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
National Review Joins the Ron Paul Revolution; Iraq? Big Deal!
National Review (and I'll admit I'm surprised) runs an enthusiastic and hopeful "Ron Paul is going to surprise you" piece from frequent reason contributor David Kopel. Kopel witnessed the Ron Paul machine first hand at the Second Amendment Foundation Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) last week and is mightily impressed. Some excerpts:
In 1988, [Ron Paul] was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson....
Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized....
I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.
The volunteers loved Paul’s speech, of course, and so did the large majority of the rest of the GRPC crowd. The GRPC activists are very wary of politicians whose pro-gun positions are a matter of convenience or calculation, rather than sincere dedication to the Constitution. The top tier of the Republican field obviously has a problem with candidates whose 2007 positions on guns or other issues are inconsistent with some of their past actions.
....With five million dollars raised in 3Q 2007, it appears that Paul’s message is catching on.
In the handful of campaigns that raised more money in the third quarter, some of the donors were engaging in “pay to play”—raising money from their business contacts in order to buy “access” and influence in case the candidate wins. One can be assured, however, that nobody is giving money to Ron Paul in order to buy 2009 “access” to the Executive Branch. They’re giving money because they want to eliminate about 90-percent of the federal government’s cash and regulatory boodle for rent-seekers......deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.
Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive government, but the campaign’s theme is “Hope for America” and its premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops behaving like a helicopter mother.
.......Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.
Very interestingly, Kopel does not agree with Ron Paul on getting out of Iraq--but he doesn't make a big deal out of it in this almost entirely supportive piece.
If Paul can capture this much regard and affection from other mostly small-government conservative Republicans who aren't with him on the war (though I suspect Kopel is a weird outlier on this) things can get very interesting come primary time.
|10.10.07 @ 11:12AM|#
I too am surprised that the semi-official magazine for the
Republican Nationalist-Evangelical Party would be so
enthusiastic about Paul.
Guy Montag|10.10.07 @ 11:14AM|#
including (for the recipient audience) devastating material
on Romney and Thompson....
Would that have something to do with secret societies and stuff
that is heald so close that nobody could reveal it, until NOW . .
.
|10.10.07 @ 11:14AM|#
A cynic would say that this is an effort by an Iraq War
supporter to make Paul's impressive showing look like a groundswell
of support for conservative positions like gun rights and low
taxes, rather than as an expression of dissatisfation with the Iraq
War and the other candidates' continued embrace of it.
Sort of like the people who tried to explain November 2006 as an
expression of conservatives' unhappiness with the immigration bill
and Mark Foley.
|10.10.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Dave Kopel was registered Democrat who cares deeply about gun
rights.
The man's so odd, he makes Glenn Reynolds look typical.
DK's cool but this be no cause for hope.
|10.10.07 @ 11:20AM|#
That he can garner support from people who "disagree" with him on the war, or from "pro-choice" women, or from advocates for gun control, for example, speaks volumes about the current hunger in America for a politician(s) that will speak plainly, and with firm convictions to us. I have prayed for this time to come for almost 25 years now. The rEVOLution is on, and (hopefully) will only continue to build. I truly hope that America does not miss out on such a wonderful opportunity that we have been given to let Ron Paul lead us in the charge.
|10.10.07 @ 11:21AM|#
including (for the recipient audience) devastating material
on Romney and Thompson....
GM said:
Would that have something to do with secret societies and stuff
that is heald so close that nobody could reveal it, until NOW . .
.
No, Koppel reports that it was stuff on how Romney was anti-gun and
Thompson was a big supporter of McCain-Feingold. Ron Paul may have
a lot of kooky supporters, but he runs his campaign in mainstream,
non-conspiracy-theory ways.
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Since the event in question was a gun rights event, Guy, maybe
the information had something to do with Romney's support for bans
of entire categories of firearms, and Thompson's enthusiastic
support of legislative attempts to silence the political activity
of gun rights groups.
From a gun rights perspective, ALL of the frontrunners are
douchebags. And I say this as a non-gun-owner, non-member of the
NRA, non-single-issue-gun-rights voter.
VM|10.10.07 @ 11:24AM|#
There is probably an element of truth in what you're saying, joe
- it is not hard to imagine people who were so passionate about the
war, became disillusioned, but have an ego defense mechanism that
doesn't allow them to (self-) admit fault, so RP might give them an
out...
might RP represent some sort of test: some of his positions default
to socially-conservative ones; he is against the war... which
effect trumps the other?
|10.10.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Throughout the entire debate season I've been wondering what
conservative Repubs would ever see in Rudy (pro-choice, anti-gun,
third marriage, estranged kids) and how he has managed to be their
leading candidate so far. With the exception of the WoT Paul would,
on the issues, seem to be the most desirable Republican for a party
that claims to embrace conservatism.
Apparently, they aren't really conservative.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 11:30AM|#
I'll say this about Reason's Ron Paul cheerleaders: they're experts at grasping at straws.
Episiarch|10.10.07 @ 11:30AM|#
See, stuff like this causes me to doubt my cynical and realistic
gut feeling that there is no way in hell Ron can go all the way or
even close.
One must take care not to believe things just because one wants
them to be true.
It's hard, though...
Edward|10.10.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Reason's Ron Paul cheerleaders are also experts at grasping their own pricks whenever Ron Paul's name is mentioned. This is my last post here. Seriously.
|10.10.07 @ 11:34AM|#
which, if the hooker who serviced both him and Dondero isn't lying, is rather straw-like.
ed|10.10.07 @ 11:34AM|#
One must take care not to believe things just because one
wants them to be true.
Later on this afternoon Paul will be addressing the Chicago Cubs
World Series Committee.
Minion of URKOBOLD|10.10.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Randolph Carter | October 10, 2007, 11:33am | #
I'll say this about Edward: he's an expert at grasping his own dick.
AHHH!
THAT EXPLAINS IT. EDWARD(ild)OOOOOOOOOOO IS A CARNIE. SMALL
HANDS.
|10.10.07 @ 11:36AM|#
might RP represent some sort of test: some of his positions
default to socially-conservative ones; he is against the war...
which effect trumps the other
Unfortunately most people who are against the war are democrats,
and they will be unlikely to convert to being republican just so
they can vote for Paul in the primary. It may be a different story
if he makes it to the general election, though I'd put my money on
people not letting the opportunity to have nationalized health care
slip away.
Paul needs to trumpet his socially conservative personal views
before the primary, and then if he wins the primary, focus on the
technicality that he doesn't want to impose those beliefs on people
on the federal level.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.10.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Very interestingly, Kopel does not agree with Ron Paul on
getting out of Iraq--but he doesn't make a big deal out of it in
this almost entirely supportive piece.
Maybe that's because Kopel isn't a libertarian purist? :-)
There are some things I don't agree with RP on but that doesn't
mean I am not "entirely supportive".
Dave Woycechowsky|10.10.07 @ 11:37AM|#
WWjS?
lol. I wonder this sometimes. Fortunately, he usually tells us.
|10.10.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Edward's posts remind me of French newspaper headlines in the
early days of the German invasion.
Every day they would publish that the French had stopped the German
advance at some town - and the town of the day would be 50 miles
closer thant the town of the previous day's headline.
SPD|10.10.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Edward,
I certainly hope you will return and express your opinions, since
this board is meant to encourage the free exchange of ideas,
regardless of whether they are in sync with the majority
opinion.
Look at the beating joe takes on the regular basis, and he doesn't
back down!
You will never be banned or shouted down on H&R. After all,
we're not freerepublic.com.
|10.10.07 @ 11:39AM|#
I'm supposed to be thrilled that he has more support among young
voters than Gary Hart and George McGovern? Yeah, that worked out
great for President McGovern and President Hart.
Of the people running Paul is the only one I would vote for but
that just means I'll be sticking to my new policy of never voting
again.
|10.10.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Edward:
This is my last post here. Seriously.
Good! The IQ average for the thread will go up.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Wow, here come the oh-so-wacky "Urkobold" douchebags chiming in. Try being funny for once. I'm done with you fools.
Episiarch|10.10.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Hear Hear!! Let's hope he means it
Seeing as he didn't the last 10 times, I somehow doubt it.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.10.07 @ 11:40AM|#
See, stuff like this causes me to doubt my cynical and realistic gut feeling that there is no way in hell Ron can go all the way or even close.
One must take care not to believe things just because one wants them to be true.
It's hard, though...
To quote Warty (again)
Ron Paul needs to stop infecting me with his horrible, horrible
optimism.
thoreau|10.10.07 @ 11:40AM|#
This is my last post here. Seriously.
That was the best thing you could possibly say. Now, end on a high
note, Edward. End on a high note.
Episiarch|10.10.07 @ 11:41AM|#
And again, EDWAAAAAAARDOOOOO chimes in seconds before me, this time to prove me right. Thanks, dude.
Guy Montag|10.10.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Later on this afternoon Paul will be addressing the Chicago
Cubs World Series Committee.
ed wins the thread.
|10.10.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Edward, you need to fall on your knees and pay penance to URKOBOLD. HE alone is your troll-mother-father, it was in the URKOBOLD's tortured and vaulty wombage that your troll-self was formed. Do not renounce your own god, or misfortune is sure to follow.
|10.10.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Ok Edward, the whole fake quitting thing is getting old. Can't you find something else entertaining to do?
|10.10.07 @ 11:43AM|#
TWC--The war is more than just one thing to agree or disagree with him about; to a great majority of his supporters (and I daresay to many of his GOP detractors) it is THE defining thing about him; to see conservatives willing to support him despite it (tho as I said I doubt Kopel represents a trend) is a Bigger Deal than liking him despite disagreements on, say, abortion or immigration.
VM|10.10.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Rein - sounds like a plan!
EDDIE - (may I call you Eddie?) - first you reject the URKOBOLD.
Now this? A THREAT TO LEAVE? (Will you cancel your
subscription?)
Mein gott! Did Mona get gender reassigned?
|10.10.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Look at the beating joe takes on the regular basis, and he
doesn't back down!
Yeah but joe's comments are most often well thought out.
|10.10.07 @ 11:45AM|#
I think part of this is the disillusionment with the Republican
establishment in Congress. They took over in 1994 and end up being
the same big government addicted crooks that the Democrats are.
Paul to his credit is the only really anti-government
candidate.
As far as the Iraq war goes, it really isn't an issue for the 2008
elections. By the end of 2008, the drawdown in Iraq is going to
start regardless of who wins the election. The Iraqi government
will slowly take over and the war will end with a whimper. There
won't be any dramatic withdrawals. There won't be any helicopters
leaving the embassy. None of it. The conversation will just change
to something else. The anti war side will claim that they caused
the reduction of American troops and that spurred the Iraqis to
stand up and take over. The pro war side will point to an
independent Iraq and few US troops and claim victory and no one
outside of a few ideologues will care.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.10.07 @ 11:47AM|#
...... EDWAAAAAAAARDDDDOOOOOO
Speaking of Donderoooooooooooo, I have it on medium authority that
he has vanished somewhere on Old Mexico. Somebody forgot to tell
him that US cell phones don't generally work in Mexico and now he
is gone.
I may jest about forwarding his mail to the Tijuana Jail, but I'm
serious when I say that (even today) one does not want to disappear
south of the border.
http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com/
SPD|10.10.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Rick,
True enough, and joe often refrains from using the term
"douchebags." It's more that people tend to respond to ad hominem
attacks with more ad hominem attacks, and it brings the discussion
thread down as a whole.
So if Edward wants to contribute his ideas without personal
comments, and others can respond in a similar manner, then great;
so much the better. If not -- well, I certainly don't advocate
helicopter nannyism on this board, so I guess the flame war would
continue!
Edward|10.10.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Reason's Ron Paul cheerleaders are also experts at grasping
their own pricks whenever Ron Paul's name is mentioned. This is my
last post here. Seriously.
Just kidding!
The Wine Commonsewer|10.10.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Edward's
Hit & Run lament. Dedicated to us.
{turns and nods to Tee}
|10.10.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Holy crap! A journalist that didn't interject his own opinion about a certain policy issue and just reported what he saw? FIRE HIM IMEDIATLY!!!
Edward|10.10.07 @ 11:55AM|#
What really fascinates me is how you dimwits cannot follow the often repeated advice: don't feed trolls. The troll simply exercises his free speech to diasgree with your bromides and orthodoxies, and it drives you nuts. Why does what I have to say about Mr. Joke Candidate Ron Paul irritate you so much that you can't just fucking ignore it?
|10.10.07 @ 11:57AM|#
it's not what you say, Edward, it's how you say it. repeatedly. You just seem like a sad pathetic loser, and frankly, it's depressing that obsessives like you exist.
|10.10.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Again, we are wacky, VM. I don't know what to make of that.
Edward, please explain.
The Paul campaign will result in a significant shift in the GOP.
The war-is-everything crowd and the religion-is-everything crowd
are both small minorities of the GOP, and the success of Ron Paul
will, at a minimum, get the at-least-as-numerous libertarian
elements back at the table. To be ignored and given nothing more
than rhetorical support, true, but it beats not even being
acknowledged.
Paul is likely the Goldwater of the 21st century, only without the
hawkishness. If he actually wins the nomination or comes close to
it, we could see some real discussion of limited government in
national political discourse. On the other hand, if
Clinton/Giuliani wins the whole shebang, and we may go the other
direction. It takes a village to beat the crap out of prisoners and
give them free medical care afterwards.
|10.10.07 @ 11:57AM|#
"Holy crap! A journalist that didn't interject his own opinion
about a certain policy issue and just reported what he saw? FIRE
HIM IMEDIATLY!!!"
It is kind of funny. I guess Doherty expected Kopel to give the guy
no credit for anything and run an unfair hit piece on Paul because
Kopel disagrees with Paul about the war.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 12:00PM|#
These stupid threads sure are easy to hijack. You all want to talk about your nutsoid presidential hope, and instead you're talking about me. Fuckwits.
|10.10.07 @ 12:02PM|#
"Paul is likely the Goldwater of the 21st century, only without
the hawkishness."
No he is Goldwater with Henry Cabot Lodge nutty isolationism. That
is going to be his downfall. People want to believe that this
country is a great nation. They like to be internationalists. If
they didn't, why doesn't a real isolationist ever win an election?
Also, if he ever did win the nomination, can you imagine what
someone like Hillary Clinton would do to him over some of his
statements about 9-11? Not that it would be fair, but the Democrats
would destroy Paul over the fact that truthers seem to support him
and some of the more vacilating statements he has made about
9-11.
|10.10.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Before the War™, National Review occasionally had
involuntary spasms of libertarianism. Why they drank the Iraq
Kool-Aid so deeply is beyond me. We fail in foreign policy all the
time--so what if this time it involves our military? It's not like
we didn't prove that we can defeat most armies in three weeks or
less--we did. What the heck's the point of all of this
must-be-unified-it's-war crap? Other than a few crazy lefties and
extreme anarchists, no one wants the U.S. to have some sort of
disaster over there. Well, some of the president's opponents may be
a little happier than they should that things aren't going well,
but an actual cataclysm does none of us any good.
John,
No doubt that Paul holds positions that most of us here have
problems with. But his fundamentals are sound, and he's the only
candidate I can say that of.
Jay D|10.10.07 @ 12:06PM|#
In other news:
Michigan is an open primary. All the big Democrats [except Hillary]
pulled out of the primary. Michigan Democrats can be assured a
Hillary win, and if they are feeling spunky, there are no real
consequences for going out and putting in a vote for Ron Paul.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Did Ron Paul ever fire the staff who put racist comments in his newsletter? What is it about Ron Paul that attracts racists?
VM|10.10.07 @ 12:07PM|#
"No doubt that Paul holds positions that most of us here have
problems with. But his fundamentals are sound, and he's the only
candidate I can say that of."
well said, ProGLib. Excellent comment!
|10.10.07 @ 12:08PM|#
"that has been the "warblogger" and NRO crowd's m.o. of late,
John."
It is true. Bush finally fired Rumsfeld and actually sent an army
into occupy ground and put and end to the whole stay in the camp
and use special forces to do targeted strikes strategy and actually
did counter insurgency. Wow, it actually works even though we seem
to have to re-learn it every 40 years or so. Only time will tell.
Maybe a new insurgency will break out his spring and things will go
back to square one again, but I doubt it. I read the other day
where the US is down to a battalion in Mousul. Absent another huge
breakout of violence similiar to what happened in Anbar in 2005, I
can't see how the whole thing doesn't just slowly grind to a
halt.
|10.10.07 @ 12:09PM|#
John,
I guess Doherty expected Kopel to give the guy no credit for
anything and run an unfair hit piece on Paul because Kopel
disagrees with Paul about the war.
Gee, why would Doherty assume that National Review would do
that?
Have you ever looked at old threads and read what you, personally,
you yourself, John, have written about people you disagree with
about the war?
You once called me a "long-time supporter and defender of Saddam
Hussein." You've oftern told me I was a racist who didn't think
Middle Easterners were civilized enough to support a democracy. You
told me I was yearning to see America defeated, looked down on
people in the service, and harbored anti-Semitic conspiracy
theories.
Face it, John - disparaging people as unstable, unpatriotic, weak,
and evil because they oppose the Iraq War has defined the
Republican Party for the last five years, from the White House to
the leadership in Congress to the RNC to the Noise Machine, right
down to Noise Machine-groupies like yourself. And now you're
pretending to be surprised that Doherty would expect more the same
from an NRO writer?
Give me a break.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 12:11PM|#
No he [Ron Paul] is Goldwater with Henry Cabot Lodge nutty
isolationism. That is going to be his downfall.
Can a cadidate who hovers around 2-3% have a downfall?
|10.10.07 @ 12:11PM|#
"I too am surprised that the semi-official magazine for the
Republican Nationalist-Evangelical Party would be so enthusiastic
about Paul."
Don't be too surprised. They also came out against the war on
drugs.
|10.10.07 @ 12:13PM|#
"No he [Ron Paul] is Goldwater with Henry Cabot Lodge nutty
isolationism. That is going to be his downfall."
No, the Republicans' nutty meddling foreign policy will be their
downfall.
|10.10.07 @ 12:14PM|#
"I will donate $1,000 to Ron Paul campaign but only if 10,000
other people will do the same, not a $penny$ sooner."
http://www.pledgebank.com/us-patriot-drive
Deadline to sign up by: 31st December 2007
31 people have signed up, 9969 more needed
More details
This is a very realistic goal that will virtually ensure Ron Paul
republican nomination and then on to presidency.
10,000 donors of $1,000 each will generate additional $10,000,000
for the campaign.
!!!No commitment until we reach our goal!!! - that is the ultimate
power of a pledge.
This is the most amount of money any republican candidate can hope
to raise (looking at what GOP front runners can bring in). Remember
this is in addition what the campaign can raise on its own.
I understand that this is a lot of money, therefore I don't expect
people to just drop $1,000 on the spot before the goal is reached.
This pledge has no obligation to contribute before the goal is
reached, what so ever! But by signing up, if we do not reach our
goal !!!you risk nothing!!!, and if we do, your $1,000 donation
will virtually guarantee that Ron Paul has enough money to take the
GOP nomination to go on, and be the most honest president in our
lifetimes. There will be absolutely no doubt that your $1,000
contribution, once we reach 10,000 donors, will make
**unimaginable** difference, therefore make it that much easier to
plop down a $grand$.
In addition, I will make sure that everyone of the donors receives
a certificate of patriotism. This certificate will have a special,
unbreakable authenticity code printed on it. These will be the only
authentic certificates, period, and who knows, someday may carry as
much value as prominent awards, all for going way above and beyond
for the benefit of United States Of America, the greatest nation on
Earth!
The only thing left is to go out and get the pledges, !!!no
commitment!!! until we reach our goal of 10,000 donors. Thats the
power of a pledge, you sacrifice only when you know it will make
**the** difference.
Anonymo the Anonymous|10.10.07 @ 12:15PM|#
It's a shame NRO doesn't have commenting on their articles,
because NRO and Edward really deserve each other.
Speaking of Donderoooooooooooo, I have it on medium authority
that he has vanished somewhere on Old Mexico.
Does anyone doubt that the explanation behind this involves
prostitutes?
Edward|10.10.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Forget the pledge. Throw your $1000 down the sewer. Ron Pail's racist supporters will pick it up.
|10.10.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Before we start seeing his face on milk cartons, somebody needs to tell the "mainstream libertarian" people that Dunderhead is undercover and posing as Edward on this thread. Location: unknown.
|10.10.07 @ 12:26PM|#
"the Democrats would destroy Paul over the fact that truthers
seem to support him"
Most truthers are Democrats. Maybe they would switch over and vote
for him.
|10.10.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Paul's astounding fund-raising, inlcuding his absurdly outsized
take of donations from people in the military, indicates to me that
he is becoming a rallying point for people who are against the war,
but cannot stomach Democrats.
Which is a pretty good chunk of the electorate.
Jay D, interesting point about Michigan.
|10.10.07 @ 12:26PM|#
I agree that Ron Paul has a small chance at becoming the
nominee. First, he's not crazy, anachronistic, isolationist nor
extremist.
The problem with Paul's campaign is that the campaign is too
intellectual for the majority of the American populace. The
TV-tranced masses want to be told things like:
We can; and we are going to WIN the war!
The economy is great and getting better.
I like the Yankees/Cubs/Red Sox/etc.
I'll help the government make you rich.
They don't care about their slipping freedoms.
They ignore the fact that the government
LENDS people their own income to pay for
their children's college tuition (in the form of Federal Student
Loans). Yes, I'm paying interest on a portion of my parents'
income, lent to me in the form of education loans.
BASEBALL TEAMS were mentioned at both party's
debates!
We have congressional hearings about STEROID USE IN
BASEBALL when we have an UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR GOING
ON!
People need to wake up before they can hear the music. If we keep
heading down our current path, the music may be that of the fat
lady singing of liberty.
|10.10.07 @ 12:30PM|#
First they ignore us.
Then they laugh at us.
Finally, they will fight us. Then we will win.
Go Ron Paul!
|10.10.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Every day more people climb aboard the RON PAUL band wagon. And
we're going to ride it all the way to Washington. Suck it
Edwaaarrrddddoooo!
RON PAUL
Like Jesus only more powerful
|10.10.07 @ 12:34PM|#
I see David Kopel as a solid libertarian on most matters but he's way confused about foreign policy.
|10.10.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, the race he's running, the
significant support he's picking up, and the loud applause his
anti-Iraq-War comments get at every debate are having a major
effect on American politics.
Howard Dean lost the primary. Anybody want to argue that Howard
Dean has not been one of the most politically-influential people in
America over the past four years?
Edward|10.10.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Nazi Traitor David Duke Supports Ron Paul
Former Klansman, ex-convict and Neo-Nazi Traitor David Duke
supports Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul already has the support
of such far right figures as Pat Buchanan and Larry Pratt as well
as a 100 percent rating from the John Birch society.
Episiarch|10.10.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Every time Edward posts, I can see his hand under the table moving faster and faster. He'll be grunting soon.
|10.10.07 @ 12:36PM|#
However long the Paul campaign train can chug down the track, at the end we need to see the passengers commit to launching new, grassroots, community and campus libertarian educational and activist clubs. Libertarians need to be seen and heard in local communities all over the country, every day, engaged in issue discussion and action. And I'm not talking about the LP and ballot access and finding another candidate to run for Election Judge or get .5% in a congressional race.
|10.10.07 @ 12:37PM|#
God, it's worth sending my $$$ to Ron Paul just to drive Edward crazy. In fact, in general, donating to Paul is the best entertainment investment I've made years.
|10.10.07 @ 12:37PM|#
"The problem with Paul's campaign is that the campaign is too
intellectual for the majority of the American populace."
Yeah, you are just to smart for the dumb hicks. I have never met
Ron Paul, so I can't really say anything about him personally. But
his problem is that attracts people who have bizarre or outdated
economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive with
reality. Most people want their taxes lowered and for Congress to
stop stealing their money and trying to regulate every aspect of
thier lives. That is it and when Paul stays on that message, he
does well and has attracted a few followers. When the cooks come
out and start talking about how the country has been going down
hill since they destroyed the Constitution to fight the civil war
or whatever nonesense, he doesn't look so good.
|10.10.07 @ 12:40PM|#
David Duke supports the breathing of air. Edward, you seem to have a strong sense of principle. Obviously, you will want to boycott air until the Nazis and other racists stop supporting it.
Dave Woycechowsky|10.10.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Howard Dean lost the primary. Anybody want to argue that
Howard Dean has not been one of the most politically-influential
people in America over the past four years?
1. Howard Dean didn't lose the primary. The Iowa caucus lost it for
him.
2. Howard Dean has not been politically influential since they done
him dirt in Iowa.
NY voter|10.10.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Did Ron Paul ever fire the staff who put racist comments in
his newsletter? What is it about Ron Paul that attracts
racists?
Ghouliani never met with black officals, community leaders, or any
other group during his 8 years. That's racist.
There was a reason Louima claim that Volpe said "it's Guiliani
time" was so quicklly and widely believed, Rudy hates and fears
blacks for no other reason than their skin color.
|10.10.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Dave,
Also, Howard Dean raised a ton of money and got a ton of support
from the internet. Just like Ron Paul he did everything but
actually get someone to vote for him. Politics is pesky that way;
if you don't get very many people to vote for you, it doesn't
matter how many internet commenters love you.
|10.10.07 @ 12:45PM|#
It takes a village to beat the crap out of prisoners and
give them free medical care afterwards.
Great line! I'll use it (with attribution) in the future, I'm
sure.
RP supporter|10.10.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Dean was a one trick pony, his only difference was his war
stance.
RP has a lot of differences witht he other candidates, first among
which is that he is honest.
stephen the goldberger|10.10.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, the race he's running, the
significant support he's picking up, and the loud applause his
anti-Iraq-War comments get at every debate are having a major
effect on American politics.
here here.
I care about Ron Paul potentially winning, but I care even more
about him shifting debate and realigning the republican party with
its supposed small gov't foundation.
|10.10.07 @ 12:47PM|#
"Ghouliani never met with black officals, community leaders, or
any other group during his 8 years. That's racist."
Considering the fact that black community leaders especially in New
York are almost inevietably race hustling jive artists, I am not
really sure what your point is. I am sure Rudy has some bad points
doesn't he?
|10.10.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Dave,
Howard Dean is the Chairman of the Democratic Party.
Chairman Dean initiated the 50 State Project. Say hello to Senators
Webb, Tester, and Whitehouse. Hello, bicameral majority.
Howard Dean showed the Democrats how to run a "choice, not an echo"
campaign after years of Daschle-esque efforts to blur distinctions
on issues of war and security.
The positions, themes, and strategies that have defined the
Democratic majority (which controls the shape of political debate
in the country) since 2005-2006 are those that Dean brought into
mainstream politics in 2003, and made the organizing principles of
the Democratic Party in 2005.
|10.10.07 @ 12:50PM|#
John, methinks you don't know what you're talking about. Giuliani has a long history of marginalizing black people and defending their murderers and abusers who work under him in the executive branch in New York.
Dave Woycechowsky|10.10.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Also, Howard Dean raised a ton of money and got a ton of
support from the internet. Just like Ron Paul he did everything but
actually get someone to vote for him. Politics is pesky that way;
if you don't get very many people to vote for you, it doesn't
matter how many internet commenters love you.
Another difference is that with Dean I went to a meet-up (my only
dabbling in electoral politics beyond voting), but with Paul I
registered Republican in the hope I can cast a primary vote for
him.
It will be fun to vote across my party line for Al Gore when the
time comes.
|10.10.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Politics is pesky that way; if you don't get very many
people to vote for you, it doesn't matter how many internet
commenters love you.
Tru Dat.
For example, Republican Congressional candidates in 2006 had a ton
of money, and a large, devoted Amen Choir on the internet.
As they ran against the candidates who were often recruited,
funded, and polished up by the Dean machine.
|10.10.07 @ 12:54PM|#
" I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in
1983-84...."
Does this mean Mr Kopel is one of those "mugged by reality"
types?
It's fascinating to watch these guys cautiously stick their heads
out of the underbrush and say things like, "I'm not sure, but the
last six and a half years don't really seem to have worked out as I
expected when I voted in 2000."
Mr Greenspan, for example, suddenly allows (with no mention of his
own complicity in the current inflation(!) and other miscellaneous
economic bumps in the road) as how the Republicans haven't stayed
true to their roots. As for Bush, Greenspan's sophisticated
analysis seems to boil down to, "I never really liked that
guy."
Are they just slow learners, or are they preparing to position
themselves as advantageously as possible in the next incarnation of
the Government Party?
NY Voter|10.10.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Nice, John, that's nice.
So Charlie Rangle is a "race hustling jive artists"? And the 100
Blacks in Law Enforcement group? And the leaders of the largest
black churches in the city? I personally might not always agree
with their positions, but you gotta talk to the people who are
paying taxes when you're a political leader.
Nah, fuck em, they're all hustlers, you know how those people
are.
So you're hoping for David Duke as Girliani's running mate, I
suppose?
|10.10.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Randoph
He also as mayor helped lower the murder rate by 67%. Most of those
vicims are minorities. Ed Koch and David Dinkins, through their
incompetance, killed more black people than the Klan ever did. The
racist thing to do is to let the race hustles and community
"leaders" run things into the ground not actually make the city
livable like Giuliani did.
|10.10.07 @ 12:57PM|#
"So Charlie Rangle is a "race hustling jive artists"?"
You are God damned right he is. He is one step above Al Sharpton.
What are kidding me? You surely can come up with a better example
than that.
|10.10.07 @ 1:00PM|#
"From 1995 to 2000, civilian complaints of excessive force by
the NYPD declined from one complaint per ten officers to one per 19
officers. Meanwhile, shootings by cops declined by 50 percent and
were far lower under Giuliani than under Dinkins"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html
It is a myth that the police force was somehow more brutal under
Giuliani. The facts just don't bear it out. The difference was when
some cop shot someone or beat them up under Dinkins, no one blamed
the mayor for it.
|10.10.07 @ 1:01PM|#
John,
I don't think it's accurate to say that Paul's message requires
intellectuals to understand it; rather, it's a message that
requires a little more thought than "war good/bad, want free stuff
paid for by someone else, protect me from drugs, terror, fat,
cavities, smoke". Which is why his message is harder to
communicate. Even our hoi polloi find the condensation
that spews from other candidates annoying, though.
As for Dean's influence, I think that it was considerable during
and after the last election, but he doesn't strike me as having the
influence that McAuliffe did. I also think the Democrats have just
as much as the GOP reduced the main thrust of their campaign to war
issues. I think a position on the war is important, but I'm certain
that most Americans have other issues that are more important to
them.
|10.10.07 @ 1:03PM|#
My sense, and there's nothing scientific about it other than
talking to my friends/associates, is that war fatigue is an
increasing factor among Republicans. Iraq is a truly demoralizing
affair, even for the folks who believed in it for a long time, and
I don't think it arouses the same kind of passion among non-pundits
that it did before.
Combine that with the overall suckitude and negativity of the GOP
"frontrunners," and it's not hard to understand why Ron Paul is
gaining at least some support. There's a LOT of unhappiness with
Bush in the GOP base, and any candidate that seems connected to his
malaise is in trouble, I believe.
RP is still a huge longshot, but his campaign is far from
laughable. He connects with a deeper, more emotionally satisfying
conservatism than than the imperialistic, preachy version we've
been subjected to over the last decade or so.
|10.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Edward,
Guilt by one way associations is way dumb, even for you.
BTW-for one to score well on the John Birch society rating, one
must vote for/support smaller government and less intervention,
both foreign and domestic. Pat Buchanan's criticisms of our
government's foreign policy are excellent.
|10.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#
"But his problem is that attracts people who have bizarre or
outdated economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive
with reality. Most people want their taxes lowered and for Congress
to stop stealing their money and trying to regulate every aspect of
thier lives. That is it and when Paul stays on that message, he
does well and has attracted a few followers. When the cooks come
out and start talking about how the country has been going down
hill since they destroyed the Constitution to fight the civil war
or whatever nonesense, he doesn't look so good."
I'm curious about these outdated Constitutional views. Is it the
whole "Congress should declare war" thing? Enumerated powers?
Please enlighten.
BTW, which cooks are coming out for RP? Gordon Ramsay?
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 1:08PM|#
"But his problem is that attracts people who have bizarre or
outdated economic and Constitutional views that simply do not jive
with reality."
This is asinine.
The acceptable range of debate over the meaning of the plain
language of the Constitution has been narrowed over the last 75
years. This narrowing has been accomplished largely by the efforts
of leftist statists [who don't want to have to re-fight political
battles they previously won] and also by conservatives who simply
have no fucking balls and are so terrified of what they perceive to
be the political damage that would arise from a reconsideration of
the New Deal and the Progressive agenda.
"Your views on the Constitution are outdated" is a coward's
substitute for an argument. What it's really saying is, "Please
shut up about the Constitution guys, because if the Democrats think
you don't accept the modern regulatory / welfare state they're
going to come beat us up and I'm scared and want my mommy."
Every line of the Constitution is open for discussion every day.
Every court decision and every precedent and every line in the
Federal code is open for discussion every day. And not wonkish
discussion about technical details, either, but fundamental
discussion starting from zero. Stare decisis means shit to me.
x,y|10.10.07 @ 1:15PM|#
While Kopel's piece was nice, we have a long way to go to
convince the war-mongering NR types:
This is Jim Geraghty on Paul after the debate:
"UPDATE: I forgot Ron Paul. That's for two reasons. First, with so
many candidates on stage, the fourth or fifth guy in that lower
tier is easy to forget. Second, the Vast Conspiracy To Keep Down
Ron Paul told me to leave him out.
I had wondered if he would make a bigger splash, or seem
higher-profile, as he's now rolling in dough. Eh, not so much. It's
nice to hear a guy come out and say he doesn't like any subsidies
for anybody, but in the end, Ron Paul is playing on a different
field, and competing for different voters than everybody
else.
As I just noted in conversation with one of the strategists for one
of the candidates, actual debates are rare at both parties'
debates. Among Republicans, Romney thinks Giuliani should bleed
over the line item veto, Hunter's tougher on Communist China, and
Paul wants federal government to be trimmed to about four
employees. Beyond that, the policy differences are pretty
small."
This speaks for itself.
|10.10.07 @ 1:20PM|#
People from Texas who've never been to New York are going to
define any black Democrat you name as a "race-hustling con artist,"
NY Voter.
Oh, excuse me, "jive artist." Not "con." "Jive."
Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangeld - who can even tell the
difference?
|10.10.07 @ 1:24PM|#
" Ron Paul is playing on a different field, and competing for
different voters than everybody else. "
Stumbling onto the truth.
|10.10.07 @ 1:24PM|#
"I think a position on the war is important, but I'm certain
that most Americans have other issues that are more important to
them."
I think you are right Pro. First, the war never really hit that
many people that hard becuase most people are not in the military.
Second, the war is winding down. It is going to end. Iraq isn't
going to become a satillite of Iran or some Al Quada state. It is
going to be reasonable functional federal democracy. I think most
people get a sense that the worst is over. Why do you think Hillary
Clinton is campaigning on domestic issues like health care and
savings bonds for babies? It is not because she wouldn't campaign
as an anti-war candidate if she thought that is what would get her
elected. It is because she gets her news about what is actually
happening in Iraq from someone besides Dave Weigel. She knows the
war is winding down and is not going to be that big of an issue in
2008.
Fluffy,
"Every line of the Constitution is open for discussion every day."
We have had that conversation and the people through about 70 years
of elections have decided that they don't view the Constitution
that way. Thanks for playing. Thinking about things like the
Lockner decision are great for college debating societies but get
you nowhere in reality.
NY Voter|10.10.07 @ 1:25PM|#
You know, I did see I guy who I thought might be selling drugs
down the block. He was just standing there near the bus stop
sign.
He was black, of course.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, I bet it was Charlie Rangle!
Edward|10.10.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Ron Paul's charisma and smashing good looks will trump his association with racist loonies and Christian-nation kooks. A new bright day is about to dawn!
Edward|10.10.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Ron Paul on the Christian nature of America:
From "The War on Religion" by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
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. The establishment clause of the
First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an
official state church like the Church of England, not to drive
religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout
our nation's history, churches have done what no government can
ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil
individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and
wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is
the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as
institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance,
and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in
the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war
against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's
Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that
war.
Urkobold™|10.10.07 @ 1:37PM|#
EDWARD AND RICHARD DAWKINS HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON: THEY'RE BOTH DICKS.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"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
Maybe one of you Ron Paul enthusiasts can dig up these many
references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.
|10.10.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Hey Special Edward, get a haircut. You can get a loan from John Edwards for one. I think he has $400 to spare. He sure shouldn't waste it on his campaign.
|10.10.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Ron Paul's Christian zealotry doesn't bother me. Because on every issue where other politician use some piece of religious argle bargle as pretext for screwing us over, Ron Paul always says "the Constitution does not authorize the government to do that".
|10.10.07 @ 1:42PM|#
"Maybe one of you Ron Paul enthusiasts can dig up these many
references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution."
I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue. I do agree with him on
his noninterventionist foreign policy.
|10.10.07 @ 1:43PM|#
It is even more funny that the only candidate I have seen who has pledged to pull our of Iraq immediately, no questions asked, is a Republican fringe candidate who is polling at like 2%. It is facinating how the Iraq war issue is fading from the scene.
|10.10.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Ron Paul is an absurd longshot, with no possibility of winning
the election or even having a significant influence on it.
Therefore, I spend hours each day trying to make him look bad in
the eyes of his supporters.
Because he's such a non-entity.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 1:44PM|#
One Osama bin Laden establishes a theocracy, he'll probably have a non-interventionist foreign policy, too.
|10.10.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich are neither Republicans, nor
polling at 2%.
Iraq fading from the scene. Uh huh. That must explain why no one is
talking about it.
|10.10.07 @ 1:45PM|#
If Rudy wins the nomination and the evangelicals go third party. Ron Paul could be their man. Think about it, he is pro life, very Christian, a great speaker and has a built fund raising and campagn base. Think about it, who else would they run? Alan Keys? I don't think so. Paul could also pull some from the Democratic Party by advocating an immediate pull out from Iraq, something the Democratic candidate most likly won't be doing.
|10.10.07 @ 1:47PM|#
"Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich are neither Republicans,
nor polling at 2%."
I will give you Richardson, but he is at best a distant third
behind Clinton and Obama and Kucinich is more of a fringe candidate
than Ron Paul. Yes, no one is talking about the war. They are
talking about health care and other domestic issues the Democrats
think they can win on. I don't know Joe maybe you need to call them
and save them from themselves.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 1:48PM|#
"Maybe one of you Ron Paul enthusiasts can dig up these many
references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution."--Ron Paul
"I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue. I do agree with him on
his noninterventionist foreign policy."--Rattlesnake Jake
Unless Ron Paul is a total ignoramus, his assertion about many
references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution is a fucking lie.
|10.10.07 @ 1:49PM|#
The People's Priorities: Gallup's Top 10
Gallup's Editors constantly update their analysis of the American
public's priorities for their elected representatives in Washington
-- the men and women sent to the nation's capital to do the
people's bidding. The Top 10 Priorities list is based on an
analysis of open-ended responses to questions asking Americans to
name the top priorities for the government and to name the most
important problem facing the nation today, plus a series of
additional questions in which Americans rate the priorities of the
issues and concerns facing the nation today.
Each of these Top 10 Priorities listed below is accompanied by a
capsule summary of what the American public wants its
representatives to do on each.
1. Iraq
Iraq is clearly the dominant policy issue on Americans' minds. It
has been at the top of the list on Gallup's most important problem
list since March 2004. By a wide margin over any other issue,
Americans say it should be the president's and Congress' top
priority.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24391
|10.10.07 @ 1:56PM|#
See what I get for a long lunch.
Unless Ron Paul is a total ignoramus, his assertion about many
references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution is a fucking lie.
You know all about lying. You could be called as an expert witness.
Why can't you keep your promises? Oh, that's right, you're a 20
gallon douchebag. Go away, you liar, you fraud fraught gasbag
assboil.
Edward | October 4, 2007, 1:46pm | #
Fuck you and the rest of your wacky "Urkobold" cronies, PL. In
fact, fuck this entire lunatic blog and everyone on it. I'm done
with it.
Edward | October 1, 2007, 10:46am | #
Fuck this place. I'm outta here for real this time.
Edward | October 1, 2007, 11:54am | #
Fuck you SugarFree, this is my last post here.
Edward | August 31, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Wow, no sympathy at all for a man suffering the ravages of chemo
therapy, but pious reverence for a dead crackpot like Aaron Russo.
I'm glad I decided to stop posting in this psycho ward.
Edward | August 31, 2007, 2:55pm | #
No, I realy have decided to stop posting here. This is absolutely
my last post. I just couldn't resist commenting on the hipocricy.
It rivals that of all the family-values-anti-gay Republican gays
put together. I'll resist commenting in the future because I won't
read this garbage anymore. I'm going to read Finnigan's Wake
instead.
Edward | August 15, 2007, 11:18am | #
This is my absolutely final contribution to this psychopathic
forum. Please ban me.
|10.10.07 @ 2:02PM|#
You miss my point Joe. We are talking about the candidates. Why
are they not coming out with plans and pledges to end the war upon
entering office? Hell, Hillary Clinton wouldn't commit to being out
of Iraq by 2013. Is she that much of a hawk?
What do you think is going to happen in Iraq Joe? Do you really
think the US will just walk away one day and there will be a repeat
of Saigon 1975? Do you think a Democratic President want that on
his watch? Realisticly, the war is just going to wind down over the
next year or two and whoever is President in 2009 will start troop
reductions and take credit for "winning the war". Absent some as
yet unforseen outbreak in violence, it is difficult to imagine
there being a need for this many troops in Iraq by next summer
letalone the summer of 2009 when the next President can actually
start to have an effect. Thank God, things are actually gettting
better.
|10.10.07 @ 2:03PM|#
He also as mayor helped lower the murder rate by 67%. Most
of those vicims are minorities. Ed Koch and David Dinkins, through
their incompetance, killed more black people than the Klan ever
did.
Questionable. Crime was going down nationwide. He hired more cops,
which undoubtedly helped, but without the national ebb of the crime
wave it wouldn't have been that dramatic.
I will give you Richardson, but he is at best a distant third
behind Clinton and Obama
He's also the Governor of New Mexico, for crying out loud.
Clinton is an uber-insider and Obama (who voted against the war) is
a rock star.
|10.10.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Dodging the question, sage?
You mean about how much of a knob you are? I's say a pretty damn
puny one. There, you happy?
|10.10.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Edward,
I answered your question about why racists are attracted to the Ron
Paul campaign here:
Ron Paul does have a great deal of support on Stormfront which is a neo-Nazi website.
The reasons why they support him is that he wants to end Federal Affirmative Action and because he is opposed to the Federal Reserve.
The reason why they like the affirmative action policy is obvious; no more special perq's for "race enemies".
The latter is because they view it as him being against the modern banking system which they feel to be controlled by the Joooos.
This does not discredit Ron Paul; Alot of racists have embraced libertarianism once they saw the state apparatus used "against them". In the days of Jim Crow these guys had no truck with the idea of Freedom of Association until suddenly the laws went from mandating segregation to forbidding it.
Walter Block once famously tried to convince a group of Neo-Nazi's
to become libertarian, telling them:
You guys should join us. We'll let you have flags. We'll let you have marches. We'll even let you build ovens! You can't put anyone in them against their will, obviously... We're offering you far more than anyone else will.
Ron Paul is, to a Neo-Nazi, the lesser of 15 evils.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Thanks, Tarran. Good points. Still, I worry a bit about a man who doesn't denounce such support. Paul has never really distanced himself from the 9/11 Truthers, and his religious views probably appeal to a whole range of unsavory theocratic types. Aside from his position on the war and taxes, it's hard to understand why libertarians are so worked up about him. Aren't most libertarians secularists?
Edward|10.10.07 @ 2:22PM|#
SugarFree
Many of those are from others posting in my name. I have such
presence here that people onot only attack me, they also imitate
me. Not bad for a troll.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Gee, everybody is avoiding the question of Ron Paul's God
references in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I guess not feeding trolls is a very selective practice.
I wonder if Osam and Ron Paul have ever met. They have a lot of
common ground.
|10.10.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Why are they not coming out with plans and pledges to end
the war upon entering office? They are. Every single one of
them.
The issue is how the withdrawal will occur and over what timeframe,
which is also the remaining debate among most of the public, as you
would have read if you'd gone to the link.
But I will note, once again, that you are now describing as
"hawkish" exactly that position - end the war, walk away from the
mission, keep a few troops in the area to contain the mess - that
you were calling "treason," "cowardice," and "defeatism" when John
Murtha was talking about it two years ago.
Do you really think the US will just walk away one day and
there will be a repeat of Saigon 1975? I think the US will
walk away, and there will not be a repeat of Saigon in 1975.
Everybody realizes that the drawdown of troops is that imposed by
manpower limitations, as the generals have been saying we would
have to do this year, regardless of events on the ground. I don't
know who you think you are fooling at this late date with your
rerun of the happy talk from 2003 and your pretense that the troop
reduction is a response to improvements on the ground, but it
certainly isn't American voters.
|10.10.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Well, I enjoyed the article.... But a major GOP member stated last week he supports Ron Paul. I had dinner with this guy who is a neocon who is near a revolt of the neocon agenda. I asked if I could write an article and reveal his name but he stated he wanted to go on record in the weeks to come. When he comes foreward it will be huge news! So very exciting things are happing for Dr. Paul. Let's just count the blessing we have seen thus far and hope more will come foreward.
|10.10.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Edward,
Some of the most libertarian people I ever met were members of a
sect of Christian Fundamentalists who had fled communist
Yugoslavia. These guys wouldn't vote. They wouldn't sit on juries.
They refused government hand-outs. They had been ruthlessly
persecuted by Tito's regime for refusing to serve in the
army.
They viewed the government as a diabolical entity that tried to
turn men against God's will.
Libertarianism is not a religion. It is essentially a renunciation
of aggressive violence. You can have a fundamentalist who views
homsexuality as evil living next door to a cultist who'se religious
rites are based around witual sodomy all living peaceably together
if they adhere to libertarian principles.
As to Ron Paul and thocracy: having read the monthly essays he has
written throughout his career, his short books etc, it is clear
that whatever his religious views, he is absolutely unwilling to
use the state to ram them down people's throats. This is the guy
who supported Reagan back before it was cool, then turned around
and was the only republican to vote against giving Reagan a
congressional gold medal because it exceeded Congress'
powers.
Honestly,Ron Paul's religion appears nowhere in my list of concerns
about him. the 'end birthright citizenship' thing is the big
potential deal-killer for me.
|10.10.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Alas, Kopel shows a naivite not uncommon among libertarians when
he writes, "Polls show that about quarter of Americans are
libertarians, in a general sense."
These figures are bogus. They usually come from interpreting as
"libertarian" everyone who calls themselves "conservative on
ecomomic issues, liberal on social." This ignores that, for
example, to many people who classify themselves this way, "social
liberalism" actually includes government *prohibition* of private
discrimination.
Any poll that purports to show that a vast number of Americans are
libertarian can do so only by stretching the concept of
libertariansism beyond all recognition. No movement that had that
much popular support would be so politically impotent.
Guy Montag|10.10.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Wait! If Ron Paul becomes President does Ohio still remain a State or not?
Minion of URKOBOLD|10.10.07 @ 2:44PM|#
TIME TO PLAY, "WHO SAID THIS: EDWARD, OR A SLIGHTLY SCHIZO,
NOT-POTTY-TRAINED LABRADOODLE"
1) ARRRRGGGHHGAGAGAAAAAGAAAAAAA
EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
BBBZZZZZT. IT WAS HELGA, THE NANNY, AFTER SHE GOT A ROOT
CANAL
2) MMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAFGGGGGGFFFFGGGFFGFFG
EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
BZZZT. WRONG AGAIN. THAT WAS ALSO HELGA. FOR THOSE WHO ANSWERED,
"HELGA" THIS TIME, THAT'S STILL WRONG BECAUSE THE QUESTION CALLED
FOR EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE.
3) I'M LEAVING THIS BLOG
EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
BZZZZT. WRONG AGAIN. TO LEAVE THIS BLOG IS A PERFORMATIVE, AND THAT
PERFORMANCE HASN'T HAPPENED, SO THE ANSWER IS NEITHER. HELGA DIDN'T
SAY THAT, EITHER, BECAUSE OF THE ROOT CANAL. STICK WITH ME HERE,
PEOPLE
4) OH LOOK. THE URKOBOLD JACKASSES.
EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
BZZZZT. THERE WAS NO FROTH AND SPITTLE. THAT MEANS NEITHER SAID
THAT THIS TIME. WHEN EDDIE (EDWAAAAARRRRDDDD(ild)OOOOOOOOOOOOO)
TYPES, IT'S A) WITH ONE HAND FOR SOME CURIOUS REASON - THAT
PROBABLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT HE KEEPS SOME
SANIWIPES BY HIS COMPUTER, AND HIS STRANGE OBSESSION WITH
PREVENTING YOU FROM ACTUALLY LOOKING UNDER HIS DESK AND B) THE
FROTH AND SPITTLE SHOW GIVES HIS NEIGHBORS THE IMPRESSION THAT
THERE'S A HOSE LOOSE ON HIS WASHING MACHINE, BUT HE IS JUST SO GOSH
DARNED BUSY PHILOSOPHIZING LIKE AN UNTRAINED LABRADOODLE THAT HE
JUST SIMPLY IS TOO SHY TO BOTHER THE MAYTAG MAN, WHO, INCIDENTALLY
RESEMBLES IN ACTIVITY, THE THIRD BASE COACH FOR THE WHITE
SOX.
5) DEMAND KURV!!!!!!
EDWARD OR THE AFOREMENTIONED LABRADOODLE
DING DING DING. THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS "MATT DAMON".
SEE, YOU CAN GET IT.
x,y|10.10.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Excellent post David T.
I used to describe myself (in my late high school and early college
days) as "economically conservative and socially liberal" when
people asked what I meant when I said "libertarian." This sufficed
for most people, but I stopped doing it for the reasons you
note.
It bugs me when people say that now, because 9 times out of 10
they:
1. Support the war on drugs;
2. Think the state should have a role in licensing marriages;
3. Don't support eliminating the IRS;
4. etc.
All "economically conservative and socially liberal" has come to
mean is: I want lower taxes and think gay couple should be allowed
to marry.
|10.10.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Edward,
Bullshit. You liar.
Many pre-date the spoofing fad. And most of the time you reply to
me with a hearty "Fuck You."
The room is quite smoky from the raging fire of your pants.
|10.10.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Edward:
Once Osama bin Laden establishes a theocracy, he'll probably
have a non-interventionist foreign policy, too.
Slow-witted Edward has gone from guilt by association to guilt by
imagined association!
|10.10.07 @ 2:56PM|#
just to not let this slide, the Declaration Of Independence does
indeed have many references to God, though I don't believe the
Constitution does. Capital G-o-d, if not necessarily the Christian
one. I am not a Christian, btw.
"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them"
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights"
"the Representatives of the united States of America, in General
Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions"
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on
the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
This isn't really "replete" with references, but it's enough to
make the claim serious.
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 3:07PM|#
"Every line of the Constitution is open for discussion every
day." We have had that conversation and the people through about 70
years of elections have decided that they don't view the
Constitution that way. Thanks for playing. Thinking about things
like the Lockner decision are great for college debating societies
but get you nowhere in reality.
Way to backpedal and move the goalposts.
Are libertarian interpretations of the Constitution rejected by
many American voters? Based on the election history of the last 70
years, yes.
But that isn't what you said.
You said that libertarian interpretations of the Constitution were
bizarre and outdated. Neither of those claims can be
defended with reference to the outcome of any particular election
or series of elections.
You may as well claim that since Bush won the last two elections,
that means that his interpretations of the limits of executive
power are the only ones with merit and anyone who disagrees is
pushing a bizarre and outdated view.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 3:10PM|#
SugarFree
Your agitation belies your name. I'd say you're on a sugar
high.
I've nenver responded to you with "fuck you," so go fuck
yourself.
|10.10.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Paul can think that Jesus is coming back next week so long as he
agrees that the government has no official role in welcoming the
Messiah back for his return engagement.
I simply refuse to get bogged down in these tangential issues. Paul
has a long history of believing in limited government, as defined
by the Constitution. He may think we're currently extreme in our
separation-of-church-and-state views without being a theocrat. Even
in law school, we discussed quite extensively the tension between
the right to free exercise of religion versus the prohibition
against establishment of religion. It's a thorny matter, no doubt.
But I've seen no sign that Paul's religious feelings have or will
interfere with his extremely strong views on limited government and
individual liberty. A number of early First Amendment proponents
were religious fanatics who wanted to ensure that their minority
views were protected, so personal religious belief and political
convictions can remain mutually exclusive.
Paul's not perfect, but he's the best we've got this time
around.
|10.10.07 @ 3:11PM|#
"Aside from his position on the war and taxes, it's hard to
understand why libertarians are so worked up about him. Aren't most
libertarians secularists?"
Most of his emphasis is on opposition to an interventionist foreign
policy. He says very little about the separation of church and
state.
|10.10.07 @ 3:11PM|#
I used to describe myself (in my late high school and early
college days) as "economically conservative and socially liberal"
when people asked what I meant when I said "libertarian." This
sufficed for most people, but I stopped doing it for the reasons
you note.
There are different degrees of libertarian, and I doubt you'll find
two self-described libertarians who agree on everything. To me,
"economically conservative and socially liberal" is a pretty good
shorthand way of describing libertarianism to someone of a
different persuasion. That's not the philosophical basis for
libertarianism, of course, but it pretty accurate states the
results, I'd say.
|10.10.07 @ 3:12PM|#
What Temporary K said.
I'll make the same point I made on the "Toleration" thread below:
the doctrine of the separation of church and state was created by
Christians, who believed in God, and drew upon the teachings of
their churches.
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 3:14PM|#
With regard to the separation of church and state issue, I
believe this is one of those instances where Paul chooses to cloak
a libertarian position in language that makes it appeal to
populists and conservatives.
[For the best example of this, see his position on free trade:
Since Paul favors libertarian-perfect free trade, he can claim he
rejects NAFTA as "managed trade". But the logline "Paul rejects
NAFTA" plays to protectionist conservatives who don't probe his
full position.]
I think we can judge what Paul means by claiming there is no
separation of church and state by examining his proposed voluntary
school prayer amendment. He seems to be saying that if the state
provides a facility to be used by the public in common, that it
should not be able to prevent some of the citizens from employing
that facility to a religious purpose. If the state cannot prevent
free political speech in a school or on the town green or in a
park, they should not be able to prevent religious speech there
either. So if children voluntarily pray in school, you can't plead
"separation of church and state" as an excuse to stop them. If
people meet in a public park and convene a religious ceremony, the
state should not be able to claim the right to stop them based on
the Establishment clause either.
It boils down to a fundamental claim that the use of public
property by religious citizens does not violate the Establishment
clause if the use is voluntary and not mandatory. And it's
certainly an interesting argument. Particularly since in Paul's
America the public / state area would be so small that its
voluntary use for religious activity by some citizens would almost
be beneath notice.
It's a libertarian argument, but because Paul can headline it "Paul
opposes separation of church and state" it can appeal to
conservatives too. It's just a bit of verbal finesse.
|10.10.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"Once Osama bin Laden establishes a theocracy, he'll probably
have a non-interventionist foreign policy, too."
Is it the responsibility of the US to prevent him from establishing
a theocracy?
|10.10.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake:
Most of his emphasis is on opposition to an interventionist
foreign policy. He says very little about the separation of church
and state.
Ron Paul opposes all most government programs and government
regulation. And he has the voting record to prove it! Also, he
opposes the government funding of "faith based initiatives".
stephen the goldberger|10.10.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Tarran didn't have to but he rendered your childish antics moot Edward. How can you seriously claim Ron Paul is going to establish a christian theocracy if you have any clue what he believes in? There are so many other issues where you can try and attack the man, but to claim he's going to blur the line between religion and gov't is just fundamentally ignorant.
|10.10.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Stevo,
Thanks for that.
I may have to resort to calling Edward "Jersey McJones in a
pant-suit."
|10.10.07 @ 3:58PM|#
BTW Joe,
Here is the Washington Post on Hillary Clinton position on
Iraq,
It is only when you examine the details--like the fine print in an
insurance contract--that you discover that [Mrs.] Clinton's pledge
to "get out of Iraq" is far from iron-clad. There are numerous
conditions attached. She enumerated some of them in the June 19
Democratic debate when pressed by Chris Matthews. Read the full
transcript here. Clinton's list of "vital national security
interests" in Iraq turns out to be quite lengthy:
"We cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq."
"We have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in
Anbar province."
"We also have to look at the way the Kurds are being
treated."
"We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence."
"We will have to protect our interests. We'll have an embassy
there."
"If the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a
continuing training mission."
Here are a couple more reasons cited by Clinton for a continuing
deployment of American troops to prevent Iraq degenerating into a
failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al
Qaeda." They come from an interview she gave to the New York Times
back in March.
Iraq "is right in the heart of the oil region."
Leaving Iraq altogether would be "directly in opposition to our
interests . . . to Israel's interests."
Somehow that doesn't sound like a firm promise "to get out of Iraq"
or, even less, a guarantee to "end our involvement there."
I almost hope she wins next year, just so I can welcome you over to
my side.
|10.10.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Edward | October 1, 2007, 11:54am | #
Fuck you SugarFree, this is my last post here.
It must have been A GHOST!
You've slipped from simple liar into dissembling and mendacious. A
lateral move at best.
Spin your fairy tales, Oh, Great Bard!
|10.10.07 @ 4:02PM|#
John,
Once again, you just described the Murtha Plan as "your
side."
You could have spared us all the venom, and admitted he was right
two years ago.
I haven't budged. First Murtha, then Clinton, and now you have come
to my position.
|10.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Look at the beating joe takes on the regular basis, and he
doesn't back down!
Yeah but joe's comments are most often well thought
out.
Retroactively previewed that for you, Rick.
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Joe,
I think John is persuasively arguing that Hillary doesn't support
the Murtha plan, because the sheer number of qualifications she
places on her statements is a surefire sign that she won't change
the occupation policy.
If Hillary is elected, she will produce a litany of excuses why she
can't withdraw the troops - even leaving a few behind for training
missions - "at this time" or "until we achieve goal X" or "in this
new set of circumstances". She's laying the rhetorical groundwork
for it now.
Saying you'll withdraw the troops if your laundry list of concerns
is dealt with is not a withdrawal policy. After all, in theory W
would withdraw the troops too, if only his own laundry list of
goals were achieved. No withdrawal plan is a withdrawal plan if it
is in any way hedged.
SugarFree|10.10.07 @ 4:18PM|#
I apolgize to you, Edward. Your points about Ron Paul's religious zealotry and association with Birchite loonies are well taken. We libertarians don't have a lot of good talent to choose from, so we go with what's available. We know we won't win anyway, so who really cares? It's just fun to be part of a movement.
|10.10.07 @ 4:19PM|#
If Rudy wins the nomination and the evangelicals go third
party. Ron Paul could be their man.
No, Ron Paul will go back to (IRONY ALERT!) his well-paying
government job as a Representative from Texas.
He's doing his bit for freedom, but he's not an idiot.
|10.10.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Fluffy,
The relationship between Hillary's position, Bill Richardson's, and
George Bush's is comparable to that between Mike Dukakis, Bill
Clinton, and Pat Buchanan on affirmative action.
Yes, there is some daylight between the liberal and center-left
position, but they are both miles away from the conservative
position.
There is a big question to answer - should we keep trying to turn
Iraq into a client state, or should we stop that? Clinton,
Richardson, Murtha, Pelosi and I say we should stop those efforts.
Bush, Cheney, McCain, and John say we should continue them.
It's the difference between a candidate who wants to cut the top
income tax rate to 28%, a candidate who wants to cut it to 30%, and
a candidate who wants to raise it.
If, in 2013, we have 2000 troops in Kurdistan and 20,000 in Kuwait,
and they occasionally foray into Arab Iraq to attack jihadist
bases, then we will have ended our involvement in the Iraq War, and
gone back to fighting the War on Terror instead - which is what all
of the Democrats are saying we should do, and what all of the
Republicans are saying we should not do.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 4:22PM|#
but he's not an idiot.
I think the jury is still out on that one. He seems to see
references to God everywhere. Maybe he's got some rare form of
dyslexia.
|10.10.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Let me rephrase the Big Question: should we keep fighting a war to establish a client state in Iraq, or should we abandon that mission?
Edward|10.10.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Let me rephrase the Big Question: should we keep fighting a war
to establish a client state in Iraq, or should we abandon that
mission?
