Is Ron Paul turning into a real politician who will take support from any quarter no matter how unsavory?
Much has already been made of the interest shown in the Ron Paul campaign by groups on the reactionary right, from 9/11 'truthers' to white supremacists. Less widely reported but of growing concern to those watching the Paul campaign and wondering if it is going wildly astray is the involvement of far-left groups who are flocking to Paul's banner for reasons which may be genuine or may mask an effort to undermine the entire Republican primary. I like Ron Paul and what he stands for on a great many issues and especially his devotion to the Constitution, but I can't help but worry about the unsavory character his campaign is beginning to develop.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Dave Nalle
I don't know what your intent is Dave but it somewhat appears you are attacking Paul indirectly through people who want to support him.
That's because like a lot of Paul supporters you're more than a little paranoid. In fact, what i'm doing is pointing out a problem which I think Paul needs to address if he wants his campaign to ever be taken seriously.
Why is it okay for every other politician to enjoy the company of big business lobbyists and this is seen as acceptable?
When did I say it was acceptable?
Yet you find it wrong for an underdog to go about getting support from all citizens and all backgrounds that might vote for him?
There are some key differences. Lobbyists don't believe in genocide or want to tear up the constitution and start over.
In many ways the government has asked us the people to believe in what they say, literally expecting blind faith. And people like you support this such that anyone who even cares to question, even if a bit odd is slighted for being crazy.
No, people like me try to expose the actual truth and reject both the lies from the government AND the lies from the extremists.
For the most part they were basically people you would see at a consumer convention or a craft faire. But would you ever see a rich Harvard businessman at a craft faire? Probably not! And are such Harvard graduates average and representative of the American people in the first place?
They can be. And I have seen them at craft fairs and at other 'common' activities. I've seen them working booths at craft fairs.
Maybe we have a massive culture shift right now as those that lead us don't live with us anymore, if they ever did. Society is moving so fast for those of us on the bottom of "normal" society that you don't even know what we care about or what effects us.
In the world I live in there are situations where millionaires and wage workers engage in activities side by side, talk to each other and exchange ideas. We don't live in a strictly hierarchical society, and 80% of our richest people came from the lower and middle classes.
In some ways your piece of writing actually makes me think you are the one that is somewhat crazy. If you really respect liberty and believe liberty works then accepting all other citizens as equals is very important. Even if you disagree or think they are a bit addled in the head.
Accepting all other citizens as equal does not mean ignoring their actions or beliefs. We all start out the same and everyone deserves a fair hearing, but once you take a stand in opposition to the basic rights of others you lose my support.
Maybe it is actually very simple. His supporters are not TV quality. They are actually average citizens with all their weirdness. You just haven't looked that close at America lately. You might have a rude awakening if you do. If you are looking for Harvard graduates, media elites and wealthy supporters in his crowd, you won't find many of them sorry.
I'm sitting here right in the middle of America, and the people I see around me are generally pretty sensible. I think they'd like to support Ron Paul for a whole bunch of reasons, but if they see the way some of his supporters are behaving and some of the things they believe in it's going to scare them off.
Dave
77 - Dave Nalle
Call your senator today and tell them to vote "No" on S Bill 1959 The Homegrown terrorist act.
That's the Senate version of HR 1955 the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? Which passed the house 404 to 6 and which Ron Paul didn't even show up to vote on?
I often see fanatics like the PaulBots frothing over bills, and then when I go to check on the latest piece of legislation that's going to destroy America I find something like this
Do you realize that the bill that scares you so much consists of nothing but some small appropriations to study domestic terrorism and rules guaranteeing various civil and individual rights protections.
There are NO enforcement provisions whatsoever in the bill. Nothing is outlawed, no crimes are going to be prosecuted. It's mostly about research and education.
Of course, it does include this scary provision:
"The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents."
Dave
78 - neil gregory
`(a) "In General"- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.
What does "In General" mean? Maybe you can enlighten me. Or am I just nitpicking. This just worries me a lot. Especially since we have already lost our habeous corpus.
3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Umm.. look at the part of the sentence where it says "the term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence".
Why do they have to use the word Force? When it clearly states the word violence.
You know Martin Luther King PEACEFULLY used FORCE to spark the civil rights movement.
And seriously, since when has the government entered the business of defining anyways? Did the person who wrote this bill also invest in a stock in Websters dictionary?
Vote no on S bill 1959, being as the house bill has already been passed. Regardless if Ron Paul voted or not.
79 - neil gregory
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Haha you getting my point yet?
Violent radicalization.
Ideologically based violence
HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
Peaceful force can be condemned as homegrown terrorism, which threatens the security of the United States.
If it threatens the United states, then what do the feds do? Research it. I think not, because we wouldn't be in the whole middle east mess if it wasn't for they're attitude on the research results they gotten from the CIA, and others. You think the governments not going to ignore these research results. Why don't they spend all these tax funds they are trying to spend on researching Domestic terrorism on enforcing the border problem.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
What's terrorist related propaganda?
