But if Paul is such a non-factor in the election why are so many articles being written about how he's a non-factor? Seems an odd way of dealing with someone who apparently doesn't have a chance in hell. Why even have an election? Apparently we don't need the whole convoluted process of listening to candidates and putting them through the rigors of public scrutiny and policy debate. I just want MSNBC/Fox/CNN to tell me who is going to win and I'll make my zombie march down to the polls and do as I'm told. Is that the America you want?

by John Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:21:07 AM

  (0+)

The author of this column has zero credibility, when he says "the Patriot Act has stopped terror and minimally affected our lives."

What cave has this person been living in.  If he did a tiny bit of research he'd find that Bush's "CLAIMS" of thwarting terrorism are non-existent.  The so called "terrorists" were either set up by FBI agents, or tortured into saying whatever their torturers wanted to stop the pain.

All of our phone records have been spied on by this government.

If the powers that be hired someone to write an article to stop the Ron Paul revolution, they'd hire someone to write the above essay.

This is not even thinly veiled propaganda.  This essay is beneath contempt and an insult to the reader's intelligence.

Join the Ron Paul revolution !!  It is unstoppable, which is why Rove is now targeting Ron Paul.  Remember Karl Rove, architect of this oil war policy, and the dissolution of our civil and human rights?

Wake up folks, Ron Paul is the real thing.  The author claims Paul's supporters are dissaffected voters, as if that is an insult.  Hello?  Most Americans gave up on the Republicrats because they are both corporate shills.

The GOP are absolute prostitutes.  With the Democrats you have a slim glimmer of hope that the candidate might be for real.

However, neither the GOP or DEMS have lifted one finger to investigate 9/11 in any meaningful way.  All thinking people who've done the least bit of research now know 9/11 was an inside job, and that these two wars were war crimes of the highest order, designed to steal oil in the case of Iraq, and secure an oil pipeline in the case of Afghanistan.  Does anyone know who Karzai is (President of Afghanistan)?  He's a former Unocal executive.  He wears those Afghan robes now, but wore Armani suits before we placed him in power, the way the Republican Supreme Court PLACED GW in power in 2000.

Ron Paul is our only hope.  Keep hope alive!!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:59:40 PM

  (0+)

Meet the Press today was like that scene in "V for Vendetta" when the hero commandeered the national TV station to call the government terrorists.

Did you see Ron Paul on Meet the Press today?

I have been waiting most of their life to hear these things said on corporate TV, and never dreamed it would be a Republican who'd say them.  Ron Paul makes the Democrats look like rabid Republicans in comparison!!  Even Kucinich isn't as revolutionary as Paul when it comes to ending American militarism worldwide.  I've been a professional and volunteer Democratic activist for 25 years, and all those candidates pale in comparison to what Paul is saying regarding militarism and the danger of creeping American facism.

It was like that scene in "V for Vendetta" when the hero commandeered the national TV network, to speak truth to the people.

You can view the entire NBC interview below at these 2 links, and find the other 2 of the 4 part series there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 7:08:18 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul might be just what we need. So might Dennis Kucinich, Gravel, even John Edwards, any one other than so-called front-runners corporate media is shoving down our throats would be better. There is a reason 50% of the populace gave-up on our government over 3 generations ago and if anyone can come along and get those people back involved - watch out!The elite, as the author, Mr. Lorenz points out, haven't really focused their immense power of destruction on Paul yet. Paul hasn't had his Howard Dean "Scream" moment. Or if becomes a real threat I suggest he forgo taking any small airplane flights. He might want to think bus. Wellstone was an early threat that was brutally made an example of.

But the real obstacle will be the election fraud. I don't care how many people this so-called "Ron Paul Revolution" garners if every vote isn't counted you can kiss your revolution good-bye. And as of to date our election system is bad and getting worse. So before you start getting too excited ...  

There has always been some degree of election fraud, but never on the scale of what we're witnessing today. It wouldn't matter if 90% of the people cast their vote for Paul, Kucinick, or whomever might be better than any one we have representing us today - they won't win, unless of course a miracle happens and we fix what has been systematically destroyed over the pass 30-odd years and perfected in the past seven.

So, unless you can implement a solution to election fraud before the 08' elections, I wouldn't be chilling any champagne.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 9:37:48 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul shined like a bright star through the endless darkness of neo-conservatism.

by joriet (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:33:20 PM

  (0+)

What I found interesting about your logic in this article was that you referred to all the other polls you did not 'believe' then proceeded to refer to some other polls in order to justify some claim on his validity.

Authorization is very different than declaring war.

You clearly lack the fundamental understanding of property rights ( a corollary of the right to your life ) when you speak about the patriot act. Regardless of how successful it is, it is still a violation of these rights.  In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  So, which do you want? If you choose the latter, I can think of some fine upstanding regimes in which you will fit in perfectly.

by Nim Nim (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:40:02 AM

  (0+)

RUDEE!... RUDEE!... RUDEE!...

HILLAREE!... HILLAREE!... HILLAREE!... 

ROMNEE!...  ROMNEE!...  ROMNEE!... 

OBAMEE!...  OBAMEE!...  OBAMEE!... 

...and the same for all the other fine upstanding politicians who've been working hard in our best interest!!!   WEEEEEEEE!!!!  YIPEE!!!!!  The resuls of their hard work is everywhere, just look around, but especially it's in the portfolios of the top 1% of Americans who own/control half of this country.  After all, if you're shrewd you get what you pay for.

(Obviously, pretty soon the Neocons will be buying Pepcid in bulk from Canadian online pharmacies.)

Woof-woof!

Some things never change:

"The price of ignorance towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men"  --  Plato

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."  --   H.L. Mencken

by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:59:42 AM

  (0+)

Transferring the power to make war over to the president is not the same as a declaration of war. And it is blatantly unconstitutional. 

It would be nice to see some intelligent discussion of things like Austrian Economics. However, I think criticizing his supporters and arguing about the polls are a more effective means generating traffic and burying the real issues.

"Eventually the masses come to understand the schemes of their rulers. Then the cleverly concocted plans of inflation collapse. Whatever compliant government economists may have said, inflationism is not a monetary policy that can be considered as an alternative to a sound-money policy. It is at best a temporary expedient. The main problem of an inflationary policy is how to stop it before the masses have seen through their rulers' artifices. It is a display of considerable naivety to recommend openly a monetary system that can work only if its essential features are ignored by the public." 

-- Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit

by Sam Liberty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:14:05 AM

  (0+)

This article reminds me of that bloke who made the youtube video about leaving Britney alone! Its really amusing to read, you can almost see him stomping his feet “Enough about Ron Paul, I don’t want to hear any more – la, la, la, la, la!”. I’d dissect his article one bit at a time, but to tell you the truth - it’s not worth it. I’ll address one little gem though: “Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is basically an extreme form of right wing almost anarchism”, he, he, he. You see what I mean? Laughable. As I read on another post on this site – “It is better sometimes to keep your mouth shut and have people think that you may be a fool, than to open it and confirm this”! Clearly something the author of this masterpiece should consider.

by Hilton Gray (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:16:15 AM

  (0+)

If Libertarianism is, as you claim, not what the author makes it out to be why not enlighten those of us who see it in a very negative light. Or perhaps you are another in a seemingly long line of quasi political sorts who support Dr. Paul for his apparent honesty, his anti war stance and because the choices are abysmal.

You left a gaping hole in your post in this regard, why not fill it.....( I doubt this poster will be back).

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:21:32 PM

  (0+)

 While I agree that the article is a bit over the top, it is correct in one important respect; Note the number of first time posters. Apparently the Paulista cult is a reality as the author suggests. The worst thing is that most havent the faintest notion of how damaging to this nation a Libertarian political agenda would be.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:28:28 PM

  (0+)

I could write a "War and Peace" sized book on all of the stupidity contained in your assessment of Ron Paul and his supporters. Instead, I'll focus on one simple issue. You said, "Paul constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation were the only true interpretation."

The Constitution is written at a six grade level. Regarding the Federal Government's powers, Article 1, Section 8 very clearly spells out its restricted powers. The 10th Amendment reserves all other powers to the States, and to the People, respectively. Any attempt to "interpret" these two portions of the Constitution is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that all of the federal programs exceeding these clear limits (for which we are taxed to the hilt) are illegal. Your attempt at obfuscation only works on those who are too apathetic to educate themselves about Constitutional government. But, because of the acceleration of the growth of unconstitutional government as well as the erosion of our rights, many, many Americans have lost their apathy. Your target audience is rapidly shrinking. The rest of us see you for the un-American fool that you are.

Yes, un-American... because you don't believe in the rule of law - that which is the distinction between a Republic (which our Constitution provides to us) and a Democracy (mob rule). You'd rather ignore law in favor of the socialistic programs that you, as an individual, feel are "good". If these programs you feel are truly "the will of the people", then why not propose and support an amendment to the Constitution? If your program has enough support to pass the approval / ratification muster, then so be it. If not, you should be "American enough" to accept its defeat. But no... you'd rather ignore that whole part of the Constitution and take shots at those who respect it as the Supreme Law of the Land.

That makes you un-American. ...and you wonder why idiots like you are attacked by Ron Paul supporters. Pathetic. Simply pathetic!

by Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:26:15 AM

  (0+)

I can see that my message has been flagged for editor review on the accused basis of it being an ad hominem attack. 

Wikipedia defines an ad hominem as an: "argument against the man" consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim.

I'll resist the urge to point out the numerous ad hominems in Lorenz's article and focus on the accusation against my response.  My "attack" is clearly on Lorenz's philosophy.  It is impossible to separate Lorenz and those who share his views from that philosophy.  If one believes his philosophy to be "un-American", then the holder of that philosophy cannot escape the connection. 

by Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:45:45 AM

  (0+)

no need to get technical here. You called names-- called the write an idiot. That's unacceptable. You have an intellect to argue, state your case and debate. Use it.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:21:17 PM

  (0+)

After re-reading my comment, I agree... calling Lorenz an idiot went beyond the boundaries of civil exchange.  I've eliminated it from my response as reposted below.  In all fairness, Lorenz's article set the tone in his second sentence when he referred to supporters of Ron Paul as "fuzz-heads".  Apparently, the rules against ad hominem attacks only apply to those who post comments and not to the original authors who post in OpEdNews... an inequity that will not be unnoticed by the readers who come here.

by Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:50:12 PM

  (0+)

I completely concur with your assessment. But in the spirit of fairness we must now flag everyone's comments who have labeled Ron Paul "crazy" or some other attack word.

by R3VOLUTION R3VOLUTION (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:14:58 PM

  (0+)

So..  This comment is under review for "name calling" when the article that it comments upon STARTS OFF by name calling a "growing" (article's word, not mine) group of Americans?

