Ron Paul ... The Kook.
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
ViRedd
New Member
I just love the way the Naysayers on this site attack the messenger instead of relating to the topic at hand. Idiots!
The reason I posted Mona Charen's article was to get the conversation going. It was not a statement that I'm against Ron Paul at all. In fact, if everyone would re-read Smirgen's beautiful post #8, you'll see exactly where I stand on RP. I couldn't have said it any better, Smirgen.
Vi
The reason I posted Mona Charen's article was to get the conversation going. It was not a statement that I'm against Ron Paul at all. In fact, if everyone would re-read Smirgen's beautiful post #8, you'll see exactly where I stand on RP. I couldn't have said it any better, Smirgen.
Vi
simpleman1776
New Member
you posted an article, a long one in which the first words are, ron paul is a kook.
why should we read that garbage and decipher your point.
those of us who know ron paul, as well as those who know of him wouldn't waste our time reading such trash, the post only attempts to get us to just that.
the fact people misunderstood your intentions, is on you.
next time say so and dont post a title that says ron paul is a kook, he's nothing of the sort.
why should we read that garbage and decipher your point.
those of us who know ron paul, as well as those who know of him wouldn't waste our time reading such trash, the post only attempts to get us to just that.
the fact people misunderstood your intentions, is on you.
next time say so and dont post a title that says ron paul is a kook, he's nothing of the sort.
simpleman1776
New Member
bush christian, BWAAAA HA HA HA HA. was that before or after his initiation into the bohemian death cult, skull and bones, the order of death.
by the way, i'm bohemian and there is such an order/cult.
every year in july they have luciferian ceremonies at bohemian grove , californication.
ViRedd
New Member
Well, thank God we have you on the site to interpret and to supervise. What would we do without ya?
Vi
simpleman1776
New Member
I guess you'de complain that people misunderstood you, waaa waaa..
simpleman1776
New Member
take a good look at your original post, not one word from you debunking it, posting it and not doing so gives the impression you agree with the letter.
as i said, if there was a point to it, say so, otherwise expect flak from posting such trash.
as i said, if there was a point to it, say so, otherwise expect flak from posting such trash.
twostarhotel
Well-Known Member
yeah bro bush tried to convince everyone how christian he was, that was 7 years ago look at him now, who knows what scemes hes involed in
simpleman1776
New Member
RON paul is constitutionally indisputable, founding father material, I've known him since 92, soi take offense to bad posts about him from people who havn't a clue what's what or who's who'
wasnt personal. I was in a bad mood fighting with a fool over 911.
so i jumped on ya, sorry.
but ron is the man, he's the real thing.
wasnt personal. I was in a bad mood fighting with a fool over 911.
so i jumped on ya, sorry.
but ron is the man, he's the real thing.
twostarhotel
Well-Known Member
yo respect he shoudlve won the first time there woudlve never been a bush
threatlevelorange
Well-Known Member
I suppose I see your point. The problem is that you can't put "Ron Paul is a kook" and then be surprised that people assume you don't like him. Also, this is SUCH fringe material that I would suspect only a strong investigator would ever find it, thus further emphasizing that you take a strong stance regarding Ron Paul. With the title, one could safely assume that you dislike Ron Paul as much as you dislike his constitutional policies. It came as bit of a shock...the title that is.
At any rate, this lady is probably a hippie that slangs crack to support her vicodin addiction and has only heard of Ron Paul through the most liberally-biased reading material.
twostarhotel
Well-Known Member
i found this site for ron paul meetups
Ron Paul Supporters, Ron Paul 2008 Meetups, events, clubs and groups in your area
Ron Paul Supporters, Ron Paul 2008 Meetups, events, clubs and groups in your area
"He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."
Vi, I think you are a piece of $%^ with absolutely no intellectual integrity after posting this, and that you have a staked interest in watching this country plummet as fast as possible into hell. The previous posters who called you out were absolutely correct: this was pure bullshit. No one thought that was some innocent post, and you should expect the wrath of people who care...
Point by point, you know, just a conversation starter...
1. Ron Paul is Inconsistent:
If this were true, Ron Paul would change his positions often, as he has no intellectual integrity or principles whatsoever. Compare this to reality:
Ron Paul is the only Republican I know of who voted against the Iraq War when it was most popular because it was unconstitutional, a guiding principle of his which has garnered him the label of either "flake" (Soledad O'Brien on CNN), "Dr. No" for his [note: constant] opposition to bills that ignore the Constitution and increase the size, expense and role of government to the detriment of society, or, his self-proclaimed title (and who would honestly contest this???) of "Champion of the Constitution." [This is beside the point, but I do consider this last one my personal favorite
] I know of one position that he has openly admitted changing: he now opposes the federal death penalty.
2. Point two doesn't lend itself to a simple summarization of it's main thesis as it contains mostly ignorant accusations backed up by no facts.
Definition of Isolationism: "A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries." (American Heritage Dictionary)
Definition of Non-interventionism: "Abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions."
As you can see, Isolationism requires economic isolation from other nations, and avoids even political contact. Paul's commitment to real free trade and diplomacy with all nations with which we are not at war stands in direct opposite of her thorough and delicate research that failed to define, or even search for, the definition of a word she does clearly not understand.
Where she takes this, however, is perhaps her stupidest critique overall: Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
The crime is the most obvious element in this case, which carries a penalty of incarceration. I know that peace-loving Americans were co-conspirators in the Nazi march to war via McCain, but this is new territory for Paul attacks: Scooter Libby would be denied his just and honestly deserved freedom by the moral Gumby Ron Paul!?! Paul answered the question perfectly: would he pardon Libby? No. And why not? Because he has no sympathy for a man that committed a crime and whose character lent itself to the biggest (non-official) crime of this new century: the Iraq War and the propaganda surrounding it.
And in a similar vein of statements that contain no logical glue whatsoever, Ron Paul becomes incapable of analyzing history because he constructs a tradition in which he is very much Republican: he claims to be a representative of the traditional conservative foreign policy of non-interventionism (which he actually talks about stretching back to the Founding Fathers, repeatedly quoting their advice to avoid entangling alliances; he also mentions Robert Taft quite often)
Paul's arguments surrounding Eisenhower and Nixon have been (although I personally believe he misspoke at the debate as he is quoted there) made to make the point that even in somewhat recent times this policy has been supported by Americans. Eisenhower was elected to end Truman's war in Korea as Nixon was elected to end Vietnam; these actions would have reflected the non-interventionist policy that Paul puts forward. This doesn't mean that either of these two men was an isolationist or a non-interventionist. Indeed, Nixon seemed right at home with not ending the Vietnam War. But Ron Paul has never made such a claim about them. This claim has been added to a false description of Paul's views to make for an especially pitiful attempt at honest critique.
Next, Ron Paul is absolutely serious about abolishing the IRS. It is (though this is completely out of touch with his principles, and is his weak spot
) an unconstitutional program that he would eliminate as soon as possible. He would also like to get rid of the apparently very independent CIA and conduct intelligence operations though the DOD, which he would keep. It is simply a secret organization with carte blanche to create problems that an interventionist army can solve later with no accountability to anyone and a huge budget. It's current status is simply unacceptable, and they didn't stop 9/11 anyway. It also goes without saying that this woman has no evidence or arguments for his proposals being "unserious" but her own head; this has been demonstrated to be so far up her ass that anything that she considers speculation (as in she didn't even bother to forge an argument) should be immediately discounted.
Guilt by association with fringe elements is also irreverent and disturbing. He was on a radio show with someone who happens to care very much about his country, even if what he believes isn't true. She wouldn't know anything about the substance of his work, because that's not part of her research. FOX News' website had only bad things to say about him, I suppose. That or Ann Coulter got drunk with her to help her write the hit piece.
But really: If I had good arguments for saying 9/11 was an inside job designed to give instant trust and leeway to Bush in all matters foreign and domestic, Iraq was about robbing the treasury and causing thereby an economic crisis that would help spawn a North American Union and stealing Iraq's national resources to ensure the fuel supply of this new union and it's largest oil companies, I'm not crazy. I may be wrong, but I'm not crazy. Paul's association, therefore, with "thought criminals," (thought criminals whose works she has never seen or heard), is too much for her. They have different ideas. Crazy! Blasphemous!!! Ickky! He should lead a cult he's so crazy...
Talking about non-violent, non-racist thought crime in the US is unamerican, period. Posting this without commentary just as a way to get to us (the obviously majority in this forum so far) excited was an act of intellectual cowardice. This was a horrible article, Vi.
But I should end this by saying something positive about Ron Paul, and why you, Vi, miserable wretch that you are after all of the things you have spewed time and again, should vote for him:
He is a true conservative that will respect individual rights and believes the role of government is to protect individual liberties. This would involve repealing the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Income Tax and ending the War on Drugs.
He is a true conservative that believes high taxation and a regulated free-market fascism is intolerable. He would seriously put thousands of dollars back in your pocket every year. You could buy pounds of pot, or setup a new grow, or buy a library and read for the rest of eternity. You could do whatever you wanted to do. You could even send the money to foreign aid organizations without supporting the corrupt practices of Washington politicians! Imagine the freedom you would have!
He would repeal the right of a secret law-enforcement official to lurk around the corner and wait for me to leave my house so he could write his own warrant to raid my wife's underwear drawer, as 73% of these cases were for non-terrorism related incidents. Your house is your castle.
He would take serious action to limit illegal immigration and stop the NAFTA superhighway from ever being built without debate.
He would never, as was done in New Orleans after the hurricane, take away your right to bear arms or hire a private mercenary company to patrol the streets with machine guns.
He would restore the Republic. If it has become crazy to utter those sentences, this country is no longer a constitutional democracy. It is a democratic dictatorship, a two-party one-party State that is destroying itself. If you can't connect to your roots anymore, you have no right to ever toot that horn again. You can celebrate the post-9/11 America of 1930's Germany. Or you can join the Revolution.
Vi, I think you are a piece of $%^ with absolutely no intellectual integrity after posting this, and that you have a staked interest in watching this country plummet as fast as possible into hell. The previous posters who called you out were absolutely correct: this was pure bullshit. No one thought that was some innocent post, and you should expect the wrath of people who care...
Point by point, you know, just a conversation starter...
1. Ron Paul is Inconsistent:
If this were true, Ron Paul would change his positions often, as he has no intellectual integrity or principles whatsoever. Compare this to reality:
Ron Paul is the only Republican I know of who voted against the Iraq War when it was most popular because it was unconstitutional, a guiding principle of his which has garnered him the label of either "flake" (Soledad O'Brien on CNN), "Dr. No" for his [note: constant] opposition to bills that ignore the Constitution and increase the size, expense and role of government to the detriment of society, or, his self-proclaimed title (and who would honestly contest this???) of "Champion of the Constitution." [This is beside the point, but I do consider this last one my personal favorite
] I know of one position that he has openly admitted changing: he now opposes the federal death penalty.2. Point two doesn't lend itself to a simple summarization of it's main thesis as it contains mostly ignorant accusations backed up by no facts.
Definition of Isolationism: "A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries." (American Heritage Dictionary)
Definition of Non-interventionism: "Abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions."
As you can see, Isolationism requires economic isolation from other nations, and avoids even political contact. Paul's commitment to real free trade and diplomacy with all nations with which we are not at war stands in direct opposite of her thorough and delicate research that failed to define, or even search for, the definition of a word she does clearly not understand.
Where she takes this, however, is perhaps her stupidest critique overall: Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
The crime is the most obvious element in this case, which carries a penalty of incarceration. I know that peace-loving Americans were co-conspirators in the Nazi march to war via McCain, but this is new territory for Paul attacks: Scooter Libby would be denied his just and honestly deserved freedom by the moral Gumby Ron Paul!?! Paul answered the question perfectly: would he pardon Libby? No. And why not? Because he has no sympathy for a man that committed a crime and whose character lent itself to the biggest (non-official) crime of this new century: the Iraq War and the propaganda surrounding it.
And in a similar vein of statements that contain no logical glue whatsoever, Ron Paul becomes incapable of analyzing history because he constructs a tradition in which he is very much Republican: he claims to be a representative of the traditional conservative foreign policy of non-interventionism (which he actually talks about stretching back to the Founding Fathers, repeatedly quoting their advice to avoid entangling alliances; he also mentions Robert Taft quite often)
Paul's arguments surrounding Eisenhower and Nixon have been (although I personally believe he misspoke at the debate as he is quoted there) made to make the point that even in somewhat recent times this policy has been supported by Americans. Eisenhower was elected to end Truman's war in Korea as Nixon was elected to end Vietnam; these actions would have reflected the non-interventionist policy that Paul puts forward. This doesn't mean that either of these two men was an isolationist or a non-interventionist. Indeed, Nixon seemed right at home with not ending the Vietnam War. But Ron Paul has never made such a claim about them. This claim has been added to a false description of Paul's views to make for an especially pitiful attempt at honest critique.
Next, Ron Paul is absolutely serious about abolishing the IRS. It is (though this is completely out of touch with his principles, and is his weak spot
) an unconstitutional program that he would eliminate as soon as possible. He would also like to get rid of the apparently very independent CIA and conduct intelligence operations though the DOD, which he would keep. It is simply a secret organization with carte blanche to create problems that an interventionist army can solve later with no accountability to anyone and a huge budget. It's current status is simply unacceptable, and they didn't stop 9/11 anyway. It also goes without saying that this woman has no evidence or arguments for his proposals being "unserious" but her own head; this has been demonstrated to be so far up her ass that anything that she considers speculation (as in she didn't even bother to forge an argument) should be immediately discounted.Guilt by association with fringe elements is also irreverent and disturbing. He was on a radio show with someone who happens to care very much about his country, even if what he believes isn't true. She wouldn't know anything about the substance of his work, because that's not part of her research. FOX News' website had only bad things to say about him, I suppose. That or Ann Coulter got drunk with her to help her write the hit piece.
But really: If I had good arguments for saying 9/11 was an inside job designed to give instant trust and leeway to Bush in all matters foreign and domestic, Iraq was about robbing the treasury and causing thereby an economic crisis that would help spawn a North American Union and stealing Iraq's national resources to ensure the fuel supply of this new union and it's largest oil companies, I'm not crazy. I may be wrong, but I'm not crazy. Paul's association, therefore, with "thought criminals," (thought criminals whose works she has never seen or heard), is too much for her. They have different ideas. Crazy! Blasphemous!!! Ickky! He should lead a cult he's so crazy...
Talking about non-violent, non-racist thought crime in the US is unamerican, period. Posting this without commentary just as a way to get to us (the obviously majority in this forum so far) excited was an act of intellectual cowardice. This was a horrible article, Vi.
But I should end this by saying something positive about Ron Paul, and why you, Vi, miserable wretch that you are after all of the things you have spewed time and again, should vote for him:
He is a true conservative that will respect individual rights and believes the role of government is to protect individual liberties. This would involve repealing the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Income Tax and ending the War on Drugs.
He is a true conservative that believes high taxation and a regulated free-market fascism is intolerable. He would seriously put thousands of dollars back in your pocket every year. You could buy pounds of pot, or setup a new grow, or buy a library and read for the rest of eternity. You could do whatever you wanted to do. You could even send the money to foreign aid organizations without supporting the corrupt practices of Washington politicians! Imagine the freedom you would have!
He would repeal the right of a secret law-enforcement official to lurk around the corner and wait for me to leave my house so he could write his own warrant to raid my wife's underwear drawer, as 73% of these cases were for non-terrorism related incidents. Your house is your castle.
He would take serious action to limit illegal immigration and stop the NAFTA superhighway from ever being built without debate.
He would never, as was done in New Orleans after the hurricane, take away your right to bear arms or hire a private mercenary company to patrol the streets with machine guns.
He would restore the Republic. If it has become crazy to utter those sentences, this country is no longer a constitutional democracy. It is a democratic dictatorship, a two-party one-party State that is destroying itself. If you can't connect to your roots anymore, you have no right to ever toot that horn again. You can celebrate the post-9/11 America of 1930's Germany. Or you can join the Revolution.
threatlevelorange
Well-Known Member
Whoa man! Chill out. You don't know Vi. He just posted an article. Learn to read the entire thread before posting.
twostarhotel
Well-Known Member
I know Vi... was asking for it.
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
The one point that most writers fail to understand is this:
Most elections are about finding a candidate that supports as many issues as an individule voter finds important. However, RP is a candidate of single issues. Consequently, Neo-Nazi and Catholic Right to Life can both feel comfortable supporting the same candidate. Branch Divideons claim they want the simple right to support a religion they prefer. Yet, an FBI attack caused the deaths of over 80 church members. So Branch Divideons could support RP. The same can be said of a dozen other single issue voter groups, incuding some fringe groups.
Support from fringe groups does not make him part of the fringe. His views, for 30+ years have been mainstream. Fringe groups usually support the Constitution. However, they may debate the interpretation of the Constitution, and how it applies.
This is NOT the same as David Duke running for office and receiving the support of the KKK.
Most elections are about finding a candidate that supports as many issues as an individule voter finds important. However, RP is a candidate of single issues. Consequently, Neo-Nazi and Catholic Right to Life can both feel comfortable supporting the same candidate. Branch Divideons claim they want the simple right to support a religion they prefer. Yet, an FBI attack caused the deaths of over 80 church members. So Branch Divideons could support RP. The same can be said of a dozen other single issue voter groups, incuding some fringe groups.
Support from fringe groups does not make him part of the fringe. His views, for 30+ years have been mainstream. Fringe groups usually support the Constitution. However, they may debate the interpretation of the Constitution, and how it applies.
This is NOT the same as David Duke running for office and receiving the support of the KKK.
simpleman1776
New Member
WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN ?
Most elections are about finding a candidate that supports as many issues as an individule voter finds important. However, RP is a candidate of single issues.
where the hell do you get that ?
this is america, the constitution is the law of the land, it means what it says, it says what it means.
you've been socialised into the (it depends on the definition of is, is ?)mentality
maybe in the last elections it was about bullchitting people on both sides of the isle into electing them so they can turn around and say screw you i'm doing what I want.
ron paul is constitutional, if it's not in there, it's not constitutional, this applies to everyone equal and there's no azz kizzing involved.
I want someone who will follow the law, period and I dont care who he offends or pizzes off, as long as he follows the law, and stops these wars and gets rid of the socialist heavy progressive unconstitutional income tax fraud.
ron is the man to do that.
you sound like an obama man,...or worse a hiliary fabian socialist luver.
get real.
this is america and it's time to return to the ways of the founders, to do otherwise will cause revolt and revolution soon to restore our freedom
I for one will die before i become a good global citizen.
i support ron paul and freedom, the rest are all globaliost traitors and members of the subversive/treasonist CFR.
it's time for a change or time to kick azz.
Most elections are about finding a candidate that supports as many issues as an individule voter finds important. However, RP is a candidate of single issues.
where the hell do you get that ?
this is america, the constitution is the law of the land, it means what it says, it says what it means.
you've been socialised into the (it depends on the definition of is, is ?)mentality
maybe in the last elections it was about bullchitting people on both sides of the isle into electing them so they can turn around and say screw you i'm doing what I want.
ron paul is constitutional, if it's not in there, it's not constitutional, this applies to everyone equal and there's no azz kizzing involved.
I want someone who will follow the law, period and I dont care who he offends or pizzes off, as long as he follows the law, and stops these wars and gets rid of the socialist heavy progressive unconstitutional income tax fraud.
ron is the man to do that.
you sound like an obama man,...or worse a hiliary fabian socialist luver.
get real.
this is america and it's time to return to the ways of the founders, to do otherwise will cause revolt and revolution soon to restore our freedom
I for one will die before i become a good global citizen.
i support ron paul and freedom, the rest are all globaliost traitors and members of the subversive/treasonist CFR.
it's time for a change or time to kick azz.
ViRedd
New Member
Well, one of the points I wanted to come out as a result of posting the article was that BOTH the ultra-left ... and the ultra right are anti-liberty. If that weren't the case, neither side would be blasting Ron Paul as both sides are doing. Personally, I'm disgusted with the Right-Wing media for not supporting, no, forget not supporting ... for disparaging Ron Paul. It goes without saying that I've been disgusted with the Left-Wing media for many years.
Ron Paul sounds like Thomas Jefferson and other's who founded this country.
Mona Charon fell out of favor with me when she started writing articles that were pro-amnesty when the amnesty bill was before congress.
Many of you have taken issue with me for posting the above article. That's fine with me. One thing you'll have to admit, the discussions after posting it have been lively, to say the least. ~lol~
Carry on chaps.
Vi
Ron Paul sounds like Thomas Jefferson and other's who founded this country.
Mona Charon fell out of favor with me when she started writing articles that were pro-amnesty when the amnesty bill was before congress.
Many of you have taken issue with me for posting the above article. That's fine with me. One thing you'll have to admit, the discussions after posting it have been lively, to say the least. ~lol~
Carry on chaps.
Vi