DISQUS

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]Ron Paul Nuts[/quote]Sounds soomewhat like a [i]clinical diagnosis[/i] to me!

PK · 2 years ago

Well, you have to understand, Ron Paul fans are at a major disadvantage since the internet is all they've got at this point. He has a lot of passionate supporters and, with no other outlet, I think some can be a bit overzealous at times playing these internet games, but I wouldn't make assumptions about him or about all of his supporters based on that. His message is very good, and he has many very intelligent and down to earth supporters.

Jacob · 2 years ago

[quote]When the opposition is trying to silence you, you know you're on target.[/quote]

How cliche' of you. Ron Paul should be wearing that t-shirt. I wish people like you weren't so stubborn, arguing just for fun. You would do well to read some history NOT written by Mr. Rogers or Uncle Sam. Perhaps without your brand of venom, dissenters would be more willing to be open and honest about ther views. Unplug your TV!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]His message is very good, and he has many very intelligent and down to earth supporters.[/quote]

I've yet to hear a good message from Ron Paul, or meet a down-to-earth supporter.

[quote]Perhaps without your brand of venom, dissenters would be more willing to be open and honest about ther views.[/quote]

Hey, I'm not the one going around trying to get people to take down blog posts.

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]Unplug your TV!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

What's funny is that I rarely watch TV. I don't even have cable, which leaves me with like 3 broadcast stations.

george · 2 years ago

[quote]Why? Because Ron Paul's nutty online brownshirters issued forth a dictum in one of the forums to "educate" me.[/quote]

That didn't tell me why, actually. I'd like to know why it was REALLY taken down before I could agree with you and call them nuts.

I've had a little more respect for Ron Paul lately, but realize I am still only learning bits and pieces of him. But I don't have the confidence yet of running around calling Paul's followers nuts.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just don't think I have the full story.

Rob · 2 years ago

Why it was taken down is because the Paulites emailed and complained so much that it was removed. The post that removed is the exact same one as that which was linked in the post.

As for Ron Paul and his supporters being nuts:

a) They believe the federal reserve is some sort of government banking conspiracy.

b) Ron Paul, despite his denials, is a 9/11 truther. You simply cannot still be calling for investigations into the "truth" of 9/11 and not get lumped in with those wackos.

c) Paul expects another staged terrorist attack any day now to justify war with Iran.

Start with those things.

Rob · 2 years ago

And, just for the record, I'd invite all the Paulites to go ahead and [url=http://sayanythingblog.com/static/get_a_reader_blog]get themselves reader blogs on this site[/url]. Because I, unlike them, feel that people should be allowed to say what they think.

skh.pcola · 2 years ago

[quote]...I just don't think I have the full story.[/quote]

Then you aren't paying attention. TURN OFF YOUR TEEVEE!!11!!

george · 2 years ago

[quote]complained so much that it was removed. [/quote]

I'm just asking about examples of the complaints? 65 complaints and frantic calls and none of them valid? I know, I know, it wouldn't be the first time someone rallied against something ridiculous, but I'd sure be interested in at least knowing why. Are they challenging the validity of any parts of your story?

[quote]Ron Paul, despite his denials[/quote]
Well there maybe other evidence, I'm not motivated enough to start researching honestly, but I'm not going to whack a guy right off the bat for something he denies.

As for your other charges, what's the harm in believing a conspiracy theory. The only thing I'd be concerned about is will his anti-war policies imply that he'd be weak on national defense spending? That would be a deal breaker for me.


[quote]TURN OFF YOUR TEEVEE!!11!! [/quote]

whao... dude, put down the red bull.

When you're concerned about Pro-Life issues as I am, and 1/2 the popular candidates of your party are sketchy on the issue, you'll give a guy who's not afraid to be 100% pro-life the time of day to tell his whole story.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but I haven't heard that in the speaches and talking points from Ron himself.

Pomerdorgrad · 2 years ago

I do blame Reiten for pulling down the post. If you cave before a lot of whining Paulistas, what happens when Dorgan or Conrad unleash their lawyers on you.

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]As for your other charges, what's the harm in believing a conspiracy theory.[/quote]

Well, I guess I see a great deal of harm in believing nonsense.

By the way, this is pretty interesting:

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf" width="450" height="370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="autostart=false&token=2c5_1179338348" scale="showall" name="index"></embed>

Rob · 2 years ago

Dang it, I still can't get video posting to work. [url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c5_1179338348]here's the link[/url].

Proof · 2 years ago

Rob: Thanks for the link. If everyone across the country (except the 9/11 truthers) were to see that video, RP would be [i]RIP[/i] as far as his candidacy is concerned. What a maroon!

george · 2 years ago

Rob: If you get more info on the actual content of the complaints, let us know.

[quote]If everyone across the country (except the 9/11 truthers) were to see that video, RP would be RIP[/quote]
What's the harm in double checking the government once in awhile?

jp · 2 years ago

Now, compare/contrast this to all the 9/11 Truth sites, most of which are Paul supporters, who operate freely. Amazingly bushCo has yet to come in and silence them. They can take down the twin towers in the most daunting conspiracy ever but can't manage to silence the "truthers" and Paul Supporters telling the 'truth' about them.

Dr. Evil · 2 years ago

[quote]Ron Paul Nuts[/quote]
Remember, there are only two, but they provide a massive swarm.

Chris S · 2 years ago

Chances are that Paul supporters know how to use these websites called "google" and "technorati". They use these websites to search for the terms "Ron Paul", and read the articles that come up. You're just another article that came up in the pile, another article to join the "smear Ron Paul because he is not a bought and paid for Establishment goon" campaign that has officially started.

And nobody is trying to silence anyone, unless calling you out on lies you write or hersay you attempt to spin as fact and real positions on policy are considered "silence". If I remember correctly, things that are incorrect or misleading are retracted all the time.

The three points you brought up to "debunk" have been debunked multiple times, but keep bringing them up like they weren't addressed immediately and act like Paul hasn't made recent public statements regarding them.

The Iran False Flag comment was taken out of context by an author on Politico, who took it from an interview with the insane zioclown Alex Jones, and was even debunked on World Net Daily of all places, using the sound clip provided in politico's own piece, so that smear is dead in the water.

