue.

... almost as much as I enjoyed the Ron Paul warning against President Bush bringing in foreign troops to use in enforcing martial law in America -- especially the part about butting heads with the UN being a ruse to hide that plot from people.

But hey, he's not nuts at all.

...from the rest of the antiwar movement.

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

for newbies. This could die down, or it could just keep going. Many Pauliacs have little else to do with their time I would guess. One nice thing is they are proving your point, they come here fire off their quick polemic and then are zapped. They still cling to the idea that it is not their annoying traits, but Paul's ideas that are banned.

Paul did this to himself. He could have been the "most libertarian man in the room" and done quite well. I actually think this party needs a libertarian conservative to right the ship. Paul is not that man, he chose to take absurd stances. He chose to accept the support of looneys, anti-Americans, and truthers. He could have run a real campaign and made a difference, now he is the most off putting Republican in the country.

Molon Labe!

I figured if I said enough things something would eventually make sense :)

Molon Labe!

What we've seen so far has graphically demonstrated precisely why Leon started The Policy in the first place: the signal - to - noise ratio of the Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! campaign is horrible.

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

5 (NT) by von

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

But why stop at Redstate ?

The Ron Paul faction really cries out for some sort of voter eligibility test.

Something reasonable would do for them. A glass door to the polling place should do. If you walk into it, sit out the election.
"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

Pardon me for not being fully "in" on RS culture, but what does the 5, or the repetition thereof, translate into?

Never buy a dog and bark for yourself: 'Slippery' Jim DiGriz

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.

Many moons ago there was apparently a post rating system, and "5" was the highest rating. "5" means: "I couldn't agree more."

We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

It means you contact mbecker908 for his physical address and send a $5 contribution to the Mrs908 new car fund.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Molon Labe!

The photos of Goddess Irena herself or that one of the Gods she drew appears to be Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham.

I infiltrated Bohemian Grove last year ALSO! Killed a nice ten pointer and saw a couple of turkeys on the way out.

If I had only known to bring a video camera. Crap.

I haven’t read every Ron Paul post and accompanying commentary that has appeared on Redstate the past few months. The ones I have read are generally more rabid in nature than previously with the “Fred Heads”.

I venture to guess the Ron Paul represents the utopia ideal, and many of us like the libertarian principles, but then most of us come to realize that these fantasies can never be, much like the principles of Ayn Rand, great to think about, but impossible for a society. Humans are not responsible enough to live within libertarian society.

Don’t be a zealot, be reasonable.

"Humans are not responsible enough to live within libertarian society."

That's part of it anyway, heh.

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

"Humans are not responsible enough to live within libertarian society."

hmm, I don't quite get this. Unless there is some advanced entity that can rule over humans, we are stuck with humans regardless of the society we choose. I think the humans in government make some pretty dumb decisions. If there is a reason why libertarian society can not exist, it is because government has created false entities that will not allow it.

Also, when I talk about being libertarian, I am not talking Rand or some other quasi philosophy. I am talking following the Constitution and the writings of the Founders.

Molon Labe!

“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”

- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)


“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

but liberty in the American context is freedom FROM the motley crowd. The French chose anarchy and continuous revolution. Many have found that the hard part is stopping the revolution, not starting it.

Molon Labe!

You just enunciated the exact slippery slope we are on and will continue to be on so long as pessimism is regarded as pragmatism.

What exactly do you think humans are responsible enough to do? Where's your own personal line, since you think that's a legitimate criteria to use for other people? And are we humans, or are we individuals? Libertarian ideals have nothing to do with utopia-- they have to do with individual liberty. Whether or not the outcome is the same for every person, it is the only moral system.

No need to mischaracterize Rand as a Libertarian either, I'd just be ecstatic to take THE CONSTITUTION as our system of government. Is that becoming an unrealistic utopian ideal now?

And that defeated-pragmatic-idealist is the worst rhetorical device, you get to say "we all know blah-blah-blah doesn't really work in this world" without any actual proof, or reason at all. Save your pessimism for yourself.

So, Yeah I have read the United States Constitution. It's not all that long of a read. It lays out some distinct powers and some distinct restrictions. It does not however, say anything about how the president should conduct foreign policy. Nor does it say deployment of the military outside of U.S. borders is forbidden. Nor does it say anything about what the President should or should not do. Other than give a speech. The federalist papers is seemly merged into the constitution for many. But, there is a big difference. The federalist papers is a lot of individual opinions, the constitution is the compromise document.

For your information, we do live under the principles of the constitution. The judiciary is tasked with making sure of that. It is folly to speculate that we should return to some Jeffersonian world where LIBERTY is the big shrill slogan.

To the Doc Holiday: The Libertarian believes utmost in personal responsibility. Most people can behave responsibly in society, many cannot. Understanding that the many who cannot will be a sizable portion of the population makes this kind of governing untenable.

This is the logic that leads me to: Humans can't not live in a libertarian society.

but you sound like a statist/fascist to me. I think people can live with liberty and when government interferes, it almost always screws things up. I think you are conflating liberty with anarchy, those two ideas are actually polar opposites.

Also, in countless ways our government has NOT followed the Constitution. For example, the Second Amendment says gun rights shall not be infringed, yet, there are thousands of federal gun laws. And do not even get me started on the Commerce Clause.

And btw, the Federalist Papers, often cited and rarely read, are required to understand the thinking of the Founding Fathers.

Molon Labe!

"...many of us like the libertarian principles, but then most of us come to realize that these fantasies can never be..."

I was under the impression that many libertarian principles were used effectively in this country prior to the early twentieth century.

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

---Thomas Paine---

but they are threatening retaliation "when" Ron Paul wins....that is to precious and I believe these people ought to be locked up for their own protection.

I know they want to continue to use their drugs legally under the law but guess what? ain't happening.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I would imagine if the Paul campaign were broadly as humorous and marginal as you like to claim, the best thing would be to ignore it. It would go away on it's own, no? But the impression I get in all of these posts is that nothing pleases you more than irritating some nitwits in place of disagreeing with the substance of Ron Paul's campaign.

There are reasons some people support his candidacy, if not maybe his presidency, and there are plenty of reasons to be frustrated by the entire current political reality. We've gone through a full 360 degrees, from Democrat to Republican and back in Congress, and we get the same thing. Long speeches, lots of spending, increasing control of our lives, and increasing corruption.

I don't see what's so humorous about people that are frustrated by that. I'm frankly a lot more alarmed by people that think all we need is a little massaging to get back on track. We just proved, without a doubt, that a Republican majority in both houses and in the White House were not enough to move toward smaller government or a freer society.

So keep snickering, keep taking a few hundred net-retards as an entire political movement, and then turn around and take lunatics like Mike Huckabee seriously as candidates. Makes a ton of sense strategically and philosophically.

[Especially when there are REAL issues out there to think about think think about:

Leave those poor sick monkeys alone, they've got problems enough as it is!]

Erick / Moe:

This has got me pretty upset... you guys are our future, the bust and brightest of the GOP... the cutting edge if you will...



obcessing over the irrelevant POS

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

And when you have to read a few hundred copies of this, as the Directors have had to, then this is probably almost necessary, to point out the funniest ones and mock them.

Mock them in their impotent rage at how much more Red State matters than they do.

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

In a few days they'll get tired of giving us new opportunities to post Adam Ant videos. Until then, we bash with great, therapeutic zeal.

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

I'm a newbie (first post) so please forgive me if I mess up.

I have been reading RedState posts for the last 4-5 months, but have not felt compelled to post until this item came up.

RedState, as far as I know, is a private business/company, owned by private citizens, which does not receive public funding for this site. They can ban whomever they want, RP supporters, because they are not part of the government! Censorship applies only to governments, not a privately-run website. Maybe the RP supporters should take a second look at what censorship really is, especially in China, Russia, Myanmar/Burma, Cuba and Venezuela, just to name a few places.

Businesses can kick people out of their place of business if said people are causing problems in the owners' mind.

Yes, RP supporters, you have a right to free speech, which I assume no one here disagrees with. However, you have no right to be heard on this site if the owners deem your speech inappropriate.

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)

You'd think an informed Paul supporter would understand the concept of where free speech conflicts with the rights of private property.

As someone who has been a member for a long time, I was considering using my exemption from The Policy to post something good about Congressman Paul--which would show the policy is more about recent actions than his (non-gold standard) ideas--but darned if his supporters don't put me off sometimes.

The irony is that one of Ron Paul's favorite stances is that Bush can't wage war based on his strict interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Yet his supporters are quite liberal with their read of the First Amendment.

"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand

It's not a 'strict' interpretation, it's an uneducated interpretation. Huge difference.

Read John Yoo's book on the Constitution and Foreign Policy.

