56 Comments

1. ricpic:

No danger of our being ruled by a Righty, much of who’s support comes from ideologues who “really want…the feeling of being right;” but a very real danger of a Lefty of that stripe coming to power.

Jun 12, 2007 - 8:35 am 2. David:

Several blogs that I read are poking fun at Ron Paul supporters. By the way, his supporters are only vaguely libertarian and 100% nuts.

Jun 12, 2007 - 8:36 am 3. joshuabruce:

Remember the Ron Paul momentum is only a month or so old. MSM lags several weeks behind. He is not listed in polls and the phone polls do not include cell phone users. I am a former liberal who is supporting him. The fight will continue and increase and God willing the American people will come out on top when the dust settles. When the naysayers see the supporters in the streets (we are willing to fight) many will join him. It comes down to a battle of the republic versus the nwo. where will you be counted? You must decide where you stand idealogcally and choose sides. The time is now. You might think we are crazy, but thats what the English thought of our forefathers.

Jun 12, 2007 - 8:58 am 4. Mike W:

Pay no attention to the mainstream polls – they say nothing whatsoever about Ron Paul’s support. ALL “scientific” polls are biased in the manner in which the questions are asked and the manner in which participants are chosen.
Ron Paul has support from all segments of the political spectrum. All over the country people are registering to vote for the very first time just so they can vote for Ron Paul.
People are changing their registration from “Independent” or Democrat to Republican just to vote for Ron Paul.
What does measure his support is the fact that there are nearly 300 MeetUp groups around the country, with over 11,000 members. These are real activists who are being mobilized own their own initiative to take our country back from the neocons.
The Ron Paul MeetUp groups are growing at a rate of about 100% every 2 weeks. That will make us over 100,000 strong very soon and a force of 100,000 activists is a very powerful political force.
As for Ron Paul himself, he is BY FAR the best educated man in the field. He knows more about economics and foreign policy that the rest of the candidates combined.
You’d better get used to it, Ron Paul WILL be the next President.

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:25 am 5. Bostonian:

Joshua,

Your candidate doesn’t think that the Islamofascists are really at war with us, so he is a non-starter with me.

I am glad the guy is running, though. He’s going to take a lot more votes from liberals than from conservatives.

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:27 am 6. Mark Watson:

I realize that you probably do not want to see a lot of Ron Paul supporters comments in your blog. You would rather censor your blog to promote your pro-war candidate of choice. That’s fine. it’s your blog. But make no mistake- the results of online polls are no more legitimate or less legitimate because they show Ron Paul support than when they show [insert name here] candidate’s support in the lead. But there are two important differences:

1. You, Fox news, and others, would love to promote your internet polls for your candidate but you can’t when Ron Paul wins. How unfortunate for you, et al.

2. Since Ron Paul is a real candidate, on stage, and has over 10 years in Congress- more than Obama and Hillary combined, not showing him in the polls most of the time, is a form of censorship. He is not 3rd party- he is Republican- as in Bob Taft, Goldwater, Republican.

Saying Ron cannot win, oft repeated, is code for “This is the candidate we the media do not want to win, so do not vote for him in the old-style telco polls.”

Now to say that you cannot understand Ron Paul when he speaks is to suggest you can’t understand English. What part of “They attack us because we were attacking over there first” don’t you understand?

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:30 am 7. dclydew:

I think Ron Paul is useful in some sense. Most of what he’s campaigning for are positions that are traditional conservative positions. When contrasted with the Neo-Conservative positions, I think the differences are clear. Hopefully (I doubt it but hey, I can dream), Republicans can compare and contrast the two viewpoints and decide if they are still conservatives or not.

I say this because currently the Republican positions on several issues do not match up with ‘conservative’ in any normal sense. A lot of individuals, I think have confused being Republican with being conservative and I hope that Ron Paul’s campaign will cause them to at least consider what their political position is now.

Personally, I find the neo-conservative political position to be as distasteful as any socialist liberal political position. From my perspective, the difference exists only in the window dressing.

Unfortunately, I doubt Ron Paul will get much more than a voice in the debates, but maybe that will make people think about their “conservativeness” for the first time since the Contract With America (gag).

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:34 am 8. Bostonian:

Mark Watson,

What part of “House of Islam vs House of War” do you not understand?

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:36 am 9. Dishman:

When the naysayers see the supporters in the streets (we are willing to fight) many will join him. It comes down to a battle of the republic versus the nwo. where will you be counted? You must decide where you stand idealogcally and choose sides. The time is now.

You’d better get used to it, Ron Paul WILL be the next President.

The vehemence of his supporters is starting to make me nervous.

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:50 am 10. dclydew:

Dishman,

The vehemence of his supporters is starting to make me nervous.

Well, now you know how some of us felt about Bush supporters a few years ago… dogmatic acceptance of any single candidate as Absolutely Right seems like a very bad idea.

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:55 am 11. StephenC:

Speaking from the land of Oz….

A little remedial math here, but the reason Paul has an “amazing” 52% of the votes thus far is not because Paul supporters are voting at alarming rates, but instead because non-Paul supporters are no longer participating in your poll, whatever their reasons may be.

The aggregate number of votes, excluding Paul votes, has declined from nearly 10,000 in the first week of polling to a little over 2,000 in the last. Who are those 8,000 people who voted in the first week and where did they go?

The “who” part of the question isn’t too hard to answer:

Romney, Giuliani, Gingrich, Tancredo and McCain combined for 8,622 votes in week 1. In the last week they combined for 686. This 8,000 vote decrease in your poll and amongst the early favorites is no coincidence.

Where did they go, and why? I don’t know. Perhaps instead of bashing those who do participate in your poll, you might question why some others don’t.

At any rate, you run a poll on the internet, you invite people to vote, and you even invite other bloggers to take your widget to get broader participation. The results you are getting are a result of this approach. If you’re just going to dismiss results if they don’t match Gallup Polls, what use is your poll?

Jun 12, 2007 - 9:59 am 12. dclydew:

Also, don’t forget that Ron Paul showed up on the Daily Show last week… If history is anything to judge by, he’ll get a nice boost from that exposure… a boost among 20somethings that make up a rather large percentage of the Internet savvy hordes (same demographic that’s eschewing landlines in favor of cell phones, thus missing traditional media polls).

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:14 am 13. WildBill99x:

Your failure to understand Ron Paul is not because of any shortcoming of his.

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:22 am 14. trantor:

99% of these so called Ron Paul supporters are nut-roots. Which making their nonsense comments even more entertaining, as they desperately try to pretend to be supporters. The people who supposedly support Ron Paul support nothing else he is for, as he is an extreme libertarian, who would banish all the gifts of liberalism (and big government) to the outhouse.

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:23 am 15. silverfish:

Bostonian-

You are fairly typical of standard fascists, which makes your ‘islamofascist’ comment (regurgitation of neocon talking points) rather humorous. Hegemony for all!

If you are so concerned I assume that you are posting your comments from Baghdad, or did you send some kid over there to fight and die on your behalf.

Also consider this, can you promote democracy (or anything other than violence) with the barrel of a gun?

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:31 am 16. dclydew:

would banish all the gifts of liberalism (and big government) to the outhouse.

I, for one, can’t think of a better place for most of the federal government.

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:32 am 17. StephenC:

99% of these so called Ron Paul supporters are nut-roots, and any poll which does not deliver this pre-ordained result should be dismissed as a grandly organized conspiracy by those same nut-roots.

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:35 am 18. Lem:

Ron needs an ideology rehab but his followers say.. NO, NO, NO.

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:42 am 19. ConfusedObserver:

Wow. Great analysis of Ron Paul’s positions. Oops. Sorry about that. I mean great ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul. I will try to remember them the next time I am walking by a playground and I see a 7 year old losing an argument with his amigos. Now I understand better why the Greeks disparaged democracy.

Jun 12, 2007 - 10:43 am 20. Dishman:

Well, now you know how some of us felt about Bush supporters a few years ago… dogmatic acceptance of any single candidate as Absolutely Right seems like a very bad idea.

I generally support Bush (even though he’s a weenie), and I agree with your statement. I think this goes well beyond that, though.

There seems to be an implied willingness to take up arms or use other similar means for Ron Paul. That disturbs me.

Jun 12, 2007 - 11:42 am 21. Charlie (Colorado):

But make no mistake- the results of online polls are no more legitimate or less legitimate because they show Ron Paul support than when they show [insert name here] candidate’s support in the lead.

What is the weather like on Mars, son?

(Here’s a hint: Roger has the actual IP addresses at hand. If his internet poll shows 550 of every thousand votes as coming from the same IP address, and they’re all for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul doesn’t break 1 percent in other polls that include him, then yes, the results of that poll are (even) less legitimate than a normal Internet poll.)

Jun 12, 2007 - 11:59 am 22. David:

ConfusedObserver: No wonder you are confused, we aren’t in general talking about Ron Paul, but rather the activities of his followers.

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:02 pm 23. Steven E. Ehrbar:

They don’t just bomb the Pajamas Media “poll”, they bomb everybody’s voodoo polls — MSNBC, Fox, ABC, everybody.

Which, mind, makes the point that running such polls is pointless — except insofar as such polls tell you who has a following willing to bomb polls.

(As far as the people denouncing scientific polls for bias — Ron Paul is perfectly capable of hiring a pollster to run a scientific poll for his campaign, and vetting the process to keep out anti-Ron Paul bias. So, here’s a question — why doesn’t he? I mean, if he really is as popular as y’all claim he is, he should have no trouble at all getting enough $20 checks from supporters to finance it . . . )

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:06 pm 24. dclydew:

Dishman,

There seems to be an implied willingness to take up arms or use other similar means for Ron Paul. That disturbs me.

Well, Jefferson believed that such actions would be a normal part of the republic’s life. I hope he was wrong, but if I were a true conservative, I would be highly disturbed by the current Republican party and its politics. Traditional conservatives that I’ve talked with do seem quite concerned with the State of the Union and the state of the GOP. Out of all of the varied political groups in this country, I would expect the Conservatives to act on such fears long before Liberal, Socialists or Neo-Cons… so I’m not terribly surprised at their vehement attitude.

If I thought my political party had been hijacked by madmen, co-opted by big business, diluted with ‘please the masses politics’ (new buzzword I picked up recently) and all of it was the flashing warning lights that my sides political philosophers had put up for decades/centuries… I might consider grabbing a gun too (particularly if that were part of my political philosophy).

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:15 pm 25. ndevors:

Dishman:

Never fear; Representative Paul honestly (try to accuse any of the other candidates of that!) believes in his non-interventionist stance – and I’m sure that extends to civil war.

Now, there may be some concern if the mass of taxpayers figures out what a rip-off the current ruling elite have foisted off on them….
Representative Paul could hardly be held responsible for anything but teaching them truth.

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:18 pm 26. Neolefty:

You know the world has gone insane when “nuts” is the term used to describe the only candidate:

- who has ruled out a nuclear pre-emptive strike against Iran (which has no nukes and is not even developing them)
- who seems to have any grasp of the Constitution
- who appear to have read the 911 Commission Report and understood it’s conclusions
- who hasn’t sold out to Lockheed Martin’s or AIPAC.

What freaks out partisan hacks is that Paul is attracting support from both the left and the right.

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:30 pm 27. Bostonian:

Silverfish: “Also consider this, can you promote democracy (or anything other than violence) with the barrel of a gun?”

I know this is difficult for people under ten years of age, but we did not point any guns at the voters of Iraq.

We were pointing the guns at our mutual enemies, who were trying to PREVENT the Iraqis from voting.
And the Iraqi voting turnout *was* fantastic.

In the kindergarten point of view, however, “guns are bad, BAAADDDD.”

Yeesh, does Ron Paul have any adult fans?

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:55 pm 28. Terrye:

I thought Ron Paul was a loon a long time before he ran for president….. and I do not remember anytime when Bush supporters would have made some remark about taking it to the streets. Nor do I remember anytime when Bush did or would have said that 9/11 was blowback.

I would not vote for the man if you put a gun to my head.

Might as well vote for Pat Buchanan.

As for the poll, well this just proves that the online polls are nonsense.

Jun 12, 2007 - 1:04 pm 29. dclydew:

And the Iraqi voting turnout *was* fantastic.

Err, voter turnout isn’t how you measure the success of any democracy. Further a single election doesn’t provide any support for the notion that democracy has succeeded.

It may yet succeed in Iraq, we won’t know for a number of years. However, a democratic philosophy does not yet seem pervasive or even building momentum, among either the citizens or their representatives. Our founding fathers didn’t like the Constitution, they didn’t like the plan for government that was available, but they realized that an inclusive, yet imperfect system was far better than no system, or a system that pleased only one faction. The Iraqi government has shown no such intelligence yet… indeed, they appear, for the most part to care only about implementing a government that meets their factions needs.

Hell, Lebanon, with all of its problems appears as a much better example of democracy and there was no Liberation there… the citizens took it upon themselves. Once conservatives understood personal responsibility. Now they think that they can spoon feed a nation.

How silly.

Jun 12, 2007 - 1:11 pm 30. Steven E. Ehrbar:

Iran (which has no nukes and is not even developing them)

Riiight. They’re just doing uranium enrichment beyond reactor-grade for fun.

Jun 12, 2007 - 1:34 pm 31. Steven Mitchell:

“Once conservatives understood personal responsibility.”

I’ll just point out to all the newbies here that dcydew’s characterization of “conservative” is at odds with what many self-styled conservatives would say.

As for Ron Paul, I think candidates saying the kinds of things he says are useful to the health of the country, especially since I believe the man is sincere. I also think he is utterly and absolutely wrong about several critical things, and hasn’t got a one chance in Hades of getting even within striking distance of the nomination.

He would, however, be superior to John Kerry or John Edwards as an actual president.

Jun 12, 2007 - 2:39 pm 32. Chef Mojo:

Ron Paul is a certified loon. He’s a Truther and is so completely out of touch with reality as to boggle the mind.

Here’s my little take on this whackjob.

Jun 12, 2007 - 3:43 pm 33. cordobes:

The father of american conservatism, Russel Kirkl, adressed, 40 years, ago, the issue of Ron Paul and his ideological clique in an article called “Chirping Sectaries”:

http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm

By the way, one shall better have a look at Paul’s ratings to get a clue about how conservative he is:
- In fact, he’s got the lowest rating of all GOP contenders in American for Taxes Reform, the lowest in Citizens Agains Government Waste, one of the lowest in American Conservatives Union but the highest from the National Association of Government Contractors and from all liberal lean interest groups, including ACLU, Alliance for Retired Americans (lobbying for socialized social securty and health) and National Journal – Liberal on Economic Policy, ADA (pro-New Deal) and, of course, 100% from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). And he voted against almost any free-trade bill, including bilateral agreements to low tariffs. Freedom, hum? What about my freedom of commerce?

Please, just stop the spamming. You’re getting too ridiculous.

Jun 12, 2007 - 4:15 pm 34. Captain Hate:

“Your failure to understand Ron Paul is not because of any shortcoming of his.”

Mensas for Ron Paul

Jun 12, 2007 - 4:21 pm 35. Bostonian:

DD:

I quoted the Iraqi voter turnout as a sign that the Iraqis INDIVIDUALLY have the desire to choose their own government, a concept the Left sneers at constantly.

I am so tired of this myth that good government comes only from enlightened far-seeing thinkers working for the best of all.

When our founding fathers met in Philadelphia to write the Constitution, they were each seeking a compromise that would serve their own constituents the best.

And they were realists. They knew they could not rely on the good will of others.

Democracy isn’t magic. It is compromise.

Jun 12, 2007 - 6:08 pm 36. rickl:

cordobes:

Do you have links for any of those ratings?

Not to call you a liar, but I find it entirely unbelieveable that he would get a high rating from ADA, for example.

Jun 12, 2007 - 7:30 pm 37. Sam_S:

Yah, I doubt the ADA rating, too. I really want to like RP, being mostly libertarian myself. In fact, I do generally like him while disagreeing with his stance on the islamists. But I hadn’t seen the “truther” charge before. Is he really one of those dingbats?

He doesn’t do well in heated debates, I noticed

But regarding RP’s followers, geesh! I worked on the John Hospers (libertarian) presidential campaign in the 70’s. Joined the big L libertarian party and everything. Before it was all over, I found myself trying to back away very slowly without making any sudden moves. Virtually every shade of fringe-dweller, hothead, and conspiracy theorist in the continent seemed to be attracted to the party, and while their official platform was more or less sensible, the actual members of the party were largely the kind of people I wouldn’t let in my yard without an armed guard. Not much has changed, I see.

Jun 12, 2007 - 8:19 pm 38. rickl:

Sam_S:

I do like Ron Paul, and I agree with him about most issues. I also agree with an earlier commenter who said “What part of ‘Dar-al-Islam vs. Dar-al-Harb’ does he not understand?”

I don’t think Paul understands the nature of Islam.

He does understand the U.S. Constitution, though, and he understands it a damn sight better than any other Presidential candidate of either party.

Like most Libertarians, he takes to heart George Washington’s perfectly sound advice against entangling ourselves in foreign alliances.

Trouble is, pretty much every President since Washington has violated that principle. That train has already left the station. Today we can no more disentangle ourselves from the rest of the world than we can repeal the law of gravity.

I am curious about what Paul thinks about our wars against the Barbary states in the early 19th century. Does he think they were justified? America in its infancy was already butting heads with Islam. It was a portent of the future, and it’s a pity that that part of our history is not better known today.

Jun 12, 2007 - 8:49 pm 39. cordobes:

rickl, sure i do. Specifically from ADA:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003455M

Ron Paul gots a 50%, one of the the highest from republicans in Washington and surely the hightest from all GOP contenders: McCain follows with 35%, Brownback gots 15%, Tancredo 10%, Duncan Hunter 5%.

But it’s not only about ADA; one can identify a pattern there – he always gets better ratings from liberal organizations than conservative ones. Even CATO (as Freedomworks or USA*Engage), in it’s free trade ratings, puts him well behind other republicans in the race. I find very revealling that you find it unbelievable.

Jun 13, 2007 - 7:46 am 40. Rudersdorf:

I subscribed to Ron Paul’s Newsletter (no minor thing – $100 or so per year) in the 1980s. Great articles about the coming depression and the new currency which would track our every move. The New World Order. Gold is the only good investment, etc.

Did any of it pan out? Not that I can see. I hope that one of RP’s fans can set me straight, but as I see it, the guy is straight as an arrow, but no more often than your standard stopped clock. Yes, I agree with him on the U.S.Constitution (I think), but he’s sort of weak on the “how to get from Point A to Point B” thing in the way of political change.

So, RP supporters: let’s talk specifics. What’s he for? What’s he against? What’s he been right about? What’s he been wrong about?

I’m all ears.

Jun 13, 2007 - 8:05 am 41. Republicae:

Funny….I thought the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans have been living in OZ for the last 60 years or so…at least it appears that they have getting lost on the Golden Brick Road and taking this country along with them.

Both political ideologies have had their turn at the ruination of this country, perhaps it is time to give someone with the novel idea of returning this country to the state of a Constitutional Republic a chance.

I have read Ron Pauls book “A Foreign Policy of Freedom”, its a compilation of his speeches before the House of Representatives for the last 20 years or so and believe me it is an eye-opener. I say an eye-opener because not only does it show the immense intellect of Dr. Paul, but it also show in devastating detail the absurdity, incompetence, and shear idiotcy that both the Republicans and Democrats have called government for the last few decades. In particular, the speech he gave on September 19, 1984 was a brillant examination of the absolute absurd contradictions that rule the minds of the majority party politicians. In several speeches, Dr. Paul prophetically gives an acurate picture of many of the policies this nation has promoted and the consequences of those policies.

Before anyone writes Dr. Paul off, I suggest you read his book…it is well worth it and will educate anyone on the absolute mess the government has made of things!

Jun 13, 2007 - 8:42 am 42. cordobes:

“In several speeches, Dr. Paul prophetically gives an acurate picture of many of the policies this nation has promoted and the consequences of those policies.”

Ron Paul on why the US went to Afghanistan:

“The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban.

It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to “nation build” in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire”

Of course, oil. Too bad he on only predicted it after the 9/11.

Jun 13, 2007 - 9:07 am 43. silverfish:

Bostonian:

“I know this is difficult for people under ten years of age, but we did not point any guns at the voters of Iraq.

We were pointing the guns at our mutual enemies, who were trying to PREVENT the Iraqis from voting.
And the Iraqi voting turnout *was* fantastic.

In the kindergarten point of view, however, “guns are bad, BAAADDDD.”

Yeesh, does Ron Paul have any adult fans?”

I am an adult, who doesn’t need to stoop to name calling in order to prove a point. Yes there are guns involved in Iraq, every soldier over there has one. We cannot decide that what we find acceptable is what others find acceptable, and then foist it upon then with bloodshed.

BTW, how was the voter turnout amongst all the Iraqis that we bombed into democracy? Oh thats right, you cant vote when you are dead.

Jun 13, 2007 - 11:36 am 44. Bostonian:

silverfish, you just proved my point.

The voter turnout in Iraq was huge; I forget the numbers but it was comparable to turnout in the US in a heavily contested race. An adult would conclude that Iraqis are interested in having a say in their government (gee, what a surprise).

An adult would also say that given a choice between supporting voters and supporting people who deliberately kill voters, our moral choice is clear: support the voters.

It is too bad that moral equivalency has eroded your capacity to make any distinction between friends and enemies. Who are we to decide, you huff, quite as if there are no consequences to ignoring the battle.

Jun 13, 2007 - 1:10 pm 45. Always right:

Leaving out what the man actually says and his goals of running for office, what’s been debated here is inconsequential.

However, the promise of 100,000 strong

Jun 13, 2007 - 1:36 pm 46. TanGeng:

There is more of a moral imperative for the US to see Iraq through for at least another year or so. We own the broken political system that is Iraq now. But if the US didn’t own the Iraq problem, I would feel no shame in declaring that it isn’t our problem to solve, like Dafur, like Kosvo, like Somalia.

I see no problem with Ron Paul’s position. It’s anti-interventialism or more importantly anti-jingoism. The Iraq problem has its benefits and its drawbacks.

We are introducing democracy to new people. The Kurdish nation in northern Iraq is very promising.
We are freeing Shiites from Sunni dictatorship rule.
We toppled Saddam.
We are fighting and killing enemies in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, we also created a vaccuum of power that has invited Iranian influence in Iraq.
We lost three thousand and growing soldiers and over twenty thousand maimed and wounded.
We keep trying to reconstruct a country that keeps blowing itself up.
More muslims see Iraq as an example of American Imperialism and have joined the terrorists in fighting against us.
Iraq is a training ground for insurgents of many different nationalities.

In my mind, the benefits and drawbacks have not been worth the billions and billions of dollars that we have poured into Iraq so far. We could have struggled against Islamism (politicization of Islam) in a far more efficient manner.

[I'll break my post in two here.]

Jun 13, 2007 - 1:52 pm 47. TanGeng:

But there is a silver lining in the Iraq adventure, if we can just bring ourselves to see it and learn from it.

In the aftermath of the Iraq liberation, we have seem more successful Iraqi on Iraqi violence than successful attacks against American soldiers. The Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other. They hate each other as much as they hate our military presence. The House of Islam is not as united as some would have us believe, and we can use that in our efforts to fight against Islamism both at home and abroad.

Similar to how we used Saddaam against the Ayatollah, we can pit Sunnis against Shiites once more – just by reducing our own presence in Iraq! Morally it’s wrong, but the hatred between Shiites and Sunnis run far deeper than a few years of American peacekeepping could dampen. We might as well sit back and watch the (very bloody) show.

In the end, we would like the Sunnis to win that struggle, just like how we rooted for Saddaam to defeat Iran before. The Sunnis are usually obsessed with political and diplomatic power. Because of that, they are (in general) rational. Whereas, some Shiites are just downright INSANE and promote the idea of mutual destruction as a positive outcome. That’s why an Iran with nukes could be so dangerous.

As a final note:
The House of Islam and House of War is base on pan-Islamism, and the biggest proponent of pan-Islamism is one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. We’re going to have to deal with them if we want to defeat “the House of Islam.”

Jun 13, 2007 - 2:20 pm 48. silverfish:

Bostonian, you still arent getting it are you?

Yes, I am sure many Iraqi’s voted. Fantastic. Great, whoop de doo. I dont care about Iraqis voting, you know why? I am not an Iraqi!

I am concerned with the rate we spend money monkeying around in other peoples business, more often than not (ok, actually all the time) tying strings to those monies to make other sovereign nations do what we want them to do. See Saddam in the 80’s, for an example. Then, when we get tired of the, or, unintended consequences happen, we blow them up in the name of ‘liberating an oppressed people’.

And your holier than thou attitude of being the decider of what is right and wrong for others is very telling. I guess I should stop wasting my keystrokes on someone whose ability to comprehend stops with anything that disagrees with the officially mandated GOP talking points.

Jun 13, 2007 - 3:14 pm 49. LibertyNow:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” -Ronald Reagan

Jun 13, 2007 - 3:33 pm 50. Captain Hate:

“And your holier than thou attitude of being the decider of what is right and wrong for others is very telling.”

Unintentional ironists for Ron Paul

Jun 13, 2007 - 4:23 pm 51. silverfish:

Capt. Hate-

You make a funny quip, and I guess it is ironic to you. However, I am all for allowing other people to make their own decisions. I was referring to something that Bostonian had written in a previous post regarding the ‘moral dilemma’ he was facing involving the ability of Iraqis to vote. His answer seems to be that of GWB, which is bomb your way to Democracy.

This is his quote “…quite as if there are no consequences to ignoring the battle.”

I wonder, Captain & Bostonian, what are the consequences to ignoring the battle? Or are you using the rationalization that Madeline Albright used when she thought it proper to sacrifice half a million civilians via sanctions to have an effect on one man. A man, that we placed into power in Iraq.

Is that what this war (or more accurately, non-war with guns and bombs) is all about? Fixing our mistakes in the region? How about not continuing to stick our noses into spots they dont belong. Kinda like not peeking into our neighbors window. We need to stop being the global Gladys Kravitz.

Jun 13, 2007 - 5:08 pm 52. Steven E. Ehrbar:

“A man, that we placed into power in Iraq.”

Where did you get the insane notion that the U.S. put Hussein in power in Iraq? Is Ron Paul peedling that sort of nonsense, or did you invent the notion on your own?

Jun 13, 2007 - 5:22 pm 53. Captain Hate:

Silverfish,

Because you addressed me directly, I’ll go against my better judgement and respond to you; keep in mind that based on what I’ve read elsewhere on the web, your fellow Paul supporters are very much as Roger described them. Perhaps you can provide a corrective for that.

“I am all for allowing other people to make their own decisions. I was referring to something that Bostonian had written in a previous post regarding the ‘moral dilemma’ he was facing involving the ability of Iraqis to vote. His answer seems to be that of GWB, which is bomb your way to Democracy.”

Surely you don’t include the Iraqis in the “other people” category because they obviously had no ability to make their own decisions under Hussein. That was proven in the aftermath of Gulf War 1 when it was felt that the conditions were optimal for an uprising, which resulted in a number of good people being slaughtered. Surely you can agree that Hussein, a man who killed hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, invaded Kuwait and gave financial support to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, was a major destabilizing force in the Middle East. And that the country and world are better off with him gone. Before I go any further I’d like to see your response to that because there’s no point in carrying it to the next step lacking an accord on the elementary points.

Feel free to correct me on anything you think I’m in error on because I’m interested in having a flame-free discussion; if you give me some snotty response I’ll just go back to making fun of your ilk. I’m further interested in finding out what you thought of Bosnia and Kosovo, two actions about which I’m torn. And likewise Darfur.

Jun 13, 2007 - 6:16 pm 54. rickl:

cordobes:

I read your link, but I wasn’t able to find out specifically how he got those (fairly) high ratings from liberal organizations. I didn’t see any links to determine what they rated him on.

The funny thing about libertarians is that liberals will enthusiastically support them about some issues, and vehemently oppose them about other issues.

And the same goes for conservatives. But on different issues.

P.S.: I apologize for implying that you were lying earlier.

Rudersdorf:

So, RP supporters: let’s talk specifics. What’s he for? What’s he against? What’s he been right about? What’s he been wrong about?

From cordobes’ link above, here is Paul’s NPAT questionnaire from 1996:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#1830

(Presumably he figures that he already answered it once, and sees no need to keep answering it over and over again in subsequent elections.)

Also from cordobes’ link, here is Paul’s voting record in the House:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

Enjoy!

Jun 13, 2007 - 6:52 pm 55. rickl:

By the way, I’m at a loss to understand why some of Paul’s supporters keep spamming internet polls and sending hate mail. All I can say is that I haven’t been doing any of that.

I have no idea what those people think they are accomplishing with their antics.

And I seriously doubt that Paul would sanction such behavior and I don’t think he is even aware of it.

Jun 13, 2007 - 6:57 pm 56. Luther McLeod:

I’ve seen nothing here, in the way of comments, that would make me think otherwise that RP and his supporter’s are batshit crazy. And before that’s turned around, yes, I may well be myself. But I detest smugness, sanctimony and self righteousness. If you can get him elected, more power too you. But here’s one vote you will not be getting.

Jun 13, 2007 - 8:59 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: