[macintologist]

If you don't know who Ron Paul is, here are three starter links

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul at the GOP Presidential Debate
YouTube - Educating Rudy
Not Your Average Republican Presidential Candidate

Ok so Ron Paul has a very dedicated following on the internet. Check out the below link.

No Straw Men: Ron Paul Digg's Surge

According to a press release released today by Ron Paul's campaign, since the GOP presidential debate five days ago, the congressman has

1. Placed a close third (18%) in a debate poll on Drudge.
2. Won an ABCNews.com debate poll with 84% (after initially being excluded).
3. Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%.
4. Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to Technorati.
5. Produced a YouTube video that was ranked the 8th most-popular overall video and the most-viewed political video.
6. Been featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.
7. Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Paul.
8. Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!.
9. Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com.

Just check out DIgg right now, you're bound to see some Ron Paul related stories. He has the most loyal fanbase of any of the candidates. The GOP chairman in Michigan is trying to get Ron Paul banned from future debates, but hundreds and hundreds of Ron Paul supporters called the office and emailed, so much that they had to turn their phones off?

I've never been so excited about a presidential candidate in my life. Ron Paul actually loves freedom and isn't a corrupt demogogue.

Check him out!

[Big Mac]

I am a libertarian Republican, but I cannot support Ron Paul because his thinking is far too simplistic. While I commend him for bucking the trend in Washington, he isn't a very good spokesman for small government. A proponent of small government has to understand that the country is so far away from where should be that it isn't ready for a dramatic shift back to its constitutional foundation. Reform has to be promoted as a more gradual process - with short, medium and long term goals. He also blames American foreign policy for 9/11, which is idiotic and sure to turn off many who otherwise would have supported him.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He also blames American foreign policy for 9/11, which is idiotic and sure to turn off many who otherwise would have supported him.

He blames US foreign policy, IN PART. It is NOT idiotic, it is PATRIOTIC. We've meddled in that region too much. Reagan was right when he said in his memoirs that we can't even start to understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

YouTube - Educating Rudy

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

He blames US foreign policy, IN PART. It is NOT idiotic, it is PATRIOTIC. We've meddled in that region too much. Reagan was right when he said in his memoirs that we can't even start to understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Middle Eastern politics isn't hard to understand. And 9/11 was not America's fault. OBL may have blamed America for having bases in Saudi Arabia, but that was just an excuse. Islamists responsible for attacks on America believe Islam should be the dominant force in the world.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Middle Eastern politics isn't hard to understand. And 9/11 was not America's fault. OBL may have blamed America for having bases in Saudi Arabia, but that was just an excuse. Islamists responsible for attacks on America believe Islam should be the dominant force in the world.

Completely irrelevant and straight from the neo-con talking points registry. If we had never meddled in the Middle East, the 9/11 planners would never have considered bombing the US. They would have put all their efforts into bombing Israel probably, due to their occupation of Palestinians. The US should NOT be allying itself with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Taiwan, or any other of these widley-hated governments. It risks our national security to be perceived as Israel's war funder. The US should be talking, trading, negotiating with other countries, not engaging in entangling alliances.

Think of the tragedy of Vietnam. We killed millions of their people, 60,000 of our own. And for what? Communism never spread and now we're trading with them.

[RAILhead]

He birthed me way back in 1973.

[vmarks]

Ron Paul lost much of his appeal when Giuliani trounced him in the debate.

Paul also fails to recognize that the enemy of today is very similar to the enemy in the Barbary wars, and that the founders did have to deal with that by non-interventionist means.

That Paul's supporters are able to spam internet polls is not really indicative of much.

That Paul's own campaign manager from years past has vowed to work against him? That's meaningful.

Former Ron Paul Campaign Coordinator Declares Against Him - Latest Politics Blog

"It's unanimous. Ron Paul got slammed by Rudy Giuliani last night for suggesting that we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11. He even had the audacity to cite Osama bin Laden.

While everyone is hailing this as a "Great moment" for Rudy Giuliani, I think just as importantly, it was a horrible moment for Ron Paul. My former boss looked like a complete nutcase. He looked frail. His hands shaked. He showed his age. He was completely unprepared for Giuliani's romping response.

Is this the man that should be representing South Texas Congressional District 14 in the US Congress?"

I think it is telling that a person who served on the Libertarian Party National Committee (LPNC) believes that Ron Paul is endorsing treachorous and near-treasonous policies.

But Ron Paul has other problems to deal with:
LiveLeak.com - ron paul believes the kennedy assasination was done by the american govt - Ron Paul believes the Kennedy Assasination was an inside job. He also believes there's been a government cover-up of 9/11. So take that in conjunction with his remarks at the debate, and he's entered the territory usually claimed by conspiracy nuts.

That's a minor problem in comparison to his other problem:
Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent

"Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.""

and

"Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said."

"In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government's U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

----

So Mr. Paul believes in writing special law just for one segment of the population, based on gender and color of skin.

Mr. Paul also believes that lobbies which ask for favours or handouts are evil, and "the Israel lobby" is the most evil of all. I'm certain he's winning all kinds of friends with that one. Including these people: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...ne-388512.html

I'm not sure Mr. Paul understands that all lobbies ask for favours or handouts for their group - that's how they get something accomplished. Legislators don't necessarily have to comply, but then they haven't been successfully lobbied. Think this is evil? Reform lobbying. But do so in a way where lobbies can still ask for legislative change (free speech!) without it being marked down as asking for favours. (tricky, isn't it?)


Macintologist, if that weren't enough to show you that Mr. Paul has no chance, let me explain this to you: Mr. Paul is running for the Republican nomination. At the Republican convention, delegates from the 50 states will determine the nominee.

I can pretty safely predict that based on all the things I've mentioned so far, Mr. Paul will not get the nomination..

He's not winning support with his statements past and present from many people other than the Stormfront/Aryan Nation crowd.

He's not advancing freedom or liberty. He's rendering himself unelectable.

Even a former LPNC committee member, his former campaign manager, has come out against him.

[red rocket]

[test]
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
[/test]

Originally Posted by insomnyuk, over on kuro5hin

Ron Paul makes a statement, in line with Tony Blair's White Paper on 9/11, in line with the analysis of the CIA and other intelligence analysts, and in line with common sense - basically, that there are consequences for U.S. foreign policy, termed 'blowback' by some. Bin Laden himself said the reason he was attacking us was because of the U.S. military presence in Muslim lands, not because he hated our freedom. Sure, he hates our freedom, but that's not enough to wage war over. To quote David Cross, if we were simply attacked for our freedom, "Amsterdam would be ****ing dust." Rep. Paul did not say innocent American deserved to be attacked, or that they invited the attack. Goler put words in his mouth, Paul attempted to clarify, and then Giuliani played the outrage card by being offended by a statement that Paul didn't actually make. I mean, it happened right there, on live tv, and the good people of South Carolina responded to Giuliani's, I'll say it, doublethink, with raucous applause.

After the debate during the interview with Paul, a practically apopleptic Sean Hannity again tried to put words in Paul's mouth, constantly interrupted him, and barely allowed him to get a word in edgewise. Paul still managed to make Hannity look like an idiot (not a difficult task, admittedly), and really nailed him right at the end of the interview.

Americans have to be pretty stupid if they think Guiliani has the better argument when he denies that US foreign policy has anything to do with 9/11. All this ‘they attack us because they hate our freedom’ bullcrap is pathetic beyond belief. Idiots.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Completely irrelevant and straight from the neo-con talking points registry.

But you don't dispute that it's true, I notice.

If we had never meddled in the Middle East, the 9/11 planners would never have considered bombing the US.

How far back is this "never" you speak of?

Is it 1784?

The Thomas Jefferson Papers - America and the Barbary Pirates - (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

They would have put all their efforts into bombing Israel probably, due to their occupation of Palestinians. The US should NOT be allying itself with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Taiwan, or any other of these widley-hated governments.

It was because of our ally in France that we were able to survive early on as an independant nation. Allegiances, as much as you disdain them, are not wholly wrong - they've served the US well in the revolutionary war, and after.

Taiwan wants independence. Why wouldn't a libertarian support that? Israel is not occupying some 'Palestine', unless you also conjecture that Jordan is also doing so - and the US is not to blame for this, Britain is, in the 20th century. But I've never relied on terrorists knowing their history, after all, they spend so much effort to manufacture alternate versions and then use Farfur the Hamas Mouse ( Hamas kids TV show with militant mouse to air Friday - CNN.com ) to preach it.

It risks our national security to be perceived as Israel's war funder. The US should be talking, trading, negotiating with other countries, not engaging in entangling alliances.

At least here you're good enough to use the word 'perceived' - but because of the virulent anti-Jew-sentiment-masquerading-as-anti-Zionists-control-the-world, you have to know that for many you're not going to be able to dispel the perception as Israel's war funder. No matter what you do. And the people you have to convince are the people in posession of that virulent position.

