Thoughts on Ron Paul
Over at Knoxviews, metulj notes that Red State is giving Ron Paul supporters the Knoxviews treatment. Seems Red State doesn’t like Ron Paul.
Ok, brief interlude because, as is typical, even when metulj is interesting, he’s still usually substantially off the mark. Such as:
While a blog host can allow or disallow any speech they want on their site, the quashing of Ron Paul supporters at Red State is probably the perfect representation of how the Right eats its own.
and:
What makes this different from Democratic problems with iconoclastic leftists like Nader is that this is coming within the GOP, not from without.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
He’s big with the Shoot Cans Crowd too
Ron Paul isn’t really burning up the gun blog crowd in a big way. He is, however, appealing to the GOA sorts. The NRA ranked Ron Paul a B and his Democrat opponent an A, even though I know of no politico more pro-gun than Paul.
a former poster* is now actively promoting the GOP iconoclast . . . *who took his ball and left when our estimable host reminded him that this blog is the host’s private property.
Not so on both counts. I am not actively promoting Paul. Paul’s campaign bought an ad here. My posting at Knoxviews was forbidden and I stopped commenting there.
Any way, on Ron Paul: I like the guy. I think the significance of Ron Paul is that he’s saying things that need to be said and that often are not said in politics. He’s the only presidential candidate ever I’ve heard address the harm caused by the drug war, for example. And that’s a good thing.
But his foreign policy scares people. And his talk about the drug war probably scares the Hell out of Susie Soccer Mom who finds Paul’s message conflicts with the things she learned in DARE and SADD in the late 80s. And, you know, a lot of people still think we’re on the gold standard (my dad, for instance, and I argued about this recently) and don’t like being told otherwise. And abolishing the federal reserve, IRS, ATF, DEA, DOE, etc., and other things he wants or implies he’d get rid of scares white people too.
But, generally, Ron Paul’s not so scary. His supporters are. And they’ll be here soon to comment on this post. Mark it. Look here, for instance. 40 comments on me noting an ad? As bitter noted: I’m just saying that because it’s funny how traffic spikes when I mention Ron Paul. Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! (Is that like saying Beetlejuice three times?)
Like I said, I like Paul and I’ll probably waste my vote for him in the primary.
I don’t think his supporters are liberals pretending to be Republicans (speaking of, why are Republicans pretending to be conservative?). I think some of his supporters (particularly, the vocal ones) are of the space cadet variety, though. You know, the black helicopter types, Zionist conspiracy types, only Ron Paul can save us types, new world order types, and *gasp* the truthers. These folks are active on the internet and are getting their messages out. And that’s the problem with Ron Paul: the baggage.
He’s the Republican’s Kucinich.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
**DISCLAIMER**
properties/settings/screen resolution – adjust from 400X800 upwards. If you can only fit a single paragraph (which was all I posted until responding to _Jon’s novel attacking me) on a 21 inch monitor perhaps you should adjust this to read the two longest paragraphs in this post, but those would be from _Jon.
As opposed to arguing with you I am done, as you have come here yourself along with others to start a flame war for attention. At the very least Xirq expressed his opinion, but it was directly related to the subject and to all their own. Jim W came here to tell us he was a supporter and then attempted to start a flame war. The same as _Jon, who had nothing to add to the debate but resorted in attacking me personally. I have re-read this entire thread and the subject was Ron Paul up until _Jon tried to get a rise out of me with 2 enormous posts, but I am the long winded one? So it would appear that _Jon and Jim W are the pot calling the kettle black and are only here to try and get a rise, I have spoke my mind and are done with the both of you.
BT
October 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I mind the 1992 Georgia election for Senator, in which we tossed out the very nasty statist Wyche Fowler. I voted Libertarian in that election, which threw it into a runoff and gave us Coverdell, I think.
I recall going to the Libertarian after-election party in Buckhead. There were lots of folks like me there, sitting by themselves.
I hate to say this, and please forgive me and don’t shoot me, Joe and Squeaky, but I do sometimes think that the core of the Libertarian Party is a bunch of Aspie Geeks.
If you want to be President, no matter how right you are, no matter how wrong the other folks are, you’re going to have to get the normal people to vote for you.
I’m gonna change my registration from Libertarian to Republican, so that I can vote in the primary.
I am oscillating between Paul and Thompson.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Sebastian, I’m not sure that the Irish, the Vietnamese, the Indians, etc… would agree with you.
Interventionist policy has been around for quite some time and the recipients tend to be less than pleased.
As a microcosm, would it make you happy for your neighbor to kick in your door and put a gun in your face because he didn’t like the brand of dog food you buy? What if it was because you shoot blackpowder and have more powder than he thinks you should have?
So, why are interventionist politics good?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Yeah, I know. But he’s talking about that stuff there and no one else does.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Ooooh goody!
My points got through!
Clearly, I was wrong to state that you, Blounttruth (or BT) (any other names you post by?) have not been commenting for a while. My apologies.
Did I score a lucky hit with the JW reference or *what*? Geeze, my
psychoticphysicpsychic gift must really be working this week. But – to me – it is a fair comparison. The huge increase in commenting by Ron Paul supporters this election cycle has been akin to a similar pattern as their visits. (And – tangent – I’m one of those guys who would go get some iced tea and sit on the front porch and _talk_ with the JW’s when they would visit. I enjoy talking with them and helping them in their learning. /tangent)…
I would like to see a lot of Paul’s common sense, no bullshit behavior in US politics. If I were a politician, I would probably be like him. However, I would probably not have significant traction in the US political process – like him. Hence, I stay in business and buy my political representatives, like everyone else. 🙂
…
Thanks for the exchanges. And again; Please accept my sincere apology for not recognizing that you have been a contributor to comments here at SayUncle for a while. My bad.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
BT, I’m running a 21″ monitor at 1280×1024, and you flow off of it. Post on your blog and quit being a bandwidth mooch. Oh, you don’t have the traffic that SU does? There’s a reason for that.
And I find the comparisons between our action in Iraq and forcing your neighbor to change his drapes insulting. We weren’t pissed off because Saddam had golden toilets. We were pissed off because he was sending cash to terrorists. He paraded the checks that he sent to Palestinian suicide bombers on television. He wasn’t hostile of AQ — he was wary. He had bases set up for Al Queda in Iraq. Where do you think Al Zawahiri came from? Flew in with his magic Mary Poppins umbrella when the war started?
We were at war with Iraq for the last 15 years. The war in ’91 never ended. I’m not talking legal mumbo jumbo, I’m talking about us keeping the no-fly zone going and Saddam shooting at our planes every chance he got. The ronpaul2008.com position on Iraq is despicable.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Wow JimW may have set a new record. There wasn’t even an accidental truth in his last post. That has to be Guiness material for dissembling (lying).
October 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Screw you. Stop acting so butthurt and admit that your justifications for the war are untrue. More importantly, admit that the American people reject your justifications as well. Can you perceive of how this might have an effect on the upcoming election?
Let’s review anyway:
Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists is very different from supporting Al Qaeda. The Palestinians have always gone out of their way to avoid attacking Americans. I personally abhor them, but I think we should recognize that they are not our problem. They have been operating for decades in that region and besides the PLO vs Jordon business in the 70s, they have mostly been a pain in the ass of the Israelis and no one else. They certainly aren’t a causus belli for the US at this point. Israel definitely, US no.
Our justification for Iraq was uranium enrichment and the fact that Saddam was on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb and also stockpiling chemical weapons. Everyone who talks up the war on iraq loves to forget that because it was later revealed to be so utterly false.
Instead, we fall back on circular reasoning based on all the post-occupation “terrorists” that have sprung up to attack us there. Nevermind that they are almost all Iraqis and they are only attacking Americans in Iraq. Has there ever been an attack by Iraqi terrorists in the US? The 9/11 guys were all Saudis and Egyptians.
Also, the no-fly zone is not a valid justification for “continuing” the conflict with an invasion. The no-fly zone could have been carried on for a 1000 years and it would still have been cheaper than the current mess.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Jim W. you are either the dumbest sonofabitch I have seen in a long time or the most dishonest. In the interest of amity, I’ll let you choose.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Ok, I give up. There’s nobody whatsoever running for President who’s fit for the office. What do we do now?
(I will not entertain suggestions that we all drink too much; I already do that.)
October 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Start a movement to add a binding None Of The Above to all ballots. Binding meaning that if NOTA wins, none of the candidates who lost to NOTA are allowed to run in the subsequent special election to fill that post. And the political parties – not the state – must pay the cost of the special election as a penalty for running unsuitable candidates.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26paul.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I am not oblivious that the younger generation is on the web making a mass and sometimes annoying movement supporting Dr. Paul. It is apparent that the blogs, forums, and other web media outlets are getting swamped with Ron Paul supporters and I can understand the owners of these outlets getting angry. It would be like the Brady bunch constantly spamming here.
The thing I find most interesting is that the posts here have had a substantial number of Ron Paul supporters dropping in, but I do not see their presence as radical and threatening, as those types of posts have been mainly from the anti Paul crowd who are trying to say that our discussion was somehow disproportionate to their beliefs and since they do not follow pro Paul opinions here, that the supporters should leave, post shorter, and basically go away.
They add very little in the way of debate and without facts to support them they result in name calling and relentless attacks on those that have not instigated an argument.
I just wanted to add this because as radical and crazy and out of control as I have been while being attacked in this thread for having a civil debate, it interestingly enough seems that there is an opposition party of having your cake and eating it too amongst the trolls. Many of which have their own blogs, but come here with a specific spiteful purpose and bring along their blog roll to support them. I think this could be deserving of a troll roll where they can add their names when they present no information on the topic and try to spur reaction from the insane Paul supporters, and it is no wonder they do not support Paul as their main goal is to use the first amendment to take away the same right of others.
BT
October 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
[…] Say Uncle discusses Ron Paul’s campaign and its tendency to instill fear in your average white man: I like the guy. I think the significance of Ron Paul is that he’s saying things that need to be said and that often are not said in politics. He’s the only presidential candidate ever I’ve heard address the harm caused by the drug war, for example. And that’s a good thing. […]