For those of you committed to “the only Constitutionalist in the Presidential race” (don’t believe me, just ask him), The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul, congressman from down yonder, is looking for help. He seeks a staff assistant to, among other things, answer phones and greet visitors.
There is no stated requirement that the successful candidate will believe the US invited the 911 attacks (there’s plenty of time to learn the truth later) or that we cannot survive another week without return to the gold standard. In fact, knowledge of the Hon. Dr. Ron Paul’s work is “beneficial but not mandatory” - though I suspect the uninitiated candidate might contract shell shock the first 15 minutes on the job.
So, those who so vigorously support his candidacy and defend his views, here’s your very own chance to work for Dr. No himself.
It’s only an entry level position, but I’m sure it will be quite a ride.
Plus, you get the bonus of working in that peaceful little community of Washington, DC.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
235 Responses to “Ron Paul Needs Help - Really”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
I nominate Quanell X for the position.
Wonder how much it pays?
Well, after doing research for a couple of Honorable Dr. Ron Paul posts and responding to several Pauliacs, I think I’m familiar with his work. He probably wouldn’t want to hire me, though.
#2 - Demand payment in gold. Do not, I repeat, do not accept fiat money!
I only accept payment in Kool-Aid…
Ron Paul.
I asked my libertarian daughter if she were going to vote for Ron Paul.( she’s 22) She said probably, and shrugged……I left it at that…… maybe I should let her know …. hehe
Heck, I voted for Jimmy Carter when I was 22. She’ll grow up.
8. hamous
I’m betting you were 22 in 1976, not 1980.
The contributor writes: “There is no stated requirement that the successful candidate will believe the US invited the 911 attacks.” Perhaps, this is because Congressman Paul does not believe that the U.S. “invited” the 911 attacks. There is a distinction to be made, though perhaps only apparent to facile minds that are not fixated upon promoting and defending an ideological agenda, between “inviting” an attack and pursuing a FOREIGN POLICY that has contributed to the anger that victims of such policy have have felt toward the U.S., e.g., the policies of sponsoring covert operations to overthrow governments, ostensibly beginning in Iran in 1953, and occupying Muslim holy lands, as in Saudi Arabia.
The contributor also oversimplifies and uses rather lame humor to disparage Dr. Paul’s advocacy of a sound monetary policy by referring to his desire to “return” to the gold standard. The dearth of acumen in this statement is reflected in the following comments made by Dr. Paul in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.
Question: You support returning the country’s currency back to the gold standard. Is that correct?
Ron Paul: Not exactly. I’m for supporting the Constitution, and the Constitution still says only gold and silver can be legal tender. … The reasons I don’t like to say “go back” is because there were shortcomings in the original gold standard. What I reject, and the founders totally rejected, was a paper standard - creating money out of thin air. Spending money you don’t have. Printing it up. Causing inflation. Causing bubbles. Causing recessions. And wiping out the middle class. The middle class is getting poorer as the wealthy class is getting wealthier.
And, regarding the issue of conservatism I would also ask: Which of the other candidates have actually been as consistently true to their constitutional oaths, as Dr. Paul has been? Neoconservatism does not a genuine conservative make.
“The Dearth of Acumen”– medium-good name for a rock band.
“Likkerish”– awesome name for a blog commenter.
10.
He can’t have it both ways, Likkerish. You quote Paul himself as saying “the Constitution still says only gold and silver can be legal tender.” If he is a true “Constitutionalist,” as his supporters claim, then he has no choice but to suppot the gold standard. If he doesn’t, then he’s not really a Consitutionalist (and least by the Paulites’ definition), is he?
To continue to conceptualize and describe Ron Paul as a Libertarian reflects a myopic fixation on his acceptance of the Libertarian nomination in 1988, just as he accept the plea from many individuals that he run on the Republican ticket in this campaign. The fact remains that he has been elected to 10 terms in Congress as a Republican and espouses the constitutional principles for which “Mr. Republican,” Robert Taft, became well known.
Ron Paul’s emphasis on freedom and liberty derives from his devotion to the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers. He is most aptly characterized in my opinion as a “Conservative Classical Liberal,” because he conserves the classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson et al. In fact, Judge Andrew Napolitano, chief judicial analyst for Fox News has called Dr. Paul, “the Thomas Jefferson of our day.” Judge Napolitano has a stellar legal history beginning at a very young age.
“Kool-Aid” did not exist in the Jeffersonian era, nor does it please Ron Paul’s political palate. So, I suggest that we have heard enough of such unoriginal, juvenile allusions as “I only accept payment in Kool-Aid.”
This is a serious campaign with very serious issues at stake. I suggest that we all conduct ourselves with the decorum that they deserve and not attack and ridicule individuals who stand on principle, whether or not you agree with those principles.
You oversimplify RickG. He does support being on a hard money standard, i.e., making gold and silver legal tender acceptable as well as fiat money. But, he does not want to “return” to the gold standard, as he says, of the 19th Century.
15,
I oversimplified nothing. I used Ron Paul’s words as quoted by you. He said “only” didn’t he?
Now, if you are saying that one should not take his words literally, and he didn’t really mean “only gold and silver” as legal tender, I can accept that.
So long as his supporters quit running around saying he is the “only” Constitutionalist in the race.
I could care less as to the position of Mr. Paul on the matter of “legal tender”. However, his views on the the “9-11″ disaster send me running from his camp.
Article 1 section 10 of the constitution only provides for the states to use gold and silver in coinage…….
The lizards are here!
http://www.reptoids.com/
heyhey–hey-heyhey–hey…what’s up with the libertarian bashing? The “crazy kids with their appreciation for liberty” comment is saddening to me. Your daughter must be an economics major.
Um, joking? Irreverent commentary? Juvenile? Perhaps, but the point is that I don’t want to take myself too seriously. I have numerous problems with Ron Paul’s candidacy, primary among which is that I perceive him to be a bit of a kook.
AN OBSERVER —
AN OBSERVER — Wow, strong ignorance.
I am not sure how many uninformed people will keep saying Ron Paul said 9/11 was “our” fault. I mean, get informed people. This “war” mentality that you all have, and the righteous shall perserver is downright stupid. Our foreign War policy does NOTHING for American. If you THINK they care about terrorism, then why the phukk are our borders WIDE OPEN and have been for 6years even thought we have the toughest immigration laws in the books than ever before?
Our foreign policy of intervention. That IS THE PROBLEM. Let me come camp out on your front porch for a few years and prevent you from getting food and watch your children starve to death… don’t you think after a bit, you’d come out and attack me.. ??
Ron Paul was an Air Force flight surgeon, served in the National Guard. He as ALWAYS voted for veteran benefits.
I am not sure why you all feel that this war in iraq is just, and its “okay”.
I mean, didn’t anything ring false with any of you when Bush tried to get that Shamnesty thru congress without it even being written? It had LESS security provisions in it that laws ALREADY on the books… And why is there only 13miles of fence built.. BECAUSE the intent was to give amnesty all along, to not have borders. Yet, aren’t we suppose to be afraid of terrorism? Doesn’t it all not make much sense???
Now, for those of you who don’t care about “sound” money, that right there tells me one of two things.
1. You are trust fund babies who have NO CONCEPT of money.
2. You do NOT understand the need to have money backed by something other than the paper it is printed on.
How and why do you think inflation takes place? Why are these BIG banks floundering… The lack of knowledge here is absolutely incredible…
WAR, TERROR, WAR, TERROR, TERROR, TERRROR….
And yes, Ron Paul is the ONLY TRUE constitutionalist running. Nobody comes close…
jimb
I don’t think you will find ONE candidate that meets all of your requirements. But why don’t you do this. trust me on this, and step outside your comfortable little walled in world. Take some time tonight and watch this movie.
Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.
This is not a plug for Ron Paul, but what it does is gives you an idea that “what you think you know, its really what is the truth”.
GOOGLE it on goole video… watch it. It starts a tad slow (first 10 minutes).
Watch it.. and then ask yourself. “Who really are the kooks now….”
Sigh
Go listen to the tapes of Ron Paul that are unedited, in his own voice and golly gee willikers his face to. Goodle and Youtube are your friends.
Ron Paul is an isolationist, hypocritical politician, hate America first kind of guy. Other than that for a wacko he ain’t bad.
And PUHLEASE bring something more than the PrisonPlanet and Infowars talking points next time.
Toodles Lard
I don’t know if you’re new here or not, but it appears, that you don’t know me well. I have a healthy distrust of many of the current Republicans, the Dems are right out, but I am not so sure about RP, either.
Oh, by the way. I know that. I wasn’t expecting to. But Ron Paul doesn’t meet many of my requirements.
I don’t buy the “Bush lied us into war” from RP any more than I buy it from Teddy Kennedy.
Oooh, scary.
Proof?
These things are from RP’s own website. He’s gotta do better than that to get my vote.
Holy Crap we have been invaded by the RP ACOLYTES
Perhaps the Lone Start Times should look for another journalist as well… one capable of understanding economics and the benefits from an austrian school of thinking regarding monetary polic vs. the debt sham today. Also one that could understand that Ron Paul does not believe the US invited 911 attacks; perhaps a reporter that had the ability to read the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama’s own letter, conclusions of the CIA, etc… It appears not much journalistic skill is necessary for a job these days so apply early!
God, how many of you Paulers have even spent five minutes in the same room with the guy? And just because Paul walks around with a copy of the Constitution in his pocket doesn’t make him a Constitutionalist. If that is the case, I’m gonna buy a copy of the PDR and become a brain surgeon.
What he is is a 1940 Republican. An isolationist, who thinks that there has never been ANY reason for the U.S. to enter a foreign war.
#23, so what if Paul was in the military? So was John Murtha and John Kerry. Does that give him a pass on every stupid policy he has? Like his method of complaining about pork barrel projects saying they should never be allowed and then loading a bill up with his own knowing that the bill will not pass, or if it passes, will be vetoed by the President. That way he has it both ways; he didn’t get his pork but he can tell his district he tried.
#14, would you call Paul a state’s rights kind of guy?
jimb, you don’t believe 9/11 was used as a pretext for entering iraq? what? check out the movie “why we fight” - it’s available on youtube.
if you don’t think we’re heading into an orwellian society check out google videos, “outfoxed” and “orwell rolls in his grave” - how off from the ministry of truth is mainstream media today?
rudy is a big fan of cameras, look at london today - FOUR MILLION CAMERAS. is there any doubt big brother is watching you? “i’d give up a little bit of liberty for some freedom” from a londoner - is this not doublespeak? do we not have a vaguely defined perpetual war on something you can’t actually beat?
i’m working on consolidating more factual vs. conspiratorial information regarding the CFR/NAU. don’t pretend like it doesn’t exist though. please watch the videos above before expounding upon any critique of them.
retire05 he is a non-interventionalist, not an isolationist. this has been stated oh, i don’t know. 100 times?
do you doubt that current foreign policy has created more enemies than ever? do you realize how similar current foreign policy is to nazi germany?
i’m going to see superbad now. you guys scare me. terrorists don’t scare me near as much as some of my fellow americans. goodnight.
RickG drew the RP card today. Wahoo!
The way you worded the question suggest that you believe that “Bush lied”, so no, I don’t believe that 9/11 was used as a pretext for entering Iraq.
Near-miss with Godwin’s law? Why don’t you tell us?
I’ll consider watching your videos, but I’ve seen much of it before…
RickG was suffering acute Hamis Envy, brought on by the troofer thread earlier.
This is a site for silly HillBillies. Get it?
HillBilly. Dr Ron Paul is the only candidate for freedom. He is the only candidate who understands that the stack of cards economy owned by the Chinese is about to collapse just like the Comptroller General said. I think you HillBillies will be happy when the rest of the infrastructure collapses just like that bridge and we spend another $1 trillion on another Neocon War - this time with Iran.
I watched the trailer for “outfoxed”. You have got to be kidding me. First, I rarely even watch Fox news on TV (roughly about the same as I watch any of the Alphabet networks or CNN), and for another thing, I don’t think that people’s deranged hatred of Fox News, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent, has anything to do with whether or not RP is a good candidate.
Most print, TV, or cable news is biased and with its own agenda. Fox News has no special lock on that. I think for myself, it works fine.
Pretty far, actually. And you guys wonder why I think Paul is a bit of a kook…
I have spent more than five minutes in the same room with him. Hours, actually. The man has an astonishingly quick intellect. You say he is a kook. I say he is anything but a kook. Now where are we? Is-too-is-not?
I urge anyone whose opinion is not set in stone to read up and watch the youtube videos in which he speaks. There’s one from months ago in which he lectured Ben Bernanke about easy credit, mal-investment, and financial bubbles that is startling in retrospect.
Here’s an extra added bonus. Even if you send back the presidential bid for a full refund, keep what you learn about the economy as a free parting gift. If you have any savings, you might be able to survive to utter economic collapse that inevitably will come if we continue business as usual. Start at lewrockwell.com and mises.org.
Ron Paul fish, welcome to our barrel.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So he understands that easy credit is a bad thing. Is that too shocking?
/ducking and running from BigJolly…
“This is a site for silly HillBillies. Get it?”
How not to convince someone you are not a raving loon 101
Retire05
Exactly our point, he doesn’t just walk around with the Constitution in his back pocket, he has 20 year voting record to prove he is a Constitutionalist.
Voting against everything doesn’t a Constitutionalist make. A contrarian maybe. If he’s such a Constitutionalist, why does hey participate in the pork game? No amount of spin fixes that…
You really didn’t just mention that freaking broken clock!!!!!!! Did you??????
I’m gonna smash that sucker someday………..
I did it all for you, man.
Dang, your pager must go off when someone types “broken clock” into LST…
edw987 / Oh Sure, We Get It ! Yeehaa !
Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he was shootin at some food,
And up through the ground came a bubblin’ crude.
Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.
Well the first thing you know ol’ Jed’s a millionaire,
Kinfolk said Jed move away from there
Said Californy is the place you ought to be
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.
Hills, that is.
Swimmin pools, movie stars.
The Beverly Hillbillies!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Sung at the end of the show:
Well now its time to say good-bye to Jed and all his kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
You’re all invited back again to this locality
To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality
Hillbilly that is. Set a spell. Take your shoes off. Y’all come back now, y’hear?
Certain keywords ring my bell.
I sorta like bein’ a Hillbilly. With my trailer and all, ya know?
jimb
Obviously you think too much of yourself “if we don’t know who you are” who cares who you are
So who is your candidate that you are sooooo proud of - I will tear him or her “laugh” up so fast it will make your head spin like Bush’s during an exorcism.
But you probably don’t have one, so lets tag ya with the new national id and send you out like a FedEx Next Day and will track your next batch of silly one liner comments.
BigJ is trailer-fabulous!
BTW: Did you enjoy your 2 LB sirloin today?
Like a swine in slop.
Yo, lawson2008, what are you runnin’ for?
Do you even know the good doctor? I ran a business in his district. You?
Not at all. I just don’t think it makes much sense to tell me about the “comfortable little walled in world” I live in when you’ve never really discussed anything with me other than the fact that I don’t think that RP is the best candidate, and something of a kook.
And I admit that I haven’t settled on a candidate yet, but like I said, the Dems are right out, and the Republicans aren’t looking extremely great. That doesn’t mean I live in a “comfortable little walled in world” either.
Speaking of silly little one-liner comments…
I just find it entertaining that if we aren’t in favor of RP, then we’re (fred) “hillbillies” or we live in a comfortable little walled in world. Watch out, or Benzene will whack you with his Sword of Righteousness for attacking the commenter rather than discussing the comment in a mature way.
pssst….Huc…ee
#56 - I don’t know. You can’t trust those bass playing Dudes…
#50 lawson2008
Just overwhelmed with your eloquence. Does it get any better or is this the top of your act, man ?
Naw, I don’t think the Sword of Righteousness will swing on creative commenters. Gotta admit, this acolyte is bringing it.
Of course you can trust bass players, just listen!
I know. Just wanted to say Sword of Righteousness today. It’s better than that dang broken clock, no??
Uh, yeah, I’ll take it!
Speaking of which, I am going up into my comfortable little walled in room, getting out my guitar and tuning it up.
How ’bout this? BigJ, if I don’t report to you somehow each day that I’ve played my guitar for at least a few minutes each day, you can, I don’t know, embarrass me on LST or something? Or perhaps dig up my email and berate me there?
Something. I need someone to “spot me up”, so to speak. I always make up excuses not to play…
I’ll spot you up. If you didn’t like the song I recommended to learn, go to youtube and search for daniel choo. Good stuff.
Took my new Taylor DN3 in for a setup today at LSG. Expression System is the real deal.
Can’t wait to get it back.
jimb
The broken clock analogy/metaphor window is closed. You have used up all your cliche tickets and whatever pardons and commutations might have had have been shredded by your wife. You are in deep trouble.
Now really, is he any crazier than say Algore? Michael Savage? Louis Farakahn? A few others? I think not.
Yeah, she did that last nite. She apparently borrowed the Sword of Righteousness from Benzene…
Rastus - the voice of reason.
I wouldn’t vote for Algore, Savage, or Farrakhan, either…
Yeppers the RPAcolytes are out in full force.
Hey do you guys get paid to surf the technorati board to see which blogs are dissing whacko Ron Paul?
Gotta a agree with you there Rastus. That guy is whack.
You know whay I won’t vote for Ron Paul?
The representative sample of his supporters here tonight is all the reason I need.
I need to go find some Code Pinkos so I can have a conversation with someone rational—–
I knew daniel’s brother, Kookooka. We went to different schools together.
BTW, BJ:
Is conjuring up the RP Platoon the only way you could think of to compete with Hamous for post count?
I’m not sure this country is ready for a strict conservationist!
#70 Squawk
Good post. Nice work. I saved it for future reference.
#75 Neo
I agree. I don’t think we can stand any more militant tree huggers, squirrel lovers or swamp suckers.
Didn’t Ron Paul say must be strict conversationists? We must conserve our money into gold or silver? In additon, we must conserve our constitution as it is written or something like that? How about we conserve our land and not go beyond our borders in defense of our Country. Is that to conserve our peace here in the USA? When all of the countries of the free world are defeated, what will our role be?
Sarge, did you happen to READ the freaking post? It wasn’t me that posted it. Remember…before you press CTRL-C, CTRL-V, READ IT!
Oh, and I don’t need to compete with the hamster, go back and review, he’s like, I dunno, on a stationary wheel or something.
I gotta tell ya though, comments ain’t where the bandwidth is at. Just so you konw.
jimb
I’d be interested to see the “pork barrel” spending that you think Ron Paul does. If you do have some examples, please share.
Perhaps you are confused with “ear mark” spending and the nature of appropriations bills.
With “ear-mark” type spending, the money is or will be appropriated to a task by the appropriations bill, and Paul votes against the bill. SO, for instance congress might try to pass a bill that appropriates $10 million to study shrimp. Ron Paul will say “That’s a stupid waste of money and I’m going vote against the bill” and he does vote against it. But at the same time, his constituents include shrimpers, and they could be elligible to get some of the money that congress is peeing away. So, rather than let some unelected beurocrat decide how to divy up the $10million, Ron Paul will request that some of that money go to his district. He doesn’t want to spend the money at all, nor does he want to tax it in the first place, but if congress insists on spending money so foolishly, it’s the least a congressman can do to try to get some of his own taxpayer’s money back to his district.
Would congressman Paul be more worthy of respect if he never requested any funds went to his district and instead allowed, and by not asking even encouraged, all federal taxes from his district to be spent elsewhere in the country?
I feel inclined to blow my mind
Get hung up, feed the ducks with a bun
They all come out to groove about
Be nice and have fun in the sun
I’ll tell you what I’ll do - What will you do?
I’d like to go there now with you
You can miss out school - Won’t that be cool
Why go to learn the words of fools?
Gee, no one has a sense of humor any more!
I thought it was conversationalists and all these acolytes were demonstrating that they were practitioners of pusilanimous polysylabic protestations in order to be considered for exquistely enjoyable employment.
All’s I can say is that my ex walked into a divorce court room toting a bible. The only time I EVER saw him in a church is the day we got married.
Have any of you ever looked at his voting record and earmarks? I’m all for the Save our American Shrimp earmark, BTW! Hey, earmarks are gonna happen, and he was just getting us some dibs on the money.
Seems to me like some here could switch jobs and be gainfully employed to support RP.
Hillbillies? They are usually barefooted and pregnant. I consider myself a Redneck and darn proud. I wait until AFTER the funeral to fight over the crap in the yard, therefor, I’ve got class! I also pour my beer in a cup, during the funeral. Don’t want to hear that PShhhht, during the sermon, don’t cha know!
Golly, BJ;
I thought this whole internet blog thing was a post count contest.
my bad.
ST, you really aren’t going to give these guys your roadkill recipes, are you?
Short answer:
Yes.
Sarge, put your thesaurus away.
sarge, it’s okay, I know you have other things on your mind at the moment.
#86: No. They are not worthy of my Poodle Pot Pie recipe.
Oh–
So it’s ME you’re jealous of, not Hambone.
Yep.
But….isn’t everyone jealous of you? I am not alone.
Yah—but I like the one you had with 4 and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie–
At least I think that was your recipe–
maybe I’ve spent too much time at Itchycoo Park.
Ithcycoo was Daniel and Kookooka Choo’s daddy—didja know that?
I am an IDOL it’s only natural.
BTW BJ;
You don’t fool me with that “It wasn’t me who started this thread” stuff—
I can prove through the use of geometric logic that there is a duplicate set of keys to the thread starter—–
But but but, Didn’t bahbah Ron say he was FOR smaller government and cutting spending? Why yes he did. So I suppose it is OK if he joins in the earmark marathon.
OH SILLY ME he voted against his own ear marks and that makes it okie dokie, even though his ear marks probably will be approved.
Why I do believe bahbah Ron is a hypocrite using the system to gets his own bit of cracklin, so he can be cacklin to the “conservationalist” and “librarians” out there.
Ron Paul 2008 Yeppers just more of the same wrapped in another liars political skin. Did I mention Ron Paul was a whack job?
Ron Paul is a whack job.
Ya gotta love these RPAcolytes
“worthy” Ron Paul
“honorable man” Ron Paul
“Dr.” Paul
Tell the truth, do y’all really set around in your underooos playing whack-a-mole while sipping the KoolAid?
I just had to figure out some way to work in a Captain Queeg reference into the Ron Paul thread—-
BTW: Isn’t pork barrel spending and ear marks the same thing? Sorry, I’m just a dumb redneck. I need some edukashun.
#94 Sarge, no that wasn’t my recipe. Wish I could claim it, however.
100?
Got a recipe for pork barrel leavings?
Yes ST
Pork barrel spending and ear marks are the same. You might call the ear marks a purse made from a sows ear.
101
Here ya go
Illustrated and annotated
http://www.deltablues.net/cracklin.html
#101 Sarge: Why off the top of my head, yes, yes I do. Hopefully Hammie could add to it:
Obtain one big ol’ fat pork barrel
Trim all fat.
Nothing left.
substitute salad for supper and enjoy!
And my all time favorite saying form the RPAcolytes
“How can you say anything bad about the honorable Dr. Paul?”
And then they flame you.
#80 bdmarti
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
Man, these freaks are like roaches! Or maybe these guys.
Dang Hammie! Next time you have a file that big, you should issue a warning. Darn, free, dial-up, don’t cha knos! You darn near killed my ‘puter. I had to ABORT THE MISSION!
Seriously doubt bdmarti, et-al, will be back. I will hold my breath, however!
Dang, them Paulinians are an angry bunch! How dare you besmirch or question the good name of Dr Potentate!
Ya know ya wouldn’t peg them as raving a-holes if they would make a rational argument. And by argument, not a screechy diatribe. A coherent counterpoint would do. If they wanted us to look further into the Illustrious Potentate, they should take a breath and try communicating without redlining the whole time. Relax, man. He’s not going to walk on water any time soon. His supporters to me seem like they could attempt a beer hall putsch. Well, maybe a Piggly Wiggly putch. But a putch nontheless. I imagine them in their underwear screaming and spitting breathless praises of their Constitution-in-his-pocket Messiah.
I dunno what to call them myself.
Paulinians (like the apostle)
Paulaners (like the beer)
Oh, I know, unstable.
#107 Hammie: Rumor has it that the Cap’n made a toupee outa them!
107
Can we beam ‘em off the ship?
ST - the file (~3.5mb) was a list of all 65 of the Honorable Reverend Doctor Ron Pauls pork requests for FY 2007. Of course the response from the RP chuckleheads will be, “But he voted against the pork before he voted for it!”
Paulines - Like Pralines. Soft, sticky, and nutty.
112
Stop ham you’ll make ‘em mad
http://www.mashby.com/images/posts/skinny_kid.gif
Know why?
Here it is:
Short answer:
Yes.
When confronted with that answer to that question they realize that they have become what they accuse verybody else of being:
A defender of an imperfect Candidate who somjetimes stretches the truth to make a promise.
Thye know that his requesting the earmarks—voting against them before he votes for them—is EXACTLY the the same thing they say everybody else does.
But they have become so invested in him personally—and they get to use all those big words sounding intelligent while the cheetos fall from their lips to the keyboard, that they won’t admit it until it stares them right in the face.
He’s not the answer, he’s as human as the rest of them. If that’s what we’re getting, we can do better than Ron Paul.
We don’t need a Tom Dewey for the 21st Century.
Watch out! That Pauliniac has a grenade!
G’nite. I’m going to go to bed and dream of how Dr Paul will make the world better…. and give me a pony.
Earmarking and Pork Barrel spending aren’t necissarily the same thing.
From the legislative process point of view they may be exactly the same, but the “pork barrel” label generally implies that the spending is directed to constituents or companies directly in return for their votes or money.
Ron Paul doesn’t have many corporate sponsors. You can see who donated to some of his recent congressional runs online. When I looked at one recent list, the highest donation I saw was from a Local car dealership.
