Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hillary Defeats Ron Paul
Rasmussen Reports polled Ron Paul's strength against the Democratic frontrunners and the news is not good: Paul would lose to Hillary Clinton by 19 points and Barack Obama by 20 points. Only 20 percent of voters have a positive opinion of Paul, and 38 percent have a negative opinion.
What's that mean? It's actually something that Rasmussen even bothered to include Paul in a polling round. That might be a bow to the changing dynamics of the race—with his bankroll and continued organizing strength, Paul is going to be fighting primaries long after the rest of the second tier jumps out.
And as far as the general election goes, it's really something that neither Democrat can rise about 50 percent when matched with a candidate elements of the GOP finds unacceptable. (Paul's favorable numbers are identical to Sam Brownback's, and nobody's accused him of harboring 9/11 conspiracy theories.) Rasmussen has tested most of the field against the Democrats and the opposition party falls as low as 39 percent (Obama vs. Rudy) and as rises as high as 52 percent (Edwards vs. Romney).
Well...|7.24.07 @ 5:11PM|#
If Ron Paul had the same name recognition that Hillary does it would be bad news. But he's polling at 3% nationally. I could see this as relatively good news. Unless there's something about the Rasmussen poll I don't understand.
D. Greene|7.24.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Right, so basically 1/3rd of would automatically vote against
Hillary, and provided Paul's name recognition, this might not be as
'bad' as it looks.
**Looks around for Edward to chime in about tilting at
windmills**
|7.24.07 @ 5:20PM|#
What does any of this mean? The primaries are months from now, and these polls are wrong, wrong, and wrong most election cycles. I mean, were McCain and Howard Dean our last two presidents?
thehim|7.24.07 @ 5:22PM|#
If Paul ran against Hillary, it would likely be very similar to the bloodbath in 1964. An irony considering that Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.
|7.24.07 @ 5:22PM|#
I looked around the site for other poll data, and I have some utterly shocking news: Biden would be thrashed by just about anyone.
|7.24.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Rduy is sinking just like McCain. Just look the graph in the Florida poll. He's free falling, and Florida is supposed to be the state that puts him back in the lead after he loses Iowa and NH. It's going to end up being Thompson vs Romney, but hopefully McCain and Rudy will pluck off enough support that nobody can get too big a piece of the pie. The longer it is a 3 or 4 man race, the better it is for Paul, who pretty much as the disgusted GOP vote to himself.
|7.24.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Looks like some of the story is missing?
"Only 20 percent of voters have a positive opinion of Paul, and 38
percent..."
In the story, it says 43% are Not Sure. I have to believe most of
those are Not Sure because they have not heard of him? I'm not
saying they will or will not like him, just that there's a big
subset that can't really make an educated decision.
Still, it looks like we have a lot of work to do...maybe Freedom
isn't that popular after all? or is it the Responsibility inherent
in Freedom that is not popular? Maybe the constant smears about him
being a 'kook' are unfortunately having their effect. :^(
Peace be with you.
|7.24.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Well if the media would give him half the attention that Hillary
has had he would win
hands down.
Most people in this country would just love to have 1 president
they could trust even if they didn't agree with every position that
person takes. No one who has dared to look at Hillarys background
would dare trust the women with the future of this country or their
children.
|7.24.07 @ 5:36PM|#
I doubt if Ron Paul cares if he wins or loses this one as long as the terms of the argument are forever changed.....Let Hillary inherit the bag of flaming crap from the Bush administration and hopefully be in a position to either run (I know he'll be older.... so shut up) in 2012 or endorse someone with similar views after Hillary completes the work started by Bush/Cheney in 2000.
John|7.24.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Ron Paul is a nobody vs. the top tier. That accounts for so much
of numbers.
I took the libertarian lists survey and did not recognize many of
the names in the field. For your average voter, Paul is the same
thing....Ron who??
People like a winner and a familiar face and don't like to stand
alone. If Paul became more famous.
If you're on an interstate far from home and food exit comes up,
where will you go? McDonalds or Ted's Diner?
That fact that you very well may go to the a similar diner at home
rather than McDonalds is very telling.
|7.24.07 @ 6:11PM|#
Ron Paul is in it to win. He's said so himself numerous
times, and he will win.
Heres to hoping!
|7.24.07 @ 6:16PM|#
"...maybe Freedom isn't that popular after all?"
I think cfountain72 has it in a nutshell. This is why Ron Paul
can't win it all -- there just aren't enough people who want the
radical changes he is proposing. Too many people are happy with all
these programs. I took out student loans and received a Pell grant.
Much of the business my company receives is government related (we
make scientific instruments that many of the National Labs, NIH and
NIST use). These are small carrots I know, but at least it's
something from the Fed. Most people I know can cite similar
interaction with the Fed, and it's not all bad. Do I do a slow burn
as I try to board an aircraft, or in similar instances where my
personal liberties have been violated? Of course. Is it enough for
the sheep? It remains to be seen. There's a reason that he is a
15:1 longshot. The bookmakers have a taken a good long look at the
voting public and they are fat and lazy. Not much chance for a
revolution with the likes of these.
|7.24.07 @ 6:19PM|#
****************
RON PAUL in 2008
****************
What are you talking about David, last month I'm sure Paul would
loose to Hillary by 50 points, next month he'll be loosing by only
5 AND it will be a CNN poll
|7.24.07 @ 6:21PM|#
The 38% negative numbers For Dr Paul are to be expected.
only the wonks are paying attention now. The wonks that make up
what's left of the GOP is scared shitless that Dr Paul is going to
snatch the party out from under them and their current death
worshiping voter base. On the DFL side, their wonks aren't inclined
to think of a GOPer as someone they'd vote for.
If Ron Paul is to make a mark this election cycle, it's not going
to be built on wooing the votes of the political faithful who pay
attention to how the race's shaping up months and months before the
primary season kick off. It'll be built on new voters, first in the
primaries and then, Providence willing, the general election.
A good sign for the future will be a sharp increase in folks
registering as Republicans around the country in the run-up to the
primaries. I imagine the Paul campaign will mount a concerted
effort along these lines as summer draws to a close.
jlbraun|7.24.07 @ 6:28PM|#
This Democrat just gave $100 to Ron Paul, his first political
donation ever - and switched parties just to vote for him in the
primaries.
Go, Dr. No!
thoreau|7.24.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Losing by 20 points means pulling 40%. The LP would kill for those numbers.
|7.24.07 @ 6:38PM|#
"If you're on an interstate far from home and food exit comes
up, where will you go? McDonalds or Ted's Diner?"