Who are they to decide what this terrorist propaganda is?
Then you hear about Glen Beck and you being worried about Ron Paul supporters!?!?! are you people nuts. I don't buy it. The majority of us are responsible americans who pay they're taxes and abide by the law. Like I say there is a lot worst things to be passionate about then a presidential candidate who supports our freedoms.
80 - neil gregory
haha and since I was totally off topic I just want to say, that the damage was done with this article. You should write an article about what you like about Ron Paul, and then compare them to the things you don't like. I would be much more interested in that. Have a good one dude.
81 - Eric Dondero
Dave Nalle's reporting of the events in Las Vegas are correct and accurate. There is solid confirmation of these events from a former Libertarian Party State Chairwoman who is also a diehard Ron Paul supporter. She is furious with the Moveon.org infiltration of the Paul Campaign in Nevada, and of them posing as Ron Paul supporters to disrupt local GOP events.
We're covering the story over at Mainstream Libertarian.
82 - Dave Nalle
Ah, well that explains the confusions. Apparently there's more than one kind of meetup going on in Vegas. What I'd really like to know is how widespread moveon.org infiltration and intimidation is. Are there other instances of this activity or was this an isolated event?
Dave
83 - Clavos
Apparently, moveon.org is taking the Paul candidacy seriously, as a threat to their beliefs.
Their attention to, and disruption of, the RP campaign may well backfire on them, as most conservatives and libertarians who had NOT planned to vote for Paul may decide to look again and change their minds, precisely because moveon seems to be afraid of him.
It got my attention...
84 - Rick
MOVE-ON.ORG's support of Ron Paul is all about trying to splinter the republican party.
There are many republicans, including myself that are disgruntled that the 'religous right' has taken over the party, additionaly the fiscal discipline of the party has vanished. The only president that has spent as much (percentage wise) as Bush was LBJ.
Many of these republicans, including myself, long for someone in the 'Barry Goldwater' mold of implementing small governement and fiscal responsability. Ron Paul comes closest to hat ideal. Shortly before Barry Goldwater died, he said the emergence of the religous right in the republican party was going to eventually split the party, he may be right.
Rick
Dana Point, CA
85 - Tom Storey
Congratulations Dave:
You got your "100's Ron Paul of hits." I must say the technique is tried and true. A kid who wrote an article at Stanford last week got a 1000 hits. He's gonna get a movie deal for crying out loud.
Dave, I'm a writer. You twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to hit the guy.
Why not say you are against Dr. Paul and his ideas instead of trying this McCarthy style association gig that the media has tried for months now.
It has failed. Duh...look at his polling. This guy ,who has such awful supporters, has made more money on no media than any candidate in history.
Freaks? The man against the war. Dave, you're pro war? You got kids over there? You ever heard of depleted uranium? You read anything about Iraq lately? Come on now, let's get up speed.
Best to all,
T
86 - Dave Nalle
You got your "100's Ron Paul of hits." I must say the technique is tried and true. A kid who wrote an article at Stanford last week got a 1000 hits. He's gonna get a movie deal for crying out loud.
If I wanted a lot of hits all I'd have to do is write another article on Venezuela. They get way more hits than articles on Ron Paul. Hugo Chavez fanatics are even crazier than the PaulBots.
Dave, I'm a writer. You twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to hit the guy.
Hardly. All I did was gather together some basic facts.
Why not say you are against Dr. Paul and his ideas instead of trying this McCarthy style association gig that the media has tried for months now.
Because I'm NOT against Paul and his ideas. I'm against his campaign being undermined by leftists. That you can't see the difference between being anti-paul and worried about the campaign suggests that you are reacting rather than thinking.
Freaks? The man against the war. Dave, you're pro war? You got kids over there? You ever heard of depleted uranium? You read anything about Iraq lately? Come on now, let's get up speed.
I've written more about Iraq than you're likely to have read about it. And why do you assume I'm pro-war. I'm not pro or anti war in this context, but I just think it's a mistake for Paul to build support from people who have nothing in common with him ideologically except opposition to the war.
Dave
87 - Dave Nalle
Their attention to, and disruption of, the RP campaign may well backfire on them, as most conservatives and libertarians who had NOT planned to vote for Paul may decide to look again and change their minds, precisely because moveon seems to be afraid of him.
If Moveon.org is trying to disrupt the Paul campaign rather than just use the Paul campaign to disrupt the primary process, then that's an entirely different story. If that's the case then we ought to be rushing to Paul's support, and he ought to be saying something about it and asking for help.
Dave
88 - Dave Nalle
There are many republicans, including myself that are disgruntled that the 'religous right' has taken over the party,
Me too. My problem is that Ron Paul IS the religious right. He wants prayer in school and the ten commandments in the courthouses and schools, plus he's a raving right to lifer who wants to throw doctors in jail.