Viva Censorship.  This shows that there is no credibility or dialogue on this site.

by Andrew Morrow (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 2:57:19 PM

  (0+)

The ulginess of Ron Paul detraction pieces is a sharp contrast with the beauty of citizens around the country becoming leaders in their community and engaging the political system. 

Aside, I've noticed a few negative articles using the "neo-liberatarian" terms, this is misleading.  

Ron Paul is not a member of the liberatian party.  He is a conservative Republican who has served as such for the last 10 years in the House of Representatives.  The "neo" label is more appropriate for the other canidates which all expouse the "neo-conservative" philosophy of radical foreign intervention. 

Has the republican party has become so corrupt, that its most ethical members are now accused of belonging to other political parties? 

by Frank Mulligan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:53:39 AM

  (0+)

Barry Goldwater Jr. endorses Ron Paul.  Remember Goldwater, he was an old fashioned Republican, before the GOP became neo-fascists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7r27Az_Mns

I didn't agree with everything Goldwater stood for, but he was vastly better than the GOP we see today, on personal liberty issues, and fiscal responsibility.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:08:33 PM

  (0+)

I have had just no interest in politics at all for the last two elections.  I remember thinking the only choice was to vote for the best of the worst and for the upcoming election was fearful it would be more of the same.  My concern was we would be offered candidates Clinton and McCain? 

Then I heard Obama give a televised speech.  I thought to myself here is a great communicator and potential leader and started researching his positions.  I was disappointed and told my mom, I dislike Hillary but she has more substance backing her views than Obama. 

Then I ran across Ron Paul.  It was like a wake up call.  Had I really forgotten that the government belongs to us?  I don’t feel like as a middle class American I have any voice whatsoever.  Washington has become a millionaires club that is out of touch with American lives and certainly doesn’t feel like it belongs to we the people.  Moreover we have somehow allowed ourselves to slip into a welfare state.  Remember “Ask not what you’re country can do for you?”?  I’ll bet each and every one reading this is wondering what our government is going to do for us regarding health care.

This healthcare issue is the point that really hit home with me.  I don’t know if Dr. Paul specifically speaks of healthcare but it falls within his general premise; get the federal government out of our business and let free enterprise take its course.  No more lobbying by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  Let them win over the consumer through fair competition.  Who knows, we could buy our medication from Canada or at least open up some competition on pricing.  Perhaps we could even be offered a healthcare plan from Google or an overseas company like SAP.  The point is we can do better in this area and many others including education and we don’t need the government telling us how. 

What a simple and powerful message: Respect the Constitution.  Our founding fathers were some very smart, insightful, forward thinking men and I would like to thank Dr. Paul for reminding me of this and for the wake up call.

I will gladly support this revolution. 

by Michael Edelen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:55:00 AM

  (0+)

Look, I don't care how good a candidate is, he could have Ron Paul's ethic's, Kucinich's world-view intelligence, and John Edwards looks and sense of justice all rolled into one - it won't matter.

Unless we can fix the election system and stop the election fraud before the 08' elections, you can take your "awakening" and go back to sleep.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 9:57:20 PM

  (0+)

The reason pharmaceuticals are cheaper in Canada (or almost anywhere else) is because the government regulates their price.  D'oh!!!

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 6:47:51 AM

  (0+)

There is one fact that makes Dr. Paul a good candidate -- He opposed the PATRIOT Act AND the war in Iraq. The leading Dem. candidates were not there when we needed them. They (with some exceptions: Dean, Kucinich, some part of Obama) waited to see the wind direction. Furtehr, Dr. Paul uis very strong on rights of free expression--again somehting that Sen. Clinton did not speak out for when she could, and when Pres. Bush was trying to destroy our 1st A. rights. Dr. Paul isn't the best candidate--and he has supporters who, frankly, do scare me. BUT, his candidacy shows the lack of philosophical backbone in both parties' candidates.

walt brasch

by Brasch (87 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:07:34 PM

  (0+)

So where is Uncle Ron on the issue of impeachment? He has said not a peep about it. Yet he is running for the President of the United States? He's going to let Bush get away with murder? Bush as a lot of crimes dumped in the laps of many candidates, yet not a word from any of the drueling political hacks. If Ron Paul comes out supporting Impeachment and really walking the real talk, maybe he will come out as a viable real voice in the Executive Office. Let's hope Candidates wakeup. It's a long way to ROCK Ron if you want to ROCK  and ROLL

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 5:56:24 PM

  (0+)

I find it very entertaining that you complain about ad hominem attacks, and then immediately begin a string of them.

For those who don't know what an "ad hominem" attack is, it is according to wikipedia:

The claim you make that Libertarians are synonymous with anarchists is very similar to statements made against Jeffersonian Democrats. At the core, Libertarians believe in a limited government. Where the role of government is ironically limited the the very things laid out in the consitution: a national defense, maintain the rule of law, provide a sound currency, and the protection of each individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

by Garrett Goebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:09:19 PM

  (0+)

John Lorenz, I'll start off with a soft statement (and please calm down):

 this isn't the worst article I've ever read on Paul.

 I've been with the Paul campaign since June. I must have read and heard dozens, in fact, hundreds of people (people who claim to be experts in the matter) say that Ron Paul can't win. And every time they say he can't win, the Ron Paul people counter by saying "yes, he can."

 And as you can see, not much has changed since June. But I've noticed that as the weeks and months go by, every time the pundits say he can't win the Ron Paul fans say "yes, he can" just a little bit louder each time. Ron Paul fans are starting to believe that he can win this thing.

But there's one last thing that I would like to say to political commentators like you:

 Your job is to inform the public on political matters. If you are going to declare yourself the person who knows it all backwards and forwards and say that Ron Paul has no chance, will you agree to resign from your job if your analysis is proven wrong?

by Andrew McDonald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:12:19 PM

  (0+)

And dont complain when the jack-boot is on Your neck. Vote for Hitlery, but she cant win. Or vote for Ghouliani and have the first woman president. Take Your pick, or vote for McCain, but why would You want to throw Your vote away ?

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:17:02 PM

  (0+)

From this article, and the points you make about Ron Paul, I am even more convinced that Ron Paul is just what America needs. Of course I realize that it will never happen. After the election next year, we will have a "NEW BOSS", the same as the "OLD BOSS". We won't be fooled again, and again and again and again.

by Alan Scher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:17:04 PM

  (0+)

It's called power and political influence. If you pick on Paul, you'll have to defend your statement or you'll have a long list of criticisms in your comment section...so what? Being a whiner about it won't help you.

G

by Greg Albert (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:17:58 PM

  (0+)

John Lorenz wrote:

"I am a disabled man living in northern California who cares about the future of our country and I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture."

The "downward spiral in our social and political culture" is because we Americans have NOT been electing people like Ron Paul. You've got it backwards.

by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:18:57 PM

  (0+)

For some sanity about Ron Paul, who I watched this morning on Meet the Press and found him sounding more than a littly crazy -- clearly someone that the vast majority of Americans would never take seriously as a president. His obsessive followers--(namecalling removed by editor) I cannot wait to hear their crap when his showings in primaries sucks and he does NOT get the Republican nomination. While his followers have every right and total good reason to be sick of ordinary politicians, they have flocked like Kool-Aid drunk sheep to someone who simply does not merit their adoration.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:19:11 PM

  (0+)

Come on, Joel.  Why not tell everyone why you REALLY are speaking out against Ron Paul?  You were pro-Paul until you failed to get him to support your unfounded, baseless assertion that past calls for a Constitutional Convention have been erroneously ignored by Congress.

It appears as if you are a single-issue voter.  You should compare all of the candidate's positions on all of the other issues.  If you were truthful about your concerns and viewpoints in your past articles, then there are obviously far more reasons for you to support Ron Paul than to oppose him.

by Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 2:10:54 PM

  (0+)

First, notice how the mainstream media is for the most part ignoring Dr. Paul and the little attention he does get, he's being laughed at and ridiculed and is assumed as having "No Chance".  That tells me there is a lot more to Dr. Paul than the mainstream media wants us to know and they as well as the few elite who own them fear.  I for one will NOT allow the mainstream media to TELL ME who I'm going to vote for, period.

Second, notice how the military of all levels are vastly in support of Dr. Paul.  That alone ought to tell you something about Dr. Paul.

Thirdly, we'll let the Primaries show who the American People want as the Republican Nomination for the Presidency not the mainstream media.  As for Voter Turn-out, be ready for a dramatic up surge of people going to the polls to vote and that alone will ensure the Victory for the Republican Nomination to Dr. Ron Paul.  His Messege has and continues to Awaken the American People from their deep sleep and OUR Voices will be heard Loud and Clear...call that "noise" if you will. By the way, since 1996 I've refused to classify myself as any political party resulting in me being an NPA (No Party Affiliation) However, I have registered Republican for Florida's Primaries so I can vote for who I choose not for who the Media says is a "sure shot" I'm voting for Ron Paul 2008.

Oh, also, I'd like to mention how you were wrong to ASSUME about how all of Ron Paul's "noise" makers were gonna go in an attack mode against you with the first post...I don't believe the vast majority of Ron Paul's supports are venomous as is most of your "opinion" is...I believe most of Ron Paul's Supporters are damned Good People who WANT THE TRUTH TO BE HEARD...So please, go vote for who FNC, CNN, MSNBC and all the rest of the mainstream media's say is the "Sure Shot" and I'll go vote for who I feel is the best candidate for the Presidency.

 Merry Christmas!

by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:36:35 PM

  (0+)

Gee, I'm glad YOU'RE not using those Ad Hominem attacks. You'd probably tear my nutsack off! No, man it's really funny because it's very obvious from your tone you just absolutely DETEST us, Dr. Paul's supporters. And you know why? It's because we're so very nearly always RIGHT. I'm not talking about the dorkwad you mention that says, "You don't like Ron Paul so I hate you!" I'm talking about the calm, reasoned Ron Paul supporter who just totally demolishes your arguments bit by bit.

First - Libertarianism is Anarchism? You're ON the internet! Didn't you bother going to Wikipedia or M-W and reading the definition ?

Second - Dismantling goverment? Where'd you get THAT idea? Dr. Paul wants the STATES to do most of the government. In other words, competition. If you don't like the government where you are you would now have TWO choices - work to change it, or move where the government is the way you like it.

Third - Constitution is a VERY simple docuement, which you'd know if you ever read it.

Fourth - We're sitting on top of 40,000 nuclear weapons and can destroy the earth whenever we want. What are you so scared of?

Fifth - The draft comes once the dollar's useless. Figure it out.

Sixth - Paul voted NO.

Seventh - re Patriot act - Castration is VERY effective as birth control. Why don't you promote castration as a birth control technique?