I think that this is actually an apt metaphor. I would go to Ted's
Diner, since every McDonald's is the same, and I already know
McDonald's sucks, just like the majority of the Democratic and
Republican fields.
zartan|7.24.07 @ 6:41PM|#
I can't believe you report these primary poll results as though they're meaningful. I am a political junkie and could not name much less provide an opinion on all the candidates currently in the race. These polls are worse than b.s.; they are the primary means by which the mainstream viewpoint is reinforced and outsiders like Paul are swept aside (no one's ever heard of paul, therefore no one supports him during polls carried out months before a primary, therefore no one hears about paul, therefore no one's ever heard of paul, repeat)
|7.24.07 @ 7:05PM|#
And as far as the general election goes, it's really
something that neither Democrat can rise about 50 percent when
matched with a candidate elements of the GOP finds
unacceptable.
Not really, when you consider that 1) a fifth of those polled
didn't answer and 2) some segment of the Democrats consider Paul to
be an attractive candidate.
Who do you think Cindy Sheehan would vote for - the guy who voted
against the AUMF, or Hillary Clinton?
Doug|7.24.07 @ 7:08PM|#
I'd say this poll is the best news I've seen all week, if 20% of
the public already has a favorable opinion of Ron Paul.
The 38% negative doesn't worry me at all -- most of them probably
have seen only a Fox News caricature of Ron Paul, not the real
thing. Besides, Hillary's negatives are higher than that, and she
(unlike Ron Paul) won't be able to reverse them easily with more
coverage.
A Paul-Clinton matchup would be a landslide, that's for sure, and
not for the Democratic candidate. When American voters see an
honest man with a three-decade record of consistently voting for
lower taxes and indivdual liberty, and against idiotic wars, and
compare that to one of the most reviled politicians in recent
times....
Basically, the Rasmussen poll predicts nothing at this point, since
Clinton is already a household name, and Paul is just beginning to
make an impression. Ask the same question after a protracted
general election campaign with daily media coverage, and what would
the results be?
Can Ron Paul get to the general election, as a Republican
candidate? Why not? Voter turnout in the primaries is so low,
enthusiasm of the sort he is generating now could give his primary
vote a large multiplier over his poll numbers. People who are
registering for the first time, and changing parties to vote for
him, and working their tails off for six months sure aren't going
to stay home on primary day.
Edward|7.24.07 @ 7:13PM|#
9/11 Truthers are the least of Ron Paul's unsavory support. Paul won't distance himself from the Birchers. I wonder if he would openly reject the enthusiastic support David Duke has given him. Somebody should ask him. Paul can't win, but he sure attracts a lot of sewage. Why is that?
|7.24.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Heck no... If Ron Paul were head to head with either Obama or
Clinton in the race for the presidency.. RON PAUL WOULD WIN HANDS
DOWN!>>>> The media wouldnt be able to hide his
impeccable voting record and congressional consistency... He would
probably steal democrats away from either because of his anti war
stance and foresight of the Iraq war Mess..
Hands Down Ron Paul would steal the show...
|7.24.07 @ 7:28PM|#
I don't understand why everyone assumes people will like Paul more when 'they get to know him.' I think he gets some support from Dems for his non-interventionist position. But are they going to vote for him when they find out he would do away with Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, and withdraw from the UN given half a chance? Come to think of it, I don't think many Republicans would support those positions either. Basically all he can do is inject some libertarian ideas into the political conversation.
John Rhoads|7.24.07 @ 7:28PM|#
I know Edward isn't a real person, but it would serve everyone
interested in Paul's campaign to remember or learn the
association_fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Basically, the people who support Paul do not fundamentally imply
anything positive or negative about his ideas.
Bloggrrl|7.24.07 @ 7:35PM|#
I'm another person who is now registering Republican for the first time. Go Ron Paul!!
|7.24.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Ron Paul and Pizza
Whenever the government creates a new organization like the
Department of Homeland Security or raises taxes, it interferes with
your liberty. We wouldn't make our neighbors pay for our haircut or
our next meal. So why does the government do it? The answer is that
the government does it because we accept the tyranny of the
majority at the expense of the minority.
Think about it this way: You are with your friends and you want to
order a pizza. Well, eight of your friends do. Your last two
friends have been eating pizza for the last week and will
absolutely not pay for your pizza. In most situations you wouldn't
force them to pay for your pizza; if you did you might not have
very many friends, soon. So your two friends abstain and instead
choose to go separately to a Chinese restaurant. The rest of your
eight friends are divided between Papa John's and Domino's, most
don't really care, because they just want pizza. So you flip a coin
and Domino's it is. Six of you want pepperoni and three of you want
anchovies. You could force the three to eat your pepperoni pizza,
but that's not a fair solution. Instead, you order two large
pepperoni pizzas and one large anchovy pizza. Furthermore, three of
you want onions and mushrooms and the other three don't care. So
you end up with one large pepperoni, one large anchovy pizza, and
one large pepperoni pizza with mushrooms and onions. And Chinese
take out.
Seems like a very good solution. But what if we created a
fictitious U.S. Department of Eating Out? What would the order look
like? Well, they'd ask you for each individual's social security
number, look through their records, and determine that they will
send you two medium anchovy pizzas for everyone in your
eleven-person party. You argue with them on the phone and you tell
them that most of you don't like anchovies, but it turns out that
three of your friends didn't register with the the department of
Eating Out. That's why you are only getting two medium pizzas. And
that's why they made with anchovies. But don't worry… Your pizzas
will arrive in 40-70 minutes and they are free. That is until you
look at how much the government is paying for your two pizzas: each
pizza is costs 15 dollars, but the total isn't 30 dollars. The
total is 570 dollars because the government pays minimum wage and
it was just raised to 13.00. The person who made your pizza dropped
a bucket of tomato sauce on the floor and his friend slipped and
had to be sent to the emergency room.
But who cares right? If it wasn't for the goverment, we wouldn't
have pizzas. Everyone would have to buy their own pizza, and who
would deliver it? Does anybody outside the government even know how
to make a pizza? No thanks. We'll eat our cold and tiny anchovy
pizzas and pay 570 dollars for them. We are scared of the
consequences of abolishing the Department of Eating Out.
As you can see, the only happy people in your party are the three
anchovy aficionados. Eight of you are completely unsatisfied. This
is an example where the tyranny of the "majority" affects the
"minority". Except it wasn't the majority because the government
had incomplete records and no incentive to please you.
Now apply this scenario to Health Care or the Department of
Education, or Homeland Security. These organizations are
inefficient and have no incentive to please you. On the other hand,
Papa John's and Domino's Pizza make money by pleasing you. Their
greed is an incentive to make your pizza better, faster and keep
you coming back for more. When you were ordering the pizzas from
Domino's your friends figured out exactly how to order without
government interference. Your friends who didn't want to eat pizza
got their Chinese food and were happy. Everyone else got a share of
the pizza they wanted and were happy as well. And it was done
through unanimous consent, not majority rule. This is the way
libertarians envision an ideal society.
But if the government doesn't make our pizza who
will?
If Papa John's and Domino's didn't exist, someone would learn to
make it and make a living off it. The first company to sell pizzas
might sell at relatively high prices. But if this is the case,
someone else will take advantage of those high prices to sell pizza
at lower ones. As long as the government stays out of the pizza
industry, pizza will get better and cheaper. So there is no need
for the government to make our pizzas. As long as there is demand
for pizza, the free-market will provide it.
But what about the poor people? They can't all afford
pizza.
No. Pizza isn't free. Someone has to make it. To give pizza away
for free would be to devalue the work of Someone. When we start
giving free pizza away or raise minimum wage, we trigger a domino
effect that reduces the value of our currency and the value of our
work. Then other people can't afford pizza either. But it's free
right? So they don't need to be able to afford pizza… Well, wrong.
Because nothing is free. In order to make pizzas, the government
has to raise taxes.
But the rich can have all the pizza they want. It's wrong
for them not to share. What have they done for us
anyway?
Well, the rich create jobs. When you raise their taxes and raise
minimum wage they can't afford to hire as many people. That means
next time they need to reduce spending, the might have to fire you,
because maybe you are not worth the new minimum wage.
But in an ideal world everyone would have pizza.
Not everybody likes pizza. If your neighbor doesn't like pizza why
should they pay for it? Think back to the example at your party.
Everyone got what they wanted and nobody paid for anything they
didn't want, through unanimous consent.
Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start
being a good American.
Do your OWN homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in
chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
|7.24.07 @ 7:48PM|#
The big news is to me is that Paul would get 11% of liberals or something like 15% of Democrats (in full Rasmussen article). Pretty good for the most ceonservative member of congress with only a few weeks of national recognition. Just wait till people actually hear or read his words. I am a liberal Paul supporter and I can tell you Paul will beat Hillary, it will be a struggle the issues will show the difference. Hillary wants selective service to expand to women, Paul wants no selective service or war at all for that matter. Americans are not dumb they just aren't paying attention over a year before elections. Peace.
|7.24.07 @ 7:53PM|#
Talk about a sensationalist headline. It's an opinion
poll!
Poll answers don't translate into action. I may say in a survey
I'll vote for Hillary because I have the hots for her and yet not
even go to vote on election day out of sheer laziness, yet my
"declared intention" to vote for hillary will cause other would be
Ron paul voters to not vote as it is "pointless to throw away your
votes" and otherwise embolden would be independents to vote for
hillary since "she must have momentum, look at how well she's
polling"
I know there are methods in statistics to address these issue and
discrepencies and guage true intent. Yet I have to say, as a person
who has filled out a few of these political polls I have to say,
that's hardly the case.
Unfortunately since one can never know for a fact whether a poll
was done accurately and scientifically; or done in a partisan or
simply poorly done, I tend to give polling as much heed as Bill
O'rally's opinion. At least Bill O'rally has his opinions formed by
News Corp execs who in turn try to pour money into their
realization. And a multi-national media conglamorate is by far a
louder voice than a few million non-conforming citizens. Such is
the state of affairs. Where the hell is John Galt?
Eric Dondero|7.24.07 @ 8:05PM|#
This just goes to prove Ron Paul isn't a real libertarian. In reality, hes a radical anarchist who wants to put his head in the sand and surrender to America's sworn enemies. He can never defeat Hillary. Only "America's Mayor" can defeat her. Or perhaps the also libertarian-leaning Fred Thompson.
iih|7.24.07 @ 8:07PM|#
First amendment gives press its freedoms. Press is owned by gig
corporation and press has direct interest in the outcomes of
news-worthy events (including presidential elections). Ron Paul
gets his due recognition, while Hillary gets all the CNN attention
and Mitt all the Fox attention!
Isn't this one of the dilemmas of Libertarianism. Can someone
explain this to me?
Some of you may know I am new around here and still new to
Libertarian ideals, but this is one of a few issues (misinformation
and political meddling by the press, which results in having the
most-funded, most well-connected candidates getting the nomination
and not to those who are most worthy of the position) that I can
not quite understand how libertarians deal with.
|7.24.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Ron Paul is in it to win. He's said so himself numerous
times, and he will win.
I use a variation of that every time I go to Vegas.
On that note, anybody ready to follow the mantra above and start
placing bets on a future president Ron Paul?
iih|7.24.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Some rewording after messing up this first thread:
First amendment gives press its freedoms. Press is owned by *big*
corporation and press has direct interest in the outcomes of
news-worthy events (including presidential elections). Ron Paul
*does not get* his due recognition, while Hillary gets all the CNN
attention and Mitt all the Fox attention!
|7.24.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Another thing I must say is that if Paul get the nomination vs Hillary then the election will be a fundamental debate about the direction of the country. Will we move more toward a statist, interventionist, more socialist type of large government or back toward an individualist, non-interventionist constitutional republic which is what America was based on. This is the real drama not Roe v Wade, gay marriage etc...In this scenario the Democrats will be the more hawkish (no options off the table with Iran) versus peaceful Paul (first day in office will de-escalate naval presence presentl intimidaing Iran). For me the choice is easy.
badmedia|7.24.07 @ 8:17PM|#
I doubt that poll is accurate. Why did they put Ron Paul in a
run off with democrats, but not include him in the polls.
And for Eric Dondero - I would NEVER vote for you. The only thing I
have ever seen you do is produce HATE towards ron paul, and
personalized the entire thing. You are seriously pathetic,
obviously hate people who don't agree with you, and the only people
you will gain support from are others who HATE.
I would nearly move to Texas just to vote against you. But I know
you don't have a chance so isn't needed.
iih|7.24.07 @ 8:17PM|#
joshuabrucel
I wish Paul wins the GOP nomination. But he won't. The GOP base is
not about Libertarianism. I would say probably Mitt, given the
recent trends in the GOP.
Of all the Dems, I wish Obama wins (despite his socialist views,
thought he is not alone here). But Obama won't either. He is to
honest to win (regardless of how we view his propositions).
badmedia|7.24.07 @ 8:22PM|#
btw, Eric Dondero you should change your site from "mainstream
libertarians" to "sold out" libertarians. It would be more
fitting.
If you are the future of the libertarian party, I will be leaving
immediately.
|7.24.07 @ 8:25PM|#
[I can not quite understand how libertarians deal
with]...misinformation and political meddling by the press, which
results in ...the most-funded, most well-connected candidates
getting the nomination and not to those who are most worthy of the
position).
iih - we let the free market take care of it, of course.
Seriously, though, the Internet has changed, and will
continue to change the political landscape. I get very little of my
information from CBS, ABC, et al.
|7.24.07 @ 8:26PM|#
To all you Ron Paul doubters out there I have a suggestion.
Spend some time reading the comments section on Ron's MySpace page.
What you will see, time after time, is that people who hear Ron's
message, support him even if they were previously liberals,
democrats, non-voters, whatever. People are hungry for this
message.
There are millions of disenfranchised people out there who have
been waiting for someone like Ron Paul to come along. All it will
take is for Ron to get his name and message to enough people.
Ron Paul has BY FAR the largest network of grassroots workers of
any of the candidates. Over 22,000 volunteers are out there hitting
the streets with Ron's message. Here in the St. Pete area of
Florida THE ONLY road signs you see are for Ron Paul. THE ONLY
people working the streets handing out fliers are for Ron Paul.
There simply is NO OTHER campaign on the ground here. Ron Paul is
IT.
If all of you Ron Paul doubters would get off your duffs and join
your local Ron Paul meetup group instead of sitting behind your
computers whining, Ron would be way ahead in the polls right
now.
Come on guys, get out there. Join your local meetup group, join the
Ron Paul Revolution. If you don't get out there and WORK, and Ron
loses it will be YOUR FAULT.
|7.24.07 @ 8:28PM|#
Dondero's here? I hate being a copycat, but let me just say that I agree with anything Timothy says about him.
rho|7.24.07 @ 8:37PM|#
Eric Dondero in 2005
Heh. Tell us again how successful the Bush Doctrine is.
Oh, I'm calling you on the carpet for this, since you seem to like
that: you were wrong. Lew Rockwell was right. That's
got to sting.
|7.24.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Reason mag appears to be a bunch of fools who would like it
clearly understood that they are way smarter than this Ron Paul
character and his rather amusing band of supporters. After all,
since Reason is their name, why should we take anyone else but them
seriously? I suspect they are like the Objectivists - more
interested in the establishment of their own intellectual authority
than in the establishment of a free society.
I tire of their consistently condescending, supercilious dismissal
of everything and everyone. It takes more than the word "reason" to
establish one's intellectual credentials.
iih|7.24.07 @ 8:46PM|#
BakedPenguin,
Yes, the free market will take care of it over a long time. The
dilemma (actually *irony* for libertarians) as I see it is
happening now. We will have to wait a long time until free market
takes care of things (don't take me wrong, I am willing to
wait).
I also do agree that the internet is changing everything, but even
the internet is a much greater source of misinformation and crap
than existing media.
I think we are heading to a state of information degeneracy, where
no one will ever know what truth is and where to find it. This is
not bad because in the end, any human being will have nothing but
him/herself, his/her identity and individualism to trust and decide
based on it and on it only. Voluntary exchange and free market
price determination will eventually have to present itself as the
only rational way to handle the world.
So this is actually the good news part of the outcome of all
this.
The bad news? Not all people are libertarian. Not all people are
willing to admit that there is a ton of misinformation out there.
These people will then act based on the information that agrees
most with their dogmas (whether these are religious, racial,
economic... in nature). The outcome is going to be disastrous
because the isolationist, individualistic libertarians are
ultimately going to be wiped out with irrational fanatics. This is
a very unlikely scenario, but it helps make my point.
But one can argue that we are in fact at this sorry state of
affairs. Libertarian views, one can argue, have been overwhelmed by
the misinformed and evangelicals on the right, and the hard core
socialist liberals on the left. There does not seem to be either a
(1) reasonable middle, or (2) hoards of true libertarians being
heard and seen presenting libertarians views in the mainstream
media and culture.
|7.24.07 @ 8:49PM|#
umm... john howard, you might want to stick around a little longer, and re-read some of the comments, as well as looking at earlier Ron Paul threads. You appear to judging H&R based on the comments of trolls.
|7.24.07 @ 8:58PM|#
I just read John Howard's comment (above). I agree. Ron Paul has
done more in a few weeks of non-condescending speaking than Reason
Magazine has done in a couple of decades of superior attitudes. (I
do, however, give them credit for helping to lay the philosophical
groundwork for his current reception).
The point, to me, is that superior attitudes are a detriment to the
freedom message. They work well, naturally, for the statist
message, but freedom requires political equality, so,
stylistically, supercilious know-it-all dismissive rhetoric is
counter-productive because it is not how equals address one
another.
|7.24.07 @ 8:59PM|#
iih, while I agree there's a lot of crap out there, I think
eventually good information will drive out bad. This is one of the
main benefits of free speech.
You're right that people will choose information sources that match
their thoughts, beliefs, or predjudices. But eventually, the weight
of BS will overwhelm the pre concieved notions for anyone who is
intellectually honest.
Liberal (in the traditional meaning) thoughts are currently rare in
the media, but the one thing the US (at least) has going for it is
that is was founded on such beliefs, and many Americans accept them
at some level (even if they believe libertarians "go too far".)
iih|7.24.07 @ 9:07PM|#
John Reading,
Very well said, and that goes to the last paragraph of my last
thread. If this remains only an intellectual discussion/debate
without somehow expressing/reviving these ideals within society,
society will keep getting drawn to the two existing two opposing
poles.
Paul takes credit in reviving and presenting this ideals in the
existing political debate. The challenge, however, is that he is
seen as an irrelevant entity amongst the right-wing,
interventionist, big-corp.-controlled, all-about-religion GOP. He
is belittled and has no muscle over the media to take him up. This
is just to be realistic. Now, what can be done about that is
probably Howard's and Reading's comments.
Eric Dondero|7.24.07 @ 9:07PM|#
Heh. Tell us again how successful the Bush Doctrine
is.
Oh, I'm calling you on the carpet for this, since you seem to like
that: you were wrong. Lew Rockwell was right. That's got to
sting.
Lew Rockwell anarchists want to surrender America to its enemies.
Bury your head in the sand, while the radical Islamists plot to
kill you, me, and everyone who comments on this board. Is that what
you want? We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, as we defeated the Nazis
in World War II.
|7.24.07 @ 9:08PM|#
BakedPenguin writes:
"I think we are heading to a state of information degeneracy, where
no one will ever know what truth is and where to find it."
This is greatly overwrought since the important truths are
philosophical, not journalistic, and once understood, do not
require current journalistic updates.
Further, it is obvious that once exposed to philosophical truth,
almost no one turns back in confusion to falsehoods.
I offer, as optomistic evidence, the amazing response of the young
to Ron Paul's message. Obviously, these young people, even after
suffering a government education and the timewaste of TV, are able
to recognize philosophical truth and rally behind it.
I don't worry about "information degeneracy" unless the government
has a monopoly on the supply of information. So far, they
don't.
iih|7.24.07 @ 9:13PM|#
Baked Penguin,
I generally agree. Regarding,
"eventually good information will drive out bad"
the only way I see it working is trial and error. We'll keep trying
based on one bad piece of information to another until we figure
that bad information really hurts and that we really have to figure
out a way to ensure quality of information.
An excellent example: with the (intentional or unintentional) aide
of mainstream media, GWB doped most people in this country that
Iraq had WMDs and that somehow they are connected to 9/11. Going to
war is now obviously a wrong judgement based on bad information.
And I can identify a zillion ways many in this country are acting
based on misinformation (including those staunchly in opposition to
GWB, especially the Democrats) that I think (to the best of my
assessment) are based on misinformation.
|7.24.07 @ 9:14PM|#
I agree with Eric Dondero - it's time for the people who've been proven DEAD WRONG about the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War to be called on the carpet.
Eric Dondero|7.24.07 @ 9:26PM|#
I'd like to hear you guys solution to the Islamofascist threat to the West. Tell me what do we fucking do to confront these people who want u s all dead?
|7.24.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Surrender? We're the greatest power in the history of the
planet, and we're still freakin' light years beyond the
competition. Even Europe and Japan have serious deficiencies, even
economic ones, compared to the U.S.
So why, precisely, should I be quivering in my boots about some
crazy Arabs? Sure, they may kill some more Americans and Europeans,
but they cannot and will not be able to diminish the power and
strength of this country. They are not in any way a strategic
threat, nor will they be anytime soon. We'll always have crazy
people to deal with, even ones who might like to dump a nuke in our
lap, but we'll get exactly nowhere if we kill the golden goose that
is America, with its relatively free market and political
system.
Ron Paul is the best and greatest hope for this country, and even
if he calls bin Laden and concedes defeat, we will be better off
with him at the helm. Whether or not we could prevail in Iraq or in
the Middle East as a whole isn't the issue. The issue is why would
we want to exert the effort to do so? Europe is far more threatened
by the Middle East than we are--let them handle it.
I don't like the direction this country is going in, and to choose
someone other than Paul means keeping us on the same course. Ron
Paul at least gives us a chance to restore the idea of limited
government. If nothing else, he'll have the most bully pulpit in
the world to preach from.
iih|7.24.07 @ 9:28PM|#
John Howard,
Is the fear that government in particular have monopoly (in this
case on information)? While the individual news corporations have
divergent interests and agendas, but as a collective, as an
industry, I see a great conflict of interest whose outcome is an
interest by news corporations in propagating information that
ensures audience retention.
But in general, I do agree that the free market will ultimately fix
things, but after a really really long time that will involve a
long sequence of corrective maneuvers along the way, and may
involve more, possibly deadly, mishaps.
Eric Dondero|7.24.07 @ 9:31PM|#
Europe is far more threatened by the Middle East than we
are--let them handle it.
Europe is full of young, sexually frustrated Islamists. Should we
just abandon our European allies? We should have just let Britain
handle the Nazis, right?
What about Israel? The Iranian president said he wants to "wipe
Israel off the map". How will history judge us if we leave the Jews
at the mercy of a new Holocaust?
iih|7.24.07 @ 9:33PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Other than the smear on "some crazy Arabs" (true they are possibly
Arabs, but not always, take the taliban for example; true, they are
crazy, but the combination in some crazy Arabs" is a bit iffy), I
agree with you wholeheartedly.
|7.24.07 @ 9:34PM|#
"Still, it looks like we have a lot of work to do...maybe
Freedom isn't that popular after all? or is it ..."
You nailed it at "freedom isn't that popular". No need to speculate
further. Ron Paul is only at 2% or so in the polls -- since he is
the only person running who favors lots of freedom, that pretty
much ends the discussion on where our collective (pun intended)
national views are at.
|7.24.07 @ 9:36PM|#
"I'd like to hear you guys solution to the Islamofascist threat
to the West. Tell me what do we fucking do to confront these people
who want u s all dead?"
Isn't that inappropriate language for a future member of
Congress?
Oh, and I also propose that everybody has to drink whenever some
trolling wingnut says "islamofascist".
|7.24.07 @ 9:40PM|#
"Ron Paul is in it to win. He's said so himself numerous times,
and he will win."
He's in it to win -- reelection to the House. Oh, and educate folks
about freedom. He hopefully isn't that delusional that he thinks 2%
in the polls right now is gonna turn into the 30% to 40% needed to
win. If he got into the double digits, he might have an outside
shot at VP, but even that is a candidate for UnicornRainbow land
thinking.
|7.24.07 @ 9:44PM|#
I saw two cars with Ron Paul bumper stickers side by side at a
traffic signal today.
(OK, one of them was mine...)
The trend I see in polls is that the "top tier" folks are dropping,
second tiers are gaining, and the "not sure" crowd is pretty much
steady.
I think that it's still too early to count Ron Paul out of the
primary, and way to early to predict his odds
against any given democratic candidate.
iih|7.24.07 @ 9:49PM|#
I was just about to emotionally respond to Dondero, but checking the above responses to his comments, I think this is already taken care of. Apparently he has a reputation.
|7.24.07 @ 9:57PM|#
"Apparently he has a reputation."
Say something about Ron Paul and he'll show up. Don't you know his
story?
iih|7.24.07 @ 10:01PM|#
JLM,
May be I should tell him that I am Muslim. Ssshhhh do not tell him,
or he'll have more reasons to show up here :-)
rho|7.24.07 @ 10:04PM|#
I'd like to hear you guys solution to the Islamofascist
threat to the West. Tell me what do we fucking do to confront these
people who want u s all dead?
First thing to do when you want to fill in a hole: stop
digging.
Europe is full of young, sexually frustrated Islamists. Should
we just abandon our European allies? We should have just let
Britain handle the Nazis, right?
Wait, wait, let me guess--terrorists are Nazis, right? Let's invade
Terroristylvania then!
Unserious people wielding historical analogies should be shot in
the face.
|7.24.07 @ 10:07PM|#
the amount of self-delusion contained in this thread (primarily
about paul's legitimacy as a national contender) is pathetic.
projecting hope onto selective data is the sort of activity
appropriate for children.
Matt|7.24.07 @ 10:07PM|#
iih,
Now he'll think you're trying to bring down the country from
within. You hate America so much that you support America-hating
"libertarians" like Ron Paul! The horror!
Because there's nothing that says you hate this country more than
suggesting that we live by the Constitution and the advice of the
founders. Maybe the fouders secretly supported "Islamofascists"
too, those wackos.
|7.24.07 @ 10:08PM|#
Tell me what do we fucking do to confront these people who
want u s all dead?
1. Get rid of the guy who helped al-Qaeda set up a new base of
operations in Iraq when he toppled the existing secular govt.
2. Don't vote for a guy who wants to use the same strategy as the
guy in (1).
3. Repeat as necessary.
|7.24.07 @ 10:10PM|#
iih,
Dondero worked for Ron Paul. They parted company due to ideological
differences, with Paul being a non-interventionist and hime being a
"nuke'em all" Boortz type libertarian (read: neocon that likes the
word "libertarian" but doesn't understand it). He says that he's
going to challenge Paul's house seat.
http://reason.com/blog/show/120230.html
|7.24.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Seriously, Eric, is our country better off now than it was before the Iraq invasion? I'm dying to know your opinion on this.
|7.24.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Eric FUCKING Dondero: "Tell me what do we fucking do to confront
these people who want u s all dead?"
Point, laugh at, then ignore.
Coincidentally, that's also Dr Paul's strategy for dealing with you
in his Congressional primary.
|7.24.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Col DuBois:
:::Point, laugh at, then ignore.:::
presumably that was your response to the 9/11.
iih|7.24.07 @ 10:20PM|#
Matt,
I actually thought twice before deciding to mention that I am
Muslim (note to Dondero: I swear that I am just a good hard
working, law abiding Muslim and there is nothing fascistic about
me) and have very strong libertarian tendencies. I guess having a
Muslim as a member of any organization is a liability for the
organization with people like Dandero around. For this I apologize
(jokingly of course :-) )
JLM,
Thanks for the info. Just visited his website. Tells me a lot about
him. He's as a libertarian as Jay Severin is (anyone living in New
England probably heard of him).
|7.24.07 @ 10:21PM|#
Actually, Kristan, I think we would have been better off had that been our response to 9/11. As lousy a strategy as that would have been, it still beats alienating our allies, ballooning our deficit, and getting our military bogged down in a country that was never a threat to us.
Edward|7.24.07 @ 10:24PM|#
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has
no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of
our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political
views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly
the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast
at the federal government's hostility to religion."--Ron Paul
http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-on-seperation-of-church-and.html
Edward|7.24.07 @ 10:27PM|#
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."-- Thomas Jefferson
|7.24.07 @ 10:28PM|#
I don't know who Jay Severin is, but there seem to be more and more of those types slithering around today- people that like to throw around the word "libertarian", but don't really seem to represent the ideology very well.
|7.24.07 @ 10:30PM|#
crimethink:
I take it you're not too big on national sovereignty, eh?
or on contributing a (logically) constructive answer to a
substantive question.
the question of what our response to islamic terrorism should be
*is* the question of how you respond to 9/11. responding with a
pout-over-bush is irrelevant and silly.
iih|7.24.07 @ 10:32PM|#
JLM:
Jay Severin is quite a phenomenon. The libertarian/conservative
(actually I think he is a populist propagandist) New England
version of Limbaugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Severin
And this site is just fun:
http://www.jayseverin.org/
|7.24.07 @ 10:39PM|#
Edward,
It appears that Dr Paul is referring to the idea of a
rigid separation between church and state, that is, the
idea that the religious beliefs of voters and their representatives
should never influence their political activity. This is quite
different from the separation commanded by the Establishment
clause, which merely prevents a church or its members from
receiving special status under the law, or having the govt delegate
secular power to a certain church, as had been done in the case of
the Church of England.
The govt should be religion-neutral, not religion-hostile, which
was clearly the attitude of the Clinton administration that was in
power when he wrote those words.
Edward|7.24.07 @ 10:40PM|#
The question for you, JLM, is do you embrace Ron Paul's
religious kookery or are you just willing to overlook it? Might
play well to the religious right, huh?
I'm on my way to anti-clerical Spain soon.
Edward|7.24.07 @ 10:43PM|#
Crimethink,
Ron Paul seems to be under the impression that the founding fathers
were deeply religious. Doesn't sound as if Thomas Jeferson was,
does it? In fact Jefferson sounds rather hostile to religion,
certainly more than Clinton ever was.
|7.24.07 @ 10:44PM|#
Edward,
I don't know what context that statement was taken out of, so I
will reserve judgment.
Make sure you find an internet connection in Spain, so we don't
have to live without you for an extended period of time.
|7.24.07 @ 10:44PM|#
@thoreau
Losing by 20 points means pulling 40%. The LP would kill for
those numbers.
True enough.
There are two ways of looking at this: the glass is half empty, or
the glass is half full. Given the past performance of libertarian
leaning candidates, and Paul's standing only a few weeks ago, I'm
calling it half full.
@The $50 is the new $20
On the DFL side
You're from Minnesota, aren't you?
@Eric Dondero
Lew Rockwell anarchists want to surrender America to its
enemies. Bury your head in the sand, while the radical Islamists
plot to kill you, me, and everyone who comments on this board. Is
that what you want? We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, as we defeated
the Nazis in World War II.
Will somebody please kick this guy in the nuts? Pretty
please?
What about Israel? The Iranian president said he wants to "wipe
Israel off the map". How will history judge us if we leave the Jews
at the mercy of a new Holocaust?
Let's straighten this out. Israel is a country by choice. Nobody
forced the Israeli's to move out and establish a country in a part
of the world where they obviously weren't welcome in the first
place. Now, if that's what they want to do, fine. I'm all sympathy.
But, having made that decision, it's their responsibility to defend
it, not the United States, and not any other country. There's
nothing in the Constitutional mandate "provide for the common
defense" that obligates the Federal government to be bailing other
countries out of their predicaments. In fact, arguably it's
unconstitutional for it to be doing such things. The
responsibility of the US government is to the interests of the
citizens of the United States. And that is the only legitimate
interest it has.
rho|7.24.07 @ 10:46PM|#
The
entire article is less offensive than the selective
quote.
If Dr. Paul has a severe problem it's that he completely trusts
that people will read or listen to all of his words in good faith.
I think that's a lot better than trying to straddle the rhetorical
fence, but it leaves him open to fools who stop listening when they
hear something they think offends them.
(Of course, if you take all of Dr. Paul's oeuvre together you
realize he's not advocating Federal support for religion or
anything like it. But if you're very, very stupid you can
take that away.)
|7.24.07 @ 10:48PM|#
Kristan,
Sorry, I assumed you were just another troll for whom "9/11! 9/11!"
is the response to every criticism of the Bush
administration.
Seriously though, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a way
of dealing with the folks who actually attacked us. Also, finally
disentangling ourselves from the Israeli-Palestinian mess would
have been a good idea (and indeed was a good idea before
9/11 too).
But, I dare you to provide evidence that the Patriot Act, the
invasion of Iraq, and the creation of DHS have helped our national
security one bit. Indeed, it appears that they've undermined it
more than anything else. Since you claim to be big on national
sovereignty, maybe you can tell me what we'll do if the Chinese
invaded the west coast tomorrow, with our armed forces and most of
our National Guard units totally occupied in the Middle EAst.
Edward|7.24.07 @ 10:49PM|#
Less offensive, perhaps, but still offensive, stupid, and
wrong.
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Somebody should have told Jefferson.
|7.24.07 @ 11:04PM|#
I'd like to hear you guys solution to the Islamofascist
threat to the West. Tell me what do we fucking do to confront these
people who want u s all dead?
First of all, let's actually define the "Islamofascist threat"
before we start piddling ourselves. What are their motivations,
goals, and most importantly, what are their chances of
accomplishing those goals? Please limit yourselves to answers that
do not presuppose that the inhabitants of the Middle East are
subhuman or innately irrational to the last Ay-rab.
Then, if we have the cojones, we can apply the same
questions to ourselves: What do we expect to accomplish over there
and why, and is it doable?
One thing is certain - phrases like "Islamofascist threat" are
calculated to provoke the exact opposite of logical, planned
action. They have no real place in this discussion.
thoreau|7.24.07 @ 11:09PM|#
Regarding Dondero, Pig Mannix writes:
Will somebody please kick this guy in the nuts? Pretty please?
Nobody has actually verified that he has nuts to kick. And nobody
wants to verify it either.
|7.24.07 @ 11:17PM|#
thoreau,
It's just a matter of tracking down a couple of prostitutes. Should
we try Houston first?
|7.24.07 @ 11:38PM|#
Someone claiming to be Dondero wrote, "This just goes to prove
Ron Paul isn't a real libertarian. In reality, hes a radical
anarchist who wants to put his head in the sand and surrender to
America's sworn enemies."
Man, I hope that isn't the real Dondero. Someone who would slime
the only real libertarian in Congress for the past couple of
decades, after working on his staff and campaigns, must be one
sick, twisted puppy. Let's hope this was just a poseur. If not,
then perhaps he is Congressional timber, indeed. To judge by the
current crop of elected officials, at least (Dr. Paul excepted, of
course).
rho|7.24.07 @ 11:55PM|#
Somebody should have told Jefferson.
Since you think quips and quotes prove everything:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
perosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should
labor to subert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest prop of the duties of men and citizens. The mere
politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to
cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with
private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the
security for propety, for reputation, for life, if the sense of
religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of
investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge
in the supposition that morality can be maintained without
religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience
both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle... Observe good faith and justice
toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion
and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy
does not equally enjoin it?" -- George Washington
Edward, you are a very silly person.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 12:36AM|#
Am I the only one who thought the Dondero comments in this
thread were an impostor?
Yeah, they did basically represent his message, they were pretty
close to his obnoxious style and the link to his site on his name
matches his previous work, but none of those things are hard to
fake.
Hard to put a finger on but something about them just smelled
funny. It is hard to do an "over-the-top" parody of someone who is,
in reality, that ridiculous, but I think the language and tone were
a little off, even for him.
D. Greene|7.25.07 @ 1:26AM|#
I enjoy the Edward troll a lot more than the fake Dondero
troll.
The Edward troll employs a lot more style and grace, and couches
the logical fallacies in prose that makes it more difficult to
penetrate.
|7.25.07 @ 1:42AM|#
First of all, let's actually define the "Islamofascist
threat" before we start piddling ourselves. What are their
motivations, goals, and most importantly, what are their chances of
accomplishing those goals? Please limit yourselves to answers that
do not presuppose that the inhabitants of the Middle East are
subhuman or innately irrational to the last Ay-rab.
Obtaining a nuclear device and detonating it in a major city within
the US with in the next 20 years.
chance: 13.86% success rate.
Note: this assumes that we do not already have surveillance net
covering the entire US that can detect such a device.
Edward|7.25.07 @ 2:29AM|#
rho,
If you think Ron Paul's contention that the founding fathers
envisioned a "robustly Christian nation" is correct, I'm afraid
you're the one who's a very silly person. If you had any power, you
would be a very scaru person.
Kevin Murphy|7.25.07 @ 2:32AM|#
If the Republicans nominated Paul, no Republican would vote for him. He'd just take from Hillary's left fringe. Should that horridly unlikely event come to pass an independent candidate would win going away. Even Cheney could win.
|7.25.07 @ 3:38AM|#
"projecting hope onto selective data is the sort of activity
appropriate for children."
Yeah, kids are always doing that.
|7.25.07 @ 4:07AM|#
"'What are their motivations, goals, and most importantly, what
are their chances of accomplishing those goals?'"
"Obtaining a nuclear device and detonating it in a major city
within the US with in the next 20 years. chance: 13.86% success
rate."
Radicalize Americans, draw a thousand airstrikes and covert
operations, rededicate U.S. allies, and gain no territory? Why
would they want these things? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am
wondering why they'd still think throwing rocks at us helps them.
They may have thought 9/11 would make us withdraw from Muslim
countries. I have trouble seeing how they could believe that
now.
Oh, and Go Paul!
|7.25.07 @ 7:17AM|#
Early election returns: Its Guliani vs. Clinton. Got it? And Hillary wins primarily because shes a woman. Thats American politics buddy. All the rest of this stuff, including Nowhere Man Ron Paul, is moot.
robc|7.25.07 @ 8:23AM|#
Kevin,
If the Republicans nominated Paul, no Republican would vote for
him.
Can you spot the problem with this statement?
Alex|7.25.07 @ 8:45AM|#
Common sense is a dish best served OFTEN, so I'm glad to see RP
poking his head up here and there to remind us that Washington is
only 99.9% asshats.
Why Dr Ron Paul?
• He has never voted to raise taxes.
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun
ownership.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive
branch.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
• He voted against the Iraq war.
• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension
program.
• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to
the U.S. treasury every year.
Eric Dondero|7.25.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Hey crimethink, if it wasn't for those Iranians fucking with our
troops Iraq would be going a lot better than it is. If we can take
out the Iranian threat, Iraq can be a real democracy. Its Iran that
has promised to "wipe off the map" the only real democracy in the
Middle East, and that is supporting the insurgents in Iraq.
My only regret about the Iraq War is that we didn't roll into
Theran when we had the chance!
|7.25.07 @ 9:58AM|#
If we can take out the Iranian threat, Iraq can be a real
democracy.
If only they tried real communism!
|7.25.07 @ 9:59AM|#
The best part of this whole thread is that when the Dondero mannequin talks Sean Hannity's lip barely move at all.......
|7.25.07 @ 10:07AM|#
Eric,
If the radical Muslim threat rises to the level of Nazism in the
30s and 40s, then we can certainly help our European allies. But
that's not even remotely the case. Why are you so scared of
piddlin' bands of terrorists? Europe is wealthy and populous and
can handle its own defense now.
As for Israel, I believe that they are self-sufficient and capable
of defending themselves at this point. I don't propose cutting off
ties with them or with any other moderate/liberal nation that pops
up in the Middle East, but I do think that the cost of stabilizing
the region is far too high in comparison to the benefits. Heck, by
the time we succeed, we'll be off of oil. It's a waste of time,
resources, lives, and goodwill. Move on.
Incidentally, if terrorists continue to attack us, we hit them
back--hard. And if a nation supports them, then that nation faces a
likely military response, too. I don't object to strong responses,
especially to radicals who aren't much interested in peaceful
solutions.
Chad|7.25.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Eric DONDEROOOOOOO!
My favorite cute little awesome little guy.
If we go bankrupt, we can't fight ANYBODY whether defensively OR
aggressively.
Like it or not, Ron is the only candidate addressing our financial
crises in this country. Rudy would spend us into the ground and
then we wouldn't be able to fight terrorists anyway.
Or is there something particularly exciting about going down with
the ship stubbornly instead of just looking for the leak?
-Chad
Eric Dondero|7.25.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Very latest polls - RELEASED TODAY - have Rudy Giuliani "running
away" with the GOP Nomination. Even 2nd placer Fred Thompson is way
down in the ABC Poll at 14% to Rudy's 34%.
Now many libertarians will have to ask themselves, are they going
to finally jump on the Rudy bandwagon, or support:
Cowhips Hillary or Neo-Fascist Burrack HUSSEIN Obama.
Or, will the childish "I want to be different just because" cynical
libertarians go with that nifty, well-spoken, sexy George Phillies
or the Marijuana Dude Steve Kubby on the LP ticket. Translation:
Another banner year for the LP of a whopping 300,000 votes.
Face it Reason-ites: With the latest poll numbers it's time to
choose.
You either go Hillary, go obscurity with the LP, or finally back
libertarian-leaning Rudy Giuliani.
We at Libertarians for Giuliani are waiting for you all to jump on
the Rudy Train!!
|7.25.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Interesting. I just read something about Giuliani tanking in Florida. Not that I put much stock in these pre-primary polls, which are usually wrong, but there you go. Any major candidate that loses big in Florida in January is not getting nominated.
|7.25.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Eric Dondero, You're trolling with the best of them, but to call
Giuliani "libertarian-leaning" is to stretch your arguments to the
point of incredulity.
Giuliani has yet to see an expansion of Government power he didn't
like. He is heavy handed, Authoritarian, and has yet to show any
desire to break from the Unitary government concepts espoused by
the current administration.
If you want to live in fear, feel free. Just don't let your fear of
shadows get in the way of me living my life free. And yes, I'd
rather life with a risk of being blown up then having a ubiquitous
police state.
So, Go troll elsewhere.
|7.25.07 @ 1:31PM|#
If this nation supposed to have a government of Christian morality, Sentators and Congressmen would burst into flames as they entered the capitol building.
|7.25.07 @ 1:34PM|#
"""Or is there something particularly exciting about going down
with the ship stubbornly instead of just looking for the leak?
"""
Someone should ask the Rush O'Hannity crowd that question.
|7.25.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Good one Mark. Some people would rather live in a police state than have to fight the enemy here. I think that rises to the definition of a coward. They are afraid to do the fighting themselves. But they try to pre-empt that by calling you a coward first.
|7.25.07 @ 1:51PM|#
"""You nailed it at "freedom isn't that popular". No need to
speculate further. Ron Paul is only at 2% or so in the polls --
""""
I'll add the Constitution is not popular either. Ron Paul is the
only one running that demonstrates he supports it. I probably can
add good ole American life, since living in the pre-911 America is
touted as a bad thing.
Why do these people hate America?
|7.25.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Now many libertarians will have to ask themselves, are they
going to finally jump on the Rudy bandwagon, or support:
Cowhips Hillary or Neo-Fascist Burrack HUSSEIN
Obama.
Dondero prefers the paleo-fascists.
Face it Reason-ites: With the latest poll numbers it's time to
choose.
True enough. I think you're a genuine lunatic, not just a
troll.
|7.25.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Isn't this america? If kindly old white man Ron Paul is up afiainst either Clinton or Obama he's going to win by at least 5 percentage points.
rho|7.25.07 @ 4:51PM|#
If you think Ron Paul's contention that the founding fathers
envisioned a "robustly Christian nation" is correct, I'm afraid
you're the one who's a very silly person. If you had any power, you
would be a very scaru person.
I don't think you have the foggiest clue what my point was. Which
makes me laugh at you. A lot.
I don't think Eric Dondero is the jin-yew-ine Dondero either. It's
a clever character sock, and done well.
R. B. Lee|7.25.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Oh, I'm calling you on the carpet for this, since you seem
to like that: you were wrong. Lew Rockwell was right. That's got to
sting.
Lew Rockwell anarchists want to surrender America to its enemies.
Bury your head in the sand, while the radical Islamists plot to
kill you, me, and everyone who comments on this board. Is that what
you want? We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, as we defeated the Nazis
in World War II.
Ron Paul submitted the Declaration of War that is required,
congress passed and instead, gave Bush a blank check.
I am pro-victory in ww4, but as popeye says "bad is bad, even when
it helps you."
Bush allowed us to be defeated in the media.
A critcal front in the War.
The power of the pen is greater than the sword.
I am a Veteran,I took an Oath, It is my DUTY to support Ron
Paul.
|7.26.07 @ 1:58PM|#
"Obtaining a nuclear device and detonating it in a major
city within the US with in the next 20 years. chance: 13.86%
success rate."
An awful prospect, to be sure - but a threat isn't quite
the same thing as a goal, is it?
Eric Dondero|7.27.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Please note, once again, someone is posting posts under my
name.
I do not mind at all someone poking fun at me by using a fake name
like "Eric Dondildo" or something to that effect.
But PLEASE refrain, and Reason Managers please take note, from
posting under my full and correct name "Eric Dondero."
A post above about us invading Iran, is not from me.
|8.2.07 @ 12:44AM|#
PLEASE don't insult my intelligence by using the phrase
"nobody's accused him of harboring 9/11 conspiracy theories". What
does that mean? First, the official 9/11 story IS a conspiracy
theory. It claims that 11 people (2 or more make a conspiracy)
planned and carried out a hijacking. Second, The official story IS
NOT a fact. More money was spent on investigating Monica Lewinsky
than on investigating the 9/11 massacre. And third, can someone
please explain how the BBC reported on building 7 collapsing 20
minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm
come people...wake up.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245