Jindal/Palin '16

....what's your source for the Periklean quote?

I have seen it a few places, mainly websites, so I am trusting them. Even if it not Pericles, it's still a good quote/saying.

Here is one site:

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)

I'm really beginning to hope "He Who Shall Not Be Named" runs a third party campaign. After all, I've seen the bedsheet banners up in Norhtern Virginia, my sister has seen them down in Charlotte, and I know his mass of supporters are also all over parts of Florida, Colorado, and everywhere else.

Ron Paul as a third party candidate may be able to capture enough of the "crazy" vote (that would normally go Democrat) to make those states safely in the (R) column. Maybe it's an overload of caffeine in my system, but it seems like a reasonable thought at the moment.

Poor Mike Gravel. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride...

but Kucinich's moving UFO sighting clearly gives him the edge.

Bedsheets are like a**holes. Everybody has one.

This primary season has been long enough.

We'll just have to trust our instinct that, remaining true to their nature, the democrats have misunderestimated a majority of the electorate, and substance will prevail over image at the ballot box.


“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

It is my understanding that you are banning Ron Paul Supporters from talking about him on your site on the grounds of "private property". If this is the case and you are using your "private" site to subvert our constitutional right to free speech, thereby subverting our government, then you are crossing the line and acting treasonous. When we win, and we will, be sure there will be ramifications.

You try that type of logic in my class and you fail government and have to redo your senior year....someone really needs to actually learn how the Constitution works, since they have it exactly backward..and since their actions, if carried out against RedState WOULD constitute an unconstitutional action.

Now we're going to have to draft Lyndon LaRouche, too. In fact, I think really that's what we SHOULD be doing:

Let's organize a grassroots campaign to get Lyndon LaRouche to split the Ron Paul vote! Banning people and reading their emails is one thing, but if we're really going to fight these clowns, the best thing to do is draft one of their own to compete against them.

Or better yet, maybe we can encourage Dennis Kucinich to enter the Presidential race.

What? He is..? Oh, nevermind.

LaRouche it is, then.

Lyndon LaRouche/Gene Amondson 2008!

Because you can read things like this on LaRouche's website right now:

Lyndon Larouche: Now, certain facts are not known, and I shall not say what I know now. But I shall say, that I do know, beyond doubt, that 9/11 was an inside job. It was an inside job on behalf of what the Bush-Cheney Administration represents. And since that time, everybody who knows anything about the government, knows about our system, knows that more or less to be true. You see the behavior of members of the Congress and political institutions who are running scared! Because they know that kind of thing is on.

This quote comes just after someone interviewing him begrudgingly admits that a country like the United States might need a banking system.

Think of it: we could get Lyndon LaRouche drones to face off against the Ron Paul zombies in a colossal smackdown that would help the joooooooooos and expand the British empire while keeping the Deep Dark Secret of 9/11 in the public mind -- forever!

We should seriously draft a petition.

As someone who finds relief in seeing the door shut to the Ronbots, I'm confused- should I be shopping for a brownshirt or red one?

And the funniest part of their e-mails- the suggestion that RP will win.

"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

If he could stop talking about this "illegal, unholy, or whatever war" long enough, he could get some of his better ideas across. No income tax, reduce government spending, shrink the governemtn, and anti-UN stance all sound good to me. If only he didn't use 2:43 of his 3 minutes in the debates to trash the war. Maybe a Ron Paul's economics and McCain's military stance(but with torture).

[*Who, amusingly, is involved with this website: . That's just comedy gold, Sparky. - Moe Lane]

we have to keep the income tax, at least until the war against the IslamoFascists is over.

If you follow the link from that site, you get a picture of the Troll.

I have no great issue with dudes who have lots of hair, but honestly, if you're going bald, the right thing to do for humanity's sake is to start shaving your head and be cool, like Yul Brenner or the Blue Man group.

Please don't keep growing the stuff out of the sides of your head just because you can.

As a former big L libertarian, every time a paul'tard speaks, I go through paroxysms of embarrassment.

Paul has been a big disappointment to me. The twoofers, asperger syndrome'ed Big L libertarians, and now the neo-nazis are just icing on this giant crap-cake.

Banning these idiots only makes sense.

Ron Paul has driven me permanently into the Republican Party.

Look, anyone can easily make their case to Republicans about libertarianism, and it's really the best place to make the argument.

I'm a gun-totin', motorcycle-ridin', business-startin', anti-nannystate Republican and I'm proud to be here. I'm not an Editor at this site but I know some of the Editors pretty well and I love (at least one of) them. ;)

I moved from rabid ultra paleocon religious conservative to pretty much 80-90% libertarian. But I was never drawn to the absolutists who call themselves big -L libertarians. Many of them are just plain scary.
There is an intellectual strain of Libertarians at the Cato institute, (they tend to also be absolutists, but not as unhinged). Funny thing, I haven't heard a peep from Cato about Ron Paul.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

Recovering former Libertarian myself, was actually Vice-Chair of my state party in a younger life. Neither will I be going back any time soon.

One thing to take away, though - most of the Ronulans are not libertarians of either L- or l- variety. They're just garden variety liberal trolls who've latched onto RuPaul as a means to poke us on the right with Pointy Sticks™.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Now, where did I hear the calls for retaliation against private entities for not toeing the party line before? Oh, that's right, it's from the 'Rats.

I'm surprised they didn't throw in, "And your little dog too."

The Ron Paul Revolution people are crazy. They preach about the rights that private citizens have. Is it not the right of this blog owner to bar whomever they feel from this website that is owned privately?

Internet War between Ron Paul Revolution and VirginiaforMitt08 at check it out

The one rule of concerts seems to be that no matter who is actually playing, there's always one drunk clueless redneck at the back shouting "Freebird!".

Hmm. Ron "Freebird" Paul. Seems to fit.

(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

I know exactly what you mean. I am sick and tired of posts that don't add to the conversation. The article will be about some Senator from Idaho and someone will post 'Ron Paul 08' or something along those lines without talking about the issue at hand.

I have no problem with you banning those people. They embarrass me as a Ron Paul supporter. I, like a few others here have almost turned from supporting him and started looking at Fred and Huckabee. The only problem, I really think it is time to get out of the war in Iraq and out of the Middle East in General. If another candidate would give me a Humble Foreign Policy like George W. Bush in 2000, I would throw all my support behind them. I supported Bush until he invaded Iraq BTW, I felt and still feel that it was the worst thing to battle terrorism. I had actually read and studied why we were attacked and knew if we invaded Iraq, it would only get worse.

So like some voters Litmus test is Pro-Life, mine is Middle East Policy.

I guess I can only hope. Unless another candidate enters the race, it looks like I might not be voting or voting Libertarian or Constitution Party in November of next year.

"There are some who've forgotten why we have a military. It's not to promote war; it's to be prepared for peace."
-- Ronald Reagan

OK, I got to thinking about it and the only thing worse than war is another Clinton in office. Not only will she not stop the war. [She leads all candidates in Millitary Industrial Complex donation.] But she will turn us into a socialist country. That is the exact opposite of what I believe. I want less government.

So unless the RINO Giuliani wins the Nomination, I might look past the war issue this time. At least with most of the other candidates, I can agree with everything else. [in a candidate calulator, my bottom 3 were, from worst, Edwards, Giuliani, Clinton, I would like to know where you come in on that]

"There are some who've forgotten why we have a military. It's not to promote war; it's to be prepared for peace."
-- Ronald Reagan

for pointing out that Hillary leads all candidates in Millitary Industrial Complex donation. I believe I saw where someone suggested using that as a talking point against her!


[***See previous note. - Moe Lane]

would not surrender America to the IslamoFascists.

I'm not a HillBeast supporter by any stretch, but if we abandon the Holy Land now, there will be a wave of IslamoFascism which will crash across Europe, sweeping away civilization and leaving tyranny and destruction in it's wake.

The IslamoFascists can take Turkey easily, as it's mostly Muslim, and already violating our borders in Iraq. Then they just have to cross Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Austria in order to take Germany. Think of what they could do with a Billion screaming Muslims and the German industrial plant in their hands. The rest of Europe wouldn't stand a chance. Once Europe falls, they'll easily control England, and then they can either decide to take Asia, so they have it's resources, or come directly to America. The way the Russians are acting, they probably won't even put up a fight, and they've got NUKES which can be taken.

...of whatever it is you're taking. And it doesn't really help you that you've tipped your hand as a Hillary troll.

and if that's not how they would establish the global caliphate, how would they do it?

Imagine that the worst has happened, and America has surrendered and gone isolationist.

How do they take over the world?

Sure're dead on here.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Ron Paul is big on thinking that you don't really need to study the Constitution, or the history of how it's been interpreted, to get what it's saying, you just need to read it.

It seems his supporters fall for the same hilariously bad logic, and can't seem the place "free speech" in the context that it was obviously intended, i.e. the Government can't stop you from expressing ideas.

Hey dumb-dumbs, that doesn't mean we have to help you say it. You don't get to use someone else's microphone, as Reagan once explained so eloquently.

Jindal/Palin '16

Okay, if such a bill were passed, we know it would only protect the fruits, not the veggies. Maybe an Annoyance bill?

Ah, finally! a place where I can read and comment without some dork from his momma's basement commenting on my comment. What's up with that?! Since when have comment sections become full blown forums and semi-instant message rooms?

When I comment on the brilliance or phenominal insight of a writer or a particular article, I really don't go back and read my own post afterwards, I usually leave a particular item and move to the next great read. To me that's like looking in a mirror all day, fussing with my $400.00 haircut, or just listening to the sound of my own voice, or ego boosting on my own genius reparte.

I have occasionally found myself returning later to read other comments (since we do gain from thoughtful opinions and comments of others), and what do I find? The hysterical writings of RPmen and liberals calling me this name and that, just because my opinion differs from theirs. I find no difference between them, and I'm very glad I can go somewhere at least where one part is shut down. Good job Redstate, for exersizing your Constitutional right to kick the bums out!

Well back to my Fredhead sites.... See you!

what drew me to Redstate in the first place was the quality of the discussion. Members take the time to state their case clearly, thoroughly, and civilly. There was none of the screaming and throwing about of talking points so common on kos and other sites. You changed that.

Not all of you, mind you. I have seen many posters thoughtfully and intelligently discuss and support the man's ideas. I've seen far more of you scream his name as if that was all anyone needed to know. I much prefer the discussion of ideas over individuals, and if this ban returns that tenor to this site, good.

For the record, I do believe that that alot of his domestic policies, as they pertain to smaller, less intrusive government. I just won't support anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq by any means other than (our) victory.

[****Again: . I'm happy to see that the Ronulans have discovered the joys of mobying. - Moe Lane]

* he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. He thinks that printing money causes inflation. Where would money come from, if we didn't print it? Inflation comes from the Islamo-Fascist oil barons refusing to sell oil at fair prices, from unions, from minimum wages, and from speculators.

* He wants to abolish the Department of Edulcation. Without federal control, the pascifists in the states would force feed pascifism to our kids, and we would be powerless to defend ourselves.

* He wants to abolish the income tax. We cannot continue to protect Europe, South Korea, Israel, Kosovo and Somalia without the money to do so.

* He wants to end the war on drugs. With all Americans getting high, who would be left to defend us? A bunch of stoners?

* He wants to limit executive power. We cannot have a limited president in time of war. A wartime president must be able to command the whole country, and to know where the pockets of disloyalty and terrororism lie.

Of course the first amendment forbids the government from restricting free speech, but RS is allowed to do what it wants on its own website. Obviously, it's your private property, and on it you can restrict speech any way you darn well please. Any real libertarian strongly respects this right, and for that same reason opposes the recent misguided restaurant smoking bans (side point -- if you told Jefferson we'd slip so far that in 2007 US cities would be talking about banning trans-fats, do you think he'd believe you?). Certain supporters of he who will not be named should be thinking more about how their rude behavior led to the ban, and what property rights are. Rule of thumb: if you think the first amendment has any relevance here, immediately stop posting anything anywhere, and go study the constitution in your room until the primary. You're giving the rest of us a bad name.

That said, it's also unfair to characterize an entire group of people by a few uneducated loonies. Even if one has been a jerk to you, take the high road and engage your brain. One thought: who is going to write loads of e-mails to you about the ban -- intelligent people who recognize your right to do so, or all the loonies who have no clue?

he's a constitutionalist. Conservatives are not going to let a peace of paper get between us and victory. The constitution is not a suicide packed.

See "Recommended Blogs" upper right corner. Suggest you read it.

The irony is breathtaking. Patriot911, you obviously did not read my post, nor the ones before it, nor did you put significant thought into your post or its relevance.

AmericanHero, it's pact, not packed, and that's one of the most hackneyed quips in existence, so I'd suggest forgoing it all together. In regards to your objections, in order:

1. Look up money supply on wikipedia. The money supply is related to inflation by the equation
velocity X money supply = GDP X GDP deflator (inflation). Assuming GDP is constant, inflation varies directly with the money supply. This is basic economics (supply and demand), which we republicans better be good at, because the democrats sure ain't.

2. Removing federal control would be a very good thing for public education. Reagan ran on the platform of eliminating the department of education, and it was part of the official GOP platform in 1996. Have we fallen so far from conservative principles in so short of a time? What you say is precisely the opposite of what more local control does: It puts more power back into the hands of the parents and the local community -- without the Department of Education you won't have some federal bureaucrat shoving his ideas down the throats of your kids.

3. Err, right, that's kind of the point. We don't have the means, nor the responsibility, nor the right, to run the world and solve everybody's problems. At some point, Europe, South Korea, Israel, Kosovo and Somalia need to protect Europe, South Korea, Israel, Kosovo and Somalia. It's not like most of those countries/continents couldn't blow their enemies off the face of the earth if they wanted too. Israel is the only country in the middle east with NUKES for crying out loud. And they have hundreds of them. It's not our business, and we're going broke.

4. If someone wants to screw their life up, that's their business. It only becomes someone else's business once they damage someone else's person or property.

5. Now I'm starting to wonder if you're even serious. "We can't have a limited president in time of war". You are kidding. Please tell me you're kidding?

[*****One more time: . Oh, and before I forget: it wasn't hard to figure out, Sparky. You don't actually know what non-Libertarian conservatives actually sound like. - Moe Lane]

We can mess around with nice technicalities when things are going well, but when the going gets tough, they have to get going.

Look at our great presidents: Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Reagan.

Lincoln saved the union by suspending habeas corpus. Did any real Americans complain? No. It was a time of war. It would have been wrong to criticize the president.

Wilson started our long efforts to "make the world safe for democracy". The alien and sedition acts were needed to stop the commies from convincing people not to enlist to fight against the Kaiser. We fought him and the kaiser rolled.

FDR had to do lots of things that were questionably constitutional to save us from the depression and world war II. He instituted wage and price controls, he nationalized business, he cracked down on the America Firsters, he was a tough man and he did what had to be done.

Reagan didn't let the separation of powers stand between him and fending off the communist threat from South America. He knew what would happen if El Salvadore had conquored Mexico. We would have been next. So he did the right thing, and damn the consequences.

GWB will be remembered as a great president because he did not let legal technicalities stand between him and the Terrorists. He compromised when he had to for God and Country. He didn't wait for proof positive before he went into Iraq. He had to redress 9/11, and by God he has. The president swears to defend the citizens from "all enemies, foreign and domestic". GWB has kept his oath.

...the Jewish meta-conspiracies, the constant references to "fascism", the Rain Man-esque repetition of inapt talking points, the utter imperviousness to reasoned reply...

...they've found a new Pied Piper. Hopefully this one will steer clear of credit-card fraud.


"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader

Despite what the mindless twits say no one can actually believe *HWMNBN* would actually stand a chance of actually being elected to the position of President. There can't be that much prozac being consumed.
And not fight back against terrorists??? Oooook..tell you what sunshine, pop in another Disney movie and sip on that kool aid.

4 days left in Baghdad!

There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
Will Rogers

If I may humbly suggest:

The number of Ron Paul blog entries, especially those that have been edited into YouTube videos, have cluttered the "Recent Blogs" section to an unprecedented extent. How many legitimate and/or interesting blog entries have washed below the fold in the last three days to make room for endless Ron Paul nonsense? Is there any way we can clean this up?


Hit the Recent Posts link, read back a few pages, read thet hings that are new, comment on the ones interesting enough to comment on. Recommend as appropriate.

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

Ok. I just thougth maybe we didn't need all day access to "badger badger mushroom" by patriot911 or "Hiphopopotamus sighting" by VotePatBuchanan2008 you know?


...that they do? Diary rescue, or something like that? They pick out the most interesting diaries that have gone off of the screen, and post links to 'em.

I'm not saying that the Directors would make this a regular feature (our traffic, especially after the Badgers go away, probably wouldn't make it a needed part of the front page) - but I think that they wouldn't object to seeing a reader doing This Week in RS Blogs, or something similar.

Might be worth trying.

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

I have to say I'm not real surprised. One, because they're the Ron Paul fans who are easily baited, but two, because you've been relentlessly pushing that offensive, childish t-shirt.

You basically asked for that.

I agree it is your right to ban Ron Paul supporters from your blog it is your blog you can ban anyone you want for any reason. I do have some questions and comments however.

I know pointless shills and insulting comments eat bandwith, and do not contribute anything positive to the blog. Hover all pointless shill should be banned the users should make a point as to why to support their candidate.

Do you think banning them is the answer?
Banning things rarely reduces their popularity. History supports me in this.

Banning users or just ignoring people who disagree with is a tactic of the left.

Some of your users chose to just insult the Ron Paul supporters. I will say this now and probably

Tremendoustie using wikipedia to support an argument is a bad idea. Wikipedia entries often contain errors since is a a user based encyclopedia

. Find a site accepted for research site to support your arguments. It will make them stronger.

Americanhero several points I wish to talk about in your post:
1. The Department of Education does not work American students routinely do worse on standardized test then the rest of the world. The current system is failing American students. As for the states feeding pacifism to the students that happen now do to most of the teachers political leanings. Students are fed one point of view and dissent is strongly discouraged.
2. The income tax is only legal because the Constitution was amended (Amendment 16) so we know the founders of this country were against it. So removing it is not a radical idea. Where would the money come from some possibilities a national sales tax limited to a certain percentage by a new Amendment is one of the ideas suggested. Ron Paul want a vastly limited government so the overall budget requirement will be less.
3. Are we winning the war on drugs? Drugs are still readily available. Have you seen any of the research on legalization? If it was legal tomorrow would you start using? Would your friends and family? The people that use drugs use drugs it being illegal is not stopping them legalization will reduce cost and allow police and courts to focus on more violent crimes. Personal freedom is a corner stone of this country freedom of speech, religion, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms, the right not to testify against your self, the list goes on. So why not let an adult chose to use drugs. Company should have the right not to hire them, if they commit a crime while using them they should be punished according to the severity of the crime. Basically we should punish results. By keeping drugs illegal you are making the liberal case that the American people need to be taken car of. We cannot chose to eat healthy so ban transfat,. We cannot be trusted to leave a bar, or restaurant if we are afraid of second hand smoke so lets ban smoking in all public places. The list goes on the only choice Liberals seem to want Americans to have is the right to kill unborn babies. You seem to draw the line at drugs. Is alcohol next? It damages bodies, can harm others, in short has harmful side effects, Do you want junk food banned? It can lead to obesity which as a number of harmful sid effects. Where do you want the line drawn and why do elected official get to do? I would rather have the freedom to choose and have to live with the results of my choices. Punish outcomes. I get fat make insurance more expensive, I harm someone while driving drunk or stoned send me to jail. As long as my behavior only harms me I should be allowed to do it.
I could go on like this longer but I have said enough about your post.

Interpretations are often wrong. To find out what the Constitution says about an issue you need to go back to the original document. Interpretations of the Constitution and other laws are the reason most conservatives have a problem with liberal judges. I guess you only have a problem with interpretation when you do not like how it is done. I do agree that free speech does not apply to this blog.

I know why you are afraid of the opposition you had to resort to calling them “dumb-dumbs” in your post.

I know I wil get ether a lot of responses calling me names (they will be ignore) or banned I really do not care since if you have to ban me because you cannot refute my points in a civilized manner you are not worth my concern.

Many of you are going to say I am a kook, drug user or just an extreme libertarian (I do have some libertarian views) I am very conservative on other issues. I agree with many of the points made here on Red State and will work to defeat any Democratic candidate since I will always be rational and choose the lesser of two evils. But in my opinion none of the current candidates are the best this country could do. I am not a drug user I have never smoked anything, or used any other drugs. I do not drink either. I am just someone who reads your blog. I am sure I will stop once the attacks on me start.

I agree it is your right to ban Ron Paul supporters but I think you are taking the cowards way out in doing so.

Note that I am NOT RedState management, just a guest here.

1. Point taken. Reread your own posting for proof.

2. The founders intended the constitution to have a method for changing it. The 16th amendment plainly falls within the founder's intent.

3. OK, legalize drugs. Personal freedom and all that.... you might be surprised at some of the things some of us will agree to if you don't sound like a raving loon while promoting it.

4. Please don't just go on all in a single reply. Pick a subject. Write an blog entry about it. Support your position. Convince us. Just DON'T even hint at Ron Paul in the post. Let the idea stand or fail on its own. Then write a different blog on a different issue. Same rules. See that's not too hard.... is it?

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.

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

---Thomas Paine---

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

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