The Decisive Do Not Vote Ron Paul Guide

What is the decisive do not vote for Ron Paul voting guide? His voting record (David, Orcinus):

In the comments thread to my previous post on Ron Paul, the indispensable Trefayne compiled a series of posts on Paul’s track record as a congressman, particularly those bills he sponsored or co-sponsored.

Here’s Trefayne:

What’s more, consider Ron Paul’s record in Congress. Not that he’ll ever occupy the Oval Office, but what would he do after pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq? His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has proposed, not merely voted on, but sponsored. And you can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which suggests they are important to him.

So what are Ron Paul’s positions?

  • Anti Choice
  • Anti Gay
  • Anti Worker
  • Anti-Democracy
  • Anti-Environment
  • Pro Corporation
  • Pro Discrimination/Racism
  • Against the International Criminal Court
  • Anti-Government Education

Ron Paul provides liberals, progressive, and classical Republicans with their own reasons for utterly rejecting his candidacy. For some his opposition to a federal minimum wage, safety standards, and anti-union policies might be enough. For others, his continued attempts to weaken and eliminate public education. I think we can all agree Paul’s support of the electoral college is bullshit. The positions he takes are those of a man who opposes any sort of government regulation, be it anti-trust, pro-environment, or anti-discrimination. Ron Paul is a schizophrenic anarchist/totalitarian, who wants complete power to regulate abortion, sexuality and other religious matters, but wants to essentially eliminate federal government, taxes, environmental protection, public education, regulation of corporations, and participation in any international bodies.

Beyond all of this, Ron Paul is a marketing home run for the far right extremist crowd:

Because as I’ve been explaining in some detail (along with Sara), Paul has so far managed to pull off something of a neat trick: Appearing thoughtful and principled, even though his beliefs and principles are largely derived from the extremist far right — a fact that he’s wisely muted in the campaign.

Ron Paul is more than just an outlet for the radical right. He is a successful re-branding for the hate/conspiracy theory branch of the Republican party. And as for the common view that the extremists he attracts are not his fault (Orcinus, emphasis mine):

Paul himself doesn’t necessarily believe these things — but the theories themselves are so thoroughly rooted in racial and anti-Semitic animus, often playing the role of providing a thoughtful “academic” face to smooth-talking racists like David Duke, that it’s hard not to hear Ron Paul holding forth on them now and understand perfectly well where those ideas are coming from, even if it’s never acknowledged. Though having seen Paul work the militia circuit in the 1990s certainly gave me a good idea.

It’s quite clear who these theories are speaking to, as well. It’s odd that a normally sharp-eyed reporter like Edsall can’t see that. Evidently, he’s fallen for the “libertarian” cover schtick without looking further to see what that really entails.

It’s “not Ron Paul’s fault” he attracts extremists only if the positions he’s staked out, and the beliefs he advocates, aren’t his fault either.

Ron Paul is an extremist in mainstream clothing, a radical Republican hiding behind a independent/libertarian stage mask. His voting record and his rhetoric say otherwise. Are we listening?

(image source: this guy’s awesome forum sig)


37 Responses

  1. You are so wrong about Ron Paul !

    You have totally misrepresented him.

    He is not agains’t Gays and the other special interests on you list. He is for freedom and right of the individuals and the states where proscribed by the Constitution !

  2. Tim,

    I am dead on about Ron Paul.

    We are talking about his voting record.
    You can continue saying “he is for freedom” and all that other unsubstantiated bull Ron Paul supporters keep blindly shoveling. It won’t change his voting record.

  3. As weak a cry as Tim’s was, he was right, and you remain having smeared and misrepresented someone. This is not good ethics.

    Today’s corporations lobby hard for strong regulations and government power, confident in the knowledge that they have the lobbyists, the lawyers, and control of resources to keep the beast of government their servant against the people. Men like Ron Paul represent the public that’s been so shut out by the efforts of the elite.

    Those who live in glass houses should throw no stones. As you advocate for illiberal causes by the language of equality don’t be surprised when people accuse you of shovelling bullshit.

    Besides, on a more stylistic note, the epithets of racist and homophobic are pathetic. Ron Paul is so blatantly staked out against both positions that you undermine your own point by trying to couple any analysis of his record with those two smears.

  4. N. Pannbacker,
    You say I have smeared Ron Paul, and Misrepresented him. How? Is a person’s record in Congress a smear? (I have to say, as wrong as you are, very nice phrasing).

    Men like Ron Paul don’t represent the public. Lots of corporations lobby for weaker regulation, or for no regulation at all. Net Neutrality vs the Telecom companies is a prime example of this. Opposing regulation is a pro-corporation stance.

    You are thus far the only fellow shoveling bull.

    As for the homophobic/racist label, his record stands clearly in support of that. He’s opposed the civil rights act, made sweeping statements about the criminality of black males, and supported don’t ask don’t tell, as well as opposed gay marriage.

  5. “Opposing regulation is a pro-corporation stance.”

    EXCUSE ME? BULLSHIT-o-meter’s needle bent on that one.

    Stretch the truth more. If he were opposing state regulation then yes you may be right, but federal regulation is the theme. If a state makes bad regulations then the corporation doesn’t have to do business in that state.

    Oh, never mind that last part as NAFTA made it a moot point and the North American union will stick a fork in it.

    Another point is that after the last debate CNN reported that the North American union is a fantasy in Ron Paul’s head. Great bit of reporting there.

    The debate was a farce as are your attempts to find an iota of substantive backing to your “homophobic/racist” comment. Furthermore opposing a law or an act by it’s content and not it’s name is the proper way to uphold your oath of office you moron.

    Just because the name is “the civil rights act” doesn’t mean it’s just or civil. Although I’m sure you’re an expert on it. You’ve probably read it three or four times and consulted experts on the validity and constitutionality of it so I better not challenge you on it.

    Plus you got the Race-ee-L-U on your side. Oh yea, I forgot, my argument is old and tired on that one as you have told me in the past. Only problem I think you really have with my argument there is that I’m correct, not that it’s old and tired.
    Who’s in denial here?

  6. Because you’ve interpreted his views through your own narrowly defined versions of political discourse.

    I’ve read many of the bills proposed by Dr. Paul as linked to the Library of Congress on Ornicus’ website. Each one that I read (I scanned some others) revealed exactly what I expected: not racist, homophobic drivel, but eloquent defenses of the constitutional limitation on the federal government.

    For example one HR 300.3:


    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

    (1) shall not adjudicate–

    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

    If you read the beginning of this document, he bases his argument not on some supposed moral inferiority of homosexuals, but rather the unconstitutionality of a overly-aggrandized federal court. In dismantling the federal court system viz. homosexual marriage and discrimination issues he is trying to push moral justice to the level of smaller entities of moral inquiry, namely the states.

    Your characterization of Dr. Paul as a racist/homophobe is a misrepresentation because you’ve confused his motivation with more nefarious ones. It’s tantamount to accusing someone opposed to the War on Terror as supporting Osama Bin Laden.

  7. for the record here is Dr. Paul’s rationalization of his desire to limit ADJUDICATION of these cases as written in the same bill. Please note the difference between lack of power of adjudication (meaning shall not have the authority to judge) and denial of rights.

    The Congress finds the following:

    (1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish’.

    (2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.

    (3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations’ as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

    (4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).

    (5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.

    (6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.

    (7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    (8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.

    (9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade’ 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).

    (10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

    (11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    I must reiterate that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that belief in states rights equates to racism, in much the same way that it would be so dishonest to claim that belief in socialist economic systems equates to Stalinism and Gulag Archipelagos.

  8. “Intellectually dishonest” not from a purely legal/historical perspective. States rights have come to the forefront in at least to major occasions, slavery and segregation. The term has become a code word for many who have supported and still support the basic philosophical underpinnings of those movements. It has been Federal action (see 12th, 13th and 14th amendments as well as the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Law, specifically Sec. 1981) that has hampered such movements.

  9. Michael D,

    “Opposing regulation is a pro-corporation stance.”

    EXCUSE ME? BULLSHIT-o-meter’s needle bent on that one.

    You might want to get that checked out. Removing regulations and letting corporations act as they will leads to abuse. This is historically verifiable fact. It is also Ron Paul’s lamentable position.

    I’ve presented you with the evidence for Ron Paul’s positions on Gay rights, Civil rights, etc. You just refuse to look. A man doesn’t against prosecuting cross burning, oppose the civil rights act, state that black men are more likely to commit crime and are “fast runners”, bring far right conspiracy theories like “the world is controlled by Jewish bankers” into the mainstream, give speeches to hate groups, and use the same rhetorical methods racists used to oppose the civil rights movement without at the very least being worthy of suspicion. Just being faithful in politics is never enough to win the support of any but your allies.