Dave
89 - handyguy
That Soros is a socialist is NOT something I made up or that is a strange or obscure opinion. It's widely accepted, not a problem for his supporters, and pretty well documented.
The only references to George Soros as a "socialist" that I can find come from writers I would characterize as Far Right. His book warns that capitalism taken to extremes, infiltrating our social policy and politics, can be as much a danger as fascism and communism, which he vehemently opposes, duh. [The link Dave supplies is to an article by a nut job talk show host, Lowell Ponte, hardly an authoritative or objective source. And the article is a fire-breathingly partisan opinion piece, not real reporting or analysis.]
Of course, Dave [with blithe inaccuracy] categorizes me as part of the Far Left. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Bill O'Reilly constantly refers to standard-issue Democrats as "far left." Well, yeah, we're far to the left of him, of Limbaugh, of Lowell Ponte, and of Dave Nalle. But that could still put us closer to the center than any of the four of them will ever be.
Dave can be remarkably sane on some issues [not guns or taxes or terrorism, but some issues]. But he does not shy away from outright slander, as when he claims that the Communist Party USA is the previous nesting place for most MoveOn leaders! And using loaded inaccuracies like "undermine" to describe Soros's and MoveOn's relationships with Democrats and the US political system. This is not analysis; it's just propaganda.
I don't even know if he believes that dumb nutty stuff. Maybe he just puts it on here to draw more traffic - in the same way that posting the umpteenth Ron Paul article in two weeks has done. But pretending to be perfectly reasonable after calling people ex-communists is a bit much. MoveOn has over 3 million members, few of whom would stick around for genuinely communist rhetoric or leadership.
90 - Clavos
"But he does not shy away from outright slander, as when he claims that the Communist Party USA is the previous nesting place for most MoveOn leaders!"
Why "slander?" Is there something wrong with being a member (or former member) of the CPUSA???
Many people believe that Communism is the last best hope for the USA to survive.
You might not agree, but is it somehow grounds for slander to be named as a Communist???
91 - Jacob
Dave Nalle # 86 “I'm NOT against Paul and his ideas”
Dave Nalle # 88 “He wants prayer in school and the ten commandments in the courthouses and schools, plus he's a raving right to lifer who wants to throw doctors in jail”
Conclusion?
92 - Dave Nalle
The only references to George Soros as a "socialist" that I can find come from writers I would characterize as Far Right.
Why is characterizing him that way a problem for you? He's a market socialist. It's not a terrible thing to be, necessarily, except when it shades over into fascism and government becomes to involved in determining which companies are allowed to profit.
His book warns that capitalism taken to extremes, infiltrating our social policy and politics, can be as much a danger as fascism and communism, which he vehemently opposes, duh.
What his book also makes clear is that he believes in centrally controlled capitalism where government determines who can profit and how much, which is a very dangerous idea IMO.
[The link Dave supplies is to an article by a nut job talk show host, Lowell Ponte, hardly an authoritative or objective source. And the article is a fire-breathingly partisan opinion piece, not real reporting or analysis.]
No, it's not. The link I supplied on Soros is a thoroughly researched background piece from Cliff Kincaid of AIM.
Of course, Dave [with blithe inaccuracy] categorizes me as part of the Far Left.
I can only go with what I see you say here, Handy. I wouldn't characterize you as absolutely far left, more mainstream. Probably about where I'd place Soros, though he's more of an international leftist socialist, which still isn't FAR left in US terms.
Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Bill O'Reilly constantly refers to standard-issue Democrats as "far left."
Yes, but he's a borderline idiot and a confused socially conservative democrat who somehow convinced himself he's a Republican.
Well, yeah, we're far to the left of him, of Limbaugh, of Lowell Ponte, and of Dave Nalle. But that could still put us closer to the center than any of the four of them will ever be.
IMO I'm a hell of a lot closer to the center on most issues than you realize.
Dave can be remarkably sane on some issues [not guns or taxes or terrorism, but some issues].
In other words I'm sane when I agree with you and nuts when I don't - sophisticated analysis there.
But he does not shy away from outright slander, as when he claims that the Communist Party USA is the previous nesting place for most MoveOn leaders!
A number of the people involved in founding Moveon.org had previous connections to CPUSA and DSUSA. That's not damning. Lots of people flirted with radical politics when they were young.
And using loaded inaccuracies like "undermine" to describe Soros's and MoveOn's relationships with Democrats and the US political system. This is not analysis; it's just propaganda.
What term would you use? They want to change the agenda of the democratic party and use it to change the poltical environment in the country as a whole. If you don't like 'undermine' how about 'subvert' or 'redefine' or something. Doesn't really change the reality of it.
In the same way that posting the umpteenth Ron Paul article in two weeks has done.
Don't worry, I'm working on another article on Paul to round out the colleciton - it's titled "Ron Paul is Not a Libertarian". Should be fun.
But pretending to be perfectly reasonable after calling people ex-communists is a bit much. MoveOn has over 3 million members, few of whom would stick around for genuinely communist rhetoric or leadership.
Moveon has gone out of its way to distance itself from CPUSA since the days when they did fundraising activities together and it wasn't well received. But the rhetoric is certainly still there.
Dave
93 - neil gregory
There are many republicans, including myself that are disgruntled that the 'religous right' has taken over the party,
Me too. My problem is that Ron Paul IS the religious right. He wants prayer in school and the ten commandments in the courthouses and schools, plus he's a raving right to lifer who wants to throw doctors in jail.
Dave
1) You know the constitution was based on christian values right? haha man, just because he is a christian. Doesn't mean is like these other religious right wing people trying to force anything on anyone.
He wants to be president to stay out of our business. Seperation between church and state remember? It's sad that marriage is a big issue, because marriage is a religious ceremony. So the government should not have anything to do with that. He has personally said that. That's besides the point though.
2)yea he is prolife... but he is also prolife because he is anti federal desicions for the rest of the country, hence Roe v. Wade,
"this is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I am not running for governer." - Ron Paul youtube/cnn debates. Dude your arguments are weak, why don't you talk about some of his more controversial bills if you want to bash him. Look at the bill on the amber alerts, he voted no for this program. I don't understand his desicion on that. Maybe you can look it up and bash him for that, so we can get some oppinions.
haha religious right, he wants to legalize weed for god sakes.. cut the man some slack.
94 - neil gregory
alright I have come to the conclusion Mr Nalle, that you just take facts and twist them around to fit your version of the truth. So come on man, think rationally about a subject, and get back to me. haha I still can't believe you brought up, Mona Charen. hahaha.. damn.. I am done now.
95 - John Ryan
To me it doesn't really matter who is supporting Paul. He isn't changing any of his views to garner support and he won't do so. I support nearly everything he stands for. I'm a Republican. The fact that liberals are supporting him doesn't make me like him less. It is irrelevant.
96 - Dave Nalle
1) You know the constitution was based on christian values right?
No, I've actually READ the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. The argument that it's based on 'christian values' in any but the most abstract sense is ridiculous. It's a blueprint for a secular government and has nothing to do with religion.
haha man, just because he is a christian. Doesn't mean is like these other religious right wing people trying to force anything on anyone.
He is willing to let the federal government sit back and do nothing while the right of the people not to be religiously indoctrinated is violated.
He wants to be president to stay out of our business. Seperation between church and state remember?
Yes, but he won't actually enforce that separation.
It's sad that marriage is a big issue, because marriage is a religious ceremony. So the government should not have anything to do with that. He has personally said that. That's besides the point though.
I actually agree with him there, though I haven't seen a specific plan on how to resolve the issue from him.
2)yea he is prolife... but he is also prolife because he is anti federal desicions for the rest of the country, hence Roe v. Wade,
"this is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I am not running for governer." - Ron Paul youtube/cnn debates.
Again, a cop-out. Protecting the rights of people is unquestionably a federal responsibility, especially when state governments overstep reasonable bounds.
Dude your arguments are weak, why don't you talk about some of his more controversial bills if you want to bash him.
What bills? In 20 years in office he has never authored a piece of legislation which passed.
Look at the bill on the amber alerts, he voted no for this program. I don't understand his desicion on that. Maybe you can look it up and bash him for that, so we can get some oppinions.
I understand why he voted no on it. It's not government's job to spend tax money advertising for missing children. TV and Radio should provide those services for free in the public interest. It shouldn't even require government coordination.
haha religious right, he wants to legalize weed for god sakes.. cut the man some slack.
Last I checked neither god nor the bible has anything bad to say about weed.
Dave
97 - Dave Nalle
alright I have come to the conclusion Mr Nalle, that you just take facts and twist them around to fit your version of the truth. So come on man, think rationally about a subject, and get back to me. haha I still can't believe you brought up, Mona Charen.
My writing is all about reason, Neil. It's my guiding principle. Paul's positions are irrational and inconsistent. Not my fault. I still think he has a lot of good to offer, but that doesn't mean I can't see his faults too.
As for Mona Charen, where's the reason in your dislike of her? She's an articulate, knowledgable moderate Republican. I don't agree with everything she says, but she makes some sense. Perhaps your dislike of her has a different root. Could it be that she's Jewish?
Dave
98 - neil gregory
hahaha... cause she's jewish! haha I didn't even know she was a jew. It makes sense now that I think about it. ahahahaha naa that was just a joke. I am not racist. I just don't like people who are so negative and condesending towards peoples beliefs. I really don't like her, because she like my senator and many others, claiming to be a "Social Conservative", when it seems they have no idea what either of those two words mean. It Seems her being a jew she would like Ron Paul. He is the only one fighting for everyone including the jewish people out of these crop of liars...
"My writing is all about reason, Neil. It's my guiding principle. Paul's positions are irrational and inconsistent. Not my fault. I still think he has a lot of good to offer, but that doesn't mean I can't see his faults too." -dave
I really haven't heard any good reasoning yet. Sure you can report on what Dr. Pauls followers are all about, but I haven't heard you report on what Dr. Paul is all about. It seems your idea of reason is flawed, and it's a derivitive from the negative views you hold so dearly to your heart.
"Pauls irrational and inconsistent".
If it isn't the pot calling the kettle black. haha give me a break. You don't just go making bold statements like that without having something to back your oppinion sir. I haven't seen your evidence. As far as I can tell he is the most consistent and dare I say rational guy in the house and the senate. He is the only one with the real understanding of our monetary policy. I am sure the other few representitives who do understand the monetary policy are just protecting they're better interest. Instead of the peoples best interest.
Oh yea and why did it take so long to answer? was it because my good friend the south american came in and agreed with me? hahaha dude and I never said weed was bad. Your way off base, and way out of line. I really need to start building my credentials, because if you can do this sloppy of a job, then anyone can take your position of employment. much love dave
neil
99 - neil gregory
"What bills? In 20 years in office he has never authored a piece of legislation which passed."
I should have chosen my words more carefully. I meant the bills he has voted on.
I tell you what, go ahead and read some of those ingenious pieces of legislation in which he humbly tried to bring to the floor.
I bet you couldn't come up with a good argument for voting no on a lot of them. Unless that is, if you are being paid off by special interests? which I seriously doubt, because you seem to put all your credibility into this belief system that has you sounding like a sheep in the pasture.
baaaaahh... baaaaaahhhh
100 - Jacob
"Dave Nalle: $99 "Could it be that she's Jewish?"
Nalle turned over his rocks, went behind his bushes, looked around the corner, and guess what he found?
A 100% genuine anti-semite.
That's it for you, neil gregory. Nalle has judged you to be an anti-semite.
And just because you don't cater to Mona Charen.
It doesn't matter what you say now. You have been branded by der reichsfuhrer in charge of accusing those who do not follow his party line.
101 - neil gregory
aaahahaha... lmao..
"Could it be that she's Jewish?"- Dave...
This quote will live on in blog history.
102 - Dave Nalle
Guys, when dealing with PaulBots you have to excuse me for suspecting anti-semitism at the drop of a hat. 4 out of 5 times I'd have been right.
I tell you what, go ahead and read some of those ingenious pieces of legislation in which he humbly tried to bring to the floor.
I've read quite a few of them. They're not what I'd call 'ingeniious', but some of them seem like pretty good ideas, if unrealistic and impossible to pass in the current congress.
I bet you couldn't come up with a good argument for voting no on a lot of them.
I bet you're right.
Unless that is, if you are being paid off by special interests? which I seriously doubt, because you seem to put all your credibility into this belief system that has you sounding like a sheep in the pasture.
Supporting individual liberty and smaller government makes you sound like a sheep? I thought it made you sound like a rational american.
Dave
103 - neil gregory
"Guys, when dealing with PaulBots you have to excuse me for suspecting anti-semitism at the drop of a hat. 4 out of 5 times I'd have been right."
hahaha yea right dude... your so full of yourself. I have met a lot of "Paulbots" and they are just regular people, and who you calling a bot? You are just another pawn of the government to slander a good wholesome message about what you claim to hold as your beliefs.
what's the point of writing a trashy article about someone who is fighting for the same things you believe? I just don't get it.
What's so inconsistent about Dr. Pauls message? You still haven't enlightened us on that. He has been saying the same thing for 20 years or more.
Thanks for spreading the Ron Paul message though, bad news is still good news...
104 - Clavos
Two things I don't like about Ron Paul:
1. He's a faithist.
2. He's an isolationist.
The first he has in common with virtually ALL of the candidates, Democratic or Republican. Not one of them admits to being an atheist, even if that's the case, and I suspect it is with at least a third of them.
Too bad. The Republicans, especially, could use a good atheist candidate to offset all the religious nuts who have hijacked the party.
The second marks him as unique. Virtually none of the others is as naive about world politics as he is.
Sigh.
This may be the worst field of presidential candidates the country has EVER seen.
105 - John
This piece of fiction was a total waste of time.Too many factual errors to even begin with...very disapointing.But as a Dr.Ron Paul fan I have a low tolerance for dishonesty and duplicity.That is something else many of us Dr.Paul supporters have in common.Peace
106 - neil gregory
Two things I don't like about Ron Paul:
1. He's a faithist.
2. He's an isolationist.
The first he has in common with virtually ALL of the candidates, Democratic or Republican. Not one of them admits to being an atheist, even if that's the case, and I suspect it is with at least a third of them.
Too bad. The Republicans, especially, could use a good atheist candidate to offset all the religious nuts who have hijacked the party.
The second marks him as unique. Virtually none of the others is as naive about world politics as he is.
Sigh.
This may be the worst field of presidential candidates the country has EVER seen.
He's a faithest?!?!?! [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Don't you have faith that you will wake up in the morning? You can't lie to me and tell me you don't. You are a faithest. Whether you believe in a God or not. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Isolationist?!?! have you ever listened or read anything Ron Paul has ever said??!?! You are just crazy brother. He has said it a billion damn times.. He is a non-interventionalist. Which mean he does not believe in interveining in the internal affairs of other nations... which causes unintended consequenses called blowback. That's what happened with 911 it was blowback.
Do you think the terrorist want to kill us because we are free and prosperous?!!! Are you crazy sir. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] are you human? do you understand the concept of common sense? he said he was a non-interventionalist, which doesn't mean you can't trade and deal with other nations. He believes in trading and dealing with other nations. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Athiesm is so rediculous. I am not even a christian and I can tell you that. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
107 - marcus
hey guys,
ever since i became a critical thinker 2 months ago through ron paul and mike gravel, i started to research in earnest about alot of things that really ails our country. we have a serious cancer and it happened very subtly, conjoining through the greed of others, and more so because of our apathy.
in reality, we are competing against an entrenched established systems of power that is embedded incestuously with various facets of society, i.e. media, corporations, government. it becomes disheartening to see it through our polling system, media bias/lack of coverage, and the various laws that members of government officials enacted on our "behalf." who makes them any more qualified than you? they are the ones who are in collusion with power and money. they are the ones who are selling democracy for 30 pieces of silver.
the truth is....one man cannot do it alone. Ron Paul is a beacon for change and that is why i propose a nationwide approach to take measures in our own hands. If Ron Paul becomes President....he has to overcome the members of Congress and Senate. If we have to make changes in our society, we have to overcome them on a district, regional, and state level. People...the real revolution happens when you take charge of your own lives. It doesn't stop with this election because if we let it stop....we become apathetic again and history will repeat itself.
There is corruption and if let it happen...we become apart of it. Its like the Rolling Stones' song, "Sympathy with the Devil." There is a verse that said that every time we let the JFK assassination go without recourse, we become a part of that conspiracy.
So, I'm going to end this letter by saying....be a precinct inspector at the voting polls and make sure the votes count and document everything. And more importantly, run for any office that you can to influence change...whether is a local school district, water municipality, assemblyman, Congressman, or a Senator....we have to take this revolution ourselves. There are June 2008 elections for Congress. That is vitally important to empower yourselves. There are few who are taking up the call...like Mike Benoit who is running for Congress as a Libertarian in San Diego, Theordore Terbolizard (Rep) in Norcal, and Dean Santoro (Rep) in Miami. We are masters of our destiny, to think otherwise is to be a slave.
Take this message to all the other meetups. Maybe this will get to Trevor Lynman and he could promote an awesome website. Can you imagine that? do you know what kind of message that would be?
Please post this everywhere and lets make this a nationwide event.
For life, liberty, and our Constitution,
Marcus
108 - Pamela
President Ron Paul has defeated the establishment! CNN is an institution of the past.
109 - Dave Nalle
what's the point of writing a trashy article about someone who is fighting for the same things you believe? I just don't get it.
The point of it is to bring light to the problems which the Paul campaign faces and which it ought to address so that it can move forward with its message undiluted. If you support Paul you ought to also be concerned.
What's so inconsistent about Dr. Pauls message? You still haven't enlightened us on that. He has been saying the same thing for 20 years or more.
I did answer this question, but I'll do it again. He's only in favor of liberty when it doesn't interfere with his religious beliefs. When religious issues come into play he suddenly falls back on a weak states rights argument so he doesn't have to address the conflict between christianity and individual liberty.
Dave
110 - Dr Dreadful
#104: I'm intrigued now, Clavos. Exactly which of the candidates do you suspect of secretly being an... an... [clutches chest, reels back in horror] atheist???
[screams from the gallery]
111 - Erika
Come on, Dave.
"But the evidence suggests that Paul's support doesn't come from regular people with normal concerns from everywhere, just that it comes from crazy people with bizarre concerns of all varieties."
I'm not a crazy person. I haven't met a crazy person who supports Ron Paul yet. I can't speak to any heated arguments at meetups because I don't belong to one and haven't attended any. There are a lot of us who are simply sending him money and supporting his campaign from our own space and communities on an individual basis. IF there are people out there making asses of themselves in public, you can't in good conscience label all of his supporters that way. That's just what the media is pointing out because it was remarkable.
I also don't believe that he's turning into a run of the mill politician. He's not going out and changing his stance to encourage or buy special interest groups' support. He's been giving the same speech since the beginning, with the same points over and over. If they have decided to support his campaign, it's because he speaks to something they believe in or want changed. He only accepts contributions from individuals, so how can he be monetarily swayed by special interest groups? I doubt that you're going to see any of these candidates "speaking out" against any one who sends them money-so why would you demand it of Paul?
We've been saying for years that we don't get a choice, or when we do, it's the lesser of two evils. That's why voter registration has dropped. If we're going to take a screwing, does it really matter whether it's from an elephant or an ass? We get a choice of the same wolf wrapped in two different suits and they never do all they claimed they would in their campaigns when they reach office.
Ron Paul hasn't changed his stance in the last 20 years, so why would anyone assume that he will going forward? To think that he can accomplish ALL of his goals in 4 years is a little naive, but he certainly has his head and heart in the right place, something I have yet to see on another major candidate. That resonates with people, believe it or not. The fact that he views us as individuals with families and jobs and hopes is a very strong magnet to those of us who have been treated as merely a number for all of our voting life. I'm not in complete agreement with everything he wants to do, but it's his philosophy on most issues that meets with my instinctual approval. His aim is to undo all of the harm that's currently inflicted on the population by a big government that is more concerned with cash flow than people.
We are wasting the potential lives of our military people, who joined the service in good faith to gain leverage on an underdeveloped country in order to steal their resources and their neighbors ' resources. The FDA is now directly answerable to the big food companies and whatever poison they want to inject into our food supply, and THEN-they are also directly answerable to the pharmaceutical companies that will sell the drugs to 'treat' the 'diseases' the aforementioned food supply creates. There is no outsourced and viable testing anymore, no second opinions, just the FDA's supreme opinion AND, they want to ban any natural remedies that we might want to buy (that have been used for thousands of years with great success) so we're stuck with whatever poison they produce at whatever price they set. Then they block our access to it from other countries. Want to patent and produce something? Better get it into production quick because our US Patent office is now a real estate agent, selling off our individual ideas to the highest bidder, no matter what country it's in. The individual contribution to the furthering of technology is now government property. Our success as a nation is NOT important to our current regime, only our ability to create a cash flow. These are only a few of the reasons I support Ron Paul. If he can turn even one of these things around he will be a successful president in my eyes.
For all of the folks who are saying he's not electable...bite your tongues. It ain't over til the fat lady sings. If you want another creep in office who'll keep infringing on our rights and cutting our constitution to shreds behind closed doors, knock yourself out. Vote for Giuliani, McCain or Hillary, see what you get. But do not say that you did it because you agree with their views, because they change their minds like I change underwear. These people are simply clones and will continue along the same lines of crap that the current administration is following. You do not matter to them, you're merely a drone.
112 - Clavos
"But when someone slings it back it him--if she is female like this poster--he demands that she be banned from the site for wounding his tender...."
You just don't know when to quit, do you?
Actually, mr, my opinion wasn't sought by the editors, but in a private email to an editorial board member last night after Bambenek banned you, I had this to say:
"I have to confess, that even as the "aggrieved" party, I'm somewhat ambivalent about banning her. If ever there was a candidate for banning, she's certainly it, but the Libertarian in me wants to defend her right to speak."
Which, I have no doubt whatsoever, is NOT the way YOU would react, had the roles been reversed.
You're welcome...
113 - Dave Nalle
But when someone slings it back it him--if she is female like this poster--he demands that she be banned from the site for wounding his tender....
For the record, Clavos DID NOT ask that you be banned for your incredibly offensive comment about his wife. But no one releveant who has seen the comment has objected to the idea of banning you.
Dave
114 - Dave Nalle
I'm not a crazy person. I haven't met a crazy person who supports Ron Paul yet.
Do you count reading their comments as equivalent to 'meeting' them? If so, you must have missed SJ Reidhead's article on racists supporting Paul and all the racists who commented on it.
IF there are people out there making asses of themselves in public, you can't in good conscience label all of his supporters that way.
I haven't labeled all the supporters as extremists or saboteurs, but the fact that there are so many and they're so prominent remains a problem for the campaign.
We are wasting the potential lives of our military people, who joined the service in good faith to gain leverage on an underdeveloped country in order to steal their resources and their neighbors ' resources.
That you're naive enough to buy into this reasoning explains a great deal.
For all of the folks who are saying he's not electable...bite your tongues. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.
I think he'd make a fantastic Vice President.
Dave
115 - Pamela
NEWS RELEASE: THE DRONES HAVE REVOLTED! THE CLONES ARE ON THE RUN! WE THE PEOPLE HAVE REPLACED CNN NEWS. FOUNDING FATHERS ARE PROUD!
116 - andy
Well...I got through it....
Dave....Paul wants lower taxes. Huckabee wants different taxes, but same amount. Thompson wants different taxes, but same amount.
Translation: Paul wants small government. The others want to preserve current size of government. Why do you call the others 'moderate conservative' just because they want to tax you on sale instead on income is somehow beyond me.
He is willing to let the federal government sit back and do nothing while the right of the people not to be religiously indoctrinated is violated.
Wait a moment... he does not want the federal government to have some power. Why? It can abuse it. Like with war on drugs. It WILL abuse it.
"Everybody wants the government to 'do something!' until it does it to them."
Think about it. You can easily escape to other state. Emigrating from the USA is much harder.
117 - andy
I haven't labeled all the supporters as extremists or saboteurs, but the fact that there are so many and they're so prominent remains a problem for the campaign.
How many?
118 - Jacob
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." --A. Lincoln
To Dave Nalle and his coterie...
Give it up.
119 - Ron Paul Rainbow
Why is it that people that proclaim themselves to be "critical thinkers" always seem to spout cant?
120 - Erika
We are wasting the potential lives of our military people, who joined the service in good faith to gain leverage on an underdeveloped country in order to steal their resources and their neighbors ' resources.
That you're naive enough to buy into this reasoning explains a great deal.
Ok, naive I may be and it may not be the ONLY reason we're there, but it's dang sure the biggest one. What, you're going to tell me we're there looking for Big Scary smiling Osama? What were we doing in Afghanistan at the beginning of this mess? Oh yeah, we had to detour to secure an oil pipeline that had been in construction since 1998 for Halliburton. "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States," (Cheney 10/01). Isn't that interesting? A month after 9/11? Then the US Army Corp of Engineers gave Halliburton a multi-billion dollar NO BID, vaguely stated contract "to perform all services that might be necessary to carry out the contingency plans it had developed" in 2003. Our boys had Turkey dinner on Halliburton that year with GW, go figure. How did the news miss that? Oh right, we're not supposed to know that because it could be a considered a conflict of interest. We're a big Halliburton community here, employees were pissed because Mr. Cheney got a multimillion dollar bonus in 2000 and they couldn't get a 50 cent cost of living raise.
We've become a country that engages in trade through force. Not unlike the playground bully who takes a kid's lunch in exchange for not getting a pounding after school, evidently our leaders at some point just decided we're entitled to whatever we want when we want it. Now we just go wherever we like and tear up people's lives and countries without a Declaration of war. We are over there stuck in the middle of a civil war that's been going on since the beginning of time and our military is there for what? To build new infrastructure? Keep the peace? Win? No, our military is being used to wear out all the players, so Halliburton can build a base or 7 in "the best strategic location in the middle east". Strategic for what exactly? Why would we need a strategy to deal with the Middle East unless we're up to no good? If this is in their best interests, don't you suppose some of them might have just offered to sell us a few parcels of sand? We could have saved a trillion dollars. You think we've been harassing them since Desert Storm because we want to help them? They saw what happened to Vietnam, maybe they don't want us to pick their leaders. And incidentally, there is no oil shortage. Halliburton said in 2001 that there was enough oil right here in the US under Colorado and Wyoming to sustain the US including projected growth for another 100 years. Plenty of time to work out an alternative energy source I'm sure. It's just locked in the shale and expensive to get out. GM has been buying up little electric car companies left and right to keep them off the market so we'll keep buying oil. This is entirely about money and who gets the most of it.
I'm not knocking our military in the least, I know they're over there doing a job and they're likely doing it to the best of their ability, but this is a fool's errand. 40+% of military personnel that are donating to a campaign are donating to Ron Paul. Are they crazy too? Or are they just closer to the truth than the rest of us, making him the obvious choice?
121 - Jacob
Why is Ron Paul so popular? Most Americans want to hear the truth. Ron Paul speaks the truth. The truth has been missing in Washington for too long.
122 - Erika
Justin-
Yes, Ron Paul has indicated in at least one major interview that he does not intend to switch parties or run as Vice President.
Not sure which video I saw it on, but it was youtube.
123 - Dave Nalle
It was this week's debate, but I don't remember him ruling out running as VP. That would be a real shame. What he needs is the prominent pulpit of the VP position to promote his ideas.
Dave
124 - Erika
There are many republicans, including myself that are disgruntled that the 'religous right' has taken over the party,
"Me too. My problem is that Ron Paul IS the religious right. He wants prayer in school and the ten commandments in the courthouses and schools, plus he's a raving right to lifer who wants to throw doctors in jail."
Dave
Where did you find this little tidbit? You can pray anywhere you want if you're so inclined, that is not an issue. The 10 Commandments were a small sampling taken directly from The Book of the Dead texts thousands of years ago and they've been (until recently) in all of our courtrooms anyways. I suppose he wants to put "In God we Trust" back on our currency too? Now he's crossing the line.... Anyone with any sense of their own spirituality can get around these things. I don't think that's up to him as President to decide, but I definitely think they should have had a vote before they threw all those things out, that was very offensive to Christians. Huh, I'm just not seeing him pulling the "I'M the decider" card, but maybe the power will go to his head and he'll have baptisms in schools too. Right. That's just silly.
He wants to put doctors in jail? I hadn't heard that one. I was under the impression that he wanted that issue to be dealt with by the states.
125 - Jacob
Dave Nall3 #123 "What he needs is the prominent pulpit of the VP position to promote his ideas."
What a crock.