Summarizing the Ron Paul phenomenon
Yeah, pretty much:
The money and support being funneled to Paul is not about Ron Paul and the totality of his message but is instead about anger at the Republican Party and the government.
29 Responses to “Summarizing the Ron Paul phenomenon”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 6th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Well yeah, the Republican Party should be about “guaranteeing a republican form of government” to quote Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which the Republican Party, especially at the establishment level has abandoned.
Ron Paul also says, his campaign is not about him , but about the message of obeying the Constitution and ALL of the Bill of Rights. In speaking about the 2nd Amendment, he has pointed out that the two parties only pick and choose which of our liberties they will defend, restrict or outright deny…like the RKBA.
Oh BTW, Article IV, Section 4 also says “the United States SHALL protect the States against INVASION” something this phony “conservative” Adminstration is refusing to do in agreement with the Democratic leadership in Congress. Allowing an invasion while they SAY we’re in “war on terrorsim” is “treason” according to an objective reading of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Yes, I’m angry with our traitorous government that allows my country to be invaded and makes me the enemy with their “Patriot” Act and wants to disarm me!!!! I plan to vote for someone who has a long RECORD of doing the opposite!!
November 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Uhm, I haven’t given hundreds of dollars to Paul out of anger; I’ve given him my support because of his message of freedom.
It doesn’t flow that so many people would give because they are mad at the party because that doesn’t inspire you to hold signs over freeways and pass out flyers in the rain and canvass neighborhoods though a meet up group with no campaign organization what so ever.
Liberty and life are my motivations and Ron Paul is the only person running for presidents who promises to respect the constitution!
If I was angry at republicans I would support guiliani or romney because they have no chance of being elected against hilary.
Ron Paul’s message is very positive and that’s why I believe so many people are attracted to it.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Too bad there probably are not _enough_ people angry at the government to cause a change in the
rightcorrect direction.Me, I think I’ve been angry at the government ever since I became aware of the mismatch between the government and the founding documents — say around 7th grade or so (1970) — and the mismatch has done nothing but get worse. The Constitution may be flawed but it sure beats whatever it is that we’re using now.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I want to respond to the inaccurate assertions made on the blog you linked to:
I don’t hate war: I joined the Marines Corps 1 month after septtember 11th because I wanted to protect my family and nation from further harm. Six years later I’ve learned that I don’t hate war, I love peace, but war is the last measure, and when it comes to it, give no quarter to the enemy.
I don’t hate spending – I spend money all the time. I like to spend my own money and make my own choices. I love being free and making my live decisions – even the ones that aren’t so bright. Government spending abridges my freedom.
I don’t hate gun-grabbers – I love guns. I don’t spend my time trying to out manuver gungrabbers, I go to the range and exercise my rights and have fun!
Paul’s message is about freedom, and freedom happens to be what I love.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Well, if Fred drops out of the race, and I can get over Ron’s foreign policy nuttyness, I may have to vote for him. I don’t like the prospect of Mitt or Rudy.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Paul is an odd duck. Some of his platform is unpalatable (as is much of Giuliani’s and all–OK, not all, but most–of Hillary’s).
But much of Paul’s platform is too solid to ignore AND his voting record is impeccable.
Paul’s backing, in my opinion, is a combination of people who like his message and those who are fed up with “Republicans”.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
People have as many reasons to support Ron Paul as any other candidate. Every other candidate also has their fair share of nut jobs that support them (code pink and Pat Robertson) but there is never major coverage of these loons other than when they throw themselves into the fray.
The fact is that many Americans are tired of politics “as usual” in Washington, and desire that the government re-realize that they are supposed to work for the people, all people, black, white, Asian, Indian, and other. The pandering to special interest groups and Corporations that do not represent even a fraction of what middle class Americans desire shows that the dollar in hand is worth more than a citizens child’s life unless that life furthers their agenda, but “doing it for the children” sure makes a good sound bite.
Bottom line, Ron Paul is a man of integrity, and honesty (and not even Redstate or anyone else can spin that), and when I vote I am going to vote for the individual that convinces me that my family values are going to be respected above all other issues. Ron Paul is the man that will ensure that the Constitution that provides me freedoms to live and let live without paying tax dollars into a system that has been so overridden with corruption it may never pull out of the tail spin with a 2 term Ron Paul.
It may be true that he does not stand a chance, but it will not be for the lack of true Americans that value their rights not trying. Neither liberty nor freedom is free, and once we give those up to power they are most likely never returned. Just look at how far the present administration has taken us away from our principal values as a people, not only with the Patriot Act, but with directive 51 ideals that the US can be lead under a single dictator? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) Give me liberty, or give me death!
November 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Seriously, i think it was the SayUncle advertising that did it.
Nobody picked up on my question about a Thompson/Paul ticket. Is it that far out?
November 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
There are three critical issues:
1) the war in Iraq.
2) the ongoing invasion of illegal aliens.
3) the continuing expansion of the welfare.
We can depend upon any of the “mainstream” candidates, from either major party, to continue the pointless war, to continue to ignore the invasion, and to continue to expand the welfare state. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, takes sensible positions on all three issues.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
HardCorps says,
“Paul’s message is about freedom, and freedom happens to be what I love.”
Yes! That too! I’m angry with my traitorous government and Ron Paul has a positive, pro-Constitution, pro-freedom REMEDY AND RECORD.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
You guys are aware that Ron Paul (regardless of what position ronpaul2008.com is taking) is an open-borders Libertarian, right? Ron Paul won’t even be manning the border crossings, much less locking it down. It won’t be an “invasion” because Paul plans to throw all the doors and windows open and say, “C’mon in!” ‘True immigration reform’ is libertarian code for, “no quotas, no waiting, check to see if they are a notorious serial killer, and if not, let them in.”
November 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
From the LP platform, the real libertarian plan (and the one that ronpaul2008.com dances around but doesn’t contradict:)
(My emphasis.)
November 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Immigration:
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
I would have to guess that since he has not been labeled a liar in 30 years, but rather labeled a man of honesty and principal, I would have to think that his writings and beleifs that he shares will be what he planned to carry out.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I support Ron Paul with $$$s and my vote because he’s the only candidate that backs up my assertion that the Rulers should follow the Rules …
–MuzzleBlast
November 6th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Phelps, look to all the issues that you ahree with Paul. Count them,and then count the number of issues you agree with from the others. No one has a stronger gun rights record than Paul, nor a stronger fiscal responsibility voting record. Look at Pauls website and i think youll be surprised at how much you agree with him.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Political fund raising record set, but not without spin from both parties AND the MSM
November 7th, 2007 at 12:20 am
The charge has been made that Paul is really an open borders Libertarian, advancing a stealth LP immigration agenda and that he says otherwise on his 2008 campaign site, presumably to trick us all and mask his true beliefs. Let’s test that charge.
Ron Paul’s record on immigration:
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm#Immigration
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Ron Paul immigration editorial from 2005:
Against amnesty, welfare, entitlements, FOR secure borders
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html
Ron Paul immigration editorial from 2005:
Ditto on the aove, and added he is against citizenship for children born to illegals
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html
I submit Rep.Paul’s credibility wins this round, and the right thing would be for the person making such charges to withdraw them and apologize.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am
[…] Ticket Newscoma Southern Beale Mike Sylvester Ron Coleman HearItFrom.Us SayUncle Bob Krumm SayUncleII Eye On 08 Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites […]
November 7th, 2007 at 11:24 am
David,
BRAVO!
November 7th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
My own position on immigration is this: Control the borders, deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens, and then greatly expand legal avenues (making certain that those who cross at the “Ellis Crossing” stations don’t have communicable diseases, felony records, or links to enemy organizations). Do away with the perverse incentives to cross the border, and the people who will still clamor to get here are people we’re going to want here.
If I were a full-on libertarian, Dr. Paul would be my first choice (despite my strenuous disagreement with him over foreign policy and the “Zionist lobby” question). I’m a fusionist (too conservative for the libertarians, too libertarian for the conservatives), though, so Dr. Paul is my second choice, behind Fred Thompson. Both of the gentleman are a wide sea mile ahead of the rest of the present crop on either side of the aisle, and of anyone else who has run for President in some time.
David Codrea and others have addressed — and done a fine job, I think — on the Paul/Truther issue over at The War on Guns. Paul himself unequivocally disavowed the “inside job” charge. That is sufficient unto the day.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I will withdraw nothing about what I said, because you have said nothing to refute it. The libertarian plan is the same as the plan for the drug war — legalize all drugs, and there is no illegal drug problem. Legalize all immigration, and there is no illegal immigration problem.
You know, all the domestic issues in the world mean less than a shit to me after I’m dead. I really don’t care what the marginal tax rate is once I’ve been reduced to carbon black and a few radioactive isotopes.
A president must be a competent commander in chief above all else. I’ll leave lawmaking to the legislature (something you guys apparently don’t think Ron Paul will do.)
November 7th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
That’s fine Phelps, don’t withdraw–but it reflects on you and your agenda, not on Ron Paul and his record. You said Ron Paul is an open borders libertarian and that’s flat-out not demonstrated by either his words or his deeds. You’ve done nothing but parrot the LP agenda, not the RP agenda.
I can either believe Ron Paul, whose deeds have consistently backed up his words–or I can believe you, demonstrably in error, and based on the agenda of hostility and ridicule revealed on your site and by your comments here, quite possibly deliberately as well.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Okay, Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian. Is that your position?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
And I have said, twice now, that Ron Paul’s open-immigration stance is not denied by the plank on ronpaul2008.com. In fact, my point is that it is very careful not to refute it.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Phelps, you read what you want to read. Conversation with you is pointless.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Direct question: Do you believe that Ron Paul is a libertarian or not?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
No one, except maybe those who voted for the common-sense law to ban politically-motivated lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry. That bill passed handily, so come to think of it, most Congressmen have a stronger gun rights record than Paul.
If you believe it is every Congressman’s “fiscal responsibility” to bring back as much pork to his own district as he possibly can, then I suppose you are right.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
It’s both.
Ron Paul’s message appeals to a very wide audience. Get over it. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that the hateful, war-mongering Neocon message is about as desirable as being served a big turd for breakfast.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Let’s see:
Hateful, warmonger: Anti-war
Neocon: Truther
Yup, that about covers the ronpaul2008.com support bases.