Enjoy the experience of real, substantive debates while you can. After the primaries the thrill will likely be gone.
Not only did this presidential campaign start awfully early, but it seems to be chock full of debates and town halls and candidate forums way out of proportion to any previous election that I can recall. In past elections, it often seemed like the candidates had to be dragged to debates and did everything they could to control their exposure to actual questions and potential confrontations. Every word they uttered was scripted and every situation they got into was handled to make sure that not one controversial word slipped out.…
Article comments
26 - Clavos
"Why is it so hard for you peolple to realize that Paul has more support than any other candidate?"
Oh, I dunno...because he doesn't??
27 - Lumpy
Two things.
First, there does eventually come a ppint where the good the Paul omline campaign has done turns bad when it goes beyond informing to become annoying. Look at the comments sections for some of thosw youtube links and you will see what I mean. Things are better here only because paul supporters cam tell that spamming would backfire.
Second, I personally resent the paul supporters efforts to subvert the online polls. I'd like to see a result I could believe. And don't tell me its all spontaneous bwcause I'm on several of the LP yahoo groups where they circulate the info on where to go vote for paul. The polls are invalidated as anything but a reflection of their level of organization. No wonder the media outlets who sponsor the polls don't like paul.
28 - Flo
I roll of the floor laughing when I read some of the comments. Ron Paul has more support than Ron Paul even knows about yet. You see he supports the second amendment 100% Life 100% Property Rights 100% American Sovereignty 100% and he has a history of integrity.
The Gop can't match him, but they keep trying to no avail.
29 - JohnnyB
Ron Paul owned that debate although he got so much less airtime than the rest of the candidates. I don;t understand why the Repubolican establishment is so against him that they feel the need to pull cheap tricks like laughing when Paul is asked a question. Remember how tacky we though Al Gore was for sighing while Bush was talking? That was small potatoes for the girlish laughter designed to denigrate Dr. Paul.
The Republican Primary Voters need to wake up to the political reality in America today and realize that with 70% of the American public against the war there is no way that any other candidate with the exception of Ron Paul has a prayer in hell of winning the national election.
Our current Republican leadership has betrayed the Republican Revolution started by Ronald Reagan and carried on by the Republican congress of the 90s. If we do not heed Ron Pauls wise advise we are going to suffer the worst republican defeat since 1976. We cannot give the Democrats that kind of mandate, we must return to our principles of small government and limited foriegn policy.
Only Ron Paul can save the Republican party, and all of you who are working against Dr. Paul are really just useful idiots for the Hillary Campaign for Global Government and free abortions for all. Congrats!
30 - Dee
Spam is spam when it is unsolicited. Contributions are welcome here, "Add your comment, speak your mind.". Also, it's not as if the other campaigns don't have access to the Internet. Where are all their supporters? *crickets chirping* Having just scanned the comments on this article, the Ron Paul supporters are the ones making cogent arguments - hardly the hallmark of spammers. The opponents, on the other hand, have little to contribute but ad hominum attacks on Dr. Paul and his supporters.
Also, Dave, I disagree with your opinion that Dr. Paul is "very UN libertarian and anti-constitution on a number of issues like gay marriage and school prayer." Dr. Paul, above all others who pretend to uphold the oaths of their offices, is a true Constitutionalist.
On school prayer, Dr. Paul says, " For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....'' would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God."
On gay marriage, Dr. Paul again stays true to his defense of the Constitution, "Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power."
Google "Ron Paul Library" to learn more on his stance on a multitude of issues. Peace.
31 - Clavos
"all of you who are working against Dr. Paul are really just useful idiots for the Hillary Campaign for Global Government and free abortions for all."
JohnnyB, can you give us a link or two to speeches where Hillary spoke about supporting "Global Government" and advocating "free abortions for all?"
Do you think it might be possible that some of the people "working against" Ron Paul actually would rather see Hillary elected instead?
Just a thought.
32 - zenpiper
One topic that needs to be raised is the affiliation of the top-tier candidates (of both parties) with the CFR (the Council on Foreign Relations). Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Joe Biden are all members of this organization; as well, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Dick Cheney, the Bushes, Bill Clinton and countless others.
What is little known is that the CFR is the force behind GATT, NAFDA, the WTO, our involvement in the U.N., and the likely North American Union. As it's former director, David Rockefeller states in his Memoires, not only is the CFR's goal one world government, but that he is "proud of it."
What has this to do with the elections? Plenty. Ron Paul is not--nor would ever be--a member of the CFR. It is an elitist organization, out to destroy American sovereignty and be part of a union with Canada and Mexico. Today the dollar is worth far less than a decade a go; the southern border remains open and Mexican trucks are rolling into our heartland. Credit the CFR and its big brothers, The Aspen Institute, The Tavistock Institute and the Bilderburg Group.
For those who think the CFR is a lovely organization whose goals are merely educational and cultural programs about American richness and diversity, then you may also think that the Corleone family's business is olive oil.