    And yet his bill would have precisely the effect you claim he does not intend. Of course he’d base is reasoning on his own interpretation of the constitution. Ron Paul isn’t an idiot. He isn’t going to say in the bill that “we need to stop them gays from marrying and make sure those sluts have babies”. But that’s exactly what he is trying to do.

    Your characterization of Dr. Paul as a racist/homophobe is a misrepresentation because you’ve confused his motivation with more nefarious ones. It’s tantamount to accusing someone opposed to the War on Terror as supporting Osama Bin Laden.

    Far from it. He’s stated his views on religion v state, abortion, and gay rights. And then he’s working on bills that achieve those views, they simply do so via “state’s rights”. If someone opposed the War on Terror and also said “Osama is right, we need to actively support him”, then you’d have a comparison. But that is not the reality of the situation. At all.

    The distinction between adjudication and rights is a clever one, but empty when the reality of a lack of legal recourse settles in. This is in fact a great example of why Paul’s positions aren’t what they seem. If a politician says he opposes abortion, but supports your right to get one, and then passes a law that would allow states to pass legislation denying you that right, and also prevent you from challenging it in court, wouldn’t you be just a bit suspicious?

    He’s using state’s rights a cover. You need to look underneath it.

    Thanks for the historical perspective. And this isn’t to say that defining some issues at the State level isn’t desirable. Its just that when it comes to rights, they should be guaranteed across our nation.

  10. Free country. Don’t like state laws? Move!!!!! That’s the beauty of being free. You can always relocate.

    If enough people don’t like the policies in a state and they move (Massachusetts for example) then the state needs to consider reevaluating their policies.
    Checks and balances???

    You think that might be what the founders intended? No of course you don’t, you think it’s so men like Ron Paul can rule the world. You are insinuating that by consistently following the oath to uphold the constitution for so many years he has been vying for the supreme commander position all along. That’s just ridiculous. Your assertions that by opposing federal regulations (unconstitutional) he is approaching his ulterior motives. Tell me then, what does that say about all the politicians that shirk their oath? Hmmm?

    You just can’t comprehend the distinction of states rights being superior to the federal government. He’s using states rights as they were intended to be used. Within the oath constraints. Something no other candidate even attempts to do as consistently as Dr. Paul, yet you would have your readers believe that you know better. You would also attempt to distort the entire situation so as to bad mouth the man. Not very commendable. Not very honest.

    You think that the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper it seems. (Nice job George and Fitness). When you rewrite it I’ll go with how you interpret it but until then I’ll go with the meaning of the actual document.

  11. “the world is controlled by Jewish bankers”

    Do you deny that the central banking system is the most powerful business in the world?

    The fast runners comment is still tightly in your grasp yet the facts of genealogical traits still elude you.


    Real votes or what? Take part in all polls especially if you are anti Paul. This would serve to shed some light on his supporters.

    Question: Why can no other candidate generate the support and loyalty that Paul gets?

    My Answer: His plan is the best one presented (lesser of all evils).

    Vote in this poll especially if you oppose Paul. Have others spam it if you like (if they can?) just to have a litmus test.

  13. Free country. Don’t like state laws? Move!!!!! That’s the beauty of being free. You can always relocate.

    That is ridiculous. Why should people have to move if the majority of a state passes laws that infringe on their rights? What if it isn’t practical for a family to move? What if the burden of the move is enormous?

    Your assertions that by opposing federal regulations (unconstitutional) he is approaching his ulterior motives. Tell me then, what does that say about all the politicians that shirk their oath? Hmmm?

    Your arguments are full of red herrings. Try to stay on point. States rights is a sham, not a noble cause. It is the wool the bigots who opposed the civil rights movement tried, unsuccessfully, to pull of America’s eyes. It won’t work this time.

    “the world is controlled by Jewish bankers”

    Do you deny that the central banking system is the most powerful business in the world?

    What on earth are you trying to say here?

    The fast runners comment is still tightly in your grasp yet the facts of genealogical traits still elude you.

    Oh I see now. So the fact that all Black people are in fact fast runners means Ron Paul isn’t a racist for saying so. That’s brilliant.

    (That Ron Paul poll is a ridiculous ploy. Simply title anything Ron Paul and the frothing crowds descend and vote. Or do you mean to suggest that 96% of all voters really truly prefer Ron Paul to anyone else?)

  14. You made a claim that Ron Paul’s assertion about the Jewish bankers is a far right conspiracy theory is saying what? You’re attempting to paint him as a theorist? What I’m saying here is the central banking industry is controlled by Jewish owners and is the most powerful organization in the world so he is correct and you have a curious way of answering my question with a question.

    The Ron Paul poll is an excerpt of Ron Paul’s supporters ideas and articulations. If you read any of the comments you might find that there are intelligent people supporting the man. Not pot smoking, hippie, racist, bigot, xenophobes as you would incorrectly have your readers believe. They are real people with real concerns. You are saying that you are the one that decides what is ridiculous and what is meaning full and I am saying you are out of touch with the reality of the worlds problems.

    You push your short sighted agenda on supporters of your narrow minded views and have a big ole Liberal pat each other on the back party at the expense of the people who really, genuinely require a voice and support.

    And if all else fails you can always slander ideas that you either can’t comprehend or accept as valid as they don’t apply to your selfish little world. When was the last time you helped someone in need? I mean someone really in need not some poor excuse for a poster child to one of your personal goals. States rights is the law not a sham. Good thing your not a judge. States rights interfere with your socialist dream that’s why you call it a sham. What’s really a sham is your constant whining about the constitution like it’s not important and we could have a lot more of your socialist dreams come true if it weren’t for “just a piece of paper” Again I say fitness you have a lot more in common with George Bush than you let your readers know.

    The fast runners comment is no reason to wage a racist war. The context of the comment has been explained and you don’t accept the explanation because it goes against your case of this article. There is nothing decisive about your guide except the will that you possess to smear a candidate that is not from your party. If Ron Paul didn’t matter and isn’t going anywhere in this candidacy then why do you devote so much time to counter the man? There are a lot of politicians in this race that are more dastardly than Ron Paul and they are on both sides of the isle. Yet you concentrate on Ron Paul. And your focus is conjecture and opinion mostly.

  15. Michael D,

    What I’m saying here is the central banking industry is controlled by Jewish owners and is the most powerful organization in the world so he is correct and you have a curious way of answering my question with a question.

    I wanted to hear you say it. You’ve confirmed that you are an anti-semite. Its difficult to respond to such ignorant hate speech. And it is wholly and willfully ignorant. Jews do not control the world’s banks. It is also hate speech. It feeds one of the oldest and most grotesque lies, lies that fueled sympathy for the nazis even into WWII.

    As far as State’s rights, what we are really talking about is moving questions of rights to the state level. This means that some states will protect rights, and others will not. Hence even the pretense of caring about protecting rights is utterly incompatible with defining rights at the state level. Ideally rights should be at the world level. If you believe in free speech, you work to expand where that right is recognized, not shrink it. And that is precisely what Ron Paul is doing by advocating state’s rights.

    I devote time to counter Ron Paul because I have an interest in exposing and defeating far right extremism. Ron’s rhetoric is a case in point of sliding that extremism into the mainstream. Another good example is Huckabee. In fact the Republican side of things is rife with extremists who put on mainstream masks and scream “socialist! liberal!” at any who dare question them or their policies. But those questions are not going away.

  16. You are absolutely pathetic. You were waiting for me to confirm what? Confirm that you could now go ahead and compare me to NAZI’s. That is the slimiest way to make a point. You couldn’t wait to start name calling. Ignorant. That’s the best you can do? Pathetic.
    You’ve called me almost every name in the liberal arsenal by now and you always manage to substitute name calling where you are avoiding a topic/subject/point.
    I’m not doing it for you because you won’t believe me even if I did. You look up the world bank and the central bank and the federal reserve and who’s in charge. When you’ve educated your self I’ll be here waiting for multiple apologies.
    Don’t substitute name calling for lack of knowledge on a subject. Do some research. Inform yourself. But having a 10 year old mentality doesn’t make you look good.

    If you are thinking of telling me that, “just because the major policy makers and officials of these institutions are of jewish backgrounds doesn’t mean that Jews control them”, then I won’t expect an apology because your beliefs are not realistic and couldn’t possibly accommodate you being wrong yet again.

    “In fact the Republican side of things is rife with extremists who put on mainstream masks and scream “socialist! liberal!” at any who dare question them or their policies”

    Funny because I hear the same bullshit mud slinging on the republican sites directed at democrats. Further proof that party loyalty equals personal ignorance and divides our country.

  17. “Jews do not control the world’s banks. It is also hate speech. It feeds one of the oldest and most grotesque lies, lies that fueled sympathy for the nazis even into WWII.”

    Still waiting for that apology for you lying and calling me the liar……..

  18. You claim Jews run the worlds banks, and expect an apology? Wait as long as you like. You’ll not be getting one.

    Not when you spout tired old anti-semitic racist drivel, and expect me to “do the research”. That’s just insulting.

    (BTW, I waited because I did not want to assume that you were such an anti-semite.)

  19. You are wrong. The list of the people we are talking about is there. You either won’t look it up because you are obstinate and think you are right or you know the answer and don’t want to accept it. Either way that makes you a cynical liar.

    Alan Greenspan federal reserve
    Ben Shalom Bernanke federal reserve
    Paul Dundes Wolfowitz world bank
    Robert Bruce Zoellick Too many connections to mention
    James Wolfensohn world bank
    Robert Greifeld stock exchange
    Joseph Stiglitz world bank
    Ernest Stern world bank
    Eugene Meyer world bank

    The list goes on and on and it’s historical as well because the names of the past members is also a matter of public record. You have the balls to lie and call me names and insist on being ignorant. That’s your choice. But you don’t know me and how could you? You already know everything as you profess here on this site. You couldn’t possibly have room in your narrow mind to learn more.

    Tired old anti-semitic racist drivel? That’s how you regard the truth? You’ll never know the truth if you avoid it…

    What’s truly insulting is being ignorantly (and wrongly) called names by someone who when confronted with the truth and the facts, insists that he is still right and I am a &73_(*(#^%^ (insert lame infantile derogatory tag here).

    I waited to say this because I didn’t want to assume you were such an idiot…

  20. Michael D,
    As you did here:

    Sorry I must have backed over the Korean topic ending, but to finish my thought, to think that a single Korean would live in a bigot neighborhood alone is far fetched. First off Koreans are very intelligent and second off they have a great sense of self preservation. In addition they are very racist as are most Asians. That is not a racist remark that is first hand knowledge. I can elaborate if necessary.

    and here:

    The Asian community admits they are racist. In Thailand if you go to a bar or a restaurant or a Mui Thai arena there is a sign over the door stating the price for “Thai’s” and the price for “others”. Similar situation in all Asian countries. I don’t have to know most of the Asians in the world to know this especially if they admit it openly.

    You’ve tried desperately to prove your points, refusing to even look at the glaring holes in logic. You prefer to act offended when I correctly assess your statements as racist.

    You think all Asians are racist, and you’ve cited “well they said it” as if that were proof. You’ve sided with Ron Paul and stated black men are faster, and cited the Boston Marathon results as proof (it turned out to be mostly Kenyans coming in first, not a random sampling of any black male as one would expect if skin color somehow translated into speed). And now you’ve stated Jews run the world banks, and instead of citing your ideological roots in racists like Ford and the nazis, you’ve picked a couple example of Jews who held positions in banks as if that were proof. As though Lewis Preston or Barber Conable were Jewish. As if that would even matter. If a few people who have headed banking and financial institutions have been Jewish, that is a far cry from “The Jews run the Banks”. A few Protestants have been the heads of these institutions as well. Does that mean Protestant Christians are running world finance?

    What you’ve stated is not a truth to avoid or confront. It is a logical fallacy wrapped in a historical ignorance and bigotry that wouldn’t know what to do with respect were I to grant it. Your argument has no merit.

  21. You are truly fucked in the head.

  22. I am sorry that is the only response you could come back with.

  23. Responding to the deliciousness above, from a person that denies that the ACLU is a racist organization, is a waste of my time and breath.

  24. Your delusion that the ACLU is racist is telling enough. You are more than welcome to debate on this site, but remember when you stoop to racist and bigoted attacks, I’ll call you on it.

  25. Ha ha. Call me on it, that’s a joke. You say in one breath that my argument about the ACLU is old and tired (to avoid the fact that it’s racist) and then you’re going to call me out. That’s a joke right.

    Deciding based on race is racism. The ACLU exists to decide base on race. That’s all anyone ever needs to know.

  26. It plainly isn’t. The only joke is the idea that the ACLU is racist.

  27. Yea, ok. Until you can accept the truth this conversation is meaningless.

  28. In yet another instance of Dan being to lazy to do the research (because Ron Paul isn’t a liberal) the truth is easy to find if you just don’t avoid it. I’ll say that all the misconceptions Dan raises as the truth can be discounted as bullshit.

    Eat Crow

  29. Even if I did get this point wrong, then that wouldn’t discount everything I’ve said, ever. Logic Michael. Try it sometime.

    But there are two problems with that link:
    “The guy can’t even keep hate speech out of his photocopied little mailing list.” – Greg Saunders. So either Ron Paul is a racist, or he’s damn incompetent.

    But the thing is, I’m still skeptical. One guy saying “Hey, Ron isn’t a racist” doesn’t discount the man’s actions. That is an argument from authority, and it is all the pro-RonPaul site that hosted the article has to show: A person with authority saying “trust me”.

  30. I should clarify. What I meant to say was “touting your misconceptions about Ron Paul as the truth.”

    Let me draw and analogy if I may. I could start a website like and type away with my thoughts (that you vehemently oppose). How long would it take you to find out about the site? Is there anything you would/could do about it? You may tell your readership that you have nothing to do with it. The longer it took you to first realize that it existed, research it, and speak out about it would somehow make you more culpable by your logic?

    Is it that you are just “trying logic” as opposed to actually applying it?

    I think it was around September back in ’01’ when I decided to learn more about politics. There was this guy on talk radio speaking to a lot the sentiments I felt at the time. He wasn’t my kind of guy and his message wasn’t about freedom it was about revenge. There was a lot of hate speech going on. It was difficult to listen at times but it mattered to me. I really felt obligated to learn more about how the system works.

    Real truth is sometimes wrapped in hate. Like dos being wrapped in windows. Sometimes the truth hurts. As time went on I realized that the party loyalty (bias) in the media and in the political arena seemed to be the obstacle that kept anything of positive significance from being achieved.

    The hate builds up. The issue is never resolved. There is no consistency remaining. Few individuals can seem to break the chains that bind their loyalty to party. I feel that there are a couple of candidates that transcend the hate and believe in freedom and consistency. Ron Paul is my guy.

  31. Michael D,
    Are you suggesting Ron Paul didn’t start that newsletter? What amazing lengths Paulians will bend to support their candidate!

    Your feeling that Ron Paul transcends hate and believes in freedom is about as rational as believe George Bush is a compassionate man dedicated to peace. His public position on hate crimes and civil rights, his opposition to gay rights, his association with extremist white supremacist groups, and his own damn racist newsletter all say otherwise.

  32. No if you read carefully you’d see my analogy. You started If I started my own same titled site with a .org or whatever then how long would it take you to find out about it and the longer it took you to find out what was going on shouldn’t make you more culpable.

    What amazing lengths you will go to to smear someone you haven’t even researched.

  33. And you are wrong in your application of his positions. He is doing it by the books and you can’t seem to grasp that concept. You know the concept of honoring his oath to uphold the constitution.

  34. I’m suggesting you listen to what Ron Paul says about it .

  35. None of the newsletters have signatures. Because the banner says it’s Ron Paul’s newsletter doesn’t mean a thing. I can make your logo or hell I could print convincing looking federal reserve notes with todays technology. No deal. I don’t buy this underhanded trick. Just like all the tricks that are attempted on the man he has his record to show his positions. He is consistent. He is governed by his oath and he upholds it. Unlike any other candidate!!!

  36. I think it’s sad that some people call themselves ‘liberal’ when their underlying beliefs tend toward socialism. Ron Paul is far from perfect, obviously. But using things like his abortion record or his ‘racist supporters’ is nothing but a scare tactic used to link free-market ideologies to wacko, delusional people.

    Equating the modern-day word ‘liberal’ with ‘human freedom’ is a contradiction in terms. When it comes down to it, these anti Ron Paul articles demonstrate the belief that centralizing massive amounts of power in an extremely small group (government leaders) is the solution to everything.

    I don’t think corporations should be given the same rights as living human beings. The government shouldn’t be raising trillions of dollars per year. The money for what is called the ‘welfare state’ actually ends up mostly being pumped into major corporations and supporting the already-rich. A libertarian doesn’t want the rich to get richer or the poor to get poorer. He sure as hell doesn’t defend any kind of status-quo. The money that we pay for ‘the common good’ ends up gravitating to the banks and to wall street via the great centralized power of the federal government. Even economic growth should be subordinate to human freedom. That’s not a ‘right-wing’ message at all. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t even fit into the left-right scale. There is another dimension that’s in use here. Both the left and the right believe in big government in America these days. That’s the problem and that’s why our country is losing its image as the beacon of freedom and prosperity that it once held. We have compromised our historical anti-authoritarianism. It’s sad. I want to have America back!!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: