Post by: Finch on March 26, 2008, 12:11:36 PM
But now the revolution is ebbing. Congressman Paul's new campaign finance report shows that he's raised nearly $35 million, including more than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, and he's inspired remarkable passion among the kind of diehards who hold up campaign signs on highway overpasses and post irate comments on obscure blogs. But the presidency isn't decided on YouTube or Technorati. Paul didn't win any Republican primaries, and he recently conceded that "victory in the conventional sense is not available."
Of course, nothing in Paul's world is ever done in the conventional sense, so he has refused to drop out of the race and endorse the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, Senator John McCain. Instead he argues that all Republicans should have "the right to vote for someone that stands for traditional Republican principles." And he's got a point.
The real significance of the Paul campaign is not the ubiquitous bumper stickers and lawn signs or the online fund-raising records ($6 million in one day, plus another $4 million, hilariously, on Guy Fawkes Day) but the mirror Paul held up to the modern Republican Party. When his fellow candidates denounced big government, Paul was there to remind them that President Bush and the G.O.P. Congress had shattered spending records and exploded the deficit. When they hailed freedom, Paul asked why they all supported the Patriot Act and other expansions of executive power. And when they called themselves conservatives, Paul asked what was so conservative about sending thousands of young Americans to try to transform the Middle East.
In some ways, Paul is a throwback to the frugal and isolationist wing of the old Republican Party, the fuddy-duddy GOP of Robert Taft and Calvin Coolidge. His fiscal policies evoke the idealistic Republican revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994; he wants to abolish the IRS, the Departments of Homeland Security, Education and Energy, and most of the federal government. He refuses to vote for unbalanced budgets, and he has opposed spending taxpayer dollars on Congressional Medals of Honor, even for Rosa Parks or Pope John Paul II. Typically, his campaign has reported no debts, and still has more than $5 million in the bank. Meanwhile, Paul's foreign policies evoke candidate George W. Bush's call for a "humbler foreign policy" in 2000, although Paul goes much further; not only did he oppose U.S. involvement in Iraq, Kosovo and the war on drugs, he opposes U.S. involvement in the United Nations and NATO.
Under Bush's leadership, of course, the Republican Party has been anything but frugal and anything but isolationist. The congressional Republican revolutionaries seemed to lose their zeal for shrinking the federal government once they controlled it, which is one reason voters expelled them from power in 2006. And these days, it's usually Democrats who call for a humbler foreign policy. Paul's leave-us-alone libertarianism hasn't fit in with a party anxious to read our e-mail, improve our values, assert American power abroad and subsidize friendly industries at home. The party's recent mix of "national greatness" neoconservatives, evangelical theoconservatives and K Street careerists has had many goals, but leaving people alone hasn't been one of them. That's why Paul was the one getting booed at G.O.P. debates. And that's one reason why Paul's fervent followers were banned from the activist Republican website RedState.
In fairness, though, another reason RedState's directors got tired of the Paulistas was that so many of them seemed what's the polite word? nuts. Paul's supporters aren't all black-helicopter paranoiacs, but the black-helicopter paranoiacs sure do support Ron Paul. The controversy over a few racist articles in his old newsletters was probably overblown; there's no evidence that Paul himself was ever a racist. But he is an extremist partly in the Barry Goldwater extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice sense of the word, but also in the wacky let's-relitigate-the-currency-debates-of-the-1820s sense of the word. The late William F. Buckley wanted conservatives to stand athwart history yelling stop; Paul seems to want to slam history into reverse. The guy genuinely wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and start circulating gold again.
Still, even if you set aside Paul's kookier ideas, there just doesn't seem to be a road to the White House for any candidate who opposes the war in Iraq as well as higher taxes, the war on drugs as well as higher spending, restrictions on privacy as well as restrictions on guns. That's a real "freedom agenda," a true assault on big government, and while it clearly spoke to some angry dudes with high-speed web connections and time on their hands, it's just as clearly not where America stands today. Paul didn't have a lot of company on the House floor when he rose recently to complain about government overreach in the investigation of the disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who resigned after revelations that he had been a customer of a high-end prostitution ring.
But even if Paul's ideological purity is never going to get him to the White House, it does help illuminate the impurities and sometimes the hypocrisies of today's Republicans, just as Ralph Nader can do for the Democrats. The G.O.P. candidates all claimed to defend taxpayers, but Paul was the only one who refused to accept a taxpayer-funded pension or taxpayer-funded junkets. The candidates all talked about shrinking big government, but Paul was the only one who included the Pentagon and NSA wiretaps and petroleum subsidies in his definition. Bush's approval ratings have been abysmal for years, but Paul was the only Republican who really campaigned for change.
And in doing so Paul illustrated what was so striking about the Republican race. The leading candidates had all strayed from Bush and current orthodoxy in the past Rudy Giuliani on abortion and gay rights, John McCain on tax cuts, torture, health care and campaign finance, Mitt Romney on just about everything. But while Paul was getting attacked every time he called for a new direction, the rest spent the primaries minimizing and renouncing their previous departures, implicitly promising four more years of Bushism. McCain is lucky he has some time to craft a new message, because that's not where America stands today, either.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724358,00.html?cnn=yes
Post by: Bigjake on March 26, 2008, 12:40:39 PM
There used to be an organization for people who believed in a truly limited government limited taxes, limited spending, limited interference in individual lives and limited intervention in foreign affairs. That organization was known as the Republican Party. But the only one of those beliefs that still motivates the G.O.P. establishment is limited taxes. In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724358,00.html?cnn=yes
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724358,00.html?cnn=yes
Not so much...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2008, 01:36:34 PM
Quote
In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution.
No. No I didn't.
You guys act like Ron Paul is the first Constitutionalist to run for president. Have you never heard of the Const. Party?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 26, 2008, 01:44:05 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 26, 2008, 01:50:51 PM
Here, the Paulians have gone back to their basements after failing to get a job in the skills-required Northeast, and the local leader of them was arrested for failing to pay child support "in protest" for years. They're now facing prison.
It's gotten much nicer around here since their idiocy fell on its face in a spray of chee-tohs and tinfoil.
Post by: Finch on March 26, 2008, 01:52:10 PM
Fistful, there are a LOT of libertarian-minded folks who wouldn't willingly get within miles of the Constitution Party, because of the heavily religious overtones...
That is the main reason I wouldn't join up with them.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2008, 02:04:15 PM
Fistful, there are a LOT of libertarian-minded folks who wouldn't willingly get within miles of the Constitution Party, because of the heavily religious overtones...
Yeah, I know. That turns me off a little bit, too. Even so, the "heavily religious overtones" are more talk than anything else.
Post by: Derek Zeanah on March 26, 2008, 02:13:34 PM
Fistful, there are a LOT of libertarian-minded folks who wouldn't willingly get within miles of the Constitution Party, because of the heavily religious overtones...
Yeah, I know. That turns me off a little bit, too. Even so, the "heavily religious overtones" are more talk than anything else.
Post by: johnster999 on March 26, 2008, 02:47:40 PM
Quote
...and while it clearly spoke to some angry dudes with high-speed web connections and time on their hands, it's just as clearly not where America stands today
I think that pretty well covers it.
Post by: thebaldguy on March 26, 2008, 02:56:53 PM
More Ron Paul bashing.
He might not have been the perfect candidate, but I think he was better than the rest of them. It's truly sad he didn't get fair media coverage.
Post by: erictank on March 26, 2008, 02:58:06 PM
Fistful, there are a LOT of libertarian-minded folks who wouldn't willingly get within miles of the Constitution Party, because of the heavily religious overtones...
Quoted for truth. If it weren't for the whole "Thou shalt worship no other God but MY God - and don't even THINK about worshipping NO God!" thing, they might be okay. Maybe. I pretty much stopped looking at their platform when I hit THAT brick wall, so I can't say for sure.
IMO, they can't really be a true "Constitution Party" if they're willing to so casually sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of their own presumed-correct religious beliefs.
Post by: erictank on March 26, 2008, 03:01:17 PM
Sigh.
More Ron Paul bashing.
More Ron Paul bashing.
Don'cha know, that's what all the COOL kids do!
He might not have been the perfect candidate, but I think he was better than the rest of them. It's truly sad he didn't get fair media coverage.
Not sure such a thing exists, myself. Agreed that, despite his problems, he was head and shoulders above any of the other candidates who ran this time. Such temerity, obviously, could NOT be tolerated...
Post by: MrRezister on March 26, 2008, 04:52:43 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on March 26, 2008, 05:46:30 PM
I'm surprised Time Magazine published it. I left them many years ago because they were too leftist, especially regarding gun control.
Post by: HankB on March 26, 2008, 06:06:30 PM
Quote
The congressional Republican revolutionaries seemed to lose their zeal for shrinking the federal government once they controlled it, which is one reason voters expelled them from power in 2006.
This is the MOST significant single sentence in the article.I wonder if anyone from the GOP leadership read and understood it . . .
Nah . . .
That's why they're The Stupid Party.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2008, 06:39:47 PM
Fistful, there are a LOT of libertarian-minded folks who wouldn't willingly get within miles of the Constitution Party, because of the heavily religious overtones...
Yeah, I know. That turns me off a little bit, too. Even so, the "heavily religious overtones" are more talk than anything else.
Years ago, (2000 maybe) when I was very interested in the party, I was reading their platform and attending their events and such. And I remember being annoyed at the way it seemed to be a rather obviously Christian party. (And in case anyone doesn't know by now, I am one of those annoying Bible-thumpers.) Anyhoo, I remember thinking to myself that a "Constitution Party," should be a party where anyone who loves the country and its Constitution and founding principles should feel welcome, even if they happen to be patriotic, conservative Muslims. (Or moderate Muslims, if that makes more sense.)
Quote
If it weren't for the whole "Thou shalt worship no other God but MY God - and don't even THINK about worshipping NO God!" thing, they might be okay. Maybe. I pretty much stopped looking at their platform when I hit THAT brick wall, so I can't say for sure.
IMO, they can't really be a true "Constitution Party" if they're willing to so casually sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of their own presumed-correct religious beliefs.
IMO, they can't really be a true "Constitution Party" if they're willing to so casually sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of their own presumed-correct religious beliefs.
Maybe I should read their platform again. What are you talking about?
Anyway, Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, I don't see how Ron Paul is any better. They're both loopy about foreign policy.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 26, 2008, 10:43:49 PM
Sigh.
More Ron Paul bashing.
He might not have been the perfect candidate, but I think he was better than the rest of them. It's truly sad he didn't get fair media coverage.
More Ron Paul bashing.
He might not have been the perfect candidate, but I think he was better than the rest of them. It's truly sad he didn't get fair media coverage.
+1.
Though there's no such thing as a perfect candidate.
A 'perfect candidate' is a version of myself, with all my political views, but handsome, wealthy, and extremely charismatic, running for office. (or of YOURself, depending). Such a person is not likely to exist.
Post by: LAK on March 27, 2008, 02:43:04 AM
Quote
You guys act like Ron Paul is the first Constitutionalist to run for president. Have you never heard of the Const. Party?
I have; a long time ago. If they had fronted a candidate who had stated explicitly they would do what Ron Paul has, and their record of position had held the same intent for organizations like the UN, the Federal Reserve Banking system etc - I could have easily have cast a vote for them.Incidently; how much money did the CP candidate raise?
--------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: roo_ster on March 27, 2008, 05:27:20 AM
The current GOP leadership is not scared of him because he has been proven ineffectual. He wasn't even a speed bump in the way of any other republican candidate.
For my part, RP is a disappointment. The man has many truly conservative policies, but chose to play up the blame-America-first card to win the votes of the blame-America loons.
Someone willing to smear his own country to advance his own cause is not worthy of the office of POTUS.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 27, 2008, 08:44:53 AM
Post by: taurusowner on March 27, 2008, 11:31:22 AM
Quote
Religious Freedom
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
Care to point out where is says you have to be a Christian?
I've never even heard of the Constitution Party until today. But I just read their whole platform, and I think I agree with every single thing they say.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 27, 2008, 11:37:07 AM
In terms of political viability, they aimed the cannon at their own deck and fired every round on board till their entire cause foundered before pointing and laughing onlookers.
Good goin', guys!
Post by: erictank on March 27, 2008, 02:30:58 PM
Straight from the Constitution Party's website under "Platform"
Care to point out where is says you have to be a Christian?
I've never even heard of the Constitution Party until today. But I just read their whole platform, and I think I agree with every single thing they say.
Quote
Religious Freedom
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
Care to point out where is says you have to be a Christian?
I've never even heard of the Constitution Party until today. But I just read their whole platform, and I think I agree with every single thing they say.
Hmmm. That appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from what I remember reading about them. Of course, that was a number of years ago - might have been Y2K, come to think of it, and I haven't looked since then. There were comments to the effect of, "Restoring this great country to it's Christian basis, as intended by the Founding Fathers," or some such. What I saw was a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If they no longer advocate such nonsense, then perhaps they're different now. Have they been "reinvented", or something? <shrug>
Post by: El Tejon on March 27, 2008, 02:33:35 PM
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
The cure for Ron Paulism is an alarm clock so they can get jobs and have Dad give them a garbage bag and stop living in *expletive deleted*it.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 27, 2008, 03:14:28 PM
However, let's be considerate here, I *think* even Oleg is of that persuasion. (From what I see on his Livejournal blog...)
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 27, 2008, 04:56:04 PM
when did either of them serve in the us armed forces? or is the paulista confused with the freedom medal...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2008, 05:33:53 PM
Quote
"Restoring this great country to it's Christian basis, as intended by the Founding Fathers," or some such. What I saw was a clear violation of the First Amendment.
You realize that has no connection whatsoever with the First Amendment, right?
If it means anything at all.
Post by: Bigjake on March 27, 2008, 06:19:25 PM
It is not Ron Paul, but Ron Paul voters that scare this GOPer.
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I could take a day off work with my digi cam and run out of CF card space before I managed to photograph all of the rat holes around here that have Paul signs in the front yard.
Post by: erictank on March 27, 2008, 07:46:22 PM
Quote
"Restoring this great country to it's Christian basis, as intended by the Founding Fathers," or some such. What I saw was a clear violation of the First Amendment.
You realize that has no connection whatsoever with the First Amendment, right?
If it means anything at all. Appropriate section of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
How does planning to run the country according to "it's Christian basis, as intended by the Founding Fathers," NOT qualify as a violation? Seems like a clear cut violation of both the Establishment Clause AND the Free Exercise Clause to me.
There's a LOT in their platform that I can agree with, and plenty that I am neutral on. However, continued references to the "Christian origin of our nation" and the "Biblical foundations" of our country raise my hackles. From their current platform:
(Preamble) "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "
"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations ..."
"The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, ..."
(Sanctity Of Life) "The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image." (Note: I further disagree with this entire section as being any business of a civil government - I'm trying to stay focused on the religious aspects, which I find most inappropriate for a civil government, or an organization seeking power in same)
(Education) "All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents."
(Family) "The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. "
"[We] affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior."
(Gambling) "Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. "
(The Judiciary) "We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
(Pornography (entire section)) "Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."
The section on Welfare skates close to the edge, IMO, but not over the line, as it deals more with the message that can be learned from Christian teachings and the Bible on charity, rather than proposal of imposition of religiously-themed restrictions on people.
Ironically, I have no quibbles whatsoever with ANYTHING they say in the section on Religious Freedom. Wish the rest of the platform was as good, religiously-speaking.
Does that articulate my concerns any better for you, Fistful?
Because of their religious-themed imposition of "moral correctness" on matters which are no one's legitimate concern but those personally involved, and their continued insistence that our nation and government are "properly" Christian in nature, I cannot in good conscience support the so-called Constitution Party. A pity, as it seems like it's run by Christian-fundamentalist versions of Ron Paul, from a pass through their platform.
Don't misunderstand me - you want to be a Christian, even an evangelical Christian? You - personally - go right ahead. When my GOVERNMENT wants to be Christian (Jewish/Muslim/Zoroastrian/insert-religion-of-choice), or when someone wanting to become said government does so, THAT'S when I start to get a little nervous.
Post by: erictank on March 27, 2008, 07:56:23 PM
It is not Ron Paul, but Ron Paul voters that scare this GOPer.
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
The cure for Ron Paulism is an alarm clock so they can get jobs and have Dad give them a garbage bag and stop living in *expletive deleted*it.
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
The cure for Ron Paulism is an alarm clock so they can get jobs and have Dad give them a garbage bag and stop living in *expletive deleted*it.
THIS Ron Paul voter served as a Naval reactor operator for 6 years, did the same job in the civilian-power field for 8 more, and currently works to provide clean drinking water to a major metro area. Not exactly the kind of jobs where they hire the sort of dirtbags you've so charitably referred to me as. Think about that the next time you turn on your lights (and they go on, and STAY on), or pour yourself a glass of water (and you don't contract cholera or giardiasis).
Armed POLITE Society?
Post by: Finch on March 28, 2008, 01:34:00 AM
It is not Ron Paul, but Ron Paul voters that scare this GOPer.
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
The cure for Ron Paulism is an alarm clock so they can get jobs and have Dad give them a garbage bag and stop living in *expletive deleted*it.
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
The cure for Ron Paulism is an alarm clock so they can get jobs and have Dad give them a garbage bag and stop living in *expletive deleted*it.
THIS Ron Paul voter served as a Naval reactor operator for 6 years, did the same job in the civilian-power field for 8 more, and currently works to provide clean drinking water to a major metro area. Not exactly the kind of jobs where they hire the sort of dirtbags you've so charitably referred to me as. Think about that the next time you turn on your lights (and they go on, and STAY on), or pour yourself a glass of water (and you don't contract cholera or giardiasis).
Armed POLITE Society?
Hey Hey now, that doesn't matter. If it doesn't fit in with their ultimate agenda, then you best be on your way. I work 50 hours a week and go to college full time. I live on my own and take my own trash out. I'm not that fond of Cheeto's either. But that doesn't fit in with the usual Paul supporter bashing here. They would rather take the few people that they have seen acting irrationally and use them to stereotype the majority of Paul supporters over taking the logical point of view. If you don't support useless wars and intentional currency destruction then you are a kook in a Wookie costume.
Post by: seeker_two on March 28, 2008, 01:36:45 AM
Their platform is closest to my beliefs and positions....and, if the GOP wants my vote back, they'll know where to come.....
As for Christian values & government...as long as they don't demand everyone convert to Christianity, I'm OK with them using that standard--instead of the lack of standards being used now. What value system would you prefer government use?
Post by: El Tejon on March 28, 2008, 02:57:05 AM
I have not seen every property that hosts a Ron Paul sign so there very well may be squared away properties which host Ron Paul signs, but I have yet to see them. All I see are rat holes that infuriate me. The RP rathole in my neighborhood the Cheetoe-Eater refuses to return his garbage toter to inside his garage. I walked to up to his garage and saw nothing but Mountain Dew and beer cans and Cheetoe bags along the side of the house. I knocked on the door, no response despite the television being on. I picked everything up along the side of the house and left in disgust.
I asked on THR for one photo of a squared away property with a Ron Paul sign. I waited a looooong time before someone posted a photo of a house with unshoveled walks and the incorrect house numbers.
Ron Paul voters want license, not the freedom, as freedom demands duty and license does not.
Post by: Silver Bullet on March 28, 2008, 05:51:30 AM
Quote
They are lazy, slovenly, do not pick up trash in their yards and do not put away their garbage toter in a timely manner. Every RP voter that I have met or have seen a Ron Paul sign in their front lawn has been a slob, a big slob.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
I am terrified that they believe that freedom is either license or an excuse to go supine on their mom's couch in the basement and eat cheetoes all day while others work.
You need to get your lies straight. If the voters you saw are living in their moms basement, then it sounds like theyre not the home owners and are not responsible for the condition of the yard. Pick one story or the other and try to stick with it !
This is the most fun primary ever !
And the best part is yet to come. In two years when things go in the tank, the hysterical anti-Pauls are going to have to come to grips that they voted against the most qualified candidate solely because they didnt like the attitude of a minority of the pro-Paul folks. The title of this thread almost has it right; it isnt the GOP party members who are scared by Paul, its some of the GOP voters. 
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 05:54:17 AM
Post by: Silver Bullet on March 28, 2008, 06:27:01 AM
Quote
My most lasting image of Paul voters is a large group of people on a Manchester streetcorner, all holding up Paul signs, all screaming that 9/11 was an inside job.
That would leave a bad taste, I admit.
Maybe they were secretly McCain voters trying to drive you away from Paul ?
Yeah, that's it ! I'll get those guys. My experience is different. All of the Paul signs I've seen have been in perfectly respectable neighborhoods with well kept yards. More telling, I don't remember seeing any other candidate's signs until just recently I've seen a few signs for Obama. I didn't see any McCain, Romney, Hillary, Edwards, ... etc., at all ! Just Paul. I've probably seen 40 or 50 Paul signs, including one huge one outside a shooting range.
Post by: roo_ster on March 28, 2008, 09:06:36 AM
Too bad he's a conspiracy nutter. He has admitted to losing friends and wrecking his marriage due to his tinfoil-hattery.
Post by: lupinus on March 28, 2008, 11:04:12 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 11:26:45 AM
Ron Paul would be good if he actually updated his plans and stance to those which work in the modern world, not one hundred fifty years ago.
FTFY.
His world is one where global transactions are done by a clerk with a pen on a desk, by oil lamp light.
Post by: Bogie on March 28, 2008, 11:37:54 AM
Because a sizable number of people who would ordinarily vote against Hilbama will walk in, and vote for him. I'm thinking at least 2-3 points.
For that matter, I'm figuring that Huck and Fred are also going to at least be close to a point each in the general election.
And that's going to be the Democrat edge.
Post by: Bogie on March 28, 2008, 11:40:32 AM
My two garbage toters live outside. Right next to the trailer that's parked in the driveway. There's also a 13 year old van and a 12 year old car in the drive.
I'm considering putting some sort of giant anti-Hil sign on the trailer...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 12:25:51 PM
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 28, 2008, 12:41:00 PM
Quote
What if I don't have a garage?
You'd better stay away from cheetos. "Cheetos" to El Tejon is like "wire hangers" to Joan Crawford.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 28, 2008, 12:56:26 PM
Quote
Appropriate section of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
How does planning to run the country according to "it's Christian basis, as intended by the Founding Fathers," NOT qualify as a violation? Seems like a clear cut violation of both the Establishment Clause AND the Free Exercise Clause to me.
How does planning to run the country according to "it's Christian basis, as intended by the Founding Fathers," NOT qualify as a violation? Seems like a clear cut violation of both the Establishment Clause AND the Free Exercise Clause to me.
Because they're just words in a party platform. I'm glad you've gone through their platform for us, because those words alone are very vague. By no means are they a clear-cut anything. Like the phrase, "Christian nation," it can be hard to tell what someone means by it.
I might copy your post to a new thread, so we don't hijack this one any further. I'll post a link here, if I do. I think you may be reading a lot of things into the First Amendment, and into the platform. The 1A tends to get over-stretched, far beyond its intent.
But let me say again that I also feel the party is too overtly Christian for my taste. I don't remember the platform being so God-this and God-that. I often find myself agreeing with the policy stance of my fellows in the Religious Right, but abhorring their reasoning behind it. As someone said of Sean Hannity, "he seems incapable of finding a reasonable argument for his position."
Post by: Phyphor on March 28, 2008, 05:01:43 PM
Quote
In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution.
No. No I didn't.
You guys act like Ron Paul is the first Constitutionalist to run for president. Have you never heard of the Const. Party?
More like the 2nd Coming....
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 05:14:24 PM
It really was his supporters which scared me. A combination of Troofers, Star Trek/Star Wars Conventioneers, Tinfoil Hatters and the aforementioned "Lives in Mom's Basement Chee-too eaters."
Bascially the people rejected by the Libs and Commie's as too wierd/nerdy/geeky.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 28, 2008, 07:03:35 PM
No worries, now.
Post by: LAK on March 29, 2008, 04:40:47 AM
Or is it just people trying to fill in the blanks left by the mystical dissappearing ink used by the writers of the Constitution?
-------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 29, 2008, 05:58:34 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 29, 2008, 06:36:37 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 29, 2008, 10:00:52 AM
need the paulista decoder ring
Found in the jumbo-sized box of Fruit Loops...
Post by: Silver Bullet on March 29, 2008, 03:48:39 PM
need the paulista decoder ring
Found in the jumbo-sized box of Fruit Loops...
Har, har, har ...
(pretty funny, actually)
Post by: roo_ster on March 29, 2008, 04:53:59 PM
Just so I could say I voted against the originator of the CFR act.
Now, my choice won't be so easy come NOV.
Post by: K Frame on March 30, 2008, 06:52:46 AM
There's some stuff by Ron Paul's supporters going around looking to the activities of Abraham Lincoln's supporters at the 1860 Republican nomination as a means of grabbing the nomination for Paul.
No acknowledgement of how vastly different things are 140+ years later, just reliance on this as their strategy, I think...
Post by: Silver Bullet on March 30, 2008, 08:23:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 30, 2008, 08:28:20 AM
"after McCain clenched the nomination"
There's some stuff by Ron Paul's supporters going around looking to the activities of Abraham Lincoln's supporters at the 1860 Republican nomination as a means of grabbing the nomination for Paul.
No acknowledgement of how vastly different things are 140+ years later, just reliance on this as their strategy, I think...
There's some stuff by Ron Paul's supporters going around looking to the activities of Abraham Lincoln's supporters at the 1860 Republican nomination as a means of grabbing the nomination for Paul.
No acknowledgement of how vastly different things are 140+ years later, just reliance on this as their strategy, I think...
Well, that's the thing. They don't understand that things are different now. Why else would they keep bellowing "GOLD STANDARD FIAT CURRENCIES GOLD GOLD GOLD" in a world where even a medium-sized international corporation has thousands of cross-currency transactions going on every second?
Money is no longer a note backed by a precious metal. Money is a fluctuating rate that people are willing to pay for goods and services in a global market.
And they refuse to understand that.
Post by: El Tejon on March 30, 2008, 08:53:21 AM
For example, if I had a job and could afford Cheetoes, I could pay my mom in gold in bring me more Cheetoes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 30, 2008, 09:35:52 AM
Hey, Maned, did you get that audio clip I sent you, of the nutty Paulistinian?
Post by: El Tejon on March 30, 2008, 01:12:24 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 30, 2008, 01:40:46 PM
Most of those Paul supporters were decent people. It was only a few that were very loud and sort of combative. They apparently also thought voice votes were decided on volume rather than approximate number of voices. That was annoying.
Post by: Derek Zeanah on March 31, 2008, 06:07:00 AM
Quote
Money is no longer a note backed by a precious metal. Money is a fluctuating rate that people are willing to pay for goods and services in a global market.
And they refuse to understand that.
I think we understand the way things are going fairly well, but it's worrisome for various reasons. Devaluation of money for one -- I saw an interesting comparison when the 'new' VW Beetle came out that compared the cost of the new beetle versus the original. The cost in dollars had grown greatly, while the cost in gold (if you'd converted gold to dollars at the going rate) was comparable. That's just a fact with fiat currencies, they lose value over time. The historical perspective is that no fiat currency in history was ever sustainable -- they all failed eventually. Folks at the constitutional convention knew this from recent memory as well. Once people lose faith in the currency we're out of luck (and now that the Euro is available as a currency -- look at Euro use in recent rap videos -- we're closer to that point than we've been. Remember -- the USD reached parity with the Canadian Dollar recently, then climbed back up, but I never thought I'd see that...)And they refuse to understand that.
So there are folks who think the US Dollar ought to be backed by something, and ideally something tangible. I understand the arguments against it, and for a money supply that's a bit more flexible when we look at things from the perspective of economic growth, but I don't think your average Joe is better off with a currency that's worth consistently less from year to year. And in the end, even though I'm working on an MBA and have a minor in Economics, I think doing what's best for citizens makes a bit more sense than doing what's best for corporations.
But then I don't know that I'm a huge fan of the Fed, either. They can smooth things out in the short term, and they can refuse to do the right things and tank the economy as well (see our Great Depression and what Japan went through in the '90s which seems to be directly related to monetary policy).
But then, I'm not so much a "Paulian" or a "Libertarian" -- I just think I've embraced the economic way of thinking about these issues.
That aside, the ad-hominem attacks on Paul and his supports get a bit old.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 31, 2008, 06:17:48 AM
I hope you don't think my post was an attack. There were only a couple people that I thought were bad examples. Most everyone behaved just fine.
Post by: erictank on March 31, 2008, 09:09:07 AM
Ron Paul scares the GOP for one reason.
Because a sizable number of people who would ordinarily vote against Hilbama will walk in, and vote for him. I'm thinking at least 2-3 points.
Because a sizable number of people who would ordinarily vote against Hilbama will walk in, and vote for him. I'm thinking at least 2-3 points.
Maybe this time they'll actually LEARN something from it? Present a candidate whose most-public example of government service DOESN'T involve a blatant violation of the First (or any other) Amendment? Someone who's demonstratedly PRO-liberty?
I would have voted for Paul in the general election (actually, that can read, "...WILL vote for Paul..." - thanks to the wonder of write-in voting, and I'm making sure the Republican Party knows it). Might even have been willing to hold my nose and vote Thompson, if he'd come out on top. But MCCAIN?!? Not a frakking CHANCE. The Republican Party's been selling their "Vote for us or Candidate (D) will be voted in!!!!!" Koolaid for decades now, and I'm tired of hearing it and seeing the quality of the (R) frontrunners decline pretty steadily (on the premise of "Well, what are you going to do, vote Democrat? HAHAHAHA!!!!"). I MIGHT think about voting (R) when - IF - they get back to what they allege their Party is all about. I certainly won't vote for them and present the false front that the current actions of the Republican Party are acceptable. If they want to keep Candidate (D) out of office - well, it's probably too late this time, unless Hillary and Obama eat themselves/each other in the run up to the (D) nominating convention. I won't shed a tear, either way. It's far too late for that. Spiteful? Perhaps. But I refuse to blithely accept being ... spit on by those who want me to vote for them, just because they think they can get away with it since "the other guy is so much worse." If that means "the other guy" gets voted in by those who don't know better, or care, well, perhaps they should have thought of that before they ... spit all over those of us who demand something better from those chosen to represent and lead this country.
El T, I'll grant you every problem you've got with certain Paul supporters - note that I have not defended in any respect the specific ones you mention, nor the ones Manedwolf mentioned. Behavior like that reflects poorly on Paul, no question. Of course, it's virtually certain that for every individual like that, the ones the media preferred to focus on, there are hundreds or thousands of just-plain-folks, calmly and quietly holding down jobs, supporting families, raising kids, maintaining households, and doing all sorts of entertaining/useful/socially-redeeming things as hobbies. In all, thousands upon thousands of people who just aren't INTERESTING (read - not newsworthy, since they aren't raving loons), in the media's eyes, but who think that Ron Paul was the best candidate in the field anyways. People who don't get talked about in the media, who aren't presented as a support base for anyone, except maybe in aggregate when talking about vote or donation totals (hey, SOMEONE gave Paul a whole bunch of money for the campaign, and I doubt that your "Cheeto Loon" living in his mom's basement could afford it, from what you say). And you tarred all of US with that same brush you slapped the nuts with, too. You apparently bought into the media-generated stereotype - any wonder some of us here are a little torqued at being lumped in with them?
Besides, I hate Cheetos, I don't have a Wookiee costume, and I haven't lived in my mom's basement for over a decade. If you're going to insult me, is it too much trouble to ask you to at least make it accurate?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 31, 2008, 09:25:27 AM
and he might be wise to not allow farces like the liberety dollar scam to use his likeness. hard on his image makes folks like me think hes wacky
Post by: K Frame on March 31, 2008, 09:52:44 AM
I have absolutely no doubt that Ron Paul fronting the Republican ticket would be an absolute and unmitigated disaster.
Post by: K Frame on March 31, 2008, 09:55:20 AM
Nope. Created by an act of Congress in 1913.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 31, 2008, 01:44:27 PM
Quote
Present a candidate whose most-public example of government service DOESN'T involve a blatant violation of the First (or any other) Amendment?
Are you saying John McCain's most public example of gov service was McCain-Feingold? Did you forget about his time in Vietnam?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 31, 2008, 08:17:00 PM
Yes. As well, your Wookie custom is giving us all bad vibes.
Is it the smell? I'm saving up enough gold to buy a washing machine.
Post by: Finch on March 31, 2008, 11:15:16 PM
Quote
Present a candidate whose most-public example of government service DOESN'T involve a blatant violation of the First (or any other) Amendment?
Are you saying John McCain's most public example of gov service was McCain-Feingold? Did you forget about his time in Vietnam?
What about it? He was captured. So were a bunch of other people. His Vietnam service doesn't have any reflection on what he would do as president. McCain-Feingold does.
Post by: Bigjake on April 01, 2008, 02:26:47 AM
What about it? He was captured. So were a bunch of other people. His Vietnam service doesn't have any reflection on what he would do as president. McCain-Feingold does.
As John Kerry (Who served in Vietnam, BTW) Found out.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 01, 2008, 02:31:35 AM
there are folks, fortunately, who think differently. being in long pants during that time tends to make one see it differently
Post by: El Tejon on April 01, 2008, 02:41:10 AM
The ratholes I describe are in my city, Lafayette, Indiana, and in West Lafayette. The Ron Paul sign bearing yard with the Mountain Dew, beer can and Cheetoe bags strewn about it is in my neighborhood, close to my house!
If there is a squared away Ron Paul supporter, I have yet to see one. You call them "nuts" but I have yet to see any other type of Ron Paul voter. To date I have yet to meet a Ron Paul vote who did not equate license with freedom, sloth with liberty. There may be his supporters who believe otherwise, but I have yet to see evidence of this.
I'll give you a rebuttable presumption. There may be Ron Paul supporters as you describe, but you better show me because this is not what I see all around me.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 01, 2008, 04:01:21 AM
Post by: erictank on April 01, 2008, 04:30:44 AM
eric, no, you misunderstand. I am not reporting what I see in the media. Rather, I am reporting what I see around me. (The Ron Paul voters have not yet played dress up where I live, but they have in Indianapolis).
The ratholes I describe are in my city, Lafayette, Indiana, and in West Lafayette. The Ron Paul sign bearing yard with the Mountain Dew, beer can and Cheetoe bags strewn about it is in my neighborhood, close to my house!
The ratholes I describe are in my city, Lafayette, Indiana, and in West Lafayette. The Ron Paul sign bearing yard with the Mountain Dew, beer can and Cheetoe bags strewn about it is in my neighborhood, close to my house!
Ah. Gotcha.
If there is a squared away Ron Paul supporter, I have yet to see one. You call them "nuts" but I have yet to see any other type of Ron Paul voter. To date I have yet to meet a Ron Paul vote who did not equate license with freedom, sloth with liberty. There may be his supporters who believe otherwise, but I have yet to see evidence of this.
I'll give you a rebuttable presumption. There may be Ron Paul supporters as you describe, but you better show me because this is not what I see all around me.
I'll give you a rebuttable presumption. There may be Ron Paul supporters as you describe, but you better show me because this is not what I see all around me.
Well, I don't have a pic handy at the moment, but... me. Of course, I live in a townhouse owned by my fiancee (so we have a TINY "yard"), and the HOA would crucify us - possibly literally - if we didn't keep the place up to reasonable standards. To say nothing of not wanting to live like a pig.
Sorry to hear that you have a high proportion of, shall we say, "poor examples" in your area. Can't help you there, and frankly I agree with you that people like you describe are not good neighbors (or positive examples of humanity, even). I'll counter by saying that I have not seen ANY people like you mention, for ANY candidate, even, in my own area of NoVA. Guess my experience is different than yours, which helped to drive my annoyance at the broad-based attack.
Are you saying John McCain's most public example of gov service was McCain-Feingold? Did you forget about his time in Vietnam?
Nope. I'm saying that his military service is less likely, IMO, to be representative of what he would do as President than what he's done as a legislator since then. I'll give him respect for his service in Vietnam - as a veteran myself, I could not do otherwise. But he's demonstrated an appalling lack of concern for portions of the Constitution as a legislator - what's he likely to be willing to sign into law (or propose as a bill and try to ramrod through any opposition) as President?
Post by: Finch on April 01, 2008, 06:53:45 AM
"What about it? He was captured. So were a bunch of other people. His Vietnam service doesn't have any reflection on what he would do as president. "
there are folks, fortunately, who think differently. being in long pants during that time tends to make one see it differently
there are folks, fortunately, who think differently. being in long pants during that time tends to make one see it differently
No, that quite unfortunate. There is little difference between your mentality and those who would vote for Obama because he is black. The fact that he was a POW does nothing to reflect on what he would do as President. His history in the senate on the other hand is a much better indicator. I thought that would be pretty evident. So what if he got shot down, he is still pissing on the Constitution.
But I guess that doesn't matter...we got terrorist to fight.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 01, 2008, 07:44:00 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 01, 2008, 08:48:23 AM
Post by: roo_ster on April 01, 2008, 09:35:32 AM
"What about it? He was captured. So were a bunch of other people. His Vietnam service doesn't have any reflection on what he would do as president. "
there are folks, fortunately, who think differently. being in long pants during that time tends to make one see it differently
there are folks, fortunately, who think differently. being in long pants during that time tends to make one see it differently
No, that quite unfortunate. There is little difference between your mentality and those who would vote for Obama because he is black. The fact that he was a POW does nothing to reflect on what he would do as President. His history in the senate on the other hand is a much better indicator. I thought that would be pretty evident. So what if he got shot down, he is still pissing on the Constitution.
But I guess that doesn't matter...we got terrorist to fight.
Lemme 'splain it for those who can not discern moral fiber from moralizing fibber.
===============
So...proven courage in the face of years-long imprisonment, actual torture, and threats of death counts for nothing?
It ain't everything, but it sure is something, despite the mewlings of the Peter Pan set.
Therein lies the difference between voting for ObaMa because of his race and McCain because of his service: content of character vs skin coLor. (I Know I Just may have heard that somewhere before...)
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on April 01, 2008, 10:33:51 AM
Quote
(I Know I Just may have heard that somewhere before...)
That would be (The) Oprah.
Post by: Finch on April 01, 2008, 01:48:42 PM
your inability to see the difference isn't surprising. its part of what makes the paul campaign such a sucess.... um never mind
And your inability to have a rational discussion without resorting to petty insults when someone says something you can't counter isn't surprising.
Quote
So...proven courage in the face of years-long imprisonment, actual torture, and threats of death counts for nothing?
When talking about being the President of the United States...yes. Sure, he was brave and courageous and all that, but just because he went through hell does not make him presidential material. How he actually performed in the Senate is a worth more on deciding should he be president that the years he spent as a POW.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 01, 2008, 02:47:24 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 01, 2008, 05:59:05 PM
Quote
Present a candidate whose most-public example of government service DOESN'T involve a blatant violation of the First (or any other) Amendment?
Are you saying John McCain's most public example of gov service was McCain-Feingold? Did you forget about his time in Vietnam?
What about it? He was captured. So were a bunch of other people. His Vietnam service doesn't have any reflection on what he would do as president. McCain-Feingold does.
Slow down, Flo-Jo. I disagreed that McCain-Feingold was his "most-public example of government service." Or disservice, as the case may be. And that's it. I wasn't trying to imply anything by it.
Post by: Finch on April 01, 2008, 07:43:38 PM
Quote
Present a candidate whose most-public example of government service DOESN'T involve a blatant violation of the First (or any other) Amendment?
Are you saying John McCain's most public example of gov service was McCain-Feingold? Did you forget about his time in Vietnam?
What about it? He was captured. So were a bunch of other people. His Vietnam service doesn't have any reflection on what he would do as president. McCain-Feingold does.
Slow down, Flo-Jo. I disagreed that McCain-Feingold was his "most-public example of government service." Or disservice, as the case may be. And that's it. I wasn't trying to imply anything by it.
I know that. This is my opinion. Anybody who honestly considers legislation like that beneficial to this country has no business being president.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 01, 2008, 08:33:38 PM
Quote
Anybody who honestly considers legislation like that beneficial to this country has no business being president.
Yeah, I know. I'm voting