Thoughts on Ron Paul
Over at Knoxviews, metulj notes that Red State is giving Ron Paul supporters the Knoxviews treatment. Seems Red State doesn’t like Ron Paul.
Ok, brief interlude because, as is typical, even when metulj is interesting, he’s still usually substantially off the mark. Such as:
While a blog host can allow or disallow any speech they want on their site, the quashing of Ron Paul supporters at Red State is probably the perfect representation of how the Right eats its own.
and:
What makes this different from Democratic problems with iconoclastic leftists like Nader is that this is coming within the GOP, not from without.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
He’s big with the Shoot Cans Crowd too
Ron Paul isn’t really burning up the gun blog crowd in a big way. He is, however, appealing to the GOA sorts. The NRA ranked Ron Paul a B and his Democrat opponent an A, even though I know of no politico more pro-gun than Paul.
a former poster* is now actively promoting the GOP iconoclast . . . *who took his ball and left when our estimable host reminded him that this blog is the host’s private property.
Not so on both counts. I am not actively promoting Paul. Paul’s campaign bought an ad here. My posting at Knoxviews was forbidden and I stopped commenting there.
Any way, on Ron Paul: I like the guy. I think the significance of Ron Paul is that he’s saying things that need to be said and that often are not said in politics. He’s the only presidential candidate ever I’ve heard address the harm caused by the drug war, for example. And that’s a good thing.
But his foreign policy scares people. And his talk about the drug war probably scares the Hell out of Susie Soccer Mom who finds Paul’s message conflicts with the things she learned in DARE and SADD in the late 80s. And, you know, a lot of people still think we’re on the gold standard (my dad, for instance, and I argued about this recently) and don’t like being told otherwise. And abolishing the federal reserve, IRS, ATF, DEA, DOE, etc., and other things he wants or implies he’d get rid of scares white people too.
But, generally, Ron Paul’s not so scary. His supporters are. And they’ll be here soon to comment on this post. Mark it. Look here, for instance. 40 comments on me noting an ad? As bitter noted: I’m just saying that because it’s funny how traffic spikes when I mention Ron Paul. Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! (Is that like saying Beetlejuice three times?)
Like I said, I like Paul and I’ll probably waste my vote for him in the primary.
I don’t think his supporters are liberals pretending to be Republicans (speaking of, why are Republicans pretending to be conservative?). I think some of his supporters (particularly, the vocal ones) are of the space cadet variety, though. You know, the black helicopter types, Zionist conspiracy types, only Ron Paul can save us types, new world order types, and *gasp* the truthers. These folks are active on the internet and are getting their messages out. And that’s the problem with Ron Paul: the baggage.
He’s the Republican’s Kucinich.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:02 am
——
He’s the Republican’s Kucinich.
——
Without the flip flopping and political pandering.
——
You know, the black helicopter types, Zionist conspiracy types, only Ron Paul can save us types, new world order types, and *gasp* the truthers
——
Or the average American that has followed the Republican party with constitutionalist/Libertarian ideals. I have spoke with many, many ,many die hard republicans that are sick of the norm, and this is where the primaries will at the very least be a huge eye opener for the liberal conservatives, In that I mean all the other republican candidates.
I am passionate about one thing, and that is not to allow people to misrepresent Dr. Paul due simply to not listening. Bottom line is that no matter what goes into blogs the majority know who they will vote for in the primaries so the point of debate is more or less to pass time. I also ……… Gotta run, the black choppers are overhead…
BT
October 25th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I concur. That is not a criticism of paul but rather his most outspoken supporters, who frankly scare people some times.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
If it weren’t for his 9/11 conspiracy theories and isolationist foreign policy, I think I’d vote for him.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Rustmeister,
He has publicly stated that the ideas of the 9/11 truthers do not represent his, this interview is on Utube, can find and post it if you like.
The president does not have the ability to declare war, so the thought that someone running for president (especially a constitutionalist) could even create a isolationist policy is impossible. Dr. Paul on numerous occasions stated that he would not have the ability as the president to declare war, it would be left for the congress to decide per the constitution. I have never heard the constitution of the United States to be defined as a isolationist document…
BT
October 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I meant to also add why the NRA gave him a lower rating. The NRA has pull for political favors through their lobby. With Ron Paul in office Lobbies would loose alot of that power they have gained over the years. Any other reason you can think the NRA would not support the #1 pro 2nd amendment candidate?
October 25th, 2007 at 11:00 am
they didn’t like his no vote for the protection of lawful arms in commerce act.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:00 am
“He’s big with the Shoot Cans Crowd too.”
So he’s saying that Paul is appealing to racists? As in the old racist joke? - I shoot cans, mexi-, afri-, puerto ri-, …
October 25th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Thanks Uncle! I did not know that and do not like that stance at all. Very interesting that such a supporter would also support running companies into bankruptcy because an idiot got a hold of a gun.
Trying now to find his reasoning behind this…Makes as much sense as sueing Maytag because someone got beat to death with a blender…
BT
October 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I think most people who have listen to Ron Paul speak know he is not an isolationist, I think there are trolls trying to stir the pot. He is a decent statesman who speaks the truth. I guess THAT may scare the heck out of alot of people. They haven’t heard a politician speak the truth in years or never.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Well I can vouch for Rustmeister not being a troll as I have respect for and agree with many of his opinions in the past, just as I have many of the non Ron folks that are regulars at Saysuncle.
I think it is more the purposeful misrepresentation by the main stream and websites that are truly afraid of any change from the norm. I am very excited that the opportunity to change is here, and disappointed that the masses are not demanding it.
BT
October 25th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I agree with a lot of Paul’s messages.
His fan-boys, however, are infuriating.
They post so much in the comments that they are like spam.
I writing directly to you, Blount.
When I post a comment, I tend to post a large one. But you have multi-paragraph posts, yet you’ve come here only for the Paul posts recently.
If you had been a regular commenter at Uncle a year ago, I would welcome your opinion. This may seem like a direct offense, and it largely is. I visit quite a few blogs and I have learned to spot the names of the commenters who are only there to shill for Paul. It bugs me because it is dishonest. If it were honest, these names on the blogs I visit would be long-recognized names.
Ron Paul supporters have become the Jehovah’s Witnesses of the blog comments. They swoop in, say their piece, then move on. No commitment to the blog, the community, or the message. Often times it is a lot of repeated rhetoric that distracts the reader, goes off topic (although in this thread it is on topic), and absorbs a lot of time to paw through.
I am quick tired of it and I support part of Red State’s decision. I like Ron Paul, but his fan boys have become too much in their spamming of comments throughout the blogosphere. I disagree with Red State’s decision to prevent all articles on Paul, but I see they tempered that with only placing that limit on journals that have been started within the past 6 months. Again, I agree.
If a person wants to write regular posts about topics dear to them, start a blog. Most bloggers love having comments. And most bloggers will encourage a regular commenter to start their own blog. And if a spamming commenter cannot understand what I have just written, then they probably are exactly the type of person that Red State doesn’t want around with their new policy.
/rant
October 25th, 2007 at 11:38 am
What kind of idiot votes for a candidate based on what his/her supporters do?
October 25th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Rustmeister - he is not an isolationist.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
October 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Heh. See. Way to go disinter, alienate more folks from the cause by calling them idiots.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:43 am
SayUncle - thanks for making my point.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
i don’t think you understand whose point was made. but good luck with that.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
SayUncle - This isn’t difficult. The point is that you have to be a complete MORON or IDIOT to judge a candidate based on the actions of others. That would be both unreasonable and foolish.
You then go on to say that I, being a Ron Paul supporter, am alienating people by calling then idiots.
I am afraid it is you that doesn’t understand.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:59 am
*alienating people from the Ron Paul “cause”… that is.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Might I say… If you REALLY want to know Paul’s stance on things that you go to one of these two sites:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com or
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
Don’t take everything you read from the blogs as facts. Check it out and find out for sure.
Overall, this was a well put article but I disagree on a couple points. The biggest thing I DO agree on is that many of the supporters are so ardent they’re doing more harm then good. Civility and curtesy ought to be used at all times and remember, Paul does NOT believe everything every supporter (or group of supporters) believes.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
That’s rather the problem. Calling people idiots because they look at the company one has as support isn’t what I’d call civil.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Uncle, re: disinter:
He who argues with a fool is an even greater fool.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“…I’ll probably waste my vote for him in the primary.”
Voting for someone who isn’t your favorite is the real waste, IMHO.
As long as folks keep thinking this way, we won’t elect true *representatives*.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Unfortunately, there are no “true representatives” anymore. At least not on the Conservative side of the aisle. The socialists, on the other hand, have plenty.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Heh. See. Way to go JustDoIt, alienate more folks from the cause by calling them fools.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Note: You aren’t banned. You just can’t use it to as some sort of metafisk/traffic generator/throwaway-line-bin anymore. Revisionist history: It’s not just for lesbian French professors anymore!
“He’s the Republican’s Kucinich.”
The problem with that is Kucinich is a non-factor. Zero. Colbert-polls-better-land.
“Like I said, I like Paul and I’ll probably
waste myvote for him in the primary”Now, wait. Are you or are you not supporting him? How much did you charge for the ad?
October 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Didn’t say I was. Said I couldn’t post.
Indeed.
I’ll probably vote for him. But that’s not precisely actively supporting him.
Standard rate.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
When the shoe fits…
October 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Okay, as a bona-fide 1996-2003 card carrying Libertarian, I’m going to clarify a few things.
Ron Paul is an isolationist. (ronpaul2008.com, the guy running right now might claim he isn’t, but I am acquainted with him from before he found the seventh Trutherball and attained Super Saiyan status.) Supporting international trade makes you no less a military isolationist. Ron Paul doesn’t even support the war in Afghanistan, much less Iraq.
You have to be a complete idiot not to judge a candidate, at least in part, by his supporters. That is the candidate’s constituency, and they are who he will be beholden to for support once he is in office. Deal with it.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the Republic, because his inaction in foreign policy would likely destroy it.
I am completely aware of Ron Paul’s politics, from well before his recent run. I am neither ignorant nor stupid. And I dare you to call me a troll around here.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“Voting for someone who isn’t your favorite is the real waste, IMHO.”
Trust me, I’ve been wasting my vote for a number of years now
October 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Well, I could call you a troll, but it wouldn’t be accurate as I’ve seen you around for quite a while.
But it is *really* hard to resist a dare so tempting.. :))
Now I’m going to really piss off the current generation of Ron Paul supporters and say this; Their behavior matches that of those who support Daily Kos.
In my observations, the other two sides of the blogosphere do not ’swing’ that way. Many are not swayed by swarms of locusts descending upon a comment section in an attempt to sway opinion stating theirs more loudly and more frequently than the others.
And again, if half the names in these two threads had been posting comments for the past few years, I wouldn’t have these harsh words to say.
On the other hand, when Ron Paul drops out of the Republican race - and he will - then these comments will fade. Hopefully, the better of the commenters will stay - I look forward to learning from them. Then I will say less harsh things when it all begins again in 8 years.
/horoscope
October 25th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Huh?? I’d love it if we still had Republicans who at least pretended!!
October 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
glad to see Ron Paul is generating conversation.
an interesting article by Mr. Paul in the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep.+Ron+Paul%3A+I+advocate+the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700
What does anybody think about a Thompson/Paul ticket?
October 25th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
or Paul/Thompson
October 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I was shocked when I took one of those questionnaires and discovered Ron Paul was the closest to my positions. I’d only throw a vote his way as a protest if the Dem. and Repub. candidates were totally unappealing. I don’t take the Libertarian Party seriously, and a certain contingent of Paul’s supporters are muy loco truther nutballs.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I went over and read metulj’s Knoxviews article. He’s saying that Uncle is “actively promoting” Ron Paul based on the fact that Ron Paul’s campaign bought an ad on Uncle’s site. metulj, you’re your own parody. It’s amazing that you have the self-delusion of being a detached intellectual.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
_Jon,
I am writing this directly to you.
1. No one cares how you “tend” to post a message but yourself, and I could care less how you feel about my posts, this statement shows your true colors of anti free speech and anti political campaigning.
2. I have been a regular here for years and years. So with that fact you are trying to stereotype me as a Ron Paul fanatic, this just highlights your ignorance. As far as you welcoming my opinion I just want you to know I give a shit less. I do want to congratulate you on your ability to remember names, unfortunately you have not committed mine to memory, and perhaps the following will help you in the future remember me. This may seem like a direct offense, and it largely is.
3. You refer to Ron Paul fans as Jehovah’s Witnesses and I can only assume that this is still pointed at me, so I am a Jehovah’s witness, you are an asshole.
4. I am sorry you are “quick tired” and it sounds like the Red State is the place for you to post your fascist views of no free speech, but I will inform you sir I am no boy, when you address me, know this, you are addressing a man.
5. I do have a blog, locally as a matter of fact, but I certainly do not need you or anyone else to tell me what or where to post.
In closing I would like to point out to _Jon that the name of this post is “Thoughts on Ron Paul” and you address the fans of Dr. Paul as spammers, Jehovah’s Witness, Fan-boys (which I can only think is a deep seeded Michael Jackson fetish of sorts), as well as colorful stereotypical names he finds to be amusing to uhhhmm himself. My posts, and their size are none of your concern sir, even though you state “I tend to post a large one”(perhaps compensating for something _Jon?)
You coming here and posting under the heading “Thoughts on Ron Paul”, and spamming, trolling, and flaming people who are stating their opinions truly makes you look like a giant asshole, as well as anyone putting words into Saysuncle’s mouth. No one cares about some Red State crap that obviously censors bloggers if their opinions do not jive with their own, and in my opinion that is not a blog, but rather an opinion piece of sorts with one side. So since you called me out by name, tried to make me out to be a loon, called me a Jehovah’s Witness as well as a boy, I feel it is only fitting that I respond with a big KISS MY ASS.
Good luck on the quick tired thing…
BT
October 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
SayUncle - This isn’t difficult. The point is that you have to be a complete MORON or IDIOT to judge a candidate based on the actions of others. That would be both unreasonable and foolish.
Or you’re someone who understands politics. I mean, politicians are never known to cater to the desires of the people who help put them in office, you know. I’m sorry, but my impression of Paul’s supporters is they are mostly clueless college kids who are just becoming politically aware, but don’t really understand very well how the system works yet. As happy as I am that they seem to be embracing libertarian ideas, if it’s never learned how to translate those ideas into political success, it’s just a big waste of time.
I’m not voting for Ron Paul because I think his foreign policy is unworkable, and because his constituents scare me.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
ron paul’s constituents are mostly rural texans. not all. why would they scare you? he’s been a congtessman quite awhile down therem
October 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
The first one who’s nominally Republican, anyway.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I can attest to that. He has been.
Or one who is, ya know, actually invited to the debates
October 25th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Ok, I stand corrected on the isolationist thing, however I don’t care for his noninterventionist policies.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I have been a Ron Paul supporter since the mid 90s when I first heard about him so this comment is not borne out of any hostility to Paul or his message.
I think that the Ron Paul fanboys should ease off on the spamming. Yes, I mean you blounttruth, and others like you. I shouldn’t have to hit page down to read a single blog comment on a 21 inch monitor. This is a sign that you are doing it wrong.
Listen, people see 20 pages of Ron Paul comments and immediately tune it out and hit the back button. You need to be more subtle and more on topic. Work Paul into whatever you are discussing, but have respect for your reader’s intelligence. You are pandering to their tastes first and supporting Ron Paul second. This is how you get the message heard- you tack it onto whatever they want to hear.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
interventionist policy is very, very expensive.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
interventionist policy is very, very expensive.
True, but it’s cheaper than the alternative.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
SU:
Yup, as his minion the Blounttruther demonstrates while attempting to defend him:
IOW, anyone who doesn’t buy into Paul’s crank “constitutionalist” theories must just hate the Constitution. Typical Pauline rubbish.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
[...] frankly, I agree with Uncle, at the end it was the crazy libertarians who drove me away and now I wonder if its Ron [...]
October 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
There are cheaper ways of intervening than nation building.
It’s the difference between telling your neighbor to get off your damn lawn and telling your neighbor what color drapes he can use and what brand toilet mints he can buy.
I basically think our overseas bases are mostly wasted money. And Iraq was a stupid idea, especially when you consider that we:
-never caught bin laden and he is still sending in videos to mock us
-iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists
-saddam was hostile to al qaeda as a challenge to his authoritay
-iraq had no WMDs and no ability to get them anytime soon
-we had no plan for running iraq without saddam
This is why Bush 1 was right not to invade iraq and Bush 2 was wrong to not do the same thing.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Jim, if you think Saddam’s Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism you are living in a fantasy world. He was so friggin’ hostile to al-Qaeda that he only made the second best offer to Osama bin Laden. He ended up in Afghanistan instead because he was too good for Saddam, not vice-versa.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
You mean those loosely scripted grandstanding opportunities where ten white guys talk past one another for an hour and a half?
I wouldn’t call those debates.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Ron Paul reminds me much of Ross Perot…sans charts, of course. I expect his candidacy to go Independent when he’s shut out at the Republican primary.
But with supporters like these, I’m afraid any hope RP had of R support pretty much washed out.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
**DISCLAIMER**
properties/settings/screen resolution – adjust from 400X800 upwards. If you can only fit a single paragraph (which was all I posted until responding to _Jon’s novel attacking me) on a 21 inch monitor perhaps you should adjust this to read the two longest paragraphs in this post, but those would be from _Jon.
As opposed to arguing with you I am done, as you have come here yourself along with others to start a flame war for attention. At the very least Xirq expressed his opinion, but it was directly related to the subject and to all their own. Jim W came here to tell us he was a supporter and then attempted to start a flame war. The same as _Jon, who had nothing to add to the debate but resorted in attacking me personally. I have re-read this entire thread and the subject was Ron Paul up until _Jon tried to get a rise out of me with 2 enormous posts, but I am the long winded one? So it would appear that _Jon and Jim W are the pot calling the kettle black and are only here to try and get a rise, I have spoke my mind and are done with the both of you.
BT
October 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I mind the 1992 Georgia election for Senator, in which we tossed out the very nasty statist Wyche Fowler. I voted Libertarian in that election, which threw it into a runoff and gave us Coverdell, I think.
I recall going to the Libertarian after-election party in Buckhead. There were lots of folks like me there, sitting by themselves.
I hate to say this, and please forgive me and don’t shoot me, Joe and Squeaky, but I do sometimes think that the core of the Libertarian Party is a bunch of Aspie Geeks.
If you want to be President, no matter how right you are, no matter how wrong the other folks are, you’re going to have to get the normal people to vote for you.
I’m gonna change my registration from Libertarian to Republican, so that I can vote in the primary.
I am oscillating between Paul and Thompson.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Sebastian, I’m not sure that the Irish, the Vietnamese, the Indians, etc… would agree with you.
Interventionist policy has been around for quite some time and the recipients tend to be less than pleased.
As a microcosm, would it make you happy for your neighbor to kick in your door and put a gun in your face because he didn’t like the brand of dog food you buy? What if it was because you shoot blackpowder and have more powder than he thinks you should have?
So, why are interventionist politics good?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Yeah, I know. But he’s talking about that stuff there and no one else does.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Ooooh goody!
My points got through!
Clearly, I was wrong to state that you, Blounttruth (or BT) (any other names you post by?) have not been commenting for a while. My apologies.
Did I score a lucky hit with the JW reference or *what*? Geeze, my
psychoticphysicpsychic gift must really be working this week. But - to me - it is a fair comparison. The huge increase in commenting by Ron Paul supporters this election cycle has been akin to a similar pattern as their visits. (And - tangent - I’m one of those guys who would go get some iced tea and sit on the front porch and _talk_ with the JW’s when they would visit. I enjoy talking with them and helping them in their learning. /tangent)…
I would like to see a lot of Paul’s common sense, no bullshit behavior in US politics. If I were a politician, I would probably be like him. However, I would probably not have significant traction in the US political process - like him. Hence, I stay in business and buy my political representatives, like everyone else.
…
Thanks for the exchanges. And again; Please accept my sincere apology for not recognizing that you have been a contributor to comments here at SayUncle for a while. My bad.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
BT, I’m running a 21″ monitor at 1280×1024, and you flow off of it. Post on your blog and quit being a bandwidth mooch. Oh, you don’t have the traffic that SU does? There’s a reason for that.
And I find the comparisons between our action in Iraq and forcing your neighbor to change his drapes insulting. We weren’t pissed off because Saddam had golden toilets. We were pissed off because he was sending cash to terrorists. He paraded the checks that he sent to Palestinian suicide bombers on television. He wasn’t hostile of AQ — he was wary. He had bases set up for Al Queda in Iraq. Where do you think Al Zawahiri came from? Flew in with his magic Mary Poppins umbrella when the war started?
We were at war with Iraq for the last 15 years. The war in ‘91 never ended. I’m not talking legal mumbo jumbo, I’m talking about us keeping the no-fly zone going and Saddam shooting at our planes every chance he got. The ronpaul2008.com position on Iraq is despicable.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Wow JimW may have set a new record. There wasn’t even an accidental truth in his last post. That has to be Guiness material for dissembling (lying).
October 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Screw you. Stop acting so butthurt and admit that your justifications for the war are untrue. More importantly, admit that the American people reject your justifications as well. Can you perceive of how this might have an effect on the upcoming election?
Let’s review anyway:
Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists is very different from supporting Al Qaeda. The Palestinians have always gone out of their way to avoid attacking Americans. I personally abhor them, but I think we should recognize that they are not our problem. They have been operating for decades in that region and besides the PLO vs Jordon business in the 70s, they have mostly been a pain in the ass of the Israelis and no one else. They certainly aren’t a causus belli for the US at this point. Israel definitely, US no.
Our justification for Iraq was uranium enrichment and the fact that Saddam was on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb and also stockpiling chemical weapons. Everyone who talks up the war on iraq loves to forget that because it was later revealed to be so utterly false.
Instead, we fall back on circular reasoning based on all the post-occupation “terrorists” that have sprung up to attack us there. Nevermind that they are almost all Iraqis and they are only attacking Americans in Iraq. Has there ever been an attack by Iraqi terrorists in the US? The 9/11 guys were all Saudis and Egyptians.
Also, the no-fly zone is not a valid justification for “continuing” the conflict with an invasion. The no-fly zone could have been carried on for a 1000 years and it would still have been cheaper than the current mess.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Jim W. you are either the dumbest sonofabitch I have seen in a long time or the most dishonest. In the interest of amity, I’ll let you choose.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Ok, I give up. There’s nobody whatsoever running for President who’s fit for the office. What do we do now?
(I will not entertain suggestions that we all drink too much; I already do that.)
October 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Start a movement to add a binding None Of The Above to all ballots. Binding meaning that if NOTA wins, none of the candidates who lost to NOTA are allowed to run in the subsequent special election to fill that post. And the political parties - not the state - must pay the cost of the special election as a penalty for running unsuitable candidates.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26paul.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I am not oblivious that the younger generation is on the web making a mass and sometimes annoying movement supporting Dr. Paul. It is apparent that the blogs, forums, and other web media outlets are getting swamped with Ron Paul supporters and I can understand the owners of these outlets getting angry. It would be like the Brady bunch constantly spamming here.
The thing I find most interesting is that the posts here have had a substantial number of Ron Paul supporters dropping in, but I do not see their presence as radical and threatening, as those types of posts have been mainly from the anti Paul crowd who are trying to say that our discussion was somehow disproportionate to their beliefs and since they do not follow pro Paul opinions here, that the supporters should leave, post shorter, and basically go away.
They add very little in the way of debate and without facts to support them they result in name calling and relentless attacks on those that have not instigated an argument.
I just wanted to add this because as radical and crazy and out of control as I have been while being attacked in this thread for having a civil debate, it interestingly enough seems that there is an opposition party of having your cake and eating it too amongst the trolls. Many of which have their own blogs, but come here with a specific spiteful purpose and bring along their blog roll to support them. I think this could be deserving of a troll roll where they can add their names when they present no information on the topic and try to spur reaction from the insane Paul supporters, and it is no wonder they do not support Paul as their main goal is to use the first amendment to take away the same right of others.
BT
October 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
[...] Say Uncle discusses Ron Paul’s campaign and its tendency to instill fear in your average white man: I like the guy. I think the significance of Ron Paul is that he’s saying things that need to be said and that often are not said in politics. He’s the only presidential candidate ever I’ve heard address the harm caused by the drug war, for example. And that’s a good thing. [...]