Forum: pol
Page 3600
Subject: The Real Ron Paul

  Posted by: Boldwin - [4111685] Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 12:03
Since one or two here think he's a serious candidate and even the logical TP candidate which I think is ridiculous.

The one positive thing I'll say about his candidacy.

He would be going against the only opponent he could ever get more than 30% of the vote against.

If he wasn't going against Frank Marshall's communist progeny and was going against anyone pro-American, republican voters would sit on their hands rather than vote for him. They like his influence, but would not trust him in the WH.
 
1DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 12:59 		Only you could be crazy enough to think starting thread about Ron Paul, and then saying absolutely nothing substantive about Ron Paul, solely in an effort to get your own rocks off, would be a good idea.
 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 13:20 		Ron Paul's candidacy perfectly captures why the GOP likes to think of itself as small government libertarians but simply cannot pull the trigger on that belief in the light of day.

There is no smaller government candidate out there than Ron Paul.
 
3Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 22:08 		What do you mean by "The Real Ron Paul"?
What you see is what you get.
Nobody is more consistent than Ron Paul.
Who is the fake Ron Paul?
You vote for him, you know what you're getting.
He's not going to get to D.C. and change.


 
4sarge33rd
      ID: 411131315
      Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 23:00 		Frankly, I think the hard Right is in for a shock. R Paul, stands to be one of the most influential (in terms of vote reapportionment) 3rd party candidates in recent memory.

I do not see him garnering the GOP nomination, but I DO see him, garnering a significant number of disenfranchised GOP write-in votes; and essentially handing Obama a landslide victory, ala Reagan. After which, the hard right will look around ask WTF is wrong with all those RINOs, throwing their votes away for R Paul. Never once, will they stop and realize that Paul got damn near a majority of votes from registered Republicans. IOW, those the hard calls RINOs, are in fact THE Republicans and the hard Right ARE the true RINOs.
 
5Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 23:38 		He's not going to get to D.C. and change...

anything.

You have to have power to do that and Ron Paul with all his crazy ideas would be just as effective a President as Dennis Kucinich.
 
6Boldwin
      ID: 4111685
      Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 20:26 		I have to agree that a Paul/Obama/Mitt choice might get Obama re-elected. I also think he'd be cutting his son's political throat.
 
7Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 10:54

The lyrics of this song still apply today.
 
8Boldwin
      ID: 321121173
      Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 04:29 		Just in case Ron Paul becomes the latest candidate du jour TPM wastes no time jumping on Paul.

And this time it's one of bili's classic lunacy check attacks.

They note that Paul [correctly] has pointed out undeniable efforts to construct a North American Union, which they go on to deny anyway.

It is interesting to point out that when all the liberals here on this board finally catch on that Paul is right, TPM will probably be the same source and TPM will be telling them it's such a great idea that Here's where they should send a check in support of the lunatic idea.

Here's wiki denying it while providing so much supporting information only an ostrich could deny it.
 
9biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 09:38 		Working with your neighbors is not proof you want to annex them. It's called diplomacy.
 
10Boldwin
      ID: 321121173
      Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 12:44 		How does it differ in any way from the path taken to arrive at the EU other than the point it's at on the path?

And look in the mirror and tell yourself you will never think that's the greatest idea since sliced bread. You know you will.
 
11Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 13:20 		Hahaha. Nice.
 
12Boldwin
      ID: 58112185
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 11:23
Having no real choice between Democratic or Republican warmaking or economics is why so many progressives and Democrats are hailing Ron Paul, which has helped him rise in Iowa. Matt Stoller discussed his interaction with Paul during his time as an aide to former Rep. Grayson.
This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn’t play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy , he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins . You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I’ve drilled into Paul’s ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview. – Matt Stoller - Taylor Marsh quoting Matt Stoller
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 58112185
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 11:27 		Tho I would point out that Paul gets 100% of the radical libertarian vote, Mitt gets 100% of the radically RINO vote, and the majority gets split by a wealth of legitimate TP choices and some stalking horses as well.