It depends on how crucial a ready supply of oli will be. Greenspan
thinks oil was the main reason for invading and occcupying Iraq in
the first place. All the rest is just rhetorical cover.
|10.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#
joe,
If by "establish a client state" you mean stay there forever, make
Iraq the 51st state, protect the people's civil liberties the way
we (sort of) do here, and establish a robust infrastructure such
that we will have an uniterrupted supply of oil, then yeah, we
should.
That's really the reason we're losing. We're not going all in,
Naepoleon-like.
|10.10.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangeld - who can even tell the
difference?
Seriously, joe - what is the difference?
[Written mostly to get joe to throw Al Sharpton under the bus in
order to make Charlie Rangel look good.]
Edward|10.10.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Opps, "...how crucial a ready supply of OIL will be..." Talk about dyslexia.
|10.10.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal
the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between"
Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with
the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters,
banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private
lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to
investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the
title):
America Deceived (book)
Edward|10.10.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Ron Paul would let church-dominated states ban Darwin. Everybody knows it's better to have churches run things than the Demon State.
|10.10.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Edward,
I can't tell - is your comment meant to be descriptive or
prescriptive?
Minion of URKOBOLD|10.10.07 @ 4:41PM|#
oooh. EDDIE. VIOLATION OF 'jOE'S LAW' - WHENEVER YOU GO OFF LIKE
A TWADDLENOCK, YOU'RE GONNA MISSPELL SOMETHING.
HOW CAN WE BELIEVE THE ED'STER? ED-A-ROONI SAYS HE'S GONNA SOD OFF
AND DISAPPEAR, AND EVERY TIME I TELL CATERING TO GET THE CAKE AND
PARTY FAVORS READY FOR THE CELEBRATION, THE ED-MEISTER JUST GOES
AND PLUNGES BACK IN THE FRAY.
C'MON EEEEDDDDWWWWAAAARRRRDDDD(ild)OOOOO. YOU'RE KILLIN' US. AND
THE CATERING STAFF IS STARTING TO SWEAT IN THE GAZPACHO!
Edward|10.10.07 @ 4:48PM|#
"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."--Ron Paul
|10.10.07 @ 4:48PM|#
I don't think it's accurate to say that Paul's message requires intellectuals to understand it; rather, it's a message that requires a little more thought than "war good/bad, want free stuff paid for by someone else, protect me from drugs, terror, fat, cavities, smoke".
Many, many people aren't capable of firing on that many cylinders.
Not even close.
|10.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
Hey, everybody, look! The prodigal thread-spamming asshole is
back!
Edward|10.10.07 @ 4:51PM|#
I wonder whether Ron Paul thniks that we atheists can be moral, civil people.
|10.10.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Eward,
Can I take it by your quote of Paul at 4:48 that you are now
endorsing him? Because I don't see anything wrong with that quote.
A true conservative, IMO, knows that you can never look to the
governent to teach you how to be morally straight.
|10.10.07 @ 4:55PM|#
I wonder whether Ron Paul thniks(sic) that we atheists can
be moral, civil people.
Considering the uber-evangelicals that pushed the war in Iraq, I'd
say he probably does.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 5:00PM|#
A true conservative, IMO, knows that you can never look to the
governent to teach you how to be morally straight.
Right, but only religious zealots think that morality is the sole
province of religion.
|10.10.07 @ 5:02PM|#
only religious zealots think that morality is the sole
province of religion.
Well, since Paul didn't say anything to that effect, I don't see
what your point is. After all, he probably knows a lot better than
you that good parenting produces better morality than any church
ever could.
|10.10.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake,
This "America Deceived" guy is a comment spammer that's been
hitting H&R (and apparently a lot of other sites) for a long
time now. He appears to be searching for threads referencing
conspiracy theories, then dropping his packaged advertisement and
taking off. Here's a list of some of his H&R spamming incidents
by date, with professed name and email addresses:
Feb 9: Hank G (John11724@cs.com)
Feb 12: Larry Halston (Billdone11722@cs.com)
Feb 21: Jack D (John11724@cs.com)
Mar 21: David B (Billdone11722@cs.com)
May 20: Henry T (John11724@cs.com)
October 10: Jack (John1724@cs.com)
A
Google search returns a long list of sites he's spammed with
this crap. I know Reason doesn't tend to do much IP blocking (note
Edward's continued presence), but I'd certainly nominate this
guy.
Another poster, tomwright, posted this about "America Deceived"
back in May:
So far as the book goes:
America Deceived is published by iUniverse.
IUniverse is known as a vanity or subsidy publisher, who will publish anything by anyone that wants to pay for it.
That does not make them illegitimate, but it contrasts them with University and commercial publishers, who publish things that are either of serious interest to various communities, or that they think are good enough to make a profit from.
Amazon does still list this book, Barnes and Noble do not, even with an ISBN search. Amazon will list things sold by third parties, using Amazons site as a portal. Barnes and Nobel are more discriminating, but not by much. They do list books by iUniverse, Xlibris and other publishers like them. IUniverse has some link to B&N as well, but I am not sure if they are a subsidiary or in some sort of partnership arrangement. So for B&N to not list the book may say something.
The one review on Amazon states:
"After reading the first couple of pages it became apparent that this is a vanity press book. No serious publisher would have considered it. The author has no idea of how to write fiction, so he just throws silly ideas on a page . . . beginning with a long list of black celebrities, followed by the n-word. Then a list of events in American history all caused by a family of conspirators. Don't waste your time."
Looks more like a case of an execrable author on a nutty topic being studiously avoided by the rational.
SIV|10.10.07 @ 5:36PM|#
If Paul can capture this much regard and affection from
other mostly small-government conservative Republicans who aren't
with him on the war (though I suspect Kopel is a weird outlier on
this) things can get very interesting come primary time.
I suppose I'm one of those "weird outliers" as well.I would
strongly suggest Dr Paul "Sistah Souljah" the Truthers and firmly
and clearly state(for the benefit of those who don't understand
him) his willingness to defend the United States.
Edward|10.10.07 @ 5:45PM|#
This time I really am going. I have to take a trip (I'm flying
first class!) I hope you don't miss me too much. Maybe some other
Ron Paul skeptic will take my place.
Keep the Faith!
|10.10.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Edward,
Have a nice trip. I've got you covered:
Ron Paul is from Texas. Look at the lousy presidents we've gotten from there so far!
The Wine Commonsewer|10.10.07 @ 6:12PM|#
TWC--The war is more than just one thing to agree or
disagree with him about; to a great majority of his
supporters...
Brian, I'm sorry that I didn't get that point at first, maybe
because I am a little ambivalent on the whole thing. Sick of the
war, yes, but not rabid about ending it TODAY. I guess you are
correct, the war issue does kind of galvanize both sides, and that
makes the observation much more important than simple partisan
libertarian ideals about purity.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.10.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Edward, how's that new job you mentioned? Is it difficult to suck farts out of subway seats? Do you see yourself moving on to buses? And would that be a promotion? Of sorts?
Sherlock|10.10.07 @ 6:27PM|#
I'm pretty sure that there's at least 7 different people posting as "Edward" 'round here
|10.10.07 @ 8:13PM|#
Edward:
Maybe some other Ron Paul skeptic will take my
place.
The term "skeptic" gives far too much credit to your low rung and
frequently ridiculous nay saying.
|10.11.07 @ 9:06AM|#
Edward,
I hope the diseased cunt that is your face seeps pus forever.
(The funny thing is, I've never even spoofed the asshole. I just
pointed out that he's a liar, an assertion he proves over and over
again. It's sad that we've gone from one full-time troll to
two.)
Paul|10.11.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Here's one for you guys. Click my URL deal. This is the University of Michigan Ron Paul rally that was held after the debate. Keep in mind that Michigan is Willard's home state, and he had to pay "supporters" to show up at Mackinac Island...
|10.11.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Go here to get a tool that monitors the Ron Paul fund raising
campaign by the minute right on your desktop!
http://gibwo.com/ronpaul/
|10.12.07 @ 9:22AM|#
I am from Texas, a Republican and a conservative. Ron Paul is a joke and an embarasssment to the great state of Texas. I would vote for a three-legged goat before I wold vote for him. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian running as a republican.
|10.12.07 @ 12:17PM|#
inowat,
What?? I'm a Republican too. Ron Paul is the most pro-capitalism,
anti-government regulation candidate running.
Note that it was Ronald Reagan who said that: "If you
analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is
libertarianism...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less
government interference or less centralized authority or more
individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of
what libertarianism is."
If you\'re going to get it wro|10.12.07 @ 8:10PM|#
people who have bizarre or outdated economic and
Constitutional views that simply do not jive with
reality
Slackers, all of you who responded!
Theist|10.12.07 @ 8:26PM|#
ed | October 10, 2007, 2:34pm | #
RON PAUL
Like Jesus only more powerful
It didn't exactly end well for Jesus.
It hasn't ended for Jesus.
Just sayin'.
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