Further - trading and negotiating with other countries are entangling alliances.

Think of the tragedy of Vietnam. We killed millions of their people, 60,000 of our own. And for what? Communism never spread and now we're trading with them.

Think of the tragedy of Germany or Japan - we killed so many of their people, and the deaths of our own soldiers, and for what? Nazism and the Emperorship of Japan never spread, and now we trade with them.

You miss the point: The US is benevolent: She defeats her enemies and then builds them back up and trades with them, because free trade raises the quality of life for all. As a libertarian, you ought to support that. Walter Williams (Walter Williams, libertarian economist, whose column is published at (gasp, conspiracy!) jewishworldreview.com among other places.)

[BRussell]

Well, aside from any other views he has, the fact that the internet is behind him is hardly a selling point for me. Is this the same internet constituency whose primary show of support is repeatedly voting on meaningless internet polls, and whose primary issues are music copy protection and video games? I.e., teenage boys who can't vote even if they did ever leave their parents' house?

[macintologist]

This forum is obviously way too skeptical, so I'm going to focus my Ron Paul energies elsewhere

[Kevin]

thanks for that vmarks-smackdown

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Completely irrelevant and straight from the neo-con talking points registry. If we had never meddled in the Middle East, the 9/11 planners would never have considered bombing the US. They would have put all their efforts into bombing Israel probably, due to their occupation of Palestinians. The US should NOT be allying itself with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Taiwan, or any other of these widley-hated governments. It risks our national security to be perceived as Israel's war funder. The US should be talking, trading, negotiating with other countries, not engaging in entangling alliances.

I'm not parroting the neocons. I agree - Israel should stand on its own two feet, but American aid created dependencies. If America were to abruptly cut off its support as Ron Paul wants to do, it would constitute a substantial hardship for Israel. While I'd love to see America gradually ween receiving countries from aid (don't forgot all the aid Egypt receives, for one example), it has to be a gradual process or else those countries could fall. However, it should be noted that, at least in OBL's case, his main grievance was our bases in Saudi Arabia. He didn't attach himself to the "Palestinian" issue until later, long after he had declared war on the United States. If you want to say America shouldn't have bases in foreign countries, that's a slightly different argument you'd be making.

Think of the tragedy of Vietnam. We killed millions of their people, 60,000 of our own. And for what? Communism never spread and now we're trading with them.

I don't think it makes sense to second guess history like that. Containment was our foreign policy, France was our ally and we were treaty bound (rightly or wrongly) to defend its colonial rights. While I'll agree with you that Vietnam wasn't a well run war, who knows what the historical consequences could have been if we didn't take a stand there at that point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Completely irrelevant and straight from the neo-con talking points registry. If we had never meddled in the Middle East, the 9/11 planners would never have considered bombing the US. They would have put all their efforts into bombing Israel probably, due to their occupation of Palestinians. The US should NOT be allying itself with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Taiwan, or any other of these widley-hated governments. It risks our national security to be perceived as Israel's war funder. The US should be talking, trading, negotiating with other countries, not engaging in entangling alliances.

Why would the US not want to support a country the size of New Jersey flanked by hostility, interested in some fashion of democracy? I find the practice of talking, trading, and negotiating with other democracies most favorable for a host of reasons. Trading and negotiating with Israel alone would've been enough justification for action against us. This notion that imperialism and/or abject foreign policy is exclusive to Western interests is naive in my opinion.

Think of the tragedy of Vietnam. We killed millions of their people, 60,000 of our own. And for what? Communism never spread and now we're trading with them.

You talk about the tragedy of Vietnam while acknowledging our new trade relationship with a non-communist entity. No one said our foreign policy was without flaw, but I'm hard-pressed in finding a much better track record from anyone else. This world will come to a head of ideals regardless and I personally have a preference. This mentality was the same mentality that had the US dragging its feet into Nazi Germany. Burying our head in the sand and pretending we can't hear the calls of those opposed to our governance is not sound foreign policy. In fact, it's no foreign policy at all. Granted I'm a little biased, but there's nothing unpatriotic about the desire for survival and growth. Again, these concepts are not exclusive to the US, UK, and Israel.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one said our foreign policy was without flaw, but I'm hard-pressed in finding a much better track record from anyone else.

Canada

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Canada

... is US foreign policy.