 Eighth - Internet polls are usually designed to detect the same person voting more than once. Wouldn't that mean that Dr. Paul would USUALLY lose?

by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:40:45 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

by Mayberry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:48:23 PM

  (0+)

At least this addresses the issues a bit, though in general I am dismayed at the logical argument ability of Americans in power, especially those with the press, particularly you, John.  I have never been involved in politics before supporting Ron Paul.  I don't think it behooves Ron Paul supporters to call names. However, I have seen very cogent arguments by many that never get acknowledged.  And what you do is insult back-- in a more subtle form, the old 'dismissal' routine--one of the most obnoxious forms of insult.  I am for Ron Paul because his arguments make sense and I've always said it's on a case by case basis, not a matter of being part of a party.  One hundred criticisms in a row that are weak criticisms start to seem valid, but they are not necessarily.  I have not met anyone enthusiastic about any other candidate, and yes, I am tired of paying for bad wars and welfare; this country is alienating many of its citizens.  Good arguments are from reason, I suggest a book for you called 'Attacking Faulty Reasoning'.  Politically correct statements are just that--so I'm supposed to vote for who?  I guess what upsets his supporters is the idea that they are supposed to be 'off' because he is a not one of the 'chosen', instead of attacking the validity of the reasoning behind what we stand for.  His reasons make sense, that's why I back him. 

by stasera (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:54:00 PM

  (0+)

The uninformed writer of this hit piece on Ron Paul needs to know a few things: One those online polls did not allow more than 1 vote per candidate. 2. Those 2 "money-bobmb days" when donations poured in from across the nation Nov. 5=4.3 million dollars, Dec. 16=6.3 million dollars at an average donation of about 50.00. Of further note is the shock of the corporate-mass controlled media at the results of their own polls and pulling them down swiftly when it became obvious that Ron Paul was a run away winner. The American people have decided that both parties have failed us (look at the poll numbers of Congress, controlled by Dems, and this disasterous Presidency of the past 7 years).  This administration has violated the Constitution almost from day one. Allowed 911, and drug their feat for a year before allowing what was a sham 911 investigation. Finally going along only if Bush and Cheney could testify together and not under oath! Ten times the money was spent investigating Clinton's sex life then was on the largest single day attack in American history. The Congress, the media, and our intellegince community have all failed us. Is it time for a peaceful revolution? You bet it is! Ron Paul knows more about history and economics then most PHD's; and is the perfect man to lead us back to a transparent government. I fear our government noow more then some boogy-man hiding in some cave. The election of 08 will determine if America and her world revered Republic (it used to be the idol of free people around the globe) will stand or continue on it's current path to becoming a facist empire. I for one choose Ron Paul.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:55:57 PM

  (0+)

I have daily Google Alerts for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I am a political junkie and love reading all the posts, reports and blogs about all of these candidates. The observation I make is that whenever anyone writes about Dr. Paul there are numerous comments posted about Dr. Paul and most of them supportive. I have spent hours reading what people around the US are posting in the comments on Ron Paul. BUT on the other guys there are very few posted comments and most of them are negative not supportive to their perspective candidates. The media says that Paulites control the Internet? My question is Doesn't the other candidates have supporters that know how to use the Internet too? Makes one think. I watched Dr. Paul on Meet the Depressed this morning and think that he did a fine job and showed lots of integrity and class. Loved his smile. GO RON PAUL 2008

by collin28 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:07:30 PM

  (0+)

"Meet the Depressed."  Ha ha.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 6:58:44 AM

  (0+)

You are desperate for hits! Other than that observation, your article is undeserving of analysis or comment.

by R3VOLUTION R3VOLUTION (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:07:34 PM

  (0+)

Rob, earlier you said this to Dan:

"No need to get technical here. You called names-- called the write an idiot. That's unacceptable. You have an intellect to argue, state your case and debate. Use it."

So let me get this straight, it's fine and dandy for John, the writer, to call Ron Paul supporters "fuzz-heads", but unacceptable for Dan to call the writer an idiot.  In other words, "name calling" by Ron Paul supporters is offensive and inappropriate, but name calling by your own writers is journalism.  Can you say hypocrite???  At least idiot is a word in the dictionary.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Ghandi 

I guess winning is next...

by Joseph Baca (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:15:02 PM

  (0+)

J.L. wrote: “,,,codeword for shrinking government assistance to the the poor but no restrictions on government giveaways to the rich…”

That is simply untrue. Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the subsidies that make firms like ADM and Haliburton so wealthy.

You really need to study more prior to spouting-off about things of which you are profoundly ignorant.

J.L. wrote: “The last sentence, however, puzzles me because Congress DID vote to authorize the War in Iraq.”

That is not legally the same as a declaration of war. You obviously are in need of a good attorney to explain the difference to you.

Once again you got it wrong when you wrote: “so the real problem was a lying President who sold a gullible country a bill of goods, not the President unilaterally declaring war without congressional approval..”

Once again your statement is untrue. The problem is a corrupt congress (for the most part) that failed to exercise its oversight and check, verify and check again what they are told prior to authorizing the murder of 1,000,000 people.

J.L. wrote: “So, for the record, Congress did vote on the War and rubber stamped it. And I believe Paul was serving at the time.”

Yes, but Dr. Paul was one of the few who understood his job and voted against authorizing the violence.

J.L. wrote: “He's against the Patriot Act, but doesn't mention that the Patriot Act actually has been used successfully in some cases to track down and find potential terrorist activity, and so far, it has proved to be less intrusive than Paul and many liberals have said it is.”

How do you know this to be true? Because the same administration that lied to congress about WMD in Iraq has so said?

J.L. wrote: “Paul is for just eliminating the current tax system but I don't know how he proposes to make up for the government's need for revenue to do its business.”

Well, if you had been paying attention and had studied the issues, you would know the answer. All that is required is to reduce the size of the federal government to what it was at about the year 2000.

Regarding eliminating federal social welfare programs, if there were any provision in the constitution for such, Paul would support upholding the constitution. Since there is absolutely no provision in the constitution for such programs, anyone who has sworn to uphold and defend the constitution MUST be opposed to them or be in violation of their oath.

Do yourself a favor and spend some time reading and studying the constitution. If you are at least of average intelligence and spend the time doing so, you to will see that Dr. Paul is correct on these issues.

Good luck.

by Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:15:36 PM

  (0+)

Hey you were talking about the constitution not providing for social welfare.

Actually the preamble to the constitution says;

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't specifically call for any program, however, it does stand to reason that some form of social welfare or safety net certainly would seem to promote the general welfare of America and its' people.

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 2:27:01 PM

  (0+)

jdoss,

First off, I'm a fan of anyone who bases their arguments in the Constitution, so thank you for that. The preamble clearly explains the rationale for adopting the Constitution, and one of those reasons is indeed, as you quoted, "to promote the general welfare."

However, keep in mind that the Constitution is the document that spells out powers of all three branches of federal government as well as the state governments. (It reserves all powers not enumerated to them, or to the people.) So just saying that one reason for adopting this Constitution is to "promote the general welfare" does not automatically grant powers to any one of these jurisdictions or branches of government. "Promoting the general welfare" is in fact one of the reasons for having a document that clearly delineates powers and responsibilities among the various branches and levels of government.

Article I makes a clear and lengthly list of powers granted to Congress, and the Bill of Rights establishes that any powers not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. I agree with the founders that adopting a governing document with clear separation of powers is the best way "to promote the general welfare"; giving the central government nearly unlimited powers is a sure road to gross inefficiency at best, and quite possibly tyranny.

by Conrad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 9:52:13 PM

  (0+)

RP breaks from the lock-steps of the Bush-GOP on Iraq, and therefore is a laudable figure. However his plan to end the federal income tax without instituting a revenue-neutral replacement for it, disqualifies him as far as serious consideration as a presidential nominee.

by Vigilante (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:18:36 PM

  (0+)

     .....Into the pockets of the bankers to pay only the interest on the debt of the money loaned to the government. Apportioned taxes (gas, property, tobacco etc..) are designed and directed to services and specific programs related to their creation. Income tax is blood money stolen on a yearly basis by an unconstituional vote in 1913 creating the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal nor has any reserves except the money they print out of thin air which has since 1913 devalued the currency to us while keeping the bankers whistles wet. The IRS is a front for the governments ongoing transfer of wealth. In a country of laws, there is no law that says we must pay income tax, for it is not apportioned and therefore illegal. The IRS manual while heavy enough to include the word mandatory, instead uses the word 'voluntary'. That it is an illegal tax by definition hasn't stopped them from throwing many in jail and letting many off. Doesn't sound balanced does it? My point exactly. A farce.

     Google 'Freedom to Fascism' by Aaron Russo. 

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 3:27:27 PM

  (0+)

 The Pole Shift sounds like the only way out of this mess, we all find our selves  in. The great quote by Thomas Jefferson "I tremble for my country when I know that GOD is JUST".

by Truenobleman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:34:22 PM

  (0+)

I always find the American public's ignorance of the US Constitution to be surprising and frightening; it's THE document that defines us as a nation and secures our inalienable rights and freedoms, yet the majority of Americans, including our leaders, are apparently ignorant of its contents or hold it in contempt. Every American leader swears an oath to defend and protect it, but few do.

The author, following this pattern, confesses confusion over Ron Paul's statement regarding the lack of a congressional declaration of war. The plain fact is: The US Congress has not declared a war since WWII. And look at the disastrous results: Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq (twice!). Once again, Congress pathetically failed to do its duty, uphold, protect and enforce the Constitution and "funded" an UN-Constitutional "war" they didn't have the honesty and integrity to formally declare or reject - their only two Constitutional options. Under our Constitution THIS IS ILLEGAL - but few seem to care. Makes one wonder just what we have to fight for, doesn't it?

The founders of our republic very specifically and intelligently did NOT give the President - a single person - the power to "declare", or begin, wars. And very rightly so! They gave this power to Congress AND NO ONE ELSE! The President DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have that power. That is WAY too much power for one person to hold. "The Decider" is no such thing! The President of the United States is "The Executor" of laws passed by Congress. That way, our laws require the agreement of a majority of hundreds of elected representatives to be passed, not just the whims of a single person or small group of advisors ("handlers").

The fact that this is confusing to the author and most of the American people is extrememly disturbing.

by Techknowledgie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:36:00 PM

  (0+)

As much as I detest Dr. Paul's stances on issues concerning public health, education, and a few other social issues, I'm having a harder and harder time disagreeing with him on many things that are just as important to me.

I contributed some arguments against another author's pro-Paul article the other day, but I actually thought he was great on Meet The Press this morning, and I thought I'd take a crack at the other side of it today. He is absolutely right about our military presence around the world being a provocation and recruitment tool for radical groups, as well as a financial burden we can no longer bear. He is absolutely right about the corporatism/fascism that is eliminating our civil liberties and making a joke of our political system. He is absolutely right about our need to replace the income tax with import tariffs and other revenue sources. Right about the ridiculous war on drugs. Right about the CIA and their "secret" wars...and torture. Right about the economic house of cards we've for built ourselves and our children... sigh...

Y'know, in my current coffee-deficient state I'm actually thinking that, with a progressive enough swing in congress, I could even vote for a Ron Paul... Well, okay, I'm not quite there yet, but I think that a whole lot of people are ready to jump on board with anyone who provides a real alternative to the current state of affairs.

I would vote in a heartbeat for Kucinich or Edwards, but I get the feeling Clinton or Obama will just be more of the same inside game, so I just don't know why I should support them. And they're the media picks, which automatically makes me not want to vote for them!

I'm still working on my own personal candidate pros and cons list. Right now Paul has some serious cons for me, but he also has more pros than Clinton or Obama. I don't know if I could EVER vote for Dr. Paul as long as he has the R next to his name on the ballot, but neither will I vote for anyone for president just because they have the D next to theirs.

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:53:31 PM

  (0+)

     I will not pile on. I will simply offer that in my time on this planet I've been moved to support a presidential candidate with my sweat only twice. Bobby was the first. I was young and broken by his demise. Since then, I have steeped myself in pro active attentive reading, studying and putting my efforts into 'local' politics that for the most part are more responsive, altough lately I've noticed how, even at the local level, 'hands on' has moved to the haves.

     I will not bore you with all the nasty nefarious unconstuitutional actions that have occured in our country not only recently, but going back almost 100 years. Suffice to say sir, we are in a dire place where it regards the basic tenants of how this country shall choose to function.

     History has taught me how the struggle is not won and then all is well. As we hopefully apply our abilities in raising our families and getting through our lives, understanding each day is yet another to be diligently faced, we do just that. Face them. We do not leave when it's tough and we do not shun our children when they try out some less than desirable option along their way. And yes, our greatest hopes and efforts can implode, our beliefs dashed by powers that come with little concern for the wreakage they leave nor the empathy they lack.

     In the 'big picture' I do not claim to know what's more important. The life ahead or the life at hand. Or if there is even a choice. That I find myself HERE, I have made a conscious decision to attend to mine.

     I was born here, love it here, and though I am saddened by what I see and even more by what I've learned can occur when we lose our diligence, I have decided to allow my passion a revival. Enter Dr. Paul.

     No man or woman as president in and of themselves, can do anything alone. You and I and millions of us alive today were given a document 200+ years ago that placed the powers of government as responsible TO the people. History prior to our founding had given our fathers and mothers (who don't get the historical press that our fathers did, but believe me, they were there) enough information to impart protections into their documents that hoped to balance what for organized societies had never been done before. I am amazed and filled with admiration for what they gave us. But alas, they are words, able by the decisions of our appointed supreme court members to mean no more nor less than what they are determined to mean at any one moment. Personally, I think not electing our supreme court was an oversight that Washington, Jefferson et al would claim was worthy of a 'do over'. But that's spilt milk.

     Attacking you for your beliefs does neither of us any good. You see. I see. Hopefully, we will benefit from our differences because we honor them, not because we rail against them.

     I'm getting off subject. Pardon me.

     Now, I'm sweating for the second time. Let me be clear why.

     Dr. Paul is not the 'coming'. Nor is he going to have all the answers. Neither did Bobby. It is in his idea that for better or worse, and by the rules of our constitution, he is not supposed to have all the answers. His message is we do. We decide. He will guide. He will honor our right(s) as protected. He will follow the law, not make it. He will respond, not dictate. There is a difference. A big difference.

     Sorry to even say this let alone think it, but Dr. Paul, by putting himself in the position (yes, a longshot) of being elected, is very likely going to be in someones crosshairs. That HE knows this at the very least causes me to make the assumption that he truly believes in his message of liberty. Patrick Henry comes to mind.

      As you implied, there are many bandwagon Paul supporters. It is our nature in this country to find admiration and support for the underdogs. Our sports, our single moms and dads, our valient public defenders who for little or no money for a BMW, battle to protect those of us who can't piss in a pot and take our case because they have found 'principal' as their guide. Not our ability to pay. Our Karen Silkwoods vs. Kerr-Mcgees. The list goes on.

     Does it work? You tell me. Sometimes yes. sometimes no. Lately, I have to say that it IS NOT WORKING.

     I think Dr. Paul is a message. Simple. Many are fed up. Many. That's the button that's been pushed. The good part is that we are talking again about things that I believe are essential to a free society as we like to think we are. The concept of how WE function is finally being noticed by its inhabitants. The rest of the world is watching us too. In an interesting and unexpected way, people outside are helping to remind us what's at stake here. That Dr. Paul's message is actually being responded to around the world is evidence that we are not the only ones who are rooting. Not for him, but for us. The U.S. is in a fight. To save itself. I believe that. We are on the ropes.

     There are lots of good and great people here. Likewise the not so good or great. It is within the framework of what is fair that I hope we find our way through this. If we are to survive intact, if we are to be able to know with a good degree of confidence that our children will be left with the protections we were entrusted with and if we are diligent, then and only then will we have a chance to sleep well and wake again for another day of diligence. 

     Dr. Paul will tell you it's in his message. He's correct. His message is not to be taken lightly. He is demanding attention not to himself but to what he believes is our responsibility to act. Think about that for a minute. That's honoring anothers idea as being essential to having yours heard. Talking and listening are two art forms. Both die without the other.

      I have gone too long. Sorry. I am only a voice.

      I will close be saying I do not hold Dr. Paul as the last hope. As I think he'd agree, he is just one of many. As he may guide or drive us as our president, his is a timely reminder that we are the oil in the engine. 

     You and I may and shall disagree always. In honor of those differences we find our character.

     peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 2:29:47 PM

  (0+)

Nice piece of thoughtful soliloquy - I read you loud and clear.  But to speak to Mr. Lorenz, I believe you and I can observe this writer's hurting and disappointment to see these many scatalogical specimens pretending to offer themselves as future leaders of our country, and finding himself desagreeing somewhat with Dr. Paul's ideas about what a future president might offer us in our ignorant plebiscitary efforts, may actually be coming around to a decision to cast his vote, hopefully, for Ron Paul.

I have met Dr. Paul, talked with him at some length, had meals with him in San Francisco a couple years ago, and though I would find it difficult to accept his entire philisophical/political stance, I'm certain that should he be on the ballot (as either Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian0 I would have no qualms casting my vote for him willingly. He's honest, courageous and capable.

by nelswight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 7:12:56 PM

  (0+)

You have now successfully shown that people get defensive and hurt when you start off by calling them "shills" and "automatons".  It's clear that you were seeing the future when you predicted that you'd get comments filled with upset folks when you spewed out an article filled with such vitriol. 

The best part is that you can take the following comments out of context and present them as the hate filled rants of PAULIES without showing the 10 or so times that you preemptively insulted every one of them.   Dash cunning of you in every way.

by Andrew Morrow (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 2:53:27 PM

  (0+)

 ITS NO FUN HEARING SOMEONE THAT IS TOTALY BRAINWARSHED BY THE MASS MEDIS DECEPTION AND MISIFORMATION ITS SAD, YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO GET HELP.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 3:03:39 PM

  (0+)

You lost all credability with me when you supported the Patriot Act.

by B Tribble (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 3:21:31 PM

  (0+)

They do nothing to help the cause which should be recognized as the existential crisis that it is to stop the fascist juggernaut that has devoured this country for at least the past six and a half years and arguably a half century prior to that.

As somebody who has always been pretty much a lefty although am more increasingly drawn to libertarianism I am ashamed by people who do nothing else than slime Ron Paul and his supporters.

It is stuff like this that have made this movement possible and were the existing sham democracy and their two party punch and judy show truly interested in serving the will of the people then impeachment would NOT have been taken off of the table.

The same corrupt deal cutting spared the Iran Contra criminals from their destiny rotting in prison rather than in being restored with the 2000 neocon coup d'etat and subsequent modern day Reichstag fire of 9/11.

Time to get with the program and even for those who find it a bitter pill to swallow had best put this crap aside and unite to prevent the descent into fascism. We can deal with all of the rest of the differences later.

Just my two Cents

EE

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 3:46:25 PM

  (0+)

i think i have read almost all the commentary against this article by john lorenz.  what seems to be missing in these commentaries is a response to the substance of the article; ie, what does ron paul really stand for.  getting off onto emotional hyperbole seems to be a good excuse to ignore the real issues. first, every candidate claims to see the bad politics ongoing.  so paul is no different than anyone else.   but what is at core is the real values being supported.   paul is clearly anti-human and pro-business.  the author here makes mention of paul's stances on social programs but doesnt elaborate very well, i think.  and he misses the opportunity, as do most people, to frame the arguement as a value based issue.  i listened to a talk last week that began with the issue of values and called into question the core american values that began this country and are embeded in the constitution.  liberty, justice and equality and democracy are core.  without equality there can be no liberty, justice or democracy.  paul does not support these values when he refuses to look at the lack of equality in birth rights between people.  as a consequence, he has no problem in trashing social security or social welfare.  he, like so many others today, does not speak to the need for a society to ensure the well-being of all its citizens.  no, he, like the corporate thinking minds and the libertarians thinks that people who are born poor deserve to be poor and then what?  die from starvation?  he doesn't even understand that the poor make for multi-billion dollar industries such as the prison industry or the police institution.  create hunger, deny education, prevent health and you have people who will do whatever it takes to survive, including drug dealing and violence.  but paul's thinking, or total lack of it, promotes the idea of laissez-faire which will in some manner create equity.  there was a quote from john maynard keynes that i read this week:  "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard Keynes, British economist.  An oxymoron for our times!

by tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 4:12:13 PM

  (0+)

Sure sounds like it....

Ron Paul 08 ...... oh wait....sorry.....forgot I was in the wrong place....Hilary 08....am I cool now?

by TR (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 4:28:13 PM

  (0+)

As I found this story by following a news link from a news site, I hardly fall into your "fuzzhead" category, by your description. However, I was drawn to comment by your obviously slanted hatred of someone you really haven't researched. I'm curious as to where you acquired your "facts" before posting this article, and more curious why any site that wishes to be known as even modestly reputable would allow such an uninformed attack to stay on their site.

More importantly, however, is my confusion over your hatred of this man. If you are- as I assume based on your hatred of neo-conservatives, swift boat ads and the like- politically slanted towards voting liberal or Democrat, then by your own accounts this man is a godsend to you because you view him as unelectable. By your own arguments, this is the man you should want to go against next fall when you say "I doubt that more than 8-10 percent max of the public will vote for him, and I do mean MAX". Your candidate would most assuredly win, were they to go up against "an extreme form of right wing almost anarchism". I would think you'd be ecstatic, but you're not. You say "Ron Paul is a sign of the times: people are SICK of being oppressed by heavy handed, unresponsive and corrupt government" and "I do agree with Paul on several issues -- immigration reform, banking reform and getting out of Iraq and tax relief"- sounds like you are complimenting him here, but then you attack with such vitriol. Your disjointed arguments and illogical conclusions on just these points alone provide enough to doubt your arguments without reading much else. But I did.

As an avid follower of politics, government and elections since the age of ten (some played sports, I followed and watched elections), I have always been fascinated with the whys. Why are some candidates chosen, when others are so obviously more qualified. Why do Americans choose who looks good, rather than who IS good? Why do we vote to impeach for a hummer, but not for failing to sufficiently armor a Hummer in combat?

I have followed EVERY campaign avidly since they started rolling out (my Super Bowl is coming, and I like to know each teams' stats :)), and the Ron Paul campaign has been a fascinating one to watch. While not quite a supporter ( I haven't yet donated to any candidate), I have been intrigued by his positions and the fact that so many are finding their ways to his campaign. You can't deny his numbers- he gets lots of money from lots of donors (only $50-100 each, on average). He gets very little from large groups. He does not self-finance, he is not the favored son in his party. And yet, with such odds against him, he ignites the fire of those who do support him. Why?

If you read the Constitution, you see there is very little to be left to "interpretation". It is a very simple, yet very succint document. Over the years, we've added laws and programs at the FEDERAL level, where no authority to do so exists. These are programs that are, according to the Constitution, required to be left to the States to decide. If one state decides to enact statewide health care and another decides not to, then the "market" will make prosperous the state that best represents its people. A better system of government attracts a better breed of citizen. Ron Paul does not necessarily support the abolition of all of these programs outright, but he does at the FEDERAL level, where they are illegal, according to our Constitution.

And let's be honest about this point- no matter what one man wants to do, he still has to work within the confines of a legislative branch with its own priorities as well. While he won't succeed with all of his plans, wouldn't it be an interesting change of pace to know there is someone in office who actually believes in America, freedom and "OF the people, BY the people, and for the PEOPLE"?

Another misconception you have propagated is the appropriations for war in Iraq. As is taught in junior high (or middle school) civics classes, only Congress has the power to DECLARE war. We have yet to DECLARE war on Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anyone since World War II. Our Congress has only declared war five times in our history, all of which arguably ended in our favor. Wouldn't it be nice if we'd actually only been in five victorious battles? I'm no pacifist by any stretch, but the hurdles for declaring war are high for a very specific reason- they are costly, they are painful on society and they have tremendous consequences. In contrast, we have been in no fewer than a dozen "undeclared" wars (Congressional authorizations), with mixed results and at great costs. We don't declare war often, but when we do we play to win and we go all in. Dr. Paul believes this to be the best approach. Those who support him do as well, on the whole.

You say "Paul is for just eliminating the current tax system but I don't know how he proposes to make up for the government's need for revenue to do its business". Again, a short trip to his website, or even your much-maligned Google search, would give you some of the information you need. Our elected officials spend way too much money. We are in debt for the equivalent of a well appointed SUV for EVERY American man, woman and child. The federal government has borrowed over $35000 against my good name, your good name. Money I'm going to owe, you're going to owe and our children are going to owe to foreign governments. Except the credit cards have not even begun to be cut up, we're still borrowing at an ever faster rate! It's reminiscent of refinancing our mortgage at the peak of home prices, or buying Enron stock just before it's crash. At some point the bills will come due and we will be broke. We're already broke, we just fail to acknowledge it. Dr Paul, like any good doctor, wants a chance to perform triage and stabilize the country. Only once we're no longer bleeding out can effective treatment begin. A quick read of the- here comes that word you so dread to hear- Constitution reveals where the money can come from once the IRS is abolished, which is different from what you insinuate, which is that no revenue will come to the federal governement, which is untrue. Plenty of revenue can flow into the coffers of the Treasury without the IRS. Just read the Constitution.

In regards to your dismay over internet and tv polls that skew to Ron Paul- I watch those debates and see those polls and laugh with great satisfaction. I've never voted in one, I find them trivial at best. But you state "Yeah, so what? These polls mean nothing"- I disagree. The newscasts need something to report on, so they create the horserace mentality. It helps them think they have a say in who we elect, however, this year it appears to be backfiring on them. Individuals (not the campaign, another misinformed point you've made) have rallied to show just how every system that's been concocted to minimize participation in our election process can be broken and a message can get through. It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. Ron Paul supporters are definitely inventive when it comes to what they see as the necessity of getting their candidate's message out to the people. From the 5th of November, to the Ron Paul Tea Party, to the timeshare blimp idea, creative ideas are abounding, and it's NOT coming from the centralized campaign headquarters, but supporters. How many candidates can lay claim to such a passionate and creative base?

But, getting back to your point. Worst case scenario- his supporters are flooding a system that's very obviously broken and they have proven their point that polls are meaningless by doing so. If so, the system should be fixed to reflect true opinions of viewers. If the goal is to get those viewers to inflate the results of certain candidates, thereby annointing specific candidates, then they've shown that they can play with the big boys. However, best case scenario- he's tapped into a long dormant "silent majority", hungry for a leader who's ready to bring this country back from the precipice of impending fascism, and gasp!- they believe him.

Imagine the consequences of an election where the "peasant" non-voters came out and rallied around a common figure, a common cause. The type of revolution advocated by our founding fathers, the people wresting back control from those who for too long took for granted their assumed right to power, could restore this nation to its once proud history, where we can be that often promised shining city on the hill, rather than the shining flashlight of the police state in your eyes.

by The Phoenix (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 4:37:24 PM

  (0+)

Hey, John, here's a thought that may may you choke on the lumps in your Cream 'O Wheat: If the average donation has been only 50 or a 100 bucks we can keep donating like this for MONTHS. Don't even think about how the support is snowballing, none of us would want you to have a breakdown and be unable to write.

 Even though I'm a registered Repub, a business owner, husband, parent and community volunteer, you just keep calling me a fuzzhead.

by Big Dave (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 4:37:56 PM

  (0+)

 My first choice is Kucinich. What may be useful about Ron Paul is that we need one of these two to help kick our government’s crooked ass. If we don’t save this country first with a President and Congress now, none of the remainder will make a bit of difference regarding our future and the important issues we wish to retain and/or attain. Fortunately, most Presidents are not allowed to do everything they want by most Congresses with the exception of both the current administration and Congress.

I agree with Kucinich more on the overall issues and I think either Kucinich or Paul could push for the changes we want to see in our government. Dr. Paul is more apt to succeed in bringing these initial changes, in my opinion, that we do want providing Paul or Kucinich was to be elected as our President. But we need a new Congress capable of keeping all future Presidents in line with our Constitutional and Progressive objectives. It is always good that some members of the Progressive movement remain skeptical about those we might want to consider voting for.

This may be likened to turning out like chemotherapy, as sickening as it might be, in order to enable us to kill off the cancer in our Government. Mr. Lorenz seems to be speaking from his heart about the concerns we should all continue to be aware of, just incase we are overlooking something obvious. So I would continue to listen, comment and argue just like we are doing.

by Lance L. Landon (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 41 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 5:05:44 PM

  (0+)

That's right! Dennis is the only one to come out supporting Impeachment. He is the only doing what is necessary. Good going Dennis. You got my vote.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:01:06 PM

  (0+)

I hate to point out the obvious, but the bulk of the comments in response to you article seem to favor Dr. Ron Paul. I too am a Ron Paul supporter. I have a problems with some of his views, i.e. pro-life, but in the large context, given the erosion of rights & liberties, the one plus million dead Iraqis, the $1.6 trillions dollars spent on what??? Our country's IOUs held by China. Global warming out of control. Complete Orwellian control of the press in the US, and for that matter, the rest of the world,  I can go on and on. 

Our country is on the brink of an economic disaster, and you appear clueless. I could review the economic issues, but it would be like explaining calculus to someone who can not grasp algebra. However, it does appear most of the people commenting on your article do have a clue.

I respectfully recommend you look to the bigger picture. Ron Paul appears to be the only candidate who can lead our country out of the corporate wilderness and back to being a republic.

by Tom Johnson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 30 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 5:07:25 PM

  (0+)

Did anyone hear him on the weekly news show this morning?  Most of his ideas are great and except for the fact that he's batshit, religiously insane and believes the South was wronged by Lincoln, he'd be a far better Prez than Bush, that's for sure.  Of course, most of the candidates  would be better than that sick megalomanic sociopath in the White House today.

by kevns007 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 5:13:27 PM

  (0+)

Actually, Ron Paul is from Pennsylvania, so in Southern terms he is a Yankee however, it appears that Ron Paul is far more read on the subject of the War Between the States than you are. Religiously insane…hmmm, I would say that he has a pretty healthy view of religion, especially when it comes to politics. He has stated that it is best to keep the separate while maintaining the rights of those who wish to express their religious beliefs. By the way, I am a deist, so don’t get the wrong idea about me being some sort of fundamentalist Christian…I personally believe it is a bunch of superstition, but I also believe in the right of any and every individual to express their religion in any way they see fit as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

Now, if you had listened to Ron Paul on the subject of the War Between the States and if you had been up on history you would recognize that Dr. Paul was correct in what he said. 

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:56:54 PM

  (0+)

The Civil War could have been avoided?  Well, maybe if the South hadn't turned traitor it could have!  I don't know what else Lincoln could have done to stop the traitors than what he did with what he had at the consciousness level there was at the time.  In spite of the War, it still took over a hundred years for African-Americans to get a semblence of justice and equality  in the South.  The good ol' Jim Crow, traitorous, warmongering South.  Oh, did I miss something in my studies about the Jim Crow laws?  It wasn't just in the South?  Had Lee stayed loyal to the Union the war really would have been over in a few months.  Don't blame Lincoln, blame Lee.

And, religious insanity is not an oxymoron.  Paul is a pro-lifer regardless of whether that fetus is wanted, could be raised in a loving environment,  or if it was conceived involuntarily (rape or incest).  To me, that's insane.  But, as I stated before, with a democratic Congress to keep him in check, he'd make a hell of a better President than any of the other repugs.  He's right-on on foreign policy, the drug war, and the IRS.

by kevns007 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:14:18 PM

  (0+)

Gosh, you certainly know how to revise history. If you only knew just how ignorant your statements actually are concerning the War Between the States and Lincoln you definitely would have refrained from such utter non-sense. As far as the rest of your comment, that too borders on the simplistic.

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 6:25:35 AM

  (0+)

Gee, that's quite a rant for someone who is so very concerned about the other guy being a brainless ranter. Too bad that virtually none of your facts are correct, but I guess when you're having a mental breakdown that your babbling should not be expected to have much relationship to reality.

by Craig J. Bolton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 5:59:48 PM

  (0+)

Good Going Dennis!

That's right! Dennis is the only one to come out supporting Impeachment. He is the only #1 doing what is necessary. Good going Dennis. You got my vote.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:04:49 PM

  (0+)

I guess I am not long for this site. I read an article that is two pages of closely typed ad hominem and mischaracterizations obviously intended to defame a group of people and it is not flagged for abuse. Then I read a comment on that article that is much shorter and materially less abusive that is flagged. You know, if you're going to monitor a site like this [i.e., "Ideology is what counts in judging what is abusive, personal attacks don't matter."] you should say so up front so that your potential participants won't bother to take the time to register.  

by Craig J. Bolton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:06:30 PM

  (0+)

The surge I see is online.

 One thing that you can bet, is that Ron is going to gain more ground in Iowa and NH. I believe hes going to get more than 15%.

 I understand where you are coming from.. and it sucks some supporters are so livid. All I can say, is calm down folks.. it sure isnt helping our cause to spew venom.

 You are entitled to your own opinion. I just think RP is going to surprise alot of people.

by Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:18:57 PM

  (0+)

I second and third what Bill Douglas says about RP. John Lorenz obviously has a beef, probably a shill for the GOP, but when he

talks about Ron Paul-- he's all buns. JayveeNavy

by john vee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:22:20 PM

  (0+)

You don't need to feel left out any more. If you look and really examine the Facts you will find out that Ron Paul is the only one out there fighting for your rights. All the rest get most of there support from Big Business. For all I know you could be working for them. Are you on any of the Defense Contractors payroll; maybe Haliburton, Blackwater?  If not, come join in and even if you don't this movement is for all the people so you have nothing to fear unless you are one of Bush's Haves (vs the Have Nots) Base. 

You have been mislead by the mainstream media sir, now please, step away from your Telivision Set, put down that mainstream Newspaper as well.  One of the places to go for honest media fact checking is the Fairness in media site:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3108

Another excellent site is:

http://www.democracynow.org/

Also, you may want to read, Exception to the Rulers, written by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now TV/radio public access channel. It will open your eyes if you can handle the real truth about corruption in our Government and Cooporate America.

Another good read is, Al on America, written by Al Sharpton. Al has been given a bum rap by mainstream media but he has done a lot of good for African Americans. When he ran last election he ran for All Americans.

Finally, I'll close with the following Web Site:

http://freeatlast2008.com/

This a site to remember the birth day of Martin Luther King Jr and to commemorate this we are going to raise more money for the hope and dream of what America can be for Ron Paul's campaign than in previous fund raisers.  I'll tell you why, Ron Paul supports the continuing of Martin Luther's Dream. Yes, he is a follower of his and if you would open your heart and let it be your guide you would see this.

Thanks for sharing your opion and I wish you believed in the Dream of what America can become again, but no matter, you will enjoy the benifits no matter where you stand because we will overcome my friend.

Thanks and God Bless you,

Charlie

by CharlieFree (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:39:49 PM

  (0+)

For decades, both the Republican and Democratic Parties have given the American people scant choices. We have been served up a heaping helping of candidates that represent the entrenchment policies that have dragged this nation into the dirt for the last 40 years or more. Every four years we are invited to their political stage play with different actors but always the same ole screenplay. Each of these entrenchment candidates recite their respective lines according to script, right on queue, making their empty promises that we have heard recycled for years.

Each Party has had their candidates elected to the office of president and it rarely takes over four to six years for the American people to see that, once again, they have elected the same feckless leadership as they did before. These entrenchment candidates boldly speak with empty promises drooling from their lips, but offer no solutions to the real issues facing this country. The candidates that represent the entrenchment policies of both political parties will continue to do what they have always done: pander to their big special interest, bow down to the promise of filthy lucre and special privilege and yet they allow the country and its people to be plundered by those in power.

Except for Ron Paul, the rest appear to be little more than parasitic ticks embedded into the flesh of this nation, sucking the life-blood from this country and its people. It is time for a real change, one that will steer this nation away from the disastrous policies of the last 40 years.

This government has, over the past 109 years intervened into the internal affairs of over 200 sovereign nations and what has it gotten us? The failed foreign polices has done little to ensure our security and the proof of that is the crescendo of failure 9/11. With the Trillions of Dollars we spend, every single operating system in this nations defense failed on that dreadful day. That was a failure of leadership as much as it was a failure of a foreign policy that mimics the failures of other nations in the past.

Had our policies been a success, would we not see it by now, after a 109 years of economic, covert and military intervention around the world? Ron Paul is absolutely correct in his logic and rationale; it is amazing that so many are blind by the ambitions of war, drunk on its lure of power.

On numerous occasions, Ron Paul stood before the House of Representatives speaking out about the total lack of reason behind many, if not all of our foreign policies. He stated correctly that on most occasions this country has aided, armed, trained and entered into treaties with both sides of a conflict. He is correct when he states that this country has such an unfocused and broadly applied foreign policy that we fail to determine if our actions are actually in our Nations true best interest. In essence, we have no foreign policy only a conglomeration of miscalculations that tend to bite us in the ass more times than it actually provides us with security or solutions. We have spent decades and billions upon billions of dollars on programs, policies and decisions that have failed to provide us with any real solutions.

Ron Paul understands that America is not the Social Worker of the World any more than we are the Policemen of the World. Most, if not all of our foreign policy actions have not only proved feckless, but many times harmful to the actual security interests of the American People and this Nation. It is time that we returned rational thought to this government, restrained by a reality that few politicians on either side of the political spectrum grasp.

Dr. Paul also appears to be the only candidate that recognizes the fact that not only is the dollar collapsing on the global market, but that the underlying foundation upon which the dollar stands is also collapsing. Every single Federal Reserve Note is an IOU, a debt obligation and has been borrowed into existence. Soon the debt foundation on which they entire monetary system is based will overwhelm the economy by demanding more service than the economy can produce. Everything we know, our investments, our pensions, retirement, government programs and bonds, our 401ks, everything is based on a monetary system that has an inherent terminal point and it will follow every other fiat monetary system in history in its collapse.

I tell you this, if we don’t elect Ron Paul in 2008 then by 2012 we will all wish we had.

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:45:02 PM

  (0+)

Mr. McDonald:

You stated you've been with the Ron Paul campaign since June? Perhaps you could answer me this question.

During today's interview on Meet the Press Mr. Paul stated that our country is headed towards a form of "soft fascism." That's an understatement! Paul then went on to cite the movie Freedom to Fascism, a brilliant film by the late Aaron Russo. If I could just note that I'm outraged that Ron Paul didn't have the nerve to mention Aaron Russo's name today on Press. Russo, who recently passed was a courageous man, and a huge fan and often a guest on The Alex Jones Radio Show. Are you familiar with the show Mr. McDonald? Alex Jones who is also a courageous individual and sometimes labeled "tin-foil hat" has over the past year, interviewed Ron Paul several times. In-fact, during one interview I specifically recall Alex Jones discussing The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and how he and countless other Americans including myself believe were intertwined with 911, and that it was an inside job. Low and behold, Ron Paul was right there agreeing with Jones. Astounding! Considering the fact that just this past week Paul was interviewed by Glenn Beck and was asked flat out whether he thought the Trade Towers had been brought down by explosives? You should have seen th elook on Paul's face. He also couldn't say whether they had been or not.

What's most bizarre is that Paul cited Aaron Russo's movie today on Press, and had he watched the entire movie, would have noticed that Russo boldly speaks of how 911 was an inside job.

Mr. McDonald, what is Ron Paul's position on 911? He cannot have it both ways.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 7:30:37 PM

  (0+)

Dear John,

You wrote in your article...

"No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution (OK, so far, so good. I can agree with just about all of that). The last sentence, however, puzzles me because Congress DID vote to authorize the War in Iraq."

    What puzzles me is that you don't know the difference between authorizing a war, and the United States of America, through congress, declaring war on Iran. We never DECLARED war on Iran. Get it? Do you remember hearing about that thing we did to Japan and Germany back in 1941? Thats all that Ron Paul said. And By the way, In my own opinion, which could be wrong, but any body who calls Bush a liar (though he may be a moron) is just a big crybaby because Gore lost that election such a long long time ago.

Thank You.

by philip thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 8:26:22 PM

  (0+)

I find the author's subjective statement that many of Paul's supporters just yell "Constitution!" without knowing what it actually is completely reprehensible.  I myself am a young Dr. Paul supporter (I do not show up in polls), and last year my state had a Constitution test open to all high school seniors and I ended up getting 10th place in my state.  I have read the Constitution word for word, I know what it says and what it means, and for this reason I am a Ron Paul supporter.  Please refrain in the future for using such blanket statements to describe Ron Paul's supporters.

by mike phillips (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 8:34:52 PM

  (0+)

>I guess his answer is eliminate most or all government programs and let there be a return to the 1890's when needs simply were not met <

by Bart Phillips (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 8:37:12 PM

  (0+)

It is the political elite and not the american people who stand in the way of Ron Paul getting the nomination. Just like you said. As long as we continue to make that distinction then we know who is really in control of the voting process. Yes, indeed, something needs to change.

by John Call (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 8:45:07 PM

  (0+)

Libertarians have zero to do with the John Birch Society, and never have. 

We stand for individual liberty. The Constitution's purpose is to preserve INDIVIDUAL liberty, and protect INDIVIDUALS (not groups) from government. 

Dr. Paul keeps saying that, because no one seems to get it in the media, nor, apparently, do you.  

by Tom Keller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:16:45 PM

  (0+)

Actually, Presiident Bush's war czar said it was time to look at starting a new draft. That's what got those of us that pay attention fired up.

Do the math.  Military recruitments are far below target.  All the candidates, except Paul, are talking about extended presence in the Mideast.  Obama is even talking about mandatory public service.

Apparently they might really  need to actually spell it out for you, though? 

by Barbara Ann Mann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:37:42 PM

  (0+)

Free thinking Americans know that Ron Paul is the only candidate that can fix the problems that America faces today.  If you don't like the fact that Americans are waking up to your propaganda garbage then deal with it.  Tim Russert took the best presidential candidate since John F Kennedy and tried to make him out to be an idiot.  Good try corporate media but it won't work.  Americans are waking up and they don't have "Stupid" written on their foreheads.  You are an idiot and will be one of the first ones squealing "Help me! Help me!" if your same party neo-cons take the presidency away from Dr Paul and guess what?  You are on your own and the Americans that want freedom will win.  Take your bull and throw it somewhere else, we don't buy it.  I'm a 58 year old mother and I KNOW what America was like before the Clinton and Bush administration and you can't say anything that will suppress the truth.  America needs Dr Paul and "We the People"endorse Ron Paul!

by Katy Schmidt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:44:08 PM

  (0+)

You all have mothers that wear army boots, and you smell...

Ad homi-what?  Yall can't even speak no english. 

by sean dulac (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 10:52:21 PM

  (0+)

"once Paul's extreme libertarian views are scrutinized in the spotlight of the Tokyo Rose mainstream media"

"he will not be allowed by the Establishment elite"

"upset their globalist apple cart"

"he is not going to get far enough to become the Republican candidate. The Establishment elite will see to that"

SO YOU WOULD GO AGAINST YOUR CONSCIENCE BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY HAVE MORE POWER?...That's not the America I want to live in.

by Sara DiNicola (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:39:37 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is the only but brilliant voice on the warnings of globalism. If you are voting for any other you mind is simply controlled by the mainstreem media. Wake up before you bank account is worthless and none of your neighbors speak English.

Take that loan!! It's good for the economy - morons.

by Ches Cain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:51:06 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Lorenz, There's no need to wait for the name calling to begin. There's more than enough of that in your own article. On matters of substance, I beg you to cite evidence of any benefit that the Dept. of Education has produced and to consider how little federal money actually trickled down through the DHS to victims of Katrina. The Super Dome may have been rebuilt, but they're paying for wrecking balls to destroy any affordable housing that Katrina may have left behind. Furthermore, the welfare bums that Ron Paul is talking about are of the corporate variety.

by stevo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:23:07 AM

  (0+)

We have a vast number of people in this country who are tax protestors and drug users or both.  These people will follow anyone who offers them candy.  Like all Charlatans of the past, Ron Paul knows a lot less than he let's on.  Indeed, one of his heroes, Thomas Jefferson completely ignored the Constitution and an outraged congress by indebting this nation to France in order to complete the Lousiana Purchase.

I guess Ron Paul doesn't want to talk about that.

by Steve Fallon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:04:16 AM

  (0+)

In previous elections straw polls were important. Now that Ron Paul wins most of them, they're not. In previous elections money was important. Now that Ron Paul is getting more than anyone on the Republican side, all of a sudden it is not.

The only thing left that the MSM can point to and say, aha!!!, Ron Paul can't win are these telephone polls. And yet this is the one thing that Mainstream Media has direct control over and the polls can be easily manipulated. Anyone who knows anything about how polls are conducted knows that who you call and how you phrase the questions have a huge impact on the results of polls. And there already are signs (on youtube look up a few videos) that these polls have been tampered with. Seeing as the Mainstream media is already in the pockets of the military contractors, they have both the incentive and power to keep Ron Paul in the single digits.

I have to say that if I had a job in the Mainstream media, I would get down on my knees and pray to God (Even though I don't believe in God, I would want to take no chances) that Ron Paul supporters don't show up in mass because if they do they will DESTROY the MSM's credibility. But seeing how the MSM has tried to distract us while this country goes to hell, they deserve no better than to be utterly and completely humiliated.

by Andrew McDonald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:16:03 AM

  (0+)

IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO COULD COME UP WITH A BETTER CANDIDATE, STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, NOT PREFECT BY WHAT AMERICA NEED RIGHT NOW. EITHER WAY RON PAUL WOKE UP AMERICA TO THE FACT WE DON'T HAVE TO SETTLE FOR A CFR GLOBALIST CANDIDATE FROM EITHER PARTY.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:19:33 AM

  (0+)

The insulting tone of this article didn't help convince me that Paul isn't the best candidate any more than the arguments (or lack thereof) the author gives.

In fact, there's not one thing in this article that makes me even think twice about it. Ron Paul is the best man for the job, hands down.

The author seemed more interested in condescending to Paul supporters than in actually making a convincing argument why we shouldn't support him.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:49:45 AM

  (0+)

A few abbreviations will help shorten and organize this response to the first two paragraphs of your article:

1. Naked accusation without supporting evidence. (Not an argument).

2. Ad hominem

3. Childish taunting.

4. “Argument by sarcasm”

5. False statement

6. Quarter truth or less

7. “Argument by exaggeration or hyperbole.”

8. True statement

1. and 5. Ron Paul supporters (heirs to the Swiftboating shills of the 2004 election).

2. These fuzz-heads [name calling]

1., 4., and 6. Google Ron Paul's name three times a day [And, for those that do, what is wrong with participation in politics?]

3. (this will help them find my piece: 'Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul')

4. they'll comment on every web site that mentions him.  [And, what is wrong with participation in politics?]

6. If what is said is critical (they see it as derogatory) [But, isn’t that the point of your article, to goad your opponents into responding emotionally?  Or, would you say that the first two paragraphs of your article are critical, in the sense of employing critical thinking, rather than derogatory.  Certainly anyone can appreciate how derogatory your statements are, including this “fuzz-head”.]

5. and 6.  they will instantly become venomous and launch ad hominem attacks on the writer  [A few certainly will.  Aren’t you clever?]

1., 2., and 5.  kind of like what neo-cons did not that far back to 'libs' and John Kerry supporters.  [No, those attacks were unprovoked, premeditated, and planned by campaign staff.  Out of the 20% or so of Ron Paul supporters who respond to attack pieces with “venom and ad hominem attacks”, the vast majority are simple supporters provoked and angered by writers who resort to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.  If you kick people in the groin, expect a few to kick you in the groin.]  

1. and 5.  They go to every Internet presidential poll and vote for him repeatedly and then insist that America is madly in love with the man, because he won a poll they rigged by mobbing it.

8.  Paul is a congressman from Texas who calls himself a Republican

but is more of a neo-libertarian. [OK, this is a qualification; let’s see what the author means by Libertarianism.]

1. and 5.  Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is basically an extreme form of right wing almost anarchism.

6.  It is similar to 1960's Republicanism  [“similar” leaves a lot to the imagination; it’s very different, too.]

2.  a-la-'John Birch'  [ad hominem is not restricted to name-calling; simply linking a person’s name to an out of favor group is an appeal to emotion rather than reason.]

5.  in being kind of isolationist [although “kind of” leaves a lot of wiggle room, basically it is still false]

1.  very reactionary

8.  and insisting on localized, minimalist government  [Yeah, I suppose if you consider the fifty states to be “localized”.  And, isn’t the problem today that government is too big.  Aren’t Fascist governments typically too big???]

5.  (without thinking through the consequences).  [I know where this sentiment comes from, the idea that people cannot be trusted to behave ethically without the weight and authority of big government on their back.  It is distrust of the concept of liberty.  It is this sentiment also, that enables fascism to take root.]

6.  For the last 100 years now Libertarianism has called basically for the near elimination of the role of the Federal government

7.  and no replacement policy

4.  so that the country would have to trust everyone in society to behave on their scouts honor to do the right thing and make things work out.

 
Now, I think you will have to admit that I haven’t called you any names, haven’t “vented my ire”, nor have I told you that you are wrong about everything you have said, or accused you of “hating the Constitution” or “supporting those who wish to create and maintain the current rotten system”.  Rather, I hope you will understand and appreciate what a chore it would be to wade through all your: naked accusations, ad hominem statements, childish taunting, argument by sarcasm, false statements, quarter truths (half truth didn’t quite cover it), and arguments by exaggeration or hyperbole.  It would be like trying to respond to a Maureen Down column: long, painful, and wearying.  My suggestion is that you go back, eliminate the intentionally offensive material, do your homework, and write an article on the issues.  Simple, eh?

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:30:12 AM

  (0+)

and no one would comment and I've written steadily about it for MONTHS!

First off, Ron Paul is not the ONLY candidate bringing up the economic issues and his is not the ONLY solution. Things are surely much more complex than the Ron Paulites suggest and that is of grave concern.

Dr. Michael Hudson, Dennis Kucinich's economic adviser is well aware of the current state of the global (and US) economy! There is a THIRD WAY. A return to the gold standard is not the ONLY approach.  A real thorough acquaintance of what is shaking down as the US goes bankrupt is totally necessary in creating a nation that is not going to be torn apart by class war is a NECESSITY.

It is concerning that so many overt and covert racists have turned Ron Paul into their patron saint. The majority of those for Ron Paul are not the hard- done-by front of those eaten up by the corporatocracy - which is why his stand on immigration is SO backward.

He doesn't understand that to have a country have any semblance of stability that it cannot just throw out social security, either.

There are many scientologists working for his election (again, covert) as they want to have monopoly rights to THEIR healing, natural foods and supplement projects. They are NOT environmentalists at all.

The Ron Paul coalition is refreshing in its ability to get the "apathetic" involved BUT they are trying to find an Instant Answer, one that isn't going to truly answer America's problems in this 21st century. He leaves WAY to much to people's imaginations as he simply doesn't have a real platform, just ideologic views.

I like many of Ron Paul's positions, I even like Ron Paul - but I do not like his "coalition" of supporters at all. I find it very frightening.

If Ron Paul were so pro-Constitution as he SAYS he is, he would be harnassing all this energy and getting his supporters to organize an impeachment/war crimes effort!! The return to the rule of law is CRUCIAL if America is to be alive AT ALL. You see, any nation has an excuse to attack the US if the legal remedies are not pursued and in the US that means we must pursue IMPEACHMENT to end the war crimes and genocide - but Ron Paul is HEDGING! He obviously cannot read the Constitution! It's merely to get an enquiry, not a conviction that is being proposed and he cannot even endorse that when there are pages of corruption and law breaking already
alleged? I ask a Ron Paul supporter . WHY IS THIS?

Also, why DID he take the neoNazi money for his campaign? He says he doesn't want their support, but those who criticized it were thrown out of Meetup groups! Now this is the point at which I said I cannot support Ron Paul, not at all! Even if he isn't so "dangerous" some of his supporters certainly are not going to help heal this nation as they are being too quick to take everything hook, line and sinker rather than debating the merits or looking at the WHOLE PICTURE.

The election is not here yet, and anything COULD happen. Yes, the votes (2 million Greg Palast claims) are already caged and the voting is rigged. But I surely want to make sure that HiLIARY's little digits cannot get on that nuke button! But I am going to work hard to ensure that Dennis Kucinich does NOT get ignored in this bandwagon parade I see around Ron Paul. I feel real bad when a libertarian I like (and there are many), tell me that they feel badly about the hard heartedness of many Ron Paul appartachiks .. they're willing to compromise on that; I am NOT.

And I do want to point out - I thought the comment on the Patriot Act by Lorenz was absolutely rank and I wonder why that was "slipped in". Mis- or dysinformation? Surely, anyone knows better than THAT!

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 6:21:02 AM

  (0+)

My conclusion from reading these comments is that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are largely the same people who got enthusiastic about McCain in 2000, Perot in '92 and '96, and Reagan throughout the '80s.  In short, they'll support whoever convinces them he is an honest, "different" kind of politician and assures them "the government" doesn't really need much of their tax money.  Paul is by far the least charlatan of that group --  I think he really does believe most of what he says (which may be more frightening than the alternative) -- and on the issues of the war and civil liberties, I'm taking all the allies I can get.  Welcome.

These candidates don't always lose.  Reagan won, despite the fact that he turned out to be a snake oil salesman who robbed us all blind, whether or not he even knew it and most Americans still haven't figured it out. 

But I think Paul has ZERO chance of becoming president -- less even than Dennis Kucinich.  Kucinich is currently being blackballed by both the media and the Democratic party establishment, but those problems are at least theoretically surmountable.  Paul's problem is he is an anti-war candidate seeking the nomination of a party with a large majority who still believes the war was a good idea, and in fact, we're now "winning" -- in other words, the only group of people more delusional than Paul's supporters.  The best Paul can hope for is to be the last man standing against one of the other candidates -- none of whom can get the nomination, except that one of them must -- at which point he'll be squashed like a bug.  I doubt that the media will have to do much to facilitate the process, although they're there if needed.

The sad thing is this sudden and mostly healthy engagement in the political process by so many Paul supporters will then return to profound disillusion and frustration, and they will return to their old habits of sulking and whining about the government.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 7:56:24 AM

  (0+)

Thank you for the provocative article titled "The Ron Paul Surge".  At first I thought you were panning the Ron Paul campaign, but more likely you were inviting his supporters to show off some political naivete.  Or perhaps it's an opportunity to showcase the breadth, depth and diversity of a growing sea of support?

You noted some annoyance with his supporters.  I'm sure a lot of annoyance is being felt in certain circles.  We're not supposed to stray from the corporate mass manipulated messages.  Let the elite worry about us, we'll take care of Detroit, or Shanghai, or whatever offshore profit haven has been erected to fulfill our wanton consumerism.

What's really annoying, is that the old order is now under siege, and they may just do something desperate to stop this growing surge of discontent.  Those tactics would only feed the movement.  Their only choice is to resort to the worn out tactics of manipulation, control, and provocation.  But people are rapidly waking up to this as well.  In the end, if not 2008, very soon, this generation, this revolution, will give us exactly what we deserve for falling asleep at the wheel while our country and our world were repeatedly being  screwed.

And please don't try that Constitution dodge.  The elite has succeeded tremendously by keeping economics complicated and impenetrable for the average citizen.  The language in the U.S. Constitution, howvever, can't be any clearer.  Just because they don't let school children see this "subversive" document doesn't mean we're equally ignorant of its content or its intent.

by glitch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 8:35:53 AM

  (0+)

I guess I am one of the spambots who have nothing to do but sit in my mothers basement and Google Ron Paul and vote in Ron Paul straw polls over and over like a Pavlonian Rat looking for some Purina Rat Chow reward.

Get a clue Mr. Lorenz. Ron Paul is habitually ignored and excluded by media outlets and their polls. After witnessing several debates. Ron Paul has refused to kowtow to that particular room, that particular day.

After meeting Paul, I was was impressed by his honesty and avuncular nature. Ron Paul has earned my respect and financial support.

Over time, I have witnessed Huckabee slowly embrace Paul's platform, then claim it as his own.  I have witnessed Giuliani embarras himself with poor choices for associates and partners. I have witnessed Romney lend himself money and get cozy with Blackwater managers.

These candidates can not buy the passion and support Ron Paul supporters give freely to Ron Paul. The supporters all see the media bias. They are sending you a message John.

by JesusLovesDick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:24:05 AM

  (0+)

The virtue of selfishness lives on inside the cultish minds of Ron Paul supporters.  A right wing Christian authoritarian like Ron Paul expounding the Randian Virtue of Selfishness finds his own sort of Christian ideology within it that encompasses both in a complimentary dogmatic fashion. How dreary the world would be if there weren't the right wing libertarian likes of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul with their cult like bobble-head followers to justify selfishness and vilify altruism. Our right wing American Libertarian movement is neither liberal nor libertarian.

Without Randians and other Libertarian capitalist hucksters there would be no childlike faith and dogma in Objectivism expounding its Virtues of Selfishness. A 'virtue' is conformity to a standard of decency. It is a positive form of moral excellence and an admirable quality. Portraying selfishness to be a virtue like right wing Libertarians do in America is just plain absurd.

 American 'capitalist' Libertarians are nothing more than anarcho-hucksters. Many of them falsely portray themselves as liberals or progressives when they're nothing more than social darwinists - a euphemism for racist. Every 'Western' capitalist libertarian I've encountered on the internet [as in spoken to these confounded irrational beings in length] are anarcho-hucksters - like this leftist hating social darwinist nutjob called John Ray and this looney toon Christian anarcho-huckster called Kevin Craig - always running for office on a libertarian ticket, but never winning.  Ron Paul may have an impressionable cult following as evidenced here, but he's merely a lesser whackjob version of both those previous libertarian fruit loops mentioned....

Some modern day psycho-therapists and philosophers like Nathaniel Branden, an associate of hers for 18 years, writes in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" that anyone who agrees with Rand's philosophy in its entirety, viewing it as an integrated whole, is approaching it as dogmatic religion. Liberatarians presenting themselves in a guise of Anarcho Capitalism are but a pretense for a 'new' 'right' presenting no significant difference from republicans but less govt in an attempt to disguise ideologies.

It is now generally understood that the Libertarian Party is and was heavily influenced by the Objectivist movement. Don't buy into that 'Objectivist' crap touted by Randians, supposed anarcho capitalist Libertarians nor Ayn Rand's irrational virtue of selfishness requiring her view of 'man' as 'noble' creature. Former Rand disciples hold key positions in the libertarian movement viewing her as a Libertarian in philosophy -- even though a 'real' libertarian can not be a capitalist and Rand attacked libertarianism for refusing to accept the more technical aspects of her philosophy.

The anarchist movement has a tradition dating back over a hundred years of opposition to capitalism. This new concept, "anarcho-capitalism" as it's called by its proponents, flies in the face of this history just as you do the same in dogmatically denying, then re-defining American History in forcing it to fit the present GOP model of Christian Theocracy. Anarcho Capitalism is probably better described as "libertarian capitalism," which is similar to extropianism and contemporary party libertarianism in the United States.

According to political compass.org, that uses both an economic dimension and a social dimension to determine one's 'political compass' in a quadrant continuum, Ron Paul's policies show he's not a left or a right libertarian, but instead a right wing authoritarian - which translates closest to the political views of a fascist. Like Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, Ron Paul will continue deregulating capitalism. Deregulated corporations are addicted to greed like a crack addict is to crack - both entities become more predatory to satiate their insatiable addictions.

As one can expect, all GOP candidates running for president in 2008 are in this 'right wing authoritarian' quadrant, but what's most alarming is that all but 2 Dem candidates, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, are also in this very same RWA [right wing authoritarian] upper right quadrant sitting next to the likes of Hitler and George W. Bushitler.  Our 2 party political system unseen in most all democracies is now a 1 party right wing system. The GOP NeoCons are the far right and all the Democrats running, except Kucinich and Gravel, would be considered moderate conservatives in any other western democracy.  Take the political compass test yourself to see where you end up on the political quadrant. You'll find me deep in the lower left quadrant near the respectable company of Ghandi and Nelson Mandella.... 

Ron Paul's navie old American economic stance is a laissez-faire throwback to the 19th Century. Bush has bankrupt our nation with his policies of economic deregulation along with his imperialistic mid-east policies. Deregulation by the Feds is just what corporations want and need to feed their addiction to greed, and that's known as corporatism - a primary element in fascism....

by Adnihilo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:56:25 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt

After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.

But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.

Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.

Looks like you're running the plays directly from the "The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul"

http://www.libertymaven.com/2007/12/19/the-official-media-guide-to-attacking-ron-paul/

by nmlifestyles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:51:35 AM

  (0+)

Some Comments:

1)      I am not sure how Ron Paul supporters are associated with the swift boat “shills”.  I would like to see some evidence of this association or just an elaboration as to how they are related.

2)      I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I do not expect to launch an “ad hominem” attack on John Lorenz.  I am going to look through the comments to see if there are many personal attacks.   Mr. Lorenz may be correct on this point.

3)      I don’t vote repeatedly on internet polls, but I probably do google Ron Paul a few times a week on Google news.  I don’t know if that shows up in the statistics.  I am just doing this because I am interested in Ron Paul news.

4)      I acknowledge that America is not madly in love with Ron Paul.  I think that about 8% of Republicans would vote for him if they had to choose one republican candidate today to be president.  (I think the current poll numbers are slightly biased because they are restricted to Republicans that voted in the last election and they also exclude people that do not have a land line.)

5)      I agree with most of the assertions Lorenz wrote in the paragraph starting “Paul constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation were the only true interpretation….”.  Although is tone is derogatory and somewhat sensational, he does get the core beliefs of us Ron Paul supporters correct.  I would like to know what he means by “Giveaways to the Rich”.  (Note that currently the top 10% of income earners supply about 65% of all income taxes.)   I am rather sure that Ron Paul supporters have an above average knowledge of the contents and wording of the constitution.  It is a frequent topic at our gettogethers.

6)      On the National Security section of the article, I agree with Lorenz and I think most other Ron Paul supporters would also agree with him.  (So, for the record, Congress did not make a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, BUT it did authorize the war with a bill.  Ron Paul voted against this authorization unlike every other candidate that was in Congress at the time.  I think he should be given credit for that.)

7)      I agree with Lorenz’s position on Taxes, Social Security, the internet polls, and the “unresponsive and corrupt government”.  I am not a fan of the department of Education.  I would give that one the Axe.  Also, if you do ask 100 random Americans about Ron Paul I think you would get about 85 blank stares (rather than 98).  (That 85 potential votes!)

8)      Ron Paul may split the Republicans, but I (a Republican) currently HATE the current administrations policies and thus I hate most of the current republican policies.  I will definitely vote for any Democrat rather than vote for Giuliani, Romney, or McCain.  (Not sure about Huckabee.)

9)      I hate the Patriot Act.  I feel we are moving toward a police state.  I would rather lose American lives to terrorism (and risk the lives of my loved ones) than lose the freedoms we love.  (We lost more than 500 American soldier lives in Iraq during the last year.) 

Good day.

by Hans S (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:57:43 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul for GOP,  Dennis Kucinich for DEM and Cynthia McKinney for GP.

What is important is not what Dr Paul believes, what is important is that he believes that we all have the right to exercise our constitutional authority to speak freely and live with minimal government interference.

If not Dr. Paul . . . then who?  

by Edward Rynearson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:22:15 AM

  (0+)

See my other post for comments on the entire article. 

I read about 25 of the comments and here is how I break it down:

Comments characterized as Ad hominem in my mind (attack on the author with or without facts): 6

Comments with mild criticisim of the author, but mainly factual:  3

Irrelevant Comments : 9

Relevant Comments: 10

So I would say that most of the comments are pro Ron Paul and about half of those are "ad hominem".  Lorenz may have a point here (although his article is derogatory toward Ron Paul supporters).

by Hans S (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:22:16 AM