33 - Clavos
"For those who think the CFR is a lovely organization whose goals are merely educational and cultural programs about American richness and diversity, then you may also think that the Corleone family's business is olive oil."
Well, it's true; they do have a sideline in mozzarella, as well.
34 - Dave Nalle
Zen, I think you're late for your meeting over at the John Birch society hall. Hurry. I hear they pants anyone who's late. We'll wait until you come back to scoff at you some more.
Dave
35 - Dave Nalle
Dave, please do not take offense to what I write here because none is intended. It is clear you are not a supporter of Ron Paul, in fact it is clear you are quite opposed to the prospect of Ron Paul becoming our next POTUS. So far, no problem, fair enough, that is your right, that is the way our system works.
If you think that's clear then you're suffering from delusional paranoia of some sort - something which seems pretty common among Ron Paul supporters.
I am a former employee of the LP, I worked on Paul's '88 presidential campaign. I have donated to his congressional campaigns and I ran for office as a Libertarian in 2002.
The truth is that I would be supporting Paul, if he had remained true to his Libertarian principles and had not formed an alliance with the conspiracy fringe. I think that his pandering to the birchers and religious right and nutjobs like some of the people posting on this thread has doomed his campaign, and hurt the chances of a genuine libertarian getting elected President for the indefinite future. Paul's peculiar version of libertarianism and his questionable judgment are going to taint the entire movement for years to come.
You have written your analysis of the
campaign/candidates so far as you see it at this point in time, again, fair enough, no problem. However, do not fool yourself that your perspective is non-partisan nor that your partisanship is not obvious to those that have read your analysis.
I should hope my bias is clear. I want the best candidate elected, one who will defend the rights of ALL the people, reduce the size of government, impose substantial tax reform and do it all while bringing the country together and putting it on a positive path. I don't see that candidate running right now. It's certainly not Ron Paul.
If you wrote your piece intending for it to be seen by your readers as a completely objective statement of reality rather than what it is: your view colored by your personal opinion/partisan wishes that would be lacking somewhat in the journalist integrity department.
It says 'opinion' not 'news' at the top of the article.
Your stating (mimicking) the oft-used logical fallacy "tactic" that Ron Paul's support comes from a kook fringe, etc. immediately destroys the impression you have attempted to convey of an objective analysis.
It's not a tactic, it's a demonstrable fact. Not ALL of his supporters are from the kook fringe, but many of the most outspoken ones certainly are.
If I state that your views are "nuts" or you belong to a "kook fringe" element of society does that make it true? Who decides what is "kook", you? Are the "kook fringe" people that disagree with your views?
No, kook fringe people are those who believe things which are contrary to reason, fact and common sense.
Again, most importantly, use of such terms regarding supporters of a candidate you oppose completely discredits your piece as a mere partisan attack.
Tell me. From the article can you tell WHO I am partisan towards?
As I stated above, I support your right to have your own opinion even though we are in complete disagreement regarding the desirability for the USA of a Ron Paul Presidency.
As I have stated before, I think Paul would make an excellent vice president so that he has a powerful forum from which to promote his ideas.
May I suggest in the future when you express your opinion you take the straightforward approach, state your position and support that position with facts rather than resorting to unsupported assertions/logical fallacies.
How about pointing out what in this article is not factual?
Please consider reasoning with your readers to gain their freewill acceptance of your preferred position rather than using the shortcuts and deceptive tactics employed by those for whom engineering consent to a predetermined conclusion is their only guiding principle.
Nice empty and meaningless rhetoric. Do you get this stuff on notecards from headquarters? How about actually reading the article and thinking about it? Nah, too much to expect.
Dave
36 - Dave Nalle
Also, Dave, I disagree with your opinion that Dr. Paul is "very UN libertarian and anti-constitution on a number of issues like gay marriage and school prayer." Dr. Paul, above all others who pretend to uphold the oaths of their offices, is a true Constitutionalist.
You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. The fact is that his interpretation of some aspects of the constitution is peculiar and IMO as unacceptable as what comes out of the extreme left.
On school prayer, Dr. Paul says, " For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....'' would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God."
I think we can let that stand as the utter bullshit which it is. The framers of the Constitution established separation of church and state. That means no institutionalization of religion and no spending of state money on religious proselytization. Those are exactly the kinds of things they were specifically trying to prevent, and that's exactly what school prayer and posting the ten commandments are. Have you READ the ten commandments? The first three require you to worship god. If we're posting that in the schools at taxpayer expense, then the government is endorsing Christianity. It's absolutely unacceptable to spend my tax money promoting religion without my approval.
On gay marriage, Dr. Paul again stays true to his defense of the Constitution, "Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power."
This statement is a bit better, but it's still a cop out. Paul wants to create a situation where there is no federal oversight to protect the equal rights of gay couples. One of the legitimate roles of the federal government is to protect individuals from abuse of powers and violations of rights by the states.
The best solution is, of course, to eliminate ANY government role in marriage, whatsoever, but Paul can't take that position because he believes that homosexuality is a sin and wants it stamped out.
Dave
37 - Cameron
I'm a Paulite, and I DO NOT cut and paste the same posts to various websites. I don't know what gives you the idea that goes on, you probably heard it from one of your buddies at Starbucks while you sipped your decaf non-fat latte.
Huckabee is bought and paid for, just like Fred Thompson. There's nothing genuine about either one of them.
You forgot to mention Ron Paul dominated the post-debate text message poll FoxNews conducted, garnering 33% of the votes. Huckabee came in second with 16%. In case you were wondering, you could only vote once from your phone number in the text poll.
Ron Paul is the only intelligent, honest man running for President, and that is why he will win. I expect his 3rd quarter fundraising to be considerably higher than the 640k of Q1 and the 2.4M of Q2. If he hits 10M in this quarter, that will be two increases of nearly 400% in a row.
Go Ron Paul!
38 - Dave Nalle
I'm a Paulite, and I DO NOT cut and paste the same posts to various websites.
It scares me that when I refer to some of his followers you all assume I meant ALL of his followers. Are you losing your identity as individuals?
I don't know what gives you the idea that goes on, you probably heard it from one of your buddies at Starbucks while you sipped your decaf non-fat latte.
As someone mentioned earlier, all you have to do is check the YouTube comment sections linked to in this article. You'll see the same comments with minor changes or none at all posted to clip after clip, as well as the same clips posted multiple times. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but it does annoy some people.
Huckabee is bought and paid for, just like Fred Thompson. There's nothing genuine about either one of them.
Out of curiosity, who 'bought and paid' for these candidates?
You forgot to mention Ron Paul dominated the post-debate text message poll FoxNews conducted
Actually, it's specifically discussed in the article.
Dave
39 - REMF
"I have donated to his congressional campaigns and I ran for office as a Libertarian in 2002."
- Dave Nalle
Yeah, and what'd ya get...a whopping 17 percent?
40 - glen
I am becoming tired of the negative articles on Ron Paul, including this one. My hope in once again finding a candidate worth voting for were found a couple of months ago when I saw Ron Paul in debate. The only source of good information is Internet since the MSM will not give any real information. I write just to be the voice of one citizen. There are many more like me. We are not spammers, but Americans hoping to take our country back.
41 - Arch Conservative
Ron Paul is the only intelligent, honest man running for President, and that is why he will win.
Umm Paul does seem like a decent and honest man but he's never going to win. DO you not realize that?
And why are you Paul supporters so touchy? Do you think that just because he is slightly outside the mainstream that he should be free from all criticism? Is nothing he says open for debate? Honestly, you guys are such a touchy whiny bunch.
42 - Dave Nalle
Yeah, and what'd ya get...a whopping 17 percent?
I wish. But I did get the highest percentage of any Libertarian running. Do you see me running as a Libertarian again?
dave
43 - Dave Nalle
am becoming tired of the negative articles on Ron Paul, including this one
That right there is what irritates me about the Ron Paul fanatics. This article is NOT negative about Paul. It's just neutral to positive but honest.
Dave
44 - Dee
" "am becoming tired of the negative articles on Ron Paul, including this one"
That right there is what irritates me about the Ron Paul fanatics. This article is NOT negative about Paul. It's just neutral to positive but honest."
Dave,
Again with the "fanatic" slur. Nothing in Glen's post indicates a hint of fanaticism, if you interpret it to mean an "extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm".
There are enthusiastic supporters of other candidates (I assume) but I bet you'll never call them fanatics, will you? Peace.
45 - Dave Nalle
The supporters of other candidates don'[t accuse me of writing negative articles about their candidate when I give him a fair assessment and a bit of free exposure. That's the difference between fanatics and rational supporters of a candidate.
Dave
46 - Irene Wagner
Dave Nalle,
OK, so this Ron Paul "fanatic" has been doing some thinking. What you are about to read is an O-RIG-I-NAL comment I thought up 'specially for this occasion, never-before-seen on the 'net.
I wanted to leave another comment on the Gay Marriage discussion you and Cindy and I were having. But I'll put it here instead:
"If the IRS were eliminated, many of the discrepancies between domestic partnership households and man-wife households would be eliminated. So what would you rather do?
PLAN A: 1) work against Ron Paul's campaign 2) keep the IRS 3) very likely, give up your right to own guns 4) have gay marriages recognized by the federal government, so that 5) gay couples can pay (tax spouse1 paid as a single) + (tax spouse2 paid as a single) - (tax benefit couple gains through being able to file jointly.)
INSTEAD OF
PLAN B: 1)work FOR Ron Paul's campaign 2) get rid of the Unconstitutional IRS 3) keep the guns to defend whatever kind of household you have against tyrannical government and small fry criminals 4) tell the federal government that they are YOUR servants, they don't tell YOU who you can marry and who you can't (I'd be among the FIRST to rip up my state-issued marriage license) 5) Pay ZERO dollars income tax.
???
The need for legal protection for abandonned home-making partners was a valid point Cindy made, but I'm not convinced the government really provides such abundant protection for these folks now, especially for those forced to undergo "quickie" divorces. I know plenty of divorced hetero-s, males and females, who have gotten shafted mightily. Maybe if Ron Paul were elected, and the government were downsized, and there were fewer laws so that opportunities for lawyering were not so abundant nor so lucrative, the scum lawyers would find something else to do. At a trial among the couples' peers (not unreasonable that those hostile to the idea of homosexual partnerships should be exempt from serving in the jury) there'd be enough folks to be able to bear witness to the abandonned partner's service, so that maybe she/he would get a fairly recompensed. Or if the working partner is the one who's being taken of advantage of, that would be revealed, also.
Re: Ron Paul Supporters on the Fringe
One of the things I like best about working with Ron Paul supporters is the feeling that America is coming together again. It doesn't matter that I look all traditional, and the friend passing out flyers next to me has these weird hole-y things in his ear lobes. I talk about Christianity, and some of my other friends do too, and some of the other Ron Paul supporters talk about Wicca. But we're all talking over beers at the same table, you know? Not over barbed wire. It's about a pluralistic federal republic, Dave Nalle, where people of diverse opionions and backgrounds try as the Bible says "as far as it is in [their] power, be at peace with all men." We're all looking for freedom to be who we are. And we all believe that Ron Paul is looking out for that freedom.
MORE Ron Paul Supporters on the Fringe:
Dave Nalle, how exactly do you define "fringiness?" Is it blatant antisemitism. I'm agin' it, but Ruvy in Jerusalem will tell you, some of the biggest antisemites on the globe are making decisions ostensibly "for the good of Israel." Does "fringiness" mean one has strong religious feeling, or does it mean strong anti-religious feeling? I don't want a theocracy, and I assume you don't want an atheocracy (anatheocracy?) either. DO you???
My idea of "fringe" would be the Weaver family, lately of Ruby Ridge, Idaho, white supremacists who had retreated from the sinful world to a remote cabin without electricity to await Armageddon. When Weaver refused to become an informant, the feds blackmailed him with a bogus weapons charge. 400 armed federal marshalls descended on his property. His wife Vicky, with a newborn child in her arms, was shot to death. Weaver's 14 year old son was shot to death (machine gun fire) in the back. Weaver and the other survivors were finally given compensation when his case was reviewed in court, but it was a long battle. Bitterness and outrage toward a federal government gone mad with power, (justified bitterness and outrage, is it not?) still exist among folk who are Weaver's kindred souls.
Sure they're wack-o (as wack-o as some of Janet Reno's OTHER victims in Waco Texas), but you can see why they'd want to support a candidate who is in favor of limitting federal power. They're only a small part of a growing (majority, God willing) contingent who also want to prevent the rise to power of another Janet Reno. There's certainly not much hope coming from Hillary in that regard, nor from the Neoconservative (eschewed by Ron Paul) Republicans.
47 - Irene Wagner
The best solution is, of course, to eliminate ANY government role in marriage, whatsoever, but Paul can't take that position because he believes that homosexuality is a sin and wants it stamped out. Dave
Can we get a source for that statement? Jesus never told his disciples to stamp out sin in anyone but themselves. Ron Paul is the most authentic follower of Jesus Christ I've seen in awhile.
48 - Irene Wagner
I don't think yours was a particularly negative article, Dave Nalle, by the way. You have reservations, and you want to argue them out before you can throw yourself behind the man.
49 - Dave Nalle
So what would you rather do?
PLAN A: 1) work against Ron Paul's campaign 2) keep the IRS 3) very likely, give up your right to own guns 4) have gay marriages recognized by the federal government, so that 5) gay couples can pay (tax spouse1 paid as a single) + (tax spouse2 paid as a single) - (tax benefit couple gains through being able to file jointly.)
INSTEAD OF
PLAN B: 1)work FOR Ron Paul's campaign 2) get rid of the Unconstitutional IRS 3) keep the guns to defend whatever kind of household you have against tyrannical government and small fry criminals 4) tell the federal government that they are YOUR servants, they don't tell YOU who you can marry and who you can't (I'd be among the FIRST to rip up my state-issued marriage license) 5) Pay ZERO dollars income tax.
???
Your two sets of points are not directly opposed to each other and it doesn't come down to a choice between picking Paul or getting stuck with all the bad stuff you list in Plan B.
Point 1. I don't see why I have to treat Ron Paul differently than any other candidate. I'm not working against him, but it's still early in the campaign and I'm holding out for something a bit more complete, like one of the better mainstream candidates with Paul as an influential VP.
Point 2. Thompson and Huckabee both support the FairTax which would result in the abolition of the IRS. Huckabee is quite strong on the issue. Paul is not the only choice here.
Point 3. None of the Republicans support limiting gun rights and several of the Democrats are pro-gun too, so Paul is hardly the only choice for gun rights.
Point 4. Several Republican candidates support civil unions and could likely come to see the need to eliminate the federal role in marriage alltogether. Paul differs from them in that he would not support the federal government stepping in to protect gay citizens from oppressive state legislation.
One of the things I like best about working with Ron Paul supporters is the feeling that America is coming together again.
I don't WANT to 'come together' with Birchers and 911truthers and people who think that Timothy McVeigh was a hero. If Paul would just openly distance himself from these people instead of pandering to them I'd be a lot more supportive.
One of my problems with Paul is his unwillingness to compromise and be politically sensible even on tiny, trivial, non-constitutional issues. I think his pig-headedness dooms him as a national candidate.
It doesn't matter that I look all traditional, and the friend passing out flyers next to me has these weird hole-y things in his ear lobes. I talk about Christianity, and some of my other friends do too, and some of the other Ron Paul supporters talk about Wicca. But we're all talking over beers at the same table, you know?
And how do you feel when they start talking about the zionist conspiracy, the Bildebergers, putting illegals in concentration camps, Christian Identity and the US government's collaboration with Israel to blow up the WTC?
Not over barbed wire. It's about a pluralistic federal republic, Dave Nalle, where people of diverse opionions and backgrounds try as the Bible says "as far as it is in [their] power, be at peace with all men." We're all looking for freedom to be who we are. And we all believe that Ron Paul is looking out for that freedom.
I'm sorry, but there are 'opinions' which are unacceptable, and freedom to be who you are doesn't apply when that freedom pushes you to violate the rights of others.
Dave Nalle, how exactly do you define "fringiness?" Is it blatant antisemitism.
There are lots of different things which could be considered 'fringe' beliefs, but in general it's holding beliefs which are irrational, delusional or would violate the fundamental rights of other people.
I don't want a theocracy, and I assume you don't want an atheocracy (anatheocracy?) either. DO you???
I don't want any government involvement in religion or any religious involvement in government.
I'll skip over all the stuff about Weaver and Reno and Waco. How would you feel if at your next Ron Paul rally you were sitting next to David Koresh and his 4 12-year-old brides or Randy Weaver in a white hood?
Dave
50 - Dave Nalle
I don't think yours was a particularly negative article, Dave Nalle, by the way. You have reservations, and you want to argue them out before you can throw yourself behind the man.
I supported Paul before and I could support him again. But I think he needs to show he's ready to be president and so far he hasn't done that.
Dave
51 - NH
This is for David Nalle...
First of all just having this video on the website could be considered libelous since RP does not ascribe to the 911 inside job theory and has said so very clearly.
Secondly, I WAS IN the focus group and McCain did NOT win by any means, Luntz made his own interpretation after people said they liked how he honored our soldiers. (Big deal, who could disagree with that?) The Luntz focus group was totally contrived and none of my comments were aired and I had plenty to say.
Hear this: Out of 29 'mainstream Rs' 3 of us were RP supporters and that there alone is 10%. Add to this the I's, L's and D's that support him and now you can see why he got 33% on the cell phone poll.
Mitt is so scared of an RP win in independent NH that he sent Lamar Smith (R-TX) to stump for him. Lamar whispered to me that Ron was his good friend and a good man.
52 - NH
Wow I read further here and I really don't think you want me to expose some of Hillary's fringers do you? Or Obama's?
This is the USA where everyone has a right to vote.
Why is it you concentrate on who you think is fringy for RP but no one else?
Makes sense that he who has the biggest following would have the most fringers, especially people like Hillary who will draw from the inner cities and vote for who will promise them the most welfare.
53 - NH
Wow this blogger just gets worse and worse with his nonsense!
NO PERSON can call themselves a 'libertarian' if they ascribe to the CFR like Fred does.
To me, associating with that group is worse than having any Weaver-type as a supporter. There is no weaver 'group' but this CFR is a huge destructive force against the republic and Fred is one of them..
Fred even claimed not to know what the NAU was! Stupidity or lying?
You be the judge.
54 - Dave Nalle
Wow I read further here and I really don't think you want me to expose some of Hillary's fringers do you? Or Obama's?
Why would I care? There's no chance I'd ever vote for Hillary and virtually none that I'd vote for Obama.
This is the USA where everyone has a right to vote.
Why is it you concentrate on who you think is fringy for RP but no one else?
Because I'd like to be able to vote for him.
Makes sense that he who has the biggest following would have the most fringers, especially people like Hillary who will draw from the inner cities and vote for who will promise them the most welfare.
Selling your vote for welfare doesn't make you a lunatic fringer, it makes you a victim.
NO PERSON can call themselves a 'libertarian' if they ascribe to the CFR like Fred does.
The CFR is a large organization with a diverse membership. Many of the members are perfectly reasonable folks, and not all of the group's policies are dangerous. In fact, if you actually bother to investigate the CFR you'll find that it's mostly harmless and has been set up as a bogus bogeyman by paranoid conspiracy theorists.
To me, associating with that group is worse than having any Weaver-type as a supporter. There is no weaver 'group' but this CFR is a huge destructive force against the republic and Fred is one of them..
I think you may be one of the fringers I'm concerned about.
Fred even claimed not to know what the NAU was! Stupidity or lying?
You be the judge.
How about good common sense? There is not and has never been a plan for a NAU as you would describe it.
Dave
55 - Clavos
Despite Dave's very well reasoned and reasonable point-by-point answer to this comment of Irene's:
"PLAN B: 1)work FOR Ron Paul's campaign 2) get rid of the Unconstitutional IRS 3) keep the guns to defend whatever kind of household you have against tyrannical government and small fry criminals 4) tell the federal government that they are YOUR servants, they don't tell YOU who you can marry and who you can't (I'd be among the FIRST to rip up my state-issued marriage license) 5) Pay ZERO dollars income tax."
...The fact is, NONE of the Presidential candidates (Republican, Libertarian or Democrat), can make ANY of those ideas (admirable as some are) happen without the cooperation of Congrees and the Senate.
IF a Republican is elected president (a BIG if, IMO) he will NOT have much cooperation from the Democrat-dominated Congress and Senate, so the likelihood of most of those items actually being enacted as law is VERY low.
And the final point is that of all the Republican candidates currently declared (this year you have to have that qualifier), Ron Paul is the least likely to get the nomination, let alone to win the election.
56 - Irene Wagner
Dave Nalle: And how do you feel when they start talking about the zionist conspiracy, the Bildebergers, putting illegals in concentration camps, Christian Identity and the US government's collaboration with Israel to blow up the WTC?
How do I feel? First of all, Dave, the subjects don't come up that often. My biggest challenge so far has been holding my peace (or choosing my battles) when a fellow Ron Paul supporter described all prolifers as YUCKYYYYY! (She was young, I let it go.)
About conspiracy theories, I've heard them discussed, but I usually make a comment to the effect: There's enough trouble that we KNOW about that we need to be addressing, without borrowing troubles.
One of my favorite answers, I might use it again soon, is "I heard an old man say, 'I've lived many years, and seen many horrible things. Most of them never happened.'" I'm not really as combative with Ron Paul supporters as I am with ALMOST Ron Paul supporters. :) Not my yob, because...
...for every "out there" Ron Paul acquaintance I've heard "holding forth", there are four or five (usually guys, who are way bigger than me) explaining that no, Minidoka is still only a deserted field in Idaho with a small plaque dedicated to Japanese-Americans. No bunkers at the ready.
On the other hand, I try not to be too disparaging of people who MAY BE at the cutting edge of revealing some formerly unimaginable new offense by some of the scoundrels who are running the country. Some whistle-blowers are actually right, Dave. Who could have imagined the truth about Gitmo, about the extent to which our country uses torture to gain information?
I have to admit that a lot of people know a lot more than I do about a lot of subjects. I don't always know which people, which subjects, and how much more. Do you ever have that problem, Dave Nalle?
As for Koresh's 12 year old brides, et al. I wouldn't have sung at their weddings, but I don't think they, or the toddlers who lived at the Waco compound, should have been firebombed. Do you??? Do you think people who've a full head of steam worked up over the matter (we all have our trigger issues, don't we Dave?) should be deprived of the right to vote? What were YOU thinking when you saw the place go up in smoke, Dave? What if the building being firebombed was a place where atheists were known to be having a potluck dinner, and the "evangelicals" you're so afraid of getting into power were at the back of the firebombing?
"They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew...and then they came for me, and there was no one left to help me."
Clavos--right you are, and Ron Paul would be the last one to want to work independently of Congress. But whether Ron Paul wins or not, he's getting his ideas OUT there. Maybe he won't take the presidency--perish the thought--but he'll definitely have an impact--IS having an impact, on politics at the local level.
Maybe the Congress of Ron Paul's dreams will be sitting in DC within an election or two, all in place and ready to work with a Ron Paul-ish president then.
57 - Dave Nalle
And the final point is that of all the Republican candidates currently declared (this year you have to have that qualifier), Ron Paul is the least likely to get the nomination, let alone to win the election.
Which, of course, leads to the unpleasant question of whether every bit of effort put into supporting Ron Paul just helps assure that the most bland of the GOP candidates can go and lose to a Democrat in 2008. A vote for Paul might very well turn into a vote for Hillary. Sobering thought.
Dave
58 - NH
So now Nalle is calling ME a 'fringer'.
"I think you may be one of the fringers I'm concerned about."
FYI I'm a lifelong GOPer and well into the mainstream and have even run for office myself...And I'm much older than you are. I had a distintguished 35 year career in a very mainstream job.
"How about good common sense? There is not and has never been a plan for a NAU as you would describe it."
I suppose Lou Dobbs is a fringer? If so, Ron Paul is a fringer, so I guess you better not vote for him. After all, for him to want to keep an eye on our borders, from invasion to merger, might be too harmful a thing for you to cope with.
I'm sorry you're so delicate and fearful.
59 - NH
Also, you are trashing Birchers who have done lots of research apparently are correct because no one has sued them.
They are an excellent source of information to expose how the elitists are working against us.
You don't have to agree with everything they say...so other than that, there is nothing wrong with 'Birchers'.
60 - Clavos
"I suppose Lou Dobbs is a fringer?"
Lou Dobbs is a demagogue, which is decidedly not mainstream, so yes, he's a fringer.
61 - Dave Nalle
On the other hand, I try not to be too disparaging of people who MAY BE at the cutting edge of revealing some formerly unimaginable new offense by some of the scoundrels who are running the country. Some whistle-blowers are actually right, Dave. Who could have imagined the truth about Gitmo, about the extent to which our country uses torture to gain information?
There's a HUGE difference between a Whistleblower who is by definition someone who HAS secret information and chooses to reveal it, and a conspiracy theorist who is someone who has nothing but guesses based on public information and claims to have figured out the secret truth.
I have to admit that a lot of people know a lot more than I do about a lot of subjects. I don't always know which people, which subjects, and how much more. Do you ever have that problem, Dave Nalle?
Absolutely. And in those cases I do research, ask questions, or just avoid commenting at least until I know more.
However, secrecy and the government are something I do know a bit about. I was raised in Washington DC with one parent who was a diplomat and another who was 'in the intelligence community'. Plus I lived in the Soviet Union and that's a crash course in government conspiracy.
As for Koresh's 12 year old brides, et al. I wouldn't have sung at their weddings, but I don't think they, or the toddlers who lived at the Waco compound, should have been firebombed. Do you???
You miss my point. As far as I'm concerned Janet Reno should be tried for crimes against humanity. But the Branch Davidians were still a creepy cult who engaged in criminal activity, and from what I've been reading from Ron Paul followers they or someone like them might be sitting next to you.
Do you think people who've a full head of steam worked up over the matter (we all have our trigger issues, don't we Dave?) should be deprived of the right to vote?
Of course they should have a right to vote, and a right to free speech. Just as I have a right to speak out to oppose them.
Dave
62 - Westmiller
They are perceived as fanatics ... effective response to the Ron Paul Spammers.
Fanatic, as in "insane"? I don't think so. Some weird "fans" to be sure, but Ron Paul has clearly stated that he does not believe 911 was an "inside job".
As for "spammers", since when did the word refer to tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters expressing their opinion? There's no evidence whatever that any gimmicks were used to win on-line or cellphone polls. Of course his supporters communicate with each other ... isn't that what all of the candidates encourage?
Bottom line, it is all to Ron Paul's benefit that you believe what you believe. You won't be ready or able to oppose his ideas when the time comes.
63 - Dave Nalle
I first ran into the use of the term 'ron paul spammers' on another thread here on BC and subsequently found it in much use on YouTube. Some of the Ron Paul supporters are not all that articulate but are very enthusiastic, and their contribution to the cause is to mostly post the same few links to relevant websites to every YouTube thread where Paul or any of the other candidates is mentioned. They're the ones who the term 'spammers' is being applied to, not to the kind of intelligent and participatory supporters we see on this thread or some of the other Paul-related discussions we've had here.
As several people have pointed out, Paul has attracted a diverse following. Like any diverse group it has its share of strange people and perhaps not terribly bright people. You can't judge the whole group by the worst behaved examples.
That said, as I've mentioned before, I do think Paul has attracted more than his share of political extremists, and while he has supposedly claimed not to believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy he has endorsed an investigation, giving them hope and stringing them along, which I think is a mistake.
Dave
64 - Clavos
Wow, Dave, are you on tranquilizers tonight?
That's the most accommodating and conciliatory comment I've seen from you in a long time!
Positively mellow, mate.
65 - Dave Nalle
So now Nalle is calling ME a 'fringer'.
You appear to be a Dobbsian, you think the CFR is a vast internationalist conspiracy and you think the John Birchers are just like happy little bunnies. I don't NEED to call you a fringer, it's self-evident.
I suppose Lou Dobbs is a fringer?
Lou Dobbs is a dangerous propagandist and blatant liar. He spreads disinformation and fills the heads of a horde of followers with arrant nonsense.
If so, Ron Paul is a fringer, so I guess you better not vote for him.
You may be right. Paul has some very good ideas and also some bad ideas. But that's true of every candidate. I like the fact that he wants to protect US sovereignty, but I don't like the fact that he sees threats to it where they don't really exist. I like the fact that he supports the constitution. I don't like the fact that he seems not to understand certain parts of it.
After all, for him to want to keep an eye on our borders, from invasion to merger, might be too harmful a thing for you to cope with.
I'm all for keeping an eye on the border, so long as it's to make sure that enough guest workers come in with full documentation and jobs waiting for them.
Also, you are trashing Birchers who have done lots of research apparently are correct because no one has sued them.
Actually, they have been sued for libel and lost.
They are an excellent source of information to expose how the elitists are working against us.
They are racists, nativists and think that the Pope is storing weapons in catholic churches to overthrow the US government. Hell, their founder even thought that Ike was a communist.
there is nothing wrong with 'Birchers'.
I'd say that stands as a testimony to your ignorance. How you can be as old as you claim you are and not know the history of the John Birch society and their connection to the most dangerous and destructive forces in our society is beyond me.
I actually agree with the JBS on opposition to communism, but I think it's a lot more effective to oppose it where it actually exists rather than going after fanciful conspiracies.
Dave
66 - Dave Nalle
Wow, Dave, are you on tranquilizers tonight?
That's the most accommodating and conciliatory comment I've seen from you in a long time!
I was pretty kind to Joel Hirschhorn earlier tonight on his 9/11 conspiracy report, though he apparently didn't see it quite that way.
Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not against Ron Paul in any sense. I think he'd make a great VP.
Dave
67 - 4 Ron Paul
I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe in the constitution.
Ron Paul hits home because of his honesty and incorruptible reputation.
All the other candidates owe someone a favor. They've been bought off and are political prostitutes. Ron is the ONLY politician that's owned by the PEOPLE - that's why we're so enthusiastic about him.
Ron Paul 4 President!
68 - 4 Ron Paul
By the way, We've all heard this a thousand times:
"The world doesn't hate Americans, just the foreign policies".
Americans want to take back our country and reverse the hegemony. We want to restore our good will through good deeds. Bring our troops home!
69 - Willem De Wit
I think Paul's online support may indeed be doing more harm than good, but only in that that support has served its purpose by now, and in that that support should be taken to the streets instead.
Dedicated Paulites may have been able to get him some free publicity by having voted in the Fox News text poll en masse, but the sad reality is that Paul is still polling margin-of-error numbers in the "established" national polls. Sure, those polls are flawed (they generally only poll people who have recently voted in GOP elections, and call only landline phone numbers), but a large percentage of voters will use the results of those polls to influence their support for the different presidential candidates.
"I agree with most of what Paul has to say, but he doesn't have a chance."
Until Paul starts polling higher than 5% in the established polls, he indeed doesn't stand much of a chance. Too many voters that share his ideas will give their (financial and emotional) support to other candidates, believing that they stand a better chance at beating the Democratic nominee. If he can just break that 5% barrier, the people that currently think he "doesn't stand a chance" are going to start to consider him "electable". Contributions to his campaign will increase, and as more and more people start telling the pollsters that they will vote for Paul, the snowball effect will finally have been set in motion.
Posting supportive comments online won't do the trick. To get Paul over that 5% hurdle, we need to take the message he represents to the streets.
Willem
70 - Dmitri
Hi Dave.
Good article, and great comments.
I understand your position and think it is mostly correct.
I also agree that some supporters are overreacting and should slow down just a little. It just may scare some people.
The supporters are really excited, because this is something they haven't seen before and it has become really personal to them. That's why they are so passionate about it. Aren't you passionate about something? You know that feeling right ?
About not supporting the candidate because of his supporters. I don't agree with that, does it matter who supports him ? You aren't putting the supporters to the office :)
Dmitri.
71 - Baronius
Dave, I thought your original article was a bit obsequious toward Ron Paul. Then again, I didn't see the debate, so maybe he deserved it.
What I didn't expect was the response. Paul supporters never used to annoy me but they do now. A few of the comments sound like old Marxist rhetoric: you're standing in the way of history, et cetera. That's going to bug people. The Paulers have to remember that any campaign is a long uphill climb.
Also, someone commented that the press isn't covering the great Paul groundswell. DUH! First of all, every campaign looks like a groundswell from the inside. But even if Paul is taking the country by storm, of course the press isn't going to cover it. They never report on the next big thing. The real question is, why aren't the media in love with Paul? He's an anti-war Republican. The NYT staff should be sitting on his lap feeding him peeled grapes.
72 - Dave Nalle
What I didn't expect was the response. Paul supporters never used to annoy me but they do now. A few of the comments sound like old Marxist rhetoric: you're standing in the way of history, et cetera. That's going to bug people. The Paulers have to remember that any campaign is a long uphill climb.
This is exactly the concern I was trying to raise and got so abused for. They're getting more and more shrill and intrusive and bombastic and that's not doing them any good at all.
The real question is, why aren't the media in love with Paul? He's an anti-war Republican. The NYT staff should be sitting on his lap feeding him peeled grapes.
I think it's because Paul himself isn't a good interview. He's shrill and relatively uncooperative and has little or no sense of humor. Plus he tends to be sort of hostile to the media. He just doesn't play their game well and they resent it.
Dave
73 - Clavos
Anybody see him on O'Reilly tonight?
No? You didn't miss anything.
Paul was, as Dave says, shrill and humorless, and O'Reilly, as usual, didn't let the guest (Paul) finish a single response.
Crapola.
74 - REMF
"Paul supporters never used to annoy me but they do now."
- Baronius
I never thought I'd be rooting for Paul supporters.
---------------------------
"This is exactly the concern I was trying to raise and got so abused for."
- Dave Nalle
Oohhhh, poor little you!
75 - Dave Nalle
Anyone looks good when they're being badgered by O'Reilly, of course.
Dave