[goMac]

Ron Paul will never make it past the primaries. He alienates the Republicans and he's got a few oddball theories (non-war related). I think our next President is going to have to be a middle of the road guy (or gal). Paul is just too extreme.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ron Paul will never make it past the primaries. He alienates the Republicans and he's got a few oddball theories (non-war related). I think our next President is going to have to be a middle of the road guy (or gal). Paul is just too extreme.

Freedom is a very powerful message. The American people are really thirsty for it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Freedom is a very powerful message. The American people are really thirsty for it.

It's these kinds of empty feel good statements and broad generalizations you'd expect to hear out of the mouth of the Bush administration.

Just two sides of the same coin...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The American people are really thirsty for it.

What in the world would give you that idea?

Americans want to be coddled. We throw our money and freedoms to the government in exchange for the perception of security against imagined and exaggerated threats and so in their infinite wisdom they can redistribute wealth to the able-bodied poor and criminal immigrants.

They tax anything and everything they can, deliberately hiding the myriad of little taxes among many different areas on order to conceal the vast amount of taxes we actually pay. NEARLY ALL of which get passed down to the middle and lower classes through the cost products and services we buy.

They impose useless, ludicrous airport security measures carried out by underpaid mongoloids.

They tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies. They tell us where to smoke, whether or not we are allowed to engage in recreational drug use and they make seat belts and helmets mandatory. All in lieu of actually advocating personal responsibility.

They stonewall or delay the "approval" of useful medicines yet useless or even harmful "dietary supplements" are above the approval process because of a silly "loophole". (oh but old men can get hard-ons though! )

They require our children to go to school but the public education system is pathetic yet we keep throwing more and more money down the bottomless pit called the Dept. of Ed. Kinda like paying for mandatory ignorance.

Our "leaders" suck billions of tax dollars out of the budget for waste, pork, personal use of government resources and outright corruption to the tune of about 30%.

We collectively unhinge our jaws and swallow it all whole.

The American people would never stand for someone who advocates the things Ron Paul does. We are terrified little children who love our nanny state.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by goMac 

It's these kinds of empty feel good statements and broad generalizations you'd expect to hear out of the mouth of the Bush administration.

Just two sides of the same coin...

YouTube - Educating Rudy

[macintologist]

Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few not for the many.

-James Madison

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ron Paul lost much of his appeal when Giuliani trounced him in the debate.

Paul also fails to recognize that the enemy of today is very similar to the enemy in the Barbary wars, and that the founders did have to deal with that by non-interventionist means.

That Paul's supporters are able to spam internet polls is not really indicative of much.

----senseless ravings snipped----

Yeah, you make no sense AT ALL. I think it's funny that anyone would lend quarter
to any of your arguments at all. So you can ignore my other post in that other thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...9/#post3598169
I should have read this first. I thought I was going to have a rational conversation
against points that at least made sense.

sorry, I don't mean to be or sound offensive. That's really what I see here.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

If you don't know who Ron Paul is, here are three starter links

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul at the GOP Presidential Debate
YouTube - Educating Rudy
Not Your Average Republican Presidential Candidate

Ok so Ron Paul has a very dedicated following on the internet. Check out the below link.

No Straw Men: Ron Paul Digg's Surge



Just check out DIgg right now, you're bound to see some Ron Paul related stories. He has the most loyal fanbase of any of the candidates. The GOP chairman in Michigan is trying to get Ron Paul banned from future debates, but hundreds and hundreds of Ron Paul supporters called the office and emailed, so much that they had to turn their phones off?

I've never been so excited about a presidential candidate in my life. Ron Paul actually loves freedom and isn't a corrupt demogogue.

Check him out!

Yup! When people say he's the last hope for America there's really a reason for it.
It's being said by people that have used the internet to educate themselves about
all kinds of things including American politics! So many if not most know where
we'll be if Dr. Paul doesn't get elected. This to me explains the reason behind the
enthusiasm. It's like do or die - crunch time. Last chance! It's never been like
that in American politics in the last 40 years or so at least.

So this is the one that really counts. It's either our march into mindless government
control and globalism with a police state ramped up past Hitler's days, the wide-spread
use secret prisons and FEMA camps, torture, RFID moneyless economics, and etc.
without any recourse to the law - OR - it's Ron Paul and a vigorous support of his
initiatives once he's elected for us. We have to choose. I wonder how many people
don't actually understand the choice we face? I hope we get this one right. It's gonna
cost too much if we don't.

Nice Links by the way!

[vmarks]

Don't bump threads from over six months ago. Start new ones.