If you can find any earmarked project that benefited one of his campaign donors directly, then that might be pork barrel spending.
Or if you can find some voters in his district that say they voted for him because he inserted spending for them and then voted against the bill for show, then you might also be more justified in calling that particular project a “pork barrel” project. The key is the voters must be voting for him because he inserts the earmarks, and not for some other reason, like actually perfering Paul over his opponent.
There are blatent examples that can be cited where other polititians have pushed projects directly to their campaign contributers, and in particular large corporate contributers. I don’t think you’ll find that is the case for Paul. You’d need some big money contributors before you could be corrupted by them.
Wild American Shrimp?
And now comes the “Well, money was already allocated. If the Honorable Reverend Doctor Ron Paul didn’t take it someone else would spend it.”
and sarge, I don’t know that what Paul does “is EXACTLY the the same thing they say everybody else does.”
In fact, I find that voting against the spending in the first place is the best place to thwart the spending. Once the money is spent, I don’t see why it’s better to allow some random person in whatever agency the money goes to to arbitrarily budget the funds.
I’d personally prefer the my congressman vote against the taxes and the spending, but once they’ve taken my money and voted to spend it, it would be nice if I could benefit in some way.
If you honestly feel that it is more worthy of respect to never request money for your district, I can understand that, but I don’t agree.
#118: Thank you very much for ’splaining that to me.
Ron Paul for President!!!!
marti:
You answer to this question
would be the same as mine was—-if the question were asked of any other politician than Ron Paul.
You know it.
I know it.
Everybody knows it.
Your problem is this:
Your Candidate went to the Pork Barrel Prom, told mom and dad she wouldn’t stay up past midnite or go parking with Johnnythe Quarterback—and came home a little bit pregnant.
#9 RickG - Actually, I misspoke. After doing some ciphering (you know us hillbillies) I voted for Jimmy Carter when I was 19, not 22. And that was 1976.
No sarge, my answer wouldn’t be the same.
I’d actually look to see if any earmarked programs went to directly benefit those who contributed money to the polititian in question’s campaign. The bigger the contributer, the more I would question the earmarked spending.
Cases where money is earmarked for corporations or companies that are directly owned by the polititians in question would be the worst sort of earmarks in my opinion.
So, the long answer is: You’re wrong. I don’t know it. You don’t know it. Everybody doesn’t know it. Your stating something is a fact doesn’t make it so. Your presumption that you would know my, or anyone elses answer is simply absurd.
My candidate went to the pork barrel prom? cute.
To me, it’s a difference worth noting.
You can kill a man in self defense and most people will excuse you morally.
You can murder a man and most people won’t excuse you morally.
In both cases, the man in question is dead.
One is at least tolerable and understandable to me morally. The other, not so much.
That’s how I see this issue of earmarks.
I can understand why you might say “all killing is bad” just like you seem to say “all earmarks are pork and thus incrminating and indicative of corruption”…I just don’t happen to take that moral stance. I think the circumstances matter.
marti:
Your canddiate has put himself out there as something he’s not:
Different from all the others.
You began following him because you beleived it.
Now, you find yourself making the same excuses every other poltical hack makes for their candidate in the face of facts proving he’s not waht he says he is.
Ron Pual has turned youn into one of them.
You both should be proud.
southern tragedy
I’m really insulted you didn’t tell me your ex-husband was Ron Paul. How could you keep this a secret all this time ?
Want to know why jimb, me, and most of the others around here don’t have a candidate yet?
Because we want to see which of them have feet merely made of clay, or if they are wearing concret overshoes.
You and your brethren claim there is no clay in the feet of your candidate on the pedestal, there–
Then make the same tired, lame, poltical doublespeak excuses for him that the others do.
There’s enough clay there to sculpt the Piata.
Sounds like bdmarti is using the Mongo defense.
These folks remind me of the kid in college who said he was a Libertarian. But only because all the other guys said they were either conservatives or liberals.
Sarge,
You have them so bamfoozled and gasterflabbered, the election will be over before they can decipher your lingo. Way to go, Sarge !
At least that is the consensus of The group.
Good job with trying to frustrate Dr. Paul bloggers. I get it Ron Paul supporters dominate news chat blogs so you are going to try and disrupt. Big deal. Who do you support? Who are you taking your orders from? I do admit you are nothing but annoying.
What facts? I politely asked to be presented with the pork barrel spending. I then went out of my way to clarify what I consider, and what is even generally considered, the definition of pork barrel spending. If you have some real examples tell me and I’ll say: “You were right. Ron is guilty of pork barrel spending in this case.” If you showed be enough, or a truely horrible instance, i’ll even say “Ron Paul looks corrupt like the rest of them” then you’ll send me off and I’ll seriously reconsider voting for the man.
Sarge, why is it that you fail to see what is an objective difference?
If you don’t like Paul’s stance on any issue fine, if you don’t like earmarks in anyform, that’s fine too, don’t vote for the guy; but to say that all earmarks are the same, when there are plenty of quantifiable differences between them, just seems morally blind.
just pawn in game of life
#136 So it is your contention that none of the 65 earmarks in the link in #106 are pork?
#129 Texpat: Sorry, I was so ashamed. Guess I should tell you that we also gave birth to 24 live, Gulf Shrimp, but they were eaten at birth by my ex. Fried, with beer batter, of course!
Our mission is to annoy all comers until 87 calendar days before the election. At that time, precisely, our plan will be revealed. Currently, we support all capitalists who actually deliver the goods and services they promise. We support all people striving to provide freedom and liberty for others. We also like Blue Bell ice cream.
Because I know when an ideolog is talking to me, that it’s all just political shaidings of the same tripe every other one of them is selling me.
Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it;s raining, OK?
Just because you guys engage in loquacious perambulations through Roget’s Thesaurus in a vain attempt to sound more intelligent than the rest of us, we see it all as lip stick on the pig headed to the pork barrel.
As long as I know there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the kinds of excuses you make for ron Pual, and the excuses the other guys make for thier candidates, i can check that off on my list as being
“All are the saem on this one”
and I can go on to other issues that concern me.
sorry—your guy lost me on the first one on the list:
“Is he a hypocrite making trite excuses?”‘ CHECK
Next issue, please—
Shouldn’t that be: Just another PRAWN in the game of life? mmmmmmm…
hamous,
I’m only just getting the file now. Excuse my slowness, I’m on dialup
I’ll even gladly go to cross referance this list with the list of donors to his last election and see if any major doners match up. If they do, we’ll call it pork and I’ll say you were right on that one.
I don’t think I’ll take the time to look up executives and shareholders though. If you feel strongly enough about those possible donors, you’ll have to do the footwork yourself.
and until I see that Paul is guilty I’ll continue to presume he’s innocent.
I’m not really even setting a high bar for guilt.
Oh good texpat…by your own definition, you are a Dr. Paul supporter.
Now that’s funny!
#137 Sarge
Sorry, I must correct your statement:
“…just Prawns in the game of life…”
dang–
Now I’m hungry for a midnite snack
Ham & ST
Stop stealing my material.
her ya go marti, anothern one on my list of issues:
What is The Honorable Ron Paul’s plan for victory against political Islam?
It is after midnight here on the Least Coast. Good night and farewell.
scuse me, but my 142 beats your 146 and I have dial-up!
sarge, the sad thing is there is more than a dime’s worth of difference in Ron’s “excuses” you just can’t seem to add up the loose change.
If you start off by assuming all candidates are hypotrites and making trite excuses, I wonder what possible issue could concern you. If they are all liars about everything, then what could it possibly matter what any of them say about anything? Why not just punch random holes in the ballot, or why even vote at all?
See my #249
And I’m realistic–not idealistic—about my polticians.
I look for where they are all common–i.e. making trite excuses, discard that, and focus on the differences.
Hey Sarge: Mebbe bdmarti happens to be your arch enemy. Beware. I’ve been wondering that all night, but since they played the hyprocrite card, seems to confirm my “flag” …..just saying….
And be advised:
I;m not looking for a debate between you and i—I am looking for your candidate’s postions—you zseem to know what they are.
if you can give me straight answers instead of trying to debate me, this will be over as quick and painless as we can make it.
Sarge, If you are asking what Dr. Paul’s Middle East policy will be, the answer is to stop getting into their affairs, stop building millitary bases on their land, trade with them, stop nation building. Why are we in Iraq?
ST;
I’m figuring that after the second time the f bomb was dropped by (DELETED), management blocked the IP address—
#154
Nah, bdmarti is not foaming at the mouth.
“What is The Honorable Ron Paul’s plan for victory against political Islam?”
If I understand you correctly, and by all means correct me if I’m wrong, you are asking what Ron wants to do about radical Islam in the middle east?
The short answer: Leave the middle east alone.