How does this primary thing work out fairly for the remaining 65% majority?

 
14Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 12:00 		the majority gets split by a wealth of legitimate TP choices

Name one.
 
15Boldwin
      ID: 321121173
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 13:40 		Every other candidate besides Paul/Mitt/Huntsman is closer to the TP than Mitt or Paul.

I have no interest in arguing who is a legitimate TP candidate, with people who think Reagan was a big government big taxing socialist whose goals and record have been distorted by the right. Lol.

All of a sudden I'd have to listen to more revisionism than I can handle without blowing a fuse.
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 13:56 		Pleasepleaseplease blow a fuse. I'm genuinely interested in what that would look like, distinct from what we've been seeing from you the last few years.
 
17Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 15:24 		I have no interest in arguing who is a legitimate TP candidate, with people who think Reagan was a big government big taxing socialist whose goals and record have been distorted by the right, because I got nothing.

fixed that for ya.

 
18Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 15:24 		Maybe this will do the trick:

Eric Cantor demonstrates the disconnect the Right has with their myth of Reagan and the real one.
 
19Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 09:51 		Ya, I saw that on TV. It was embarrassing. Cantor looked like a fool, and his press secretary looked like a puppetmaster, and an ignorant one at that.
 
20Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 11:06 		What's embarrassing is painting Reagan as if he wasn't a Reagan conservative. Who ya gonna believe? Those lying republicans or liberals who have no ulterior motive for painting him like a Tip O'Neil liberal?
 
21Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 11:24 		How about just looking at the record? An accurate look shows the overall greatest overall tax decrease of any presidential administration for anti-tax fetishists to admire but well more than one average tax increase per year also confirms this notion of the uncompromised Reagan anti-tax principle as an obvious myth. One now so embedded in conservative dogma that the faithful literally (and embarrassingly) scoff at the notion that the man ever signed a bill which raised taxes on anyone, with his purist idols in government and their brainwashed supporters today demanding a standard that their hero never even came close to.

Who ya gonna believe?

The actual record, hard as it may be for the faithful to accept.
 
22Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:09 		Too much gray!
 
23Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:16 		Let's remember who it is trying to educate Reagan followers about 'the real Reagan'.
A few weeks later, I returned from a taping to the CLWG offices. I found everyone crowded around the TV. Reagan had just been shot. Everyone was cheering, laughing, clapping. The news reported that doctors weren't sure whether to remove the bullet, or leave it in.

"He wants to keep his war wound!" laughed Chuck, prancing about with his open shirt, as though he were Reagan displaying his wound.

Many begged for Reagan to die. A side debate ensued whether Bush would be worse.

Since my taping was done, I excused myself and left the building, before I said the wrong thing. At 19, I didn't know if the CLWG could blacklist me. - Thomas M. Sipos
Don't worry Thomas, we Reaganistas didn't believe the biased media back then either. They don't fool any of us. Still don't.
 
24Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:22 		No, let's remember what Reagan actually did and said instead of investing in smokescreens to cover rhetorical and historical understanding deficiencies about him.

Your partisan tic of attacking the messenger isn't altogether fresh. But it is a tell that the underlying issues are not going your way.
 
25Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:48 		The truth is hard for them.
 
26Boldwin
      ID: 321121173
      Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 23:59 		They weren't cheering his assassination because he was a big government/big taxing/republican in name only. But you'll keep painting him that way while waiting for the first conservative in the country who finally buys that truckload of bullcrap.
 
27Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 00:10 		Sorry, but those who actually worked with him disagree with you on pretty much every point you are making about Reagan. We're taking their word over yours. Not only because they worked with him day to day and helped implement the policies you are glossing over, but you really have no truth-telling cred on these boards anymore.
 
28Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Jan 10, 2012, 22:21

This is the "neutral" CNN reporter tasked with covering the Ron Paul campaign....59 seconds
 
29bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 08:25 		Don't you believe that the candidate who would be hurt most if Paul launches a third party run would be the Republican?

I would think he would take more of their votes than from Obama.
 
30boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 09:47 		I think B7's point is that Ron Paul's campaign only got a mere 59 seconds of reporting while other candidates get much fewer votes are getting much more time.
 
31Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 10:42 		I watched Ron Paul's entire speech to his supporters on MSNBC. I honestly believe he gets more and fairer coverage on CNN & MSNBC than on Fox, who obviously wishes he would shut up and go away.

We all know Paul has a rabid bunch of devoted followers, many of whom were not politically motivated ever before. He whipped them into a frenzy last night. One thing I have noticed, he never talks about his anti-abortion stance to his followers. I believe more than half of them would not agree with him on that issue, so he wisely avoids it. The one line that bought a smile to my face was something along the line of, "I've been doing this for over 20 years and didn't have a following like this, I didn't know you were out there..." Well, when you put out a pathetic, racist and homophobic newsletter for years, of course you are not going to attract decent people! Start acting with dignity while offering a radically quasi-Libertarian platform and people will listen.
 
32Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 11:36 		I've always had the feeling half Paul's following are former lefties. I just can't figure out why that is. It has to be more than the unabashedly pro-drug use freedom message, doesn't it? And more than the isolationism.
 
33Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 11:43 		I'd say that just short of half of Paul's following are current lefties... give them a standard political litmus test. Social liberals and non-interventionists with a dose of "get the government out of my way" is lefty. Of course, their "get the government out of my way" is different than yours.
 
34Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 12:06 		different than yours

How so?
 
35Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 13:11 		Really? You can't tell me the difference between a Left/Libertarian's anti-government stance is different from yours? How about this:

Left/Libertarian - Separation of Church and State, massive dismemberment of the prison/industrial complex as well as the military/industrial complex. Equal rights for gays and transgendered. Freedom from the FBI/CIA military searching your e-mail and listening to your calls. But, the government needs to raise the top tax rate to pay off its debts.

You - Marxist-Alinsky, blah, blah, blah. Root out Commies, etc. rinse and repeat. But no taxes, damnit.
 
36Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 13:17 		The problem, Zen, is that Ron Paul is not a left/libertarian. Ron Paul would happily restrict rights of gays (for example) so long as it was the state doing it rather than the federal government.

The sooner the lefties that support him realize that Ron Paul isn't so much about the now-gone "leave it along" strain of conservationism as he he about which political subdivision does the restricting, the sooner they will start working on campaigns where the candidates actually have their best interests in mind.
 
37Mith
      ID: 56040215
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 13:29 		I've been thinking that much of the rise in his popularity is with moderates and people who weren't previously interested in politics who got turned on to libertarian ideas by the tea party.

It seems natural that some who signed on for the economic agenda would become disenfranchised as partisnship crept in and it became a wing of the Republican Party, largely coopting it's social and foreign policies.

The public support they've lost in that time had to run off someplace.
 
38Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 13:45 		Re: 28 She says Republicans are worried that Ron Paul will continue in the race all the way to the end and that she is worried about it, too. At least she admits the truth. What kind of unbiased reporting is that?

So, the media does not like Ron Paul.
The lobbyists do not like Ron Paul.
The banksters do not like Ron Paul.
The never-ending War on Terror crowd do not like Ron Paul.
The Fed does not like Ron Paul.
The military-industrial complex does not like Ron Paul.
Homeland Security does not like Ron Paul.
The moochers do not like Ron Paul. And
The living/breathing Constitution crowd does not like Ron Paul.

Looks like I'll be voting for Ron Paul.
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 13:49 		Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want our prima donna presidential candidates to be challenged by the media, would we? After all, that is what the other candidates are for...

Is seems clear that she was not offering her opinion, but saying that, like Ron Paul, she was also hearing from Republicans about his continuing to run.

 
40Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 14:40 		The sooner the lefties that support him realize that Ron Paul isn't so much about the now-gone "leave it along" strain of conservationism as he he about which political subdivision does the restricting, the sooner they will start working on campaigns where the candidates actually have their best interests in mind.

Yep, and that will happen once he concedes in the Rep. race. I full expect that less than 50% of the former Ron Paul supporters will end up voting for Romney in the general election. Somewhere between 30-35% will vote for Obama and a good chunk will simply not vote (maybe 5% vote for Gary Johnson Lib. ticket)
 
41Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 14:45 		she was also hearing from Republicans

That's what I gather too. She seemed to get a bit jumbled trying to get it out. If she were someone with a history of making such blunt statements of opinion I'd think otherwise but I don't think that's the case.

I don't see why Paul supporters feel its out of bounds to report that many Republican power brokers fear him remaining in the race for the long haul. Of course they do. It sure seems like a relevant continuing story to me.

And despite that I think Paul has benefitted greatly from his media coverage.
 
42Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 14:49 		Somewhere between 30-35% will vote for Obama

This sounds reasonable though I might revise to 20-35%. But that doesn't mean they're mostly lefties.
 
43boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 17:40 		re 36: why is that you assume that it would be states restricting things they could also be removing restrictions on things. While hodge podge of different laws is less than ideal is it still better than being stuck with restrictive laws everywhere?
 
44Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 19:19 		We know this because states are already trying to do it.

And you know this, I believe--otherwise you wouldn't be referring to "restrictive laws."

No, a hodgepodge of different laws is not better than a uniform acceptable of certain laws such as blacks being able to vote, or clean water, or any number of laws which protect our constitutional rights (which, not surprisingly, federally described). There is no doubt that the protections we currently have as citizens of the United States would (at best) be unevenly applied if suddenly thrust upon the states to administer.

We hold constitutional rights first and foremost because we are American citizens. Not because we also happen to be citizens of one of the states.
 
45Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 23:07 		Natural rights and constitutional rights.
 
46sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 00:13 		There is no suvch thing, as a lioteral "natural right". If there were, then all humans, in all ountries, would enjoy them.

Rights, are in all honesty, nothing more than allowances bestowed by the governing body. Deny that? Then explain why the "rights" are different, in every country on the planet.
 
47Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 05:55 		Recognition of natural human rights trumping the state's power was a revolutionary political proposition 200 years ago and it is a rare and fragile gift when and wherever that situation obtains.

Furthermore there is substantial disagreement about what constitutes natural human rights. Just ask the hundreds of millions of people aborted by liberals.
 
48boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 10:38 		re 44: yes but states are also make less restrictive laws, I don't see you saying anything about same sex marriage being allowed in some places. So what you are saying is that you would rather live in place where everyone follows the exact same laws over a place where you are free to move to place where maybe they have laws that fit your ideology better?
 
49sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 10:42 		Some things boikin, need to be standardized and recognized throughout the nation. Cicil contracts likemarriage for ex, need to be universally recognized within a nations borders, at a minimum.

Is there a State now for ex, which fails to recognize a marriage conducted in Holland, or New Zealand, or Australia, or...

If not, then how can you justify allowing a state to decline to recognize a marriage conducted in another American State?

 
50DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 11:04 		"Furthermore there is substantial disagreement about what constitutes natural human rights. Just ask the hundreds of millions of people aborted by liberals. "

I asked them if they agree with you. They didn't say anything, so I assume the answer is no.

Wondering if there was perhaps some ideological bias involved, I also asked the hundreds of millions aborted by conservatives, and they didn't say anything either.

I admit I wasn't able to find a representative sample aborted by religious whackjobs, but I did ask victims of the Spanish Inquisition, the various holy wars, and the Jonestown Massacre, and amazingly, they all replied exactly the same way -- no response whatsoever.

All these groups are completely unanimous in their unwillingness to agree with your point -- so perhaps you should let them speak for themselves instead of trying to do it for them.
 
51Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 11:30 		#44: The point isn't that some states will do the right thing. It is that some states won't. As I pointed out, the unequal protection of our rights is the best possible outcome of throwing the entire responsibility of federal constitutional rights to each of the individual states.

It isn't the "same laws." It is the "same protections." There are lots and lots of areas in which the states have their own areas of the law. But federally-protected rights should not be one of them.
 
52boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 14:03 		The point isn't that some states will do the right thing. It is that some states won't.

there is not such thing as the right or wrong choice and if there is then this option gives you a choice to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" or atleast more of a choice.
 
53Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 12, 2012, 14:05 		I really have no idea what you are saying there. Are you saying (like Ron Paul) that the Civil Rights Act should never have been signed and that the states should have sorted out their racial problems without "interference" from the federal government?

Rights are not the same as choices.
 
54biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 09:43
An online ad posted by "NHLiberty4Paul" includes video footage of Huntsman, the former ambassador to China, with daughter Gracie when she was an infant. It also shows Huntsman holding Asha shortly after she was adopted from India.

"American values? Or Chinese?" the ad asks, ending with "Vote Ron Paul."


Ron Paul's Racist Super_PAC

Aren't they great!
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 21:24 		What's racist about that? That is talking about culture, not race. Why isn't a candidates cultural values fair game?
 
56sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 22:42 		1) Why was Paul bothering to attack a candidate not even polling 5%?
2) What position exactly is being attacked, for the Huntsmans having adopted an orphan child?
 
57Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 11:20 		What's racist about that? That is talking about culture, not race. Why isn't a candidates cultural values fair game?

that you don't see what's wrong with criticizing a person because of the ethnicity of their adopted children is hardly surprising.
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:43 		He's spent so much time in democrat-land and outside the country, maybe he's gone native and forgotten he's a republican american. If he's rooted in American conservative values, I can't detect any trace of it.
 
59DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:47 		It ought to be pointed out that there's not a verified connection between random Youtube account holder "NHLiberty4Paul" and Paul's actual campaign. (I could be wrong about this.)

If it IS his campaign, well, obviously disgusting/etc, nothing to say. But before leaping to the final step of the logic chain, that's a pretty important fact to verify.

 
60sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:48 		That B, is because you are blind to reality.
 
61Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 13:18 		If he's rooted in American conservative values, I can't detect any trace of it.

That's probably because your idea of what constitutes "American conservative values" is radically skewed and distorted. Tell us, how much time has Huntsman spent in democrat-land?

Was it when he was working in the Reagan administration? When he was a Mormon missionary to Taiwan? When he was Ambassador to Singapore? When he was governor of one of the most conservative states in the country?

But you can't find a trace of American conservative values in Huntsman. I can't find a trace of intelligence in that analysis.
 
62nerveclinic
      ID: 4711362616
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 15:50
Baldwin "They weren't cheering his assassination because he was a big government/big taxing/republican in name only."

My hate for Reagan was all based on what was happening in Central America. The Fascist Dictators he/we supported. (Truly Fascist not flippant name calling) Hell Conservatives at the time even admitted what was going on, the fascism, they just justified it by saying it was better then the communism that would replace it.

The Death Squads. The School of Americas training El Salvadorian soldiers to be terrorists and thugs. The murdered nuns by our portages, left lieing bloodied in a ditch. The murdered priests because they spoke out for the people who were enslaved by our/Reagan's allies.

That's why I hated Reagan. Still do.

My bet is it's why these people you speak of were cheering. They knew of the death and torture he was responsible for. To protect the banana republics, the Dole fruit company, the cheap labor benefit we enjoyed in Central America.

That's why people hated Reagan, not because of taxes, or his stopping big government...



 
63Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 19:42 		That newsroom must have stroked out when the Berlin wall fell. They are probably still wearing black armbands from that day. When they aren't trying to convince people that Stalin was a right wing conservative.
 
64sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 19:53 		The Berlin Wal;l fell, not SOLELY because Reagan was President. It just happened to fall, DURING his Presidency. Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...ALL led the nation which ultimately out lasted the Berlin Wall.
 
65Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:04 		Communism very nearly took over the western hemisphere while Carter was in office.
 
66Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:13 		Communism very nearly took over the western hemisphere while Carter was in office.

Yeah, almost as close as Muslims taking over the world with Obama in office. Just wait!
 
67sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:25 		65..patently false, but even *IF* we wer to say it was accurate, what of the other Presidencies I mentioned? Did their roles, mean nothing at all?

I was in the Army during the Carter Presidency, I can quite assuredly state that at no time, did communism "nearly take over the western hemisphere".
 
68Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:37 		That would be exactly where you are wrong. There were successful and building communist insurgencies all up and down the Andes and Rockies from Mexico to Argentina.

Carter was like the carcinogen of the Americas.
 
69sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:53 		insurgencies, building, is not tantamount to "almost taking over". Your willingness to leap to unsubstantiated conclusions, cry chicken little, and generally grossly exaggerate the presence of any threat; are all well documented for any and all to see.
 
70Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 21:10 		Being the target of guerrilla warfare is no picnic. Especially from well funded and trained proxies for world powers.
 
71sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:08 		You said Boldwin, Communism very nearly took over the western hemisphere while Carter was in office. .

THAT, is a patently false statement. A lie, a distortion, a fabrication to which you continue to adhere.

buh-bye
 
72Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:22 		Ask any conservative how dire the situation was. Of course you Hugo Chavez loving, Daniel Ortega loving *cough* liberals thot it wasn't a crisis. You thot it was the bell of freedom ringing.
 
73DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:34 		Why should we ask any conservative, so they can ring up a couple extra trillion dollars in defense contracts so we can fund the Taliban again?

Yeah, it worked so well the first time, you terrorist-sympathizing fraudster hacks.
 
74Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 09:03 		Why was Paul bothering to attack a candidate not even polling 5%?

The answer is.....he wouldn't.

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Sues Anti-Huntsman Video’s Makers from Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

It's called a false flag attack, and it happens more than you think. Attack yourself, blame it on others, and get sympathy for yourself to do whatever you're planning.
 
75biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 09:26 		Yet some people are have such twisted values, or more charitably simply have lost their ability to honestly assess things coming from what they consider their side, they defend an ad meant to intentionally tarnish the reputation of the assumed maker. Time for some introspection, I would hope.

 
76Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:11 		Whatever the case, credit Paul for distancing himself from the ad.
 
77Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:41 		The author of the misleading, slanderous post #54 does require some introspection. Readers await your apology or retraction.
 
78Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:41 		In what way? The Super PAC put out a clearly racist ad.
 
79Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:51 		I wrote assuming Paul had nothing to do with it. I was clearly slamming the superpac.
 
80Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:57 		Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign committee sued the unidentified makers of a video attacking ex-Republican rival Jon Huntsman claiming it falsely implies it was made or endorsed by the Texas congressman.

The makers use the pseudonym NHLiberty4Paul, “which further implies that plaintiff created endorsed or is affiliated in some way with the video and its contents,” the Paul campaign’s lawyers said in the complaint.

Press coverage of the video has been “scathingly negative” toward Paul because of the assumption that he was behind it, the lawyers said.
 
81Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:58 		Paul's superpac didn't do it. Why would he sue them?
 
82Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:00 		You know that Paul is not the same as Paul's SuperPAC, right?
 
83Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:00 		Paul can't have a super PAC, by definition.
 
84Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:05 		But you are right. I did assume they were simply doing a horrendously bad job of attempting to support Paul, given their name. Again though, I assumed Paul was following the law and had no input into the ad.
 
85Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:32 		You don't think Paul would have checked with his Superpac, officially or unofficially, before launching a lawsuit? To make sure they were not responsible for it. Whoever did it, created a new youtube account on the same day it was posted.
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:34 		No. In fact, he would get into very big trouble if there was even a hint of coordination.
 
87Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:40 		Do you understand the word...unofficially. You really think there is no coordination with these Superpacs. They just don't leave any provable evidence. I'm sure somebody checked for him. Even officially asking the Superpac if they did it would not likely be a violation.
 
88bibA
      ID: 4057177
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:23 		Is it fair to slam someone for assuming there is coordination between a candidate and Superpacs, and then to imply that it of course there is unofficial coordination?
 
89Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:23
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Colbert Super PAC - Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook


 
90Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:40 		I've kinda lost track of your argument here, b7. But thanks for bringing it full circle! My initial post was inspired by, and in the spirit of, my bud Colbert!
 
91Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Wed, Feb 01, 2012, 22:50 		LGF
The “anti-fascist” wing of the “Anonymous” hacker group has broken into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information.

The documents show numerous connections between Republican candidate Ron Paul and these racist Neanderthals; they’re heavily involved in campaigning for Paul, and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself: Ron Paul, the American Third Position Party and Stormfront.


Ron Paul with white supremacists Don and Derek Black at the 2007 Values Voter debate
 
92Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 05:01 		Care to provide any actual examples of evidence other than when someone at a convention asked for a picture with the candidate?

Has there ever been any candidate you couldn't tar with a group picture?
 
93DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 09:56 		"Has there ever been any candidate you couldn't tar with a bunch of pictures of the candidate hobnobbing with white supremacists, copies of horribly racist newsletters bearing the candidate's name as the editor, and firsthand accounts of weekly meetings with known white supremacist groups?"

Slightly amended your post to fit the facts -- after which time I'd have to say no, there has not been such a candidate that you couldn't tar with that information.

Well, maybe Hitler. You couldn't tar Hitler with that information. But it's not for the reason you'd hope.
 
94Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 10:26 		Care to provide any actual examples of evidence other than when someone at a convention asked for a picture with the candidate?

well, there was that time Don Black donated money to Paul's campaign, and Paul's staff said there was no intention to return the donation.
 
95Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 10:51 		Its pretty clear that this goes deeper than a guy getting his picture with Paul at a convention.
 
96Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 11:12 		It's a slippery slope. Pictures and support from these groups do not translate into Ron Paul endorsing, condoning or promoting a white supremacy ideology.

It's the smear tactic used to identify Obama as a supporter of NAMBLA because of Kevin Jennings. Actually, the case for Obama supporting NAMBLA is stronger.
 
97Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 11:22 		Ron Paul personally approved the newsletters
 
98Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 11:24 		I do agree on the picture criticism. But you gotta admit that it is somewhat funny that many on the right wing, including Boldwin, have continued to make those same guilty-by-being-in-the-same-photo arguments about Obama that they now rail against when it is a Republican in the frame.
 
99sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 13:10 		R Paul approved those eggreghious newsletters....

from the link in 91: "...and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself..." (A3P)

Not so sure that Sullivan can rightfully pass this off as "past" history with changes since which would render it moot and meaningless today. (As he seems to imply in PDs link) If Paul is in fact MEETING with A3P, then there is nothing "past tense" about it, its current.

 
100Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 13:51 		I don't know what Boldwin is asking for evidence of. And whatever he means, it's a curious request from someone who assigns to his political enemies the most nefarious ideological worldview of anyone they've ever shared an office or spoke at an AIDS awareness presentation or served on a board with. The president is a terrorist sympathizer and supporter of Christian genocide and the first lady is a copyright lawsuit shark but noting Congressman Paul's long association with established white supremacists is something that requires "evidence" to make a case for whatever it is he fears people will deduce from what appears to be a pretty well established long relationship with groups like Stormfront.

For the record I'm not accusing Paul of racism. It makes sense that these people would latch on to his brand of libertarianism to support their own ends, even if he has nothing in common with their greater agenda. But a viable presidential candidate has to know better than to accept their support. It goes beyond simply knowing how to be a good candidate, it's a matter of terrible disrespect for a large portion of the country he seeks to become the leader of. Further, his insistant denials of this association fractures what I think a lot of people saw as his greatest asset as a candidate - his integrity.
 
101DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 14:14 		That second paragraph sums it up pretty darn well.

I like to think of this as the Casino rule, actually. And it works much better for cases where there's actually a longstanding association rather than a one-off photo opportunity or a random campaign donation. Summed up, briefly: "Listen, if you didn't know you're bein' scammed, you're too f*****' dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you're out. Get out! Go on. Let's go."

Frankly, the libertarians clinging to Paul instead of just moving on to another libertarian candidate without the baggage of a mounting pile of clearly racist associations (e.g. Gary Johnson) is ... well, I don't quite know what to make of it, really.
 
102sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 13:24 		you gotta be kidding me "real" rape victims????

Great news, rape victims! Ron Paul is willing to make an exception in his strict "no abortions ever!" rule for you, but only if you have one of those "honest rapes." In fact, he's got some great ideas on how rape victims should behave.
 
103sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 14:08 		Ron Paul, meaningless victor of cyber space in 2008, still the same, in 2012

So who e-campaigned best last time? During Super Tuesday week in 2008, Garlik, a British firm that monitors digital reputations, ranked the day's presidential candidates by online popularity. It didn't take Nate Silver or that Zogby person to call the winner. If you hung around social media even a little, you knew the fix was in.

It wasn't Hillary Clinton. Nor Mitt Romney, John McCain or Barack Obama. Blowing them all away—sealing for himself, in fact, the Presidency of the United Cyberstates of Digital America, commander-in-chief of the Information-Wants-To-Be-Free World—was, naturally, Congressman Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul.

Ron Paul, President of the Internet! Hail to the online chief! Four more years!

Ron Paul. Elfin ob-gyn goldbug. Ayn Randian. Foe of war, abortion and government. Texan. Rejector of Medicaid, rejector of Medicare. Climate-change skeptic. Keeper of odd company. Espouser of tendentious views.

In 2012, he's still kicking back in the Online Oval Office. Ron Paul, commanding the mad and visible support of somebody. Sure he doesn't fare so well with actual flesh-and-blood voters of majority age who are motivated to drive gas-burning cars and appear with their laminated IDs at three-dimensional voting booths. But you can't have everything.

Tim Hwang, a researcher of online movements and memes and the managing director of the Web Ecology Project, says that Ron Paul illustrates a fact we often overlook: "The Internet is not coterminous with the real world."
 
104Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 19:38 		And stalking horses don't pull real carriages.
 
105Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, May 14, 2012, 20:30 		Ron Paul packs it in.
 
106Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Tue, May 15, 2012, 14:31 		I, for one, would like to see Ron Paul make the Republican National Convention interesting. There are many issues that he has nailed spot on and I think the convention is supposed to be the arena that debate on these issues is important.
 
107Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, May 15, 2012, 19:21 		With Ron Paul out, military donations are shifting to Obama.

If the election were held today, Obama would beat Romney among military voters by a greater percentage than the civilian population.
 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 18:33 		Ron Paul files complaint with UN to get RonPaul.com, after they tried to sell it to him for $250K.
 
109Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Sat, Aug 09, 2014, 22:34 		The real Ron Paul apparently self-certifies his medical credentials.
 
110sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sun, Aug 10, 2014, 21:49 		Thought that was well known. Paul initiated his own Board of Certification, and staffed its directorship positions with family members.
 
111biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 07:37 		Rand.