Radical Islamists aren’t too busy terrorizing those crazy Swedes or Japanese, nor do they seem to bother Cuba very much. They don’t seem too riled up about most countries other than the US and sometimes the UK.
Ron contends, and I tend to agree with him, that the radical islamists don’t tend to attack those countries and peoples because those governments don’t have bases plastered all over the middle east supporting corrupt or brutal governments, nor do they use their UN VETO to repeately prevent any action from being taken against Isreal, nor were they bombing and starve a middle eastern country for a decade.
I tend to agree with Ron on that issue because that’s what Osama tells us, and that’s what our own CIA tells us.
If I answered the wrong question let me know.
I think I’m done for tonight though.
1. I said I wanted the candidates position–not a debate.
2. You lost my vote–why bother debating with me?
I stated his position…next issue please.
One thing I can’t stand is a candidate and his acolytes who think that it is their mission in life to “educate” my ignorant huillbilly butt into voting for thier incredibly flawed and naive, candidate who adopts a foreign policy that has never worked in the past with absolutely no expectation of it working in the future.
Good night gents, your job with me is complete. You’ve told me what your candidate’s position is.
I thank you.
“who adopts a foreign policy that has never worked in the past with absolutely no expectation of it working in the future.”
Nice examples of where it has failed. It worked for the first 175 years of American history. The last 50 years of intervention has been the failure.
Good luck and good night.
So if we just leave them alone they’ll leave us alone?
“a foreign policy that has never worked in the past with absolutely no expectation of it working in the future”
That’s a pretty bold, and false statement.
How many wars has Switzerland fought in it’s entire existance, or more particularly during it’s declared neutrality? How does that compare to the US, or any other country? What is it’s foreign policy?
How about rates of terrorist attacks against the Swiss? How do those compare to the US?
I’m pretty sure we can even look back at US history and see that the US thrived when it wasn’t involved with wars.
but goodnight to you too
“So if we just leave them alone they’ll leave us alone?”
If any country were to publicly attack or invade we have the capacity to crush them. It simply isn’t a possiblity.
If any individual wants YOU dead, or more generally, anyone dead, and they are willing to give their life for yours, then chances are good they can kill you if they aren’t a complete moron, no matter how much you think the government is protecting you. The best way to deal with that, is to not have people want to kill you.
Well, let’s see. They collaborated with the Germans by accepting illegally confiscated hard currency for deposit into Swiss Banks under the auspices of retaining their “independence”. What would have happened had the Swiss refused to accept Germany’s stolen money? Was that a moral position to take?
#34 - i don’t think bush lied. i however think the attack was used to gain public acceptance for going into iraq. our stance on preemptive war with iran because of their threat to us is quite similar to hitler’s claim regarding poland. putin has stated i believe several times that the us is acting like nazi germany.
watch the videos. you would be a popular guy if you could truly debunk them.
#37 - i wasn’t claiming that ron paul being a good candidate had anything to do with fox news. forget the trailer watch the actual movie. i don’t believe in 9/11 conspiracies but i’ve still seen every popular movie. if you want to make an educated statement about something how can you do it by watching only 5 minutes about it. yes, media is biased. but i do not think you understand the extent to which fox is biased. it is far stronger than any other media outlet.
#38 - again, hold your tongue until you watch the movie. it is ridiculous to comment if you have not taken the time to view the material.
I like Blue Bell ice cream, too. But I’m voting for Ron Paul. So all of you cliqueish LSTers who delight in tormenting and teasing anyone who supports Paul can have at me but I’m not going to justify my decision or try convince any of you to vote the same. Others have tried and all they got for their attempt were insults. The only screechy diatribes I’ve read here are by the one’s bashing the Ron Paul supporters, calling them whackos and a-holes.
BTW, Sarge - it’s “The Pieta” and it was carved out of marble, not sculpted out of clay.
I think if you look up clique in the dictionary there’s a picture of supporters of Paul.
i have a friend who is a history teacher. i find it odd and sad that the conversations and debates he has with his students seem to contain more meat than those here. i wonder how many “adults” are here merely slinging insults and the like.
Hamous - My mother is Swiss and she worked for the Allies during the war, during which time she met my Dad. I would suggest you read more about Switzerland’s position during WW11 before you inaccurately paint them as German collaborators. They did far more to help the Allied forces than they did to aid the Nazis. As Winston Churchill said, “Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction. She has been the sole international force linking the hideously-sundered nations and ourselves. What does it matter whether she has been able to give us the commercial advantages we desire or has given too many to the Germans, to keep herself alive? She has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self defence among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side.”
#80 -
Paul would be more worthy of respect if he truly stood on principle and worked to stop earmarks. By the way, earmarks and pork barrel spending are practically indistinguishable.
If Paul was truly the Constitutionalist he claimed to be, he wouldn’t worry about bringing home the bacon, he would work towards a more Constitutional federal spending model.
He’s just like the RINO reps and senators in Texas - He didn’t vote for the spending, but that’s OK, but he knew dang well that the spending would pass anyway, so he gets the best of both worlds.
i shudder to think of how critical you guys are of other candidates when so much criticism is drawn up just for these earmarks here.
168 -
Well, THERE’S an objective opinion on the matter!
As far as the “Outfoxed” movie goes, I consider it one of those movies where all the good parts are in the trailer. It was quite clear from the trailer what the intent of the movie was, which is to demonize Murdoch and Fox. I already told you, Fox news is about a smidgen of my total news intake, I don’t swear by it, I think for myself, and further, there isn’t a network that is any better, and probably a few that are worse.
Ever heard of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)? I think there’s such a thing as Fox News Derangement Sydrome, too…
Earmarks are just one egregious example of the spin put on RP’s positions. Spin is all it is.
I’m far more concerned about the almost religious following the man has. Good thing it is a small group.
So Israel should stand alone against multiple Islamic countries? Why? Do you really want a nuclear war in the middle east?
Ron Paul’s isolationist, head-in-the sand foreign policy is more extreme and dangerous than anything Bush could have dreamed up.
the earmarks seems like a pretty weak example of compromising ones integrity or principles, truly.
jimb, how you think you can make worthwhile comments without watching the movie is beyond me.
it is great that fox news is a smidgen of your total news intake, and you are able to evaluate your news sources. i am however not critical of LST jimb’s news intake. i am critical of fox and the affect it has on the average potato television watching citizen. you seem to think this is me just being a kook, and that all news stations are equal. is it so?
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html
“Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. “
more dangerous than anything bush could have dreamed up, what about the dwindling power of the bill of rights and our civil liberties? executive orders circumventing checks and balances?
178 - for a Ron Paul acolyte, you sure do point to a lot of liberal opinions to back your claims.
Last time I checked, the RIAA was trying to take more of my civil liberties than the Bush Admin.
jimb, does that make the bush admin ok then? which one of those organizations actually has the real power to make it happen either? i would hope any american would oppose both. i noticed you did not care to comment on fox again.
so based on the earmark issue, you are confident that ron paul in office would not work to make massive cuts to the federal government - despite that he has been standing so strongly by those views for (many) years?? it’s all just a show?
This is the most incredibly narcisstic display of self-serving discussion, if it can be called that, that I have had the displeasure to have witnessed and I have witnessed a lot. The participants here ridicule and run people down for not engaging in rational discussion and then when a person like bdmarti attempts to engage your whole brain he gets smug, juvenile humor that is shared like kids on a school ground share their little inside jokes, viz., the broken clock business. Give it a rest and do something worthwhile with your time. This is a total waste of energy.
If we could bottle all of the hot air here, we wouldn’t have to depend on the Middle East for oil. I’m outta here…and I advise the other rational people who want meaningful dialogue instead of diatribe to bug out also, leaving the regulars here to play their daily “bingo” in which they award themselves prizes. BINGO! I won! Lookee Look! I really nailed that poor RP acolyte, didn’t I?
If I were only half as smart and cool as you folks believe you are, I’d be off the IQ charts and world famous as a standup comic. Funny, though, how you folks are the only ones laughing at your smart remarks. Sweet little shared “folie a doodoo” you have going here. The rest of the world laughs at you.
Aloha, I’ll stay in Paradise, thank you very much, where the sweet trade winds blow all your hot air back to you. Toodles, noodles….don’t waste your time responding…’cause I ain’t gonna waste my time here anymore. Use you time more productively for self-serving promtion. Never mind working for National unity and security. You folks are more than secure enough in your fantasies of omnipotence.
Oh, Professor Freud, you lived a century too early! You would have had a treasure trove here in this gaggle of magpies to substantiate your theory of fixation at the oral aggressive stage. Oh, no….bite my tongue!!!
But, come to think of it, why don’t you folks bite something else to work out that oral fixation that you like to share.
Cheers….over and out….
Compilation of 13 Republican Straw Polls since June 1, 2007.
Results for Ron Paul:
FIRST (4)
North Carolina, Gaston GOP, August 13, ~ 1st 36.6% (NA)
New Hampshire Taxpayers, July 7 ~ 1st 61.9% (182/294)
New Hampshire, Stafford, NH, August 18~ 1st 72.7% (208/286)
West Alabama, August 18 ~ 1st 81.2% (216/266)
SECOND (4)
Utah GOP, June 12, 2nd 5.4% (70/1295)
LibertyPapers.org conference, June 16 ~ 2nd 16.7% (NA)
Georgia, Cobb Co. GOP, July 4 ~ 2nd 17% (42/247)
South Carolina, Georgetown Co., July 28 ~ 2nd 18% (40/223)
THIRD (2)
National Federation of Republican Assemblies, August 4, St. Louis, MO ~ 3rd 14% (NA)
Illinois, Springfield, August 16 ~ tied 3rd 18.87% (174/922)
FOURTH (1)
California Republican Assembly, July 1 ~ 4th 12% (NA)
FIFTH (1)
Iowa, Ames, August 11 ~ 5th 9.12% (1,305/14,302)
SIXTH (1)
Young Republican National Federation, Ft Lauderdale FL, July 8th ~ 6th 4.5% (11/247)
Sourced in part from:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47579
Other data on 14 polls: http://isilion.blogsome.com/2007/08/19/85/
“What would have happened had the Swiss refused to accept Germany’s stolen money?” — Do you actually want me to speculate?
“Was that a moral position to take?”
“So Israel should stand alone against multiple Islamic countries?” — the answer is yes. Israel has in the past sucessfully defended against all of it’s neighbors simultaniously. They have one of the best man for man militaries in the world.
But my point is not that they should stand alone against invasion, but rather the world should be allowed to criticize Israel or even sanction it via the UN, but the US never allows such votes to pass.
“Why? Do you really want a nuclear war in the middle east?” — For the why, see above, and as to the nuclear part, the only nuclear power in the middle east is Israel, so they would have to be the one’s dropping the bomb. In the event that Iran or someone else were to get nukes, NO, I don’t want to see nuclear war there, but I find that mutually assured destruction is a fairly good means of preventing such war…it worked with the US and Russia for 50 years. While some of the leaders of the Islamic nations seem like they may be a bit crazy, I think that even they like their power and their lives enough to avoid an exchange of nuclear bombs with Israel.
And I’m afraid I’ve had difficultly downloading your earmarks PDF. I’ve only managed to check the first half-dozen earmarks, and so far none of them seem to directly benefit any major donor of Paul’s (major being those donating 2k or more.) The link above keeps timing out for me and a quick google search didn’t point me at an alternate copy. if you know of an alternate, perhaps I’ll try there.
I’ll ask again. Have any of you that are supporting Ron Paul lived in his district? I think maybe ShinerBlonde has but what about the rest of you?
Has it occurred to you that you are supporting a man to run the largest economy in the world, to be in charge of the largest military in the world and to be in charge of the largest free country in the world that has had exactly zero impact upon the U.S. Congress that he has been a part of for a grand total of 18 years?
186.
And who is largely dismissed by the Congressional caucus of the party he is asking to nominate him?
I will be voting for Ron Paul.
186 bigjulie
Just think Clinton and Bush when asking your question.
bdmarti - Kudos to you for staying the course, keeping your cool, and trying to keep this “discussion” of Ron Paul from completely breaking down. I thought long and hard about what I’d read on this thread last night, after finally posting my last remarks and retiring for the evening. I awoke this morning thinking along the lines of Likkerish, “Why do I even bother posting an unpopular opinion on LST when I KNOW the regulars are going to jump all over it with stupid comments and insulting innuendoes?”
Then I read Likkerish’s response #183 and had a good, cathartic laugh about the whole situation. His/her post reflected my mood so well, and was so masterfully and humorusly stated, far better than I would have been able to have written it. By the time I got to the phrase “folie a doodoo”, I was ROTFLMAO!
So thank you VERY much bdmarti, Likkerish, BrianH, miket, ajtdonahue, lawson2008, Jive Dadson, Lord Emanon, and all the other Ron Paul supporters who have contributed thoughtful, erudite posts to this thread. You’ve done him, me, Texas, and this country proud!
Now, it’s back to Paradise for me as well. I’ve got stalls that need mucking out, flowerbeds to weed, and a big ol’ striped bass lurking in my pond that needs catchin’. Y’all have a great day!
Daniel, what impact did Clinton and Bush have on the U.S. Congress before they ran for president?
ShinerBlonde
Yepper. They did well.
If the republican party hadnt backed us into a corner and crapped upon its base this debate wouldnt be necessary.
bigjulie
What great experience did they have?
None! And it has really paid off
190.
Funny you should say that, since it was the Paul kooks who started using foul language on this thread and resorted to name calling when people didn’t buy into their lame propaganda.
All about perspective, I guess.
#186, 187 et al
I’ll make no pretense that would suggest Ron Paul has a realistic shot of winning the nomination. Nor would I make any grand assertion that his legislative career has been able to alter the direction of our government. Simply stated, there are some things I like about Ron Paul and some things I do not. What I don’t see a need for, however, is singling him out for nearly constant character assassination built upon soundbytes and half truths, particularly when the shots are coming from supporters of persons whose own political notability leaves much to be desired.
There is a bitter irony at play when a supporter of Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee calls Ron Paul an unelectable longshot; when a supporter of Tom Tancredo calls Ron Paul a nutcase surrounded by fringe extremists; when a supporter of Jim Gilmore or Tommy Thompson predicts that Ron Paul won’t survive the early rounds of the primary…oh wait…anybody seen Gilmore or Thompson lately?
The point is it’s hard to sit with a straight face and be lectured about Ron Paul’s unelectability by somebody who thinks Duncan Hunter is our last best hope for retaining the presidency of the United States.
As I said, i’ll be the first to admit Ron Paul’s unelectability, lack of legislative success, whatever. But don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that any single one of the other second tier guys is any better.
Phil, I’ve never said that Mr. Paul would drop out.
His supporters are too rabid, that is why you see the type of statements you point to. Mr. Paul has embraced the cult of personality because it works for him as a fundraising tool for his candidacy.
I think Mr. Paul is a bright man but through the years has become strange. I remember him first running for office, thinking he was a change maker. For whatever reason, he chose not to be a change maker, just sorta devolved into this cult of personality thing.
If you thought he was electable, would you vote for him?
#196 - The point though is I don’t really care who his supporters are or where they come from.
Calling them “rabid” is counterproductive and silly. By the same token, wouldn’t Tancredo also be liable for the “rabid” types in the anti-immigration crowd? Or maybe we should call some of the ultra-evangelicals in Arkansas who are aligned with Huckabee “rabid” since they come from churches that aren’t too far away from dancing with snakes in the aisles and speaking in tongues?
Judge the candidate by his own positions and beliefs - not because you don’t like somebody else who happens to be voting for him. That’s a mark of irrationality - even when the candidate himself goes out of his way to attract the person you don’t like. As long as the person you don’t like isn’t the candidate though and isn’t calling the candidate’s shots, his support shouldn’t be of any consequence to your vote.
Politics is about forming winning coalitions of supporters and that means you may find yourself aligned behind the same guy with some people you don’t like. I didn’t like the hippie druggie types who supported Kinky Friedman, but that didn’t cause me to jump into the Governor Hairspray camp.
It would all depend on who the other choices were. If the current “second tier” of GOP candidates was viable and I had to choose between them (Paul, Tancredo, Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback) I probably lean closest to Paul. He isn’t viable against the first tier though (Rudy McRomney + Thompson), and Thompson is the least offensive to me among that crowd so i’ll probably end up supporting him.
What word would you use? They follow every post around the land, they try to stack polls, they come in saying “hillbillies”, they seemingly worship this guy.
It is very different than the two examples you cite above. Tancredo is probably closest because he does have those border nuts and that is political and he does play off them. Huckabee’s “ultra-evangelicals” (wrong term - people that handle snakes are kooks) have little to do with politics and he certainly isn’t featuring them as his base, as is Tancredo.
I have judged Mr. Paul’s positions and beliefs. He thinks that there is a hidden cabal running the world. HIS WORDS, not mine. Forget the 911 stuff, he’s closer on that than we give him credit for. But a secret society running the world? My question for him would be, if that is true, why are you bothering to run?
I agree about winning coalitions. Are you willing to accept a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket? That might be the only ticket that can realistically beat the Democrats this time around. Fred Thompson can not beat Hillary Clinton. And I can’t stand Giuliani. But I would vote for him if he survived the primary.
And in your own comment, you resorted to name calling. It’s infectious!
Some are certainly overenthusiastic, but so what? Let ‘em be. The “poll stacking” stuff is a pretty silly reason to get upset about. Aside from online polls being meaningless, every single other candidate on the ballot would embrace and welcome that sort of thing if they were winning the online polls instead of Paul. In fact, I remember a time not too long ago when conservative web activists prided themselves on their ability to mobilize en masse and flood web polls in favor of Clinton’s impeachment. Not too long after that they prided themselves on being able to flood web polls in Bush’s favor during the recounts. The fact that some of these very same people (read: freerepublic.com) are whining about Paul’s supporters doing it now smacks of their hypocrisy and shallowness. And being called a “hillbilly”…please. This is politics. Get over it.
I never got on it, so I don’t need to get over it. You are the one saying we shouldn’t throw names around, then you say it’s meaningless and get over it. Okay.
That’s the entire point, isn’t it? Why do you say just let them be but then whine about people that are just as enthusiastic back?
And even though you won’t face up to it, Paul’s overly enthusiastic backers are different. Have you watched any of the links they direct you to? I’m not talking about people like you that support him, I’m talking about the overly enthusiastic set.
Karl R, is that you?
I really don’t think it is all that different. The only point of distinction is whether one is willing to associate with the various fringes. The militia-types in the border crowd behind Tancredo certainly aren’t any less “fringe” than a Paul libertarian, and Tancredo has just as many of them in his support base. They also tend to be older than Paul supporters, so they don’t have as much of a web presence. But if you see them at the rallies their style isn’t any different than the stuff you complain about for the Paul people.
And the snake handlers and tongue speakers? Believe me - they’re politically active and crazy. I’ve seen it first hand. I’ve seen otherwise sensible-looking GOP politicians attend events where those types are rolling in the aisles and spouting off imaginary babble. For that matter, i’ve personally witnessed two very prominent former Texas Republican officials (Susan Weddington and David Barton) attend those type of events where they’ve joined in on the shaking, quaking, and tongue-speaking nonsense. And their are candidates trying to court that element of the vote right now…Huckabee and Brownback in particular with the whole “holier than thou” angle. Now it is true that candidates who seek that element of the vote typically don’t advertise it (unless they’re campaigning in rural Arkansas or Mississippi). But as far as fringe goes, they’re one in the same with the fringers backing anybody else.
For Paul - I don’t think he thinks there’s a secret conspiracy running the world. I do think he thinks there are politicians who are engaging in openly subversive and coordinated assaults on American sovereignty through international bodies like the UN and through immigration policies hidden within the pages of trade deals and highway projects. I also think that many sensible conservatives have similar reason for alarm with many of these same things. That doesn’t make them all conspiracy theorists.
Phil, google it and watch for yourself his unedited words. I’ve seen him say it, I’ve heard him say it. This is different than what you are characterizing it as. He THINKS there is a secret group controlling the world.
For my edification, could you please tell me where Mike Huckabee has campaigned as “holier than thou”. I don’t believe it. Not sure what to Google for to find it myself.
For coalitions - I don’t think Giuliani’s the answer for a very simple reason: voters need to have a reason to be FOR somebody and Giuliani doesn’t give them that. He serves as a placeholder to reap the gains of people being AGAINST Hillary.
Being against Hillary is important, but it doesn’t win elections on its own right. I think if Giuliani’s the nominee several traditional republican constituencies will sit this one out no matter how much they hate Hillary because we haven’t given them any alternative to be for. The religious right will avoid him because of abortion and gay marriage. Southerners will avoid him because he’s a slick-talking yankee from New York. Small-l libertarians will avoid him because he’s a big spender and a nanny stater. Conservatives in general will distrust him on his newfound immigration views. And pretty much anybody who’s fed up with Bush right now will see him as a simple continuation of the same garbage because of his many connections to the big business wing of the party. And if you think any of that can be managed or spun away, just wait until the Democrat operatives (yes - Hillary’s folks) start dropping anonymous leaflets of Rudy from his Marilyn Monroe costume party days in church parking lots the Sunday before the election.
If Rudy’s the nominee things will come crashing down fast and now counterbalancing figure will save things. Huckabee could spend from now until the election rolling with every snake handler from Jacksonville to El Paso, from Biloxi to Louisville and they still wouldn’t tolerate Giuliani because of his well documented social stances.
Thompson is far from perfect, but with him on the ticket and a strong running mate there’s a chance that he will turn give people something to vote for. Rudy could possibly even get away with being in the veep slot if the nominee is mildly appealing to traditional GOP constituencies. But Rudy himself on top will never be that simply because the word will get out about his social views.
#203 - Even better. I’ve seen him speak on the subject of the UN, open borders etc. dozens of times in person. What he says is normally a detailed and thorough criticism of a real and emerging problem - the disintegration of national sovereignty at the hands of world bodies like the UN (and their enablers, like Bush, Vicente Fox etc). It takes an intentional misrepresentation of those arguments to turn it into an embrace of a conspiracy theory.
#204 - Dig a little into who’s behind the rumor campaigning on who’s sufficiently pro-life in Iowa. Look at who circulates the flip-flopper stuff on Romney, the lobbying stuff on Thompson, and the Libertarian Party platform disinformation on Paul re. abortion. It’s always somebody with Huckabee or Brownback, and it’s always intended to tap the ultra-evangelicals.
I have said this before a couple times. Dr. Ron Paul is a devious politician. I have known him since the ’60s when he was active in local Republican politics. My Dad (God rest his soul) thoroughly despised him because of his tactics. My Dad, Buell A. Boyd was very active in the party and told me of many underhanded things the jacka$$ pulled off over the years. I would never trust that man to run this country. He doesn’t have the moral convictions that are needed to govern this wonderful land. Reading this thread has convinced me to support anyone but Paul.
/Rant off
#208 - Marc - i’m curiosity how you know Ron Paul from “local Republican politics” in the 1960’s since he spent most of that decade in the U.S. Air Force and in hospital residency in Pittsburgh. He didn’t even move to the Houston area until 1968 and didn’t become active in the HCRP until the early 1970’s. He didn’t even run for office until 1974 for that matter. Looks to me like your dates are off and you’re posting unsubstantiated innuendo about him because of an undisclosed personal grudge.
That’s exactly what I did, and since I made the mistake of tossing in a couple of flippant comments (becuause I work hard to not take myself too seriously, something others here could learn a thing or two about), I, and others here received this as a response:
This from a drive-by Paulite who will not come by here again until his RSS feed shows another Ron Paul headline from Lonestartimes.com…
Phil_M
Actually he did get active in “the ’60s” I lived it. You didm’t. You probably wern’t born yet.
Phil_M
BTW, I don’t hold grudges, BUT I do have an excellent memory so far. I take after my folks, who remained lucid into their late 80s. What is your excuse? (my bad, runs for cover)
Phil_M,
I don’t trust Wikipedia as the be all-end all information source, but I think this is probably verifiably good information on Ron Paul:
Full link.
It doesn’t seem inconceivable that Ron Paul would have been involved in local politics during that period of time. Further, I don’t think Marc has any reason to post “unsubstantiated innuendo” about Ron Paul.
If by that you mean volunteer work circa 1969, then yeah. I suppose he probably did do a bit of that from time to time. But you spoke of him as if he was already a politician and campaigner seeking elected office. That didn’t happen until 1974. You also spoke of him as if he was an HCRP regular. That didn’t happen until the early 70’s when Nancy Palm took over as chairman after the moderate exodus under Dudley Sharp. Bottom line: the vague, unspecific allegations you levy at Paul and attribute to him as a “local Republican” activist in the “60’s” likely didn’t happen at all because you are neither specific about them nor do you offer a plausible timeline that coincides with Paul’s known activism and political career.
You’re absolutely right. I wasn’t born yet. But that by no means precludes me from knowing the intricacies of Harris County politics in that era. Nor does it preclude me from personally knowing more than a dozen different people who worked on Paul’s first three political campaigns. If you got the goods you claim to have on Paul’s political activity from that period then let’s hear it. I’ll even compare your version of events to what I know from other people who “lived it” so we can see who’s telling the truth. Time to put up or shut up.
#213 - Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio is not “local politics” in Houston. After the Air Force he obtained ob-gyn certs up in Pittsburgh then moved to Lake Jackson in 1968 to take up the practice of a doctor there who was retiring. Paul’s involvement in local GOP politics coincided directly with the conservative takeover of the local Republican Party in the early 70’s. He was part of the conservative faction that distanced itself from the local country clubbers and then Gerald Ford after Nixon resigned. That’s why Paul got the go ahead from the local party to seek the special election in ‘76 over a state rep. desired by Ford. You might remember her too - she went by the name Kay Bailey back then.
Right. I’m sure that’s also why you’ve “known” this information about Paul for all these years, but only became “convinced” not to support him for President a few hours ago after “reading this thread.”
The reality is you came to this thread already opposed to Paul for whatever reason you know only to yourself. You also came here to spread innuendo about his character without any substantiating evidence or specifics. If you want to oppose Paul’s candidacy, fine. I don’t really care. But don’t come here to spread innuendo then feign innocence of it when you get called out.
Phil,
Marc doesn’t live in Houston, so to him, it very well could have been “local politics”. My real point here is that you’re assuming an awful lot about Marc here (and his dad as well) with absolutely nothing on which to base your assumptions.
To address the real point here, I don’t consider Ron Paul a realistic possibility for the Republican nomination. Further, based on what I’ve heard from him, I just flat out don’t like his ideas. I’ll make no apologies for that.
In all honesty, I think the only Republican candidates I would personally consider voting for aren’t realistic either. I don’t particularly care for Romney, Giuliani, or even Thompson and those are the only three I consider a real possibility. In fact, I really can’t even see me voting for any of those three as “the lesser of two evils” in ‘08. I’ve voted third party before and I very well may do so again.
Hey! So far what I’ve learned from this thread is this:
If you support Ron Paul, he NEEDs you! Go sign up and man the phone lines! He needs you to answer questionaires. He needs you to spread his word. What the heck are you doing on this blog? Save the farmers! Grow hemp!
You ain’t gonna change anybody’s mind here. Sign up! Volunteer! Be gainfully employed! That’s what I did for Kinky! Why the heck not? Heck, Ron Paul has even converted Democrats. I know. I’ve talked to them.
Go Ron Paul!
There is simply no way I can bring myself to even consider a candidate who has this looming over him. Call it a litmus test if you will.
Ron Paul’s answer to clear and present dangers is the same as the RP Acolytes.
“Well if the United States had minded its own business we would not be having these troubles”
What the hell type of answer is that.
He is an isoltionist uses the constitution for his own political gain nothing more. He ignores the Constitutional legalities of of treaties and the historical reasons why. Sorry guys the world has changed since the days of Jefferson. Here is a little hint for you….. We gots enemies that wanna kill us because we have made and/or are friends with certain countries (Israel).
It is called NATIONAL SECURITY
Ron Paul wants to throw probably the best friend the US has under the bus.
Here is a caveat to that statement: there is a move by the US goverment right now to separate ourselves from Israel by “forcing them” to once again give up land for peace.
His ideas are dangerous when it comes to National Security.
He is a whacko that has joined the truthers. Here is another hint about all these conspiracy theories of government coverups going back to the days of Lincoln.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Freud.
Sorry SouthernTee but I can find someone a little less dangerous to apply my protest support too.
Ron Paul is not fit to be the president of the local chapter of the chamber of _________________(fill in)
much less the President of The United States. He does not have the class to fill that job. That is why we will not vote for him. Hmmm, maybe he can draw a few hundred thou Dems votes. I’m liking him better now.
Dude, me either. My mind was made up in the ’70s. The guy is a quack. He pulled the doctor thing with my Dad on several occasions. No brainer.
#217 - That’s his burden to disclose then. When you post on a Houston-based and Houston-themed blog and talk about “local politics” its a perfectly reasonable assumption that you mean Houston politics unless you explicitly say otherwise.
But my point to Marc is this - if he’s going to constantly malign Paul’s character he needs to post more than unsourced innuendo, or he needs to shut up. Right now he’s taking cheap shots with no way to either verify or refute. That’s not fair to Paul. It’s not fair to the readers of this forum. And it’s not fair to voters trying to make up their minds.
(_?_) HUH? Did I need to attach a sarc tag?
All’s I was saying was that they need to volunteer or apply for the job, to support RP.
I have no firm candidate right now. So far Ted Nugent has my vote.
Phil_M
I am claiming life experience. You are a frigging cry baby. Ron Paul is a Coo Coo. Get used to the Idea. I and my Dad worked against him long ago based on his beliefs which he is covering up pretty well now. He is not a viable candidate for President. Like you said child, Shut Up.
Like I stated above, my ex walked into a courtroom toting a bible, even though the only time I saw him in church was at our wedding….
Bozo the clown or Jack in the Box comes a close 2nd…
Phil_M
You need to find a candidate who is worthy of your support. Just don’t pick Hillary. Thanks.
Dude, BTW, I paid off my 30 year Mortgage on my house in Houston a couple years ago. I grew up in Almeda, SW Houston. I have Been a Houstonian since 1949. We moved to Brookshire, Tx (just west of old Katy) in 2000 to escape the slum our subdivision had become. Now I can snipe from 40 miles out. Heh!
I now can Pop squirrels with the 12 GA when they get peskey, and could shoot Bambi if I wanted. They don’t bother me, so I let’em be. I am not in Houston politics anymore, and am glad.
Ted Nugent? I could vote for him. Head firmly fastened.
Phil_M is that local enough for you?
This is the thread that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started posting it
not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue posting it forever
just because…
(repeat ad infinitum)
ST,
I never saw the interrior of a courtroom when my ex and I divorced. “our” lawyer was her “friend” and “boss” whom she was living with. It cost me 10 grand for her intrest in the house, but was well worth the price, believe me.
I talked to her parents about a year ago. They have evidently had children, and will not let the kids see their grandparents. Sick woman.
Not my problem anymore, thank God!
jimb,
Wrong thread, but how is your K girl? I’m heading for bed sooonly.
marc -
Don’t see anybody crying. I do see you spreading a lot of malicious innuendo though. You seem to be getting irritable ever since I called you out on it. And still you offer no substance - just your personal invective against Paul and whoever else happens to cross your path.
Furthermore, if you had taken a moment to read my earlier comments you would know that I readily hold Paul to be an unelectable longshot for the presidency, so pretending to lecture me about that only brings your own literacy into question. You would also know that I previously indicated that I hold Fred Thompson to be the least offensive of the viable candidates for president, and that I only defend Paul here from below-the-belt attacks from people such as yourself who thrive on denigrating him while failing to realize the laughably unelectable characteristics of your own various candidates of choice. So not only have you posted as of yet unsubstantiated innuendo. You’ve also taken a fondness to misrepresentating my clearly stated position.
But since you evidently see yourself as being here on a mission to set us young “whippersnappers” straight on the candidates I suppose you can’t be bothered to keep track of inconvenient details like that. Go back to your farm, old man, and leave the political decisions to those of us who are still of a sound enough mind to comprehend their intricacies.
Phil, the only innuendo I’ve seen thrown about on this thread are yours. Implying that Huckabee and Brownback are campaigning as “holier than thou” because you once saw (sure you did) a couple of GOP people attend a meeting where someone was charming a snake.
Alrighty then. I guess that’s more proof than Dr. Kook has for his theories. Enjoy.
Let’s deconstruct the strawmen arguments in that statement:
1. I called Brownback and Huckabee “holier than thou” because of the well known fact that their people were behind many of the whisper campaigns in Iowa aimed at diminishing the pro-life and religious credentials of their opponents, including each other. This fact has been publicly reported by dozens of newspapers. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601071.html
http://wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1205986)
Brownback smeared Romney for being Mormon. Huckabee smeared Brownback for being Catholic. Brownback smeared Huckabee for stoking evangelical prejudice. And they’ve all dumped on Thompson over abortion in his lobbying work, yourself included. So yeah. I stand by my statement (not innuendo - an open and explicit statement) that Brownback and Huckabee are playing juvenile “holier than thou” politics of the lowest order, intended for no other purpose than to stir the religious right into their respective camps and away from others on specious grounds.
2. I did not say the affiliation of Huckabee with extreme evangelicals made him “holier than though.” I attributed this to his well known involvement in the whisper campaigns as is documented above in #1. I referenced the snake handlers in a distinct point as evidence that some pretty kooky people (i believe you would call them “rabid”) are supporting Huckabee for president.
3. I did not claim I saw “a couple of GOP people” involved in “charming a snake.” I stated quite plainly that I have seen David Barton and Susan Weddington, formerly the vice chairman and chairman of the Republican Party of Texas respectively, attending ultra-evangelical religious services where both participated in speaking in tongues as they shook uncontrollably in the aisles between the pews. I made this point not to illustrate that Huckabee or Brownback or anyone else was “holier than thou,” but rather to illustrate that these type of people (who fit your chosen descriptor for similarly situated persons, “rabid”) are actually quite prominent in the Republican Party and readily participate in its highest levels.
You, of course, neglected to address any of those points in a meaningful or substantive way. So instead you chose to build scarecrows out of my argument, not unlike you did recently when Owen took you to task for your attempted slimes against Fred Thompson.
Thank you for so capably illustrating my original point in this discussion though: it’s the height of absurdity to be lectured about Ron Paul’s unelectability when it’s coming from a guy who delusionally thinks that Mike Huckabee is primed to seize a spot on the ticket and lead our party to victory over Hillary.