As far as the Federal Reserve, I guess being a long standing member of the the House Financial Services committee and constantly drilling Greenspan and now Bernacke about real questions regarding the continually weakening dollar (instead of sycophants tossing softballs) means he is nothing but a "conspiracy" theorist when it comes to economics? Why don't you try reading some of Paul's exchanges with the Fed Chairman over the years, or ask some friends outside of the US what a joke our weakened pertro-dollar has become. God forbid we can have a non-CFR BFF candidate who will discuss real issues like our sinking currency and how it relates to world economics (think Euro then think Amero).

Of course, continually repeating lies and false smears seem to be the preferred tactic among smear and hatemongers such as yourself. Later you can issue a little retraction that nobody will read or care about, but it doesn't matter because getting attention through hits, comments, and trackbacks regarding your articles by propagating smears is all that matters to you and your ilk of establishment sycophants.

JefMo · 2 years ago

You probably took the post down on your own because of the educating you received from people that actually know what their talking about. Its ok, I understand your position though. Nobody likes to seem ignorant to their audience.
When you post outright lies about a presidential candidate that is more aware of the threats presented in Orwell's 1984 than perhaps any other congressman, you are bound to get angry replies from those that appreciate honest journalism.
Instead of debating facts, you stoop to the level of name calling. I am sorry you have a bruised ego, but your piece on Ron Paul and this pathetic response to it are absolutely unprofessional.
As far as censoring goes, some of Ron Paul's supporters might like to see you silenced, and I can hardly blame them, but Ron Paul would fight for your journalistic rights more diligently than any other candidate. Not because he like bloogers, but because he understands the importance of individual rights and free press.
Ron Paul supporters are not wacko's and his support base is growing faster than all other candidates. In case you are not convinced this, you will have plenty of time to gaze upon his ever increasing troop of supporters outside of the upcoming republican debates.

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]You probably took the post down on your own because of the educating you received from people that actually know what their talking about.[/quote]

Right, numb nuts. I have control over the posts at the KXMC website, so I took the post down myself and then called attention to it with a post on my own front page linking to the original version of the post.

You've nailed me.

Now why don't you tell us about what really happened on 9/11 (cue creep music).

Rob · 2 years ago

Oh. Right. Poor Ron Paul. He isn't the crazy, conspiracy-mongering nut. Everyone else is.

Matt C · 2 years ago

"Ron Paul, despite his denials, is a 9/11 truther. You simply cannot still be calling for investigations into the "truth" of 9/11 and not get lumped in with those wackos"

For the record, RP wants to know this about 9/11 (as do I):

How come most or all of the people in charge of our national security did not get fired for that screwup?

It was *incompetence that was "covered up" -- *not conspiracy. Dr. Paul has said this many times.

If you insist he's lying, and you alone know what he actually thinks, all I can do is ask for the source of your knowledge.

RonPaulcankissmyass · 2 years ago

Like the old saying goes, you know you're over the target when you start taking fire. It's not like you said anything untrue, either, but the truth about Ron Paul is the last thing his worshippers want getting out. And how dare you not bow before their god, infidel!

From now on, I'm just going to call him Ron Paulcinich, because he's just as nutty and irrelevant as Mr. "Department of Peace". And the more people hear of his "message" and the more they see of his wacked-out cultists, the worse off he'll be. He'll be lucky to make it out of the margin of error on any non-Internet poll.

JefMo · 2 years ago

Its ok man, I understand. Ego's can be very sensitive and it hurts when 65 people prove you are ignorant. You don't have to get all worked up. Just reflect on your stubbornness and maybe you will realize that you can't always be right. I know the truth hurts, but I am here to help you. We can get though this difficult time together. You are not alone. If you need some physical company, just let me know and I will be right over.

Chris S · 2 years ago

nevermind, your a supporter of superlobbyist Fred Thompson, which goes to show how much you really pay attention to the candidates' past and positions. Geez, when people support Thompson they should just wear a big sign around their necks and put a note next to everything they write on the net that says, "I'm uninformed, please tell me what to think".

Fred Thompson, old white guy actor, he must be the next Reagan, right? If Thompson wins the nomination then you'd might as well give the Democrats the election, because he has no chance against the top Democrats. At all. Especially once people learn about who he has lobbied for in the past (i.e. the people are smart enough to see past Law and Order).

You can throw out smears about Paul, well, the same thing about Thompson, except that bad things about Thompson are conveniently ignored or written off by the press since he is the GOP's Great White Hype:

He lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood

He lobbied on behalf of deposed Haitian "president" and committed Leftist Jean Bertrand Aristide

He was a mole during Watergate, and Nixon called him "dumb as hell".

He is known for being lazy.

But I guess all the matters is that he is a warmonger who is stupid enough to keep up the status quo, and is willing to employ a nuclear first strike against Iran, right?

War, war, war, and more war. Oh, and "protecting" Israel. That is all that matters. Abortion is nonissue (Thompson's lobbying and Ghooliani), taxes and limited government are nonissues (look at the Dept of Educ. under Bush II). Nothing domestic is an issue, the only that matters is warmongering.

Thompson is nothing but an actor, Bush II wasn't even that and he duped the right into getting him elected as a "conservative". Except Establishment Superlobbyist Fred Thompson and Hillary "police state" Clinton to pull their versions of political slight of hand and do the exact same thing. Nothing but business as usual while the blogosphere bickers over wedge nonissues like "abortion" and "taxes".

The only that matters is the coming war with Iran, and it is obvious that Bush will "address" Iran before leaving office. Then all of the words and actions of the warmongering chickenhawks on both sides, including AIPAC Girl, the liberal "dove" Nancy Pelosi, will come home to roost.

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]Its ok man, I understand. Ego's can be very sensitive and it hurts when 65 people prove you are ignorant[/quote]

Prove my ignorance? There's a lot of ignorance on display here, but it ain't coming from me.

Having internet goon squads spam comments on blogs is hardly a comment on my level of intelligence, or a mark in favor of Ron Paul.

Chris S · 2 years ago

The only thing that matters in an Establishment GOP Candidate:

Their ability to Warmonger

The only thing that matters in an Establishment Democratic Presidential Candidate:

Their ability to Warmonger Lite

The coming war with Iran has bipartisan support, but it is going to sink the GOP, not the Democrats. The Democrats will claim to oppose action in Iran and win, but once in power it will be back to business as usual, but probably more through starvation (sanctions) than military action. Hence the Democrats wanting "redeployment", i.e. redeployment to Iran. They know what's coming.

Rob · 2 years ago

Warmonger. Oh man that's a good one.

"Bush lied, people died" right Chris?

Please, keep commenting. This is getting better and better.

JefMon · 2 years ago

Any informed rational person reading the comments of this blog as well as the last one will quickly realize that you are a fool. Your ignorance is displayed by the logical and well-written responses to the lies that your have been propagating. Why don't you respond to the many legitimate points that have already been brought by the above comments? Is it because you can't without lying and sounding like a fool? If you want to respond again, don't waste your time. I am finished reading the lies of this shallow writer.

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]Any informed rational person reading the comments of this blog as well as the last one will quickly realize that you are a fool.[/quote]

That assertion would need to actually from from an informed, rational person in order to be believable.

[quote]Why don't you respond to the many legitimate points that have already been brought by the above comments?[/quote]

I've been responding, actually, but as usual you twits ignore that which is inconvenient.

Whatever.

Chris S · 2 years ago

"Bush lied, people died?" Is that the best you can come up with?

Please, you pundits trapped in your left/right paradigm are pretty sad. So hard to look in the mirror or look outside of the shark tank. So which "Dem" or "leftist" do you blame for all of our woes? Let me guess, Clinton?

At this point blame for the coming war with Iran lay largely on our failed "independent" media (again) and the Democrats who "promised change", especially AIPAC Girl Nancy Pelosi.

Everything is so black and white, right? Obviously, because the only issue is the war and you are either for it or against it. There is no other issue in this election, and the liberal social positions of Giuliani and Romney regarding abortion should be a pretty clear indicator that this is the case (or Romney on health care in general). If you are against the war you are automatically labeled something like liberal/leftist/Democrat/etc. and if you support it you are a neocon/righty/Republican, etc. And the Republican base keeps on shrinking.

I guess Bush and the gang aren't warmongers, because... ?

Oh wait, they are, and so are most of the elites taht control our policy. Perhaps it would be better to call them Cherry Picking Warmongers, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are THE leading supporters and armers of Al Qaeda, but the former has nukes and the ladder plays ball, so both are our "allies" and have free reign to implement their brutal forms of "democracy", especially life under the House of Saud. If you don't see the proxy war in Iran going on between Iran/Shiites vs. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Sunnis (al Qaeda) then you aren't paying enough attention.

Neiman · 2 years ago

JefMon: I hate cowardly, hit-and-run liberals saying something stupid and not having the guts to hang around and take the fire.

TJ · 2 years ago

[quote]I've yet to hear a good message from Ron Paul, or meet a down-to-earth supporter.[/quote]
That's because you, sir, are a fascist.

Rob · 2 years ago

I love how you call people who disagree with your foreign policy preference "war mongers," Chris. Maybe we just see the middle east as a legitimate threat if not dealt with by putting boots on the ground.

Now that's obviously not what you buy in to, but does it make me a war monger? Of course not.

So all your blather about left/right and the sort of political debate that goes on in this country is just hypocritical bullshit. You're as partisan as everyone else. Just in a different way.

You Paulites are no different than the "mainstream" Republicans and Democrats you abhor. The only difference is that you exist on the political margins because not many people agree with you.

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]That's because you, sir, are a fascist.[/quote]

I'm not the one with the internet goon squads getting people to take down posts.

You silly ass. You make me laugh.

Chris S · 2 years ago

[i]JefMon: I hate cowardly, hit-and-run liberals saying something stupid and not having the guts to hang around and take the fire.[/i]

Let me guess, Liberal = Antiwar? Preemptive war is such a "conservative" position and really reflects America's "traditional, Judeo-Christian Values".

Jesus told me that nuking Iran is an option that should not be taken off the table, and that preemptive war is the good, moral, Christian thing to do. Everyone knows that Jesus was a hawk who understood our "National Interests". Party of life* all the way!

*life being the lives of unborn, NOT the lives of the Vets living with rats in underfunded VA Hospitals, the lives of foreigners who don't even deserve Habeas Corpus, and the lives of our soldiers which the Administration is ready to throw away in Iran.

Speaking of soldiers, guess which candidate got 50% of the GOP donations from Military Personnel (including Vets)?

If there is anything worse than a "hit and run liberal", it is a "moral cherry picking conservative". You know, like the ones who speak in nationally televised debates about the sanctity and preciousness of life out of one side of their mouth while talking about nuking Iran out of the other.

likwidshoe · 2 years ago

Chris S - At this point blame for the coming war with Iran lay largely on our failed "independent" media (again) and the Democrats who "promised change", especially AIPAC Girl Nancy Pelosi.

I was blaming it on Iran. Silly me.

If there is anything worse than a "hit and run liberal", it is a "moral cherry picking conservative". You know, like the ones who speak in nationally televised debates about the sanctity and preciousness of life out of one side of their mouth while talking about nuking Iran out of the other.

Taking out a crazy-assed Twelver falls under the category of protecting the preciousness of life.

Wait! Don't tell me - you're one who believes that ignoring the Twelvers in control of Iran's military while watching them build nuclear weapons is the path to protecting life.

likwidshoe · 2 years ago

To Chris S, ignoring the crazy guy with a bomb is the path to showing that you care about the "sanctity and preciousness of life". Just ignore the crazy guy with his finger on the trigger folks, everything will be okay.

Joe Schembrie · 2 years ago

Brownshirt?

I'm sorry, did Ron Paul lie us into a war and suspend habeas corpus?

You guys suspend constitutional rights then whine about blog posts?

likwidshoe · 2 years ago

I'm sorry, did Ron Paul lie us into a war and suspend habeas corpus?

No. Did Ron Paul don a clown's costume and ride an elephant?

Would you like to ask any more stupid questions?

You guys suspend constitutional rights then whine about blog posts?

When did anybody here suspend Constitutional rights?

What the hell are you smoking, anyways? It's that good?

george · 2 years ago

Somebody want to help me answer the original question in this article?

[quote]Why did 65 people want Rob's article taken down?[/quote]

Neiman · 2 years ago

Chris S: I don't know why you Leftists use every occasion to mock Christ and Christians and say something hostile about people of faith; and then you wonder why you are labelled the anti-Christian party.

Jesus would not endorse war, nor is He a Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. Jesus is above the things of this world and yet because He gave us freewill, He is aware of and deeply saddened to see what we do to each other, often in His name. However, I think that Jesus would understand that if somene breaks into my home and threatens the lives of my loved ones that to save their lives I might have to take the life of that intruder, not with joy, but reluctantly and only in favor of preserving life. Likewise, if people like terrorists break into my national home or when members of my national family are living abroad and their lives are threatened by evil men, I might have to take the lives of those evil people to save the lives of my innocent loved ones.

While you are free to disagree, terrorists attacked my national home and killed many on the members of my national family and so my country went to Afghanistan to kill those evil men, Saddam had attacked members of my national family and close friends (Israel) and by all reports had the means, the motive and the opportunity to attack and kill more of them. So, we went into Iraq and desposed and killed that evil man and his murderous sons to defend my national family at home and abroad. Yes, in both cases it required we stay there that evil might not reestablish itself and present the same threat again in the near future, but even in a justified war or an act of self-defense there are often uinintended consequences which we must silently bear.

Your side has killed over 50 million innocent, living human beings in the womb and are behind euthanasia and assisted suicide that you might kill more innocent human beings, all here at home; and while I blame the terrorists for every death they cause, directly or indirectly, by your side giving aid and comfort to the Islamic enemy, your side are accessories before, during and after the fact to the deaths of many of our soldiers and innoocent Iraqi's, which makes you as dangerous as the terrorists as far as I am concerned.

I am not happy with how we treat our soldiers in VA hospitals, my brother has had many stays in them in the past few years, so to suggest those on the Right approve of that situation is ridiculous. Lastly, I guess you are ready to condemn Lincoln for suspending Habeas Corpus and your god FDR for incarcerating Japanese Americans? Well, war requires extraordinary measures, it ain't softball and yet if we are so bad, why do so many people from every country on earth want to come here and many even break our laws by coming in here illegally?

Chris S · 2 years ago

[i]You Paulites are no different than the "mainstream" Republicans and Democrats you abhor. [b]The only difference is that you exist on the political margins because not many people agree with you.[/b][/i]

If you don't see the disconnect between US public opinion and US foreign policy then you are blind.

The 60%+ of Americans who want us out of Iraq are a fringe minority? I guess the Republicans didn't lose the house and senate over foreign policy, "the fringe" must have voted them out. Funny, I thought "many people" meant more than 50%? Or do you mean people among the Establishment who disagree with me, or people in the shrinking Republican (and now Democratic) base? Like it or not, Paul is the ONLY antiwar Republican, and the people's souring towards the war will be the name of the game in 08.

I abhor them because the coming war with Iran is also opposed by a majority of Americans, but is still right on track with bipartisan support if you look at recent votes on bills regarding Iran.

Sure, the middle east is a "threat", but are they really a threat to us more then they are a threat to each other? A hurricane and an earthquake are also threats and are 1000x more powerful than a stray, first generation nuke from a "failed" state, yet we send our National Guard to Iraq. We might not be able to control the weather, but we obviously can't control the storm in Iraq either.

The talk of a Caliphate is garbage. Iranian Shiites are being threatened by Sunni's in Iraq (al Qaeda, with Saudi funding), and Iran is fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Sunni states. I am supposed to believe that these guys will drop it all and come together in unity once we leave? Yeah right, that is like Mormon's, Catholics, and Branch Davidians dropping their differences and getting together to take over the world. They are too divided. It ain't going to happen.

Have you read any of the books that Paul recommended to Giuliani? I doubt it, but you should read Imperial Hubris by Michael Shurer, former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and lifelong Republican.

Shurer is a real expert on middle east policy, and I agree with him (as does Ron Paul), that we need to get out of the entire region and cut aid (which is definitely not a "liberal" or "leftist" position in any way). By doing so we would force them to focus on themselves and their own issues. They are adults, after all. By focusing on each other they won't be focusing on us. If you don't think they will focus on each other, just take a look at the regional public opinion towards the Saudi Royal family.

And if the US leaves and a large scale civil war breaks out across the region? Genocide? Murder? MDK?

Who cares? They would be killing and focusing on each other which means that they wouldn't be killing and focusing on us. Let them experience their own blowback instead of us.

But what about our BFF Israel? It has 200+ nukes, that is quite a deterrent (just ask Iran who doesn't even have one). Israel isn't going anywhere as long as it has water.

If we pull out or if we don't, Iraq is getting split up. Turkey is set up to invade northern Iraq. Iran and the Iraqi Shiite Militias (Al Sadr) against Sunni Al Qaeda. It will then spill over into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. The domino effect, but not the way the Bush Administration intended. That will give the Islamofascists plenty of opportunities to turn their vitriol upon each other, hate each other, and kill each other instead of us. How or why does this need to involve the US? The Oil and resources? Securing water?

Chris S · 2 years ago

That's right, leftist = antiwar, and "leftist" has nothing to do with the size of the Federal Government. Cutting support and aid to the entire region, what a leftist position.

Leftist = antiwar/antichristian/atheist.
Righty = neocon/prowar/christian

blah blah.

That Taft and the rest of the Old Right, what a bunch of leftists. The irony is that neocons started off as Leftist Trotsky lovers who got the boot from their own party and infiltrated the GOP. I guess their words and actions are nothing but "noble lies".

And psst, yeah, just in case you wondering, I'm Catholic, so the "Christ bashing leftist" nonsense doesn't work on me.

And sure, YOU, a PERSON, might not agree with the policy regarding the VA, but again, it just shows the disconnect between public opinion and policy, because guess what, nothing will change if any of the current "frontrunners" get in, including the Great White Hype that is the superlobbyist Fred Thompson.

likwidshoe · 2 years ago

And psst, yeah, just in case you wondering, I'm Catholic, so the "Christ bashing leftist" nonsense doesn't work on me.

Why did you bring it up in the first place? You act as if Christians can't fight back against enemies.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]If you want to respond again, don't waste your time. I am finished reading the lies of this shallow writer.[/quote] -Jefmon, a.k.a. the Center of the Universe

[i]Man,[/i] Rob! I guess he told [i]you![/i] /sarcasm

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]If you want to respond again, don't waste your time. I am finished reading the lies of this shallow writer.[/quote]Doesn't that sound like a prissy, foot stamp would go with that? Who knows, Rob? Maybe you even made him [i]cry![/i]

Chris S · 2 years ago

@Neiman

I don't think Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, or any of the other right wing talking heads could have said it better. Too bad those issues are irrelevant, as GOP support for Giuliani and RomneyCare Flip-Flopper Mitt Romney should show.

All that is supposed to matter is the war and terrorism, everything else is nothing but a wedge issue, divide and conquer politics, problem-reaction-solution, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, Dialectic Process, etc. It is all a show to keep us from talking about real issues like the disconnect between public opinion and policy (we vote, they decide) and our out of control Tax Codes (the Fed "conspiracy", I guess not wanting to work the first five months of the year to pay interest to the Fed and fund the war machine via a progressive income tax before working for myself the rest of the year is considered "conspiracy theory nonsense").
Is being antiwar like Ron Paul and not pro war like Lindsey Graham a danger to our troops as well, since being antiwar is correlated with "not supporting the troops"? Well, then you'd better tell that to the troops, because 50% of all donations from military personnel, including vets, have gone to Ron Paul. Those troops, what a bunch of leftists.

Wait until Flynt comes out with his list, then we can talk about who is being hypocritical, and again, discuss the issue of moral cherry picking and moral relativism that runs rampart among the political and social elites on both sides. Speaking of Graham, if I didn't think he was a closet homosexual like Sean Hannity I would expect both of them to be on the list.

nienna · 2 years ago

I think it's funny that Ron Paul supporters are called "nutty."
The more I read about Ron Paul and his sporters, the more inclined I am to support him. They seemed reasoned and knowledgeable, whereas Ron Paul haters seem to be nothing but lock-step with whatever official line their party is dishing.
Just reading these posts shows this to be the case; one crazy RP supporter and the rest of them perfectly rational vs. the angry guy who got his article down because of the "brownshirts."
Pure rhetoric.
As stated before, I would like to see exactly what these letters presented that would compel the editors- who are presumably concerned with the truth - to pull your article.

likwidshoe · 2 years ago

Chris S - All that is supposed to matter is the war and terrorism, everything else is nothing but a wedge issue, divide and conquer politics, problem-reaction-solution, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, Dialectic Process, etc. It is all a show to keep us from talking about real issues like the disconnect between public opinion and policy...

No, the "war and terrorism" is not "all a show". It is the most important issue facing our political body today. We have a deadly serious enemy with a LONG hundreds of years grudge who are now coming into contact with some very dangerous bombs.

Can I make it any more clearer? Are you getting the gravity of the situation? The average Muslim in many of these countries may not hate us, but that doesn't matter because it's not a variable in play. What does matter is that almost every single Muslim country in this world is headed up by some pretty radical Islamic people who make no bones about the fact that they don't like us. And now we are watching those radical Muslims come into possession of some pretty fucking dangerous weapons. Wherever there are a majority of Muslims, those "peaceful" Muslims are almost always governed by vicious and brutal thugs. This Islamic brutality is expanding with bloody borders all over the world.

Have you not seen this? Have you missed this somehow?

You Ron Paul supporters don't even recognize the enemy and that is the main problem that most people have you.

Matt C · 2 years ago

@will

"Why did 65 people want Rob's article taken down?"

I can't speak for the 65, but my objection to the article was that it contained lies, the clearest being "Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq".

I didn't actually ask that it be taken down, though. My guess would be that the people in charge of that site took it down because it's legally risky to publish lies about public figures.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]He (Thompson)lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood [/quote]
Do I smell [i]desparation[/i] here, Chris S?
[quote]Apparently, a billing record has been found that shows Thompson billed [b]19[/b] hours of work for the Arent Fox client over the course of a [b]year[/b]. [/quote][b]superlobbyist Fred Thompson[/b]? An hour and a half a [i]month[/i] ? Damn! He [i]must[/i] be good to do that [i]little[/i] work and still be considered a [i]superlobbyist[/i] by someone as unbiased as you! /sarcasm
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1868455/posts?page=157]Fred Thompson and the "Abortion Lobbyist" Story[/url]

docdave · 2 years ago

[quote]As for Ron Paul and his supporters being nuts [/quote]That seems to be confirmed by the Ron Paul supporters posting comments here.

docdave · 2 years ago

The big question is why Ron Paul is running as a Republican while he really is a Libertarian.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]The big question is why Ron Paul is running as a Republican while he really is a Libertarian.[/quote]docdave: Pragmatism. As low as the ratings are for televised Dem. & Rep. debates, those ratings would soar like Everest above ratings for a debate amongst Libertarian candidates!

Scott McDonnell · 2 years ago

Not that I expect a single one of your morons to understand, but Ron Paul is NOT anti-war. He wants us out of Iraq and instead hunting down the actual terrorists that attacked us and threaten us. Last I heard, Iraqi insurgents and civilians were not posting video threats to America. Last I heard, Iran was not posting threats to us, unless you want to count their responses to OUR threats against them.

They have tried to open dialog with us, and Bush refused. But, of course, YOUR talking heads say that's not true (of course you could just read the letters yourself.)

'Iran' the country is not a threat to us; terrorists are. Terrorists are an extremist element not tied to any state. I would liken them to anarchists in the U.S.

It's amazing the short term memory we have as Americans. After 9/11, Iran was becoming one our biggest partners in the middle east to route out terrorists. Al-Qaida HATES Iran, and the feeling is reciprocated. We were closer than ever to opening a friendly relationship with Iran, until someone decided to put them on the Axis-of-Evil list. Guess what happened after THAT? They elected a hard-liner who would talk tough against us and espouse safety to the citizens of Iran that thought it just might be a likely scenario that we were about to do to them what we just did to their neighbor, Iraq.

I'm sure you were also told that it isn't true that we are funding al-qaeda in Iran to stir up trouble there. Wasn't al-qaeda the group that slammed two planes into the WTC on 9/11? Would you call this sane foreign policy? Anyone actually thinking about how the money we are sending to them is getting channeled to the al-qaeda in Iraq killing our young men and women. But, go ahead, call this all a conspiracy theory. I won't provide you with links because you won't read them anyway. You can 'google' it one day when you develop some common sense.

But, again, the fact that you don't already know the above proves you cannot be reasoned with, my only hope is that you and your kind truly ARE a minority in this country and saner, more intelligent people will prevail. My main point in writing this is to stop Ron Paul supporters from calling Ron Paul 'anti-war.' He is NOT anti-war. Just anti-wrong or counter-productive war that seeks to endanger us more, cause us to go broke, and in the end, we get NOTHING out of it. A Ron Paul war would be swift and effective action. Destroy Saddam, make sure he didn't have WMDs and get the hell out of there and let the people fight for their own democracy. How can you call what we are doing now as anything but a conquest?

You have the apparently great foresight to know Ron Paul will never be president, but the striking shortsight to understand that 'we' will NEVER establish a democratic, freedom and peace loving region in the middle east without committing complete genocide of the ethnic people there. I understand this doesn't really seem like a bad idea to you folks, but, personally I don't want to go to hell for 'voluntarily' funding the destruction of one of God's races. I thought we were supposed to be better than our enemies? Isn't that what makes us the 'good guys'?

By the way stop pretending that you give a shit about the brutalized population over there. You salivate over the thought of a glass parking lot tinted crimson red with the blood of muslims. When pushed (and thought to be in sympathetic company), you all admit it, every time.

Scott McDonnell · 2 years ago

Also, forgot to metion that Ron Paul would only go to a 'foreign' war with the people's consent through the proper, legal, declaration of war by the people's representatives in congress and senate.

Invasion, insurrection, and attacks on our homeland are a separate thing, altogether. And that is what protecting our country is supposed to be about. The commander in chief has the absolute authority to respond immediately in those cases.

I predict someone will bring up Hezbolah from Iran and the threat they pose to Israel. Last time I checked, Israel was its own country and not part of the 50 states. Terrorism in Israel is Israels problem, not ours. I have nothing against Israel, its people, or its right to exist, but I am unwilling to send Americans to die or billions of my money for that right. If the majority of people disagree with me on this, let's add this right in to our supreme law of the land and do it right.

Somehow, I just can't see Israel sending its army over to the U.S. to help us fight off an invasion. And that is the way it should be.

Patrick Henry · 2 years ago

Hello,

Paranoid, libel, uneducated, lie spreadder.

How are you doing?

You are being attacked because of your outright lies.

And for a news organization to BLINDLY post your blog on their website, shows VERY poor objective journalism.

Your blog that was removed, was FILLED with out right lies about Ron Paul.

Paul himself stated that there might be views of the John Birch society that he didn't agree with, but that he was unaware of any.

Why don't you do North Dakota a favor, and educate yourself before you start spreading lies. To continue to do so, are the actions of immature, uneducated, irresponsible, highschoolers.

likwidshoe · 2 years ago

Scott McDonnell - After 9/11, Iran was becoming one our biggest partners in the middle east to route out terrorists. Al-Qaida HATES Iran, and the feeling is reciprocated. We were closer than ever to opening a friendly relationship with Iran, until someone decided to put them on the Axis-of-Evil list.

Blame Bush. It's much easier than looking at Iran's support of terrorism, Hezbollah, and their virulent hatred of the only functioning democratic country in the Middle East.

You have the apparently great foresight to know Ron Paul will never be president, but the striking shortsight to understand that ‘we' will NEVER establish a democratic, freedom and peace loving region in the middle east without committing complete genocide of the ethnic people there. I understand this doesn't really seem like a bad idea to you folks, but, personally I don't want to go to hell for ‘voluntarily' funding the destruction of one of God's races.

Ideology does not equal race. There are so many different races in the Middle East, so it is kind of silly for you to bring the subject up.

I'd also say that you're selling the Kurds short. They are more than ready for democracy. You may not believe that about the Iraqis (even though they've displayed it), but it is kind of hard to deny that the Kurds want democracy.

I predict someone will bring up Hezbolah from Iran and the threat they pose to Israel. Last time I checked, Israel was its own country and not part of the 50 states. Terrorism in Israel is Israels problem, not ours.

Oh, but wait! A moment ago you were telling us,

After 9/11, Iran was becoming one our biggest partners in the middle east to route out terrorists.

Now you are attaching conditions and telling us which terrorism groups don't count.

This is where you guys lose me. You're willing to overlook most terrorism and you're more than willing to believe that Al Qaeda is the end-all, be-all of our terrorism problems. The Ron Paul position is not sane foreign policy.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]By the way stop pretending that you give a shit about the brutalized population over there. You salivate over the thought of a glass parking lot tinted crimson red with the blood of muslims.[/quote]Scott: Are you projecting again, or just off your meds? I just [i]love[/i] all the mind readers who show up and tell us the [i]intentions[/i] of every man's heart. The only "heart" you can infallibly read is your own, you sick bastard! Stop ascribing your pathology to everyone else!

Paul · 2 years ago

If your article that was pulled contained lies and/or misinformation, then shame on you. If it did not contain lies and/or misinformation, and was pulled by Reiten Broadcasting because some readers simply did not like it, then shame on Reiten Broadcasting.

Your issue is either with yourself, or Reiten Broadcasting, not Ron Paul supporters.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]If it did not contain lies and/or misinformation, and was pulled by Reiten Broadcasting because some readers simply did not like it, then shame on Reiten Broadcasting.[/quote]So, if it was a [i]factual[/i] article that got pulled because of complaints from a bunch of mouthbreathers, the [i]mouthbreathers[/i] are in no way at fault? They take [i]no[/i] responsibilty for their own actions? Nice try! Shame on [i]them[/i] for giving[i] us[/i] what we demanded!

Rob · 2 years ago

Right, Proof. Ron Paul's internet goon squads bear no responsibility.

I talked with the guy at Reiten. Mostly he took it down because it wasn't worth fighting with these idiots. The version of the post that appeared on this blog is, of course, still linked from the Reiten page. And it contains no lies.

Matt C · 2 years ago

One last time.
this sentence:
"Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq"
is false.

That makes it a lie or an error. Which is it.

Nancy · 2 years ago

[quote]The big question is why Ron Paul is running as a Republican while he really is a Libertarian.

Ron Paul is not a Republican[/quote]

Well, he's on his 10th term as a Republican Congressman. How many years does one need to be in the Republican party to be considered a Republican?

I find it curious that you appear to raise the term, libertarian, like it is something for which to be ashamed. You were aware right, that both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan referred to themselves as "libertarian conservatives".

I thought you might also be interested in what some other long-time Republicans have said about Ron Paul.

"...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater." -- Chuck Muth

"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom" -- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. -- Walter Williams

Judge Andrew Napolitano describes Congressman Ron Paul as the "Thomas Jefferson of our day." [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8]video[/url]

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." -- President Ronald Reagan

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America

Jeff S. · 2 years ago

Come gentlemen, let us all chill out and make peace with one another and agree to disagree with one another.

All us supporters of Ron Paul simply want to encourage Americans who have not heard him speak much to sit down and listen to what the man has to say. Either Google Video or YouTube search "Ron Paul" or better yet, just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Candidates@Google Interview (Silicon Valley, CA): Ron Paul -- 2007 July 13 (1 hour, 5 minutes) (9 stars)
Google Interviewer: "We've never gotten so many questions on our...system for a presidential candidate who has visited Google."

Anna · 2 years ago

Hmm.. Looks like we have a lil' vile seepage issue with the spam filter lately.
;)

Leland Thomas Faegre · 2 years ago

Apparently, someone associated with this blog does not want visitors to know of Thompson's membership in the [b][i]Council on Foreign Relations[/i][/b] as my previous comments were taken down...

Joel · 2 years ago

[quote]Apparently, someone associated with this blog does not want visitors to know of Thompson's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations as my previous comments were taken down...[/quote]

Queue up the twilight zone music.....

Leland Thomas Faegre · 2 years ago

[quote]Queue up the twilight zone music.....[/quote]

Oh, a regular occurrence apparently. [b][i]You[/i][/b] make my case better than I...

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]Apparently, someone associated with this blog does not want visitors to know of Thompson's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations as my previous comments were taken down...[/quote]
Would that be the post you made [quote]Leland Thomas Faegre on July 22, 2007 at 07:36 am [/quote][b] on a [i]different[/i] thread?????????[/b]
Apparently someone associated with this post:
A) Is so full of himself he associates conspiracies hanging on his every word. Or
B) Is inept at navigating simple blogs.
[url=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_loves_the_john_birch_society/P100/]Say Anything[/url] Note: Your comment is on page [b]two[/b], so try not to get lost!
Oh, and you might want to apologize to our host. Just a thought!

Rob · 2 years ago

[quote]All us supporters of Ron Paul simply want to encourage Americans who have not heard him speak much to sit down and listen to what the man has to say.[/quote]

Fair enough. I actually support this. I've posted several times on my disagreement with the attempted exclusion of Paul from debates.

That being said, how about Ron Paul supporters letting people critical of Paul have their say?

sammy · 2 years ago

HAHA easy there Rob, you're sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

"OMGZ teh ron paul nazis are trying to silence me!"

The article was removed because it's inaccurate. Ron Paul is not a John Bircher or a 9/11 truther. Countering your baseless claims with evidence to the contrary is not using "thug tactics". If you're going to spread outright lies about a presidential candidate expect to be called on it. That is all.

Neiman · 2 years ago

Jeff S:
[quote]All us supporters of Ron Paul simply want to encourage Americans who have not heard him speak much to sit down and listen to what the man has to say. Either Google Video or YouTube search "Ron Paul" or better yet, just watch this: [/quote]

That's fine, but when others politely suggest Paul has to be able to sell himself and his own ideas, that he is ultimately responsible for his own success or failure; or, should we dare say we disagree with some of his beliefs, some of the Paulites here go absolutely ballistic that we are not willing to support Ron Paul because you think he is so great.

Great ideas and beliefs will fail to take root unless the person advocating them has the ability to inspire others to follow them. Ron Paul must possess the necessities to prove to others he is worth following, or those views and beliefs need a better messenger. If you Paulites cannot see that and get your candidate to change something in his style or approach to inspire others, you are all in for a huge disappointment come election time - that requires facing reality.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]you might want to apologize to our host.[/quote]He did, a few minutes ago on another thread. (Wouldn't want him getting a bad rap from anyone who didn't see it!)

Joe · 2 years ago

I'M WITH RON PAUL!

First time reader · 2 years ago

Hi, first time reader.

I was looking for information on Fred Thompson and I came across this blog. The experience has been a complete turn-off. The Fred supporters here are even worse than the Ron Paul supporters.

It certainly is not helping Fred to rant like a lunitic and put an "I'm With Fred- Contribute Now" button on your comments.

Is this really the level of Fred supporters?

Just an observation.

Neiman · 2 years ago

First time reader: You are making a serious mistake in judgment or perhaps you are at least to some degree illiterate. There is no degree of blind support here for Fred Thompson, he appears to have much to offer as compared to the other candidates, but there is certainly no blind loyalty nor is this by any stretch of the imagination an Elect Fred Blog.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]Is this really the level of Fred supporters?[/quote]FTR: I don't know how far back in the blog you've checked, but there hasn't been any real strong pro-FDT blogs on here lately. A lot of the Ronettes have tried to smear Fred as they've done their drive-by Ron Rah! There have been some mild and brief responses to that, but no full court press for Thompson.
Come back after Labor Day and you might see one. Or whenever he declares...

Proof · 2 years ago

And for those of you who don't read the Google ads:

[quote][u]Sort of like Ron Paul?[/u] Want to end the war now? Support a Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, in 2008[/quote]

What does [i]that[/i] tell you?

First time reader · 2 years ago

[quote]First time reader: You are making a serious mistake in judgment or perhaps you are at least to some degree illiterate. There is no degree of blind support here for Fred Thompson, he appears to have much to offer as compared to the other candidates, but there is certainly no blind loyalty nor is this by any stretch of the imagination an Elect Fred Blog.[/quote]

You are right, I must be illiterate. I see a button on the right hand menu and 15 more in the comment section saying "I'm With Fred-Contribute Now", and illiterate me assumes the blog supports Thompson.

Us illiterates just get confused by pretty pictures, that's all.

Thanks for setting me straight. You Fredheads are such a cool bunch. Can I be a Fredhead too and attack people over the internet? It looks like so much fun.

Don't bother replying. I will not be returning.

Neiman · 2 years ago

First time reader: Why are people like you such cowards and want to run away? Get in the debate, throw some punches and have fun, I promise you will like the give and take. This blog IS NOT a Fred Thompson Campaign Headquarters, yet.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]Us illiterates just get confused by pretty pictures, that's all.[/quote]First Time Bleeder: At least one of the ads with Fred's picture on it is a PajamasMedia ad. Rob doesn't control that content. I pretty much ignore most of the ads. (Sorry, Rob!)
He does have an "I'm with Fred" button on his signature, but it's a free country! I mock Ron Paul's Ronettes on my signature. It's called personal choice.
[quote]Don't bother replying. I will not be returning.[/quote]

Question of the day: Why does [i]every[/i] prima donna who cruises through here and gets their knickers in a knot, [b]make such a big deal[/b] about [quote]"never coming back"[/quote] ,
[quote]"no. please! No matter how much you beg, I won't stay!"[/quote]
[quote]"I'm terminally offended. I'm leaving. Really! Not coming back!"[/quote]
Why can't they [i]just leave??[/i]
And then they just [i]have[/i] to come back to see if anybody missed them! (Or noticed they were gone!)

Paul · 2 years ago

[quote]So, if it was a factual article that got pulled because of complaints from a bunch of mouthbreathers, the mouthbreathers are in no way at fault? They take no responsibility for their own actions? Nice try! Shame on them for giving us what we demanded[/quote]!

You do have difficulty with this simple concept don't you? If the article contained no lies or misinfo, then you should be pissed at Reiten. Those "mouth breathers" (you didn't take the Win Friends and Influence People course did you?) have the right to complain all day to whoever they want. If your article was correct, and they're full of BS for being upset about it, then Reiten should have had the balls to stand behind you. Think about it, you could call the local TV station every day, complaining that while on the air, the news anchor is giving you secret signals to go jump off a bridge. One would hope that after the TV station management talked to the news anchor, and your claims were decided to be absurd, that they would let the anchor continue doing their job, and let you jump of a bridge, yelling about the secret signals all the way down.

I stand by my original post. If your article was factual, then your beef is with Reiten for letting you flap in the wind.

george · 2 years ago

Most of you here don't care about the truth... you'd just rather 1-up each other.

That being the case, please excuse my going back to the original question. Matt C is challenging this phrase from Rob's post. Does anyone have proof to support/deny the claim at hand?
[quote]
One last time.
this sentence:
"Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq"
is false.

That makes it a lie or an error. Which is it.
[/quote]

Rob's video ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c5_1179338348 ) leaves the door open on Ron Paul's positions, but it certainly doesn't convict him.

As of now, I'm of the opinion that it's Rob's educated opinion, but there's a lack of proof so I wouldn't consider it a hard fact. This is where the line between blogging meets the world of hard news reporting.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote] If your article was correct, and they're full of BS for being upset about it, then Reiten should have had the balls to stand behind you.[/quote]So, in the flap over the cartoons of Mohammed, who is more at fault, in your opinion: The newspapers, magazines and TV stations that won't publish them, or the people who [i]threaten to murder them[/i] if they do.

I apologize if you were one of the mouthbreathers who complained. BTW, Dale Carnegie was a wuss. You can get more with a kind word and a loaded gun than you can get with a kind word alone!

Paul · 2 years ago

[quote]So, in the flap over the cartoons of Mohammed, who is more at fault, in your opinion: The newspapers, magazines and TV stations that won't publish them, or the people who threaten to murder them if they do.

I apologize if you were one of the mouthbreathers who complained. BTW, Dale Carnegie was a wuss. You can get more with a kind word and a loaded gun than you can get with a kind word alone! [/quote]

I am not a mouthbreather, (I would assert that you are due to your need to call people names who don't agree with you)and I did not complain about the article.

The cartoon flap was a very different issue.

In the case of this article, we saw the free market at work. The writer produced a product (the blog). Reiten acquired it to re-blog. Their consumers did not like it and complained to them about it. Wanting to please there consumers in the hopes that they will patronize their advertisers, Reiten decided against this product. So there are many opportunities: The writer can change his product to suit what Reiten wants to please their customers. Reiten can look elsewhere for product to re-blog , and the writer can continue to produce the same product, and find other customers to re-blog them. I mean stuff happens; things change. Be a big boys and roll with it. Sitting there having a "pity party", calling people names, and dishing out other insults, just serves to affirm that the writer is the clod that the people who complained thought him to be in the first place.

Again, Reiten's consumers have all the right in the world to contact them with complaints. What Reiten and the writer do with each other is between them.

Proof · 2 years ago

[quote]I apologize if you were one of the mouthbreathers who complained[/quote]
[quote]I am not a mouthbreather, (I would assert that you are due to your need to call people names who don't agree with you)and I did not complain about the article. [/quote]
[b]Nor[/b] do you apparently understand the word [b]"if"![/b] Perhaps "hyperbole" is beyond you as well. Maybe "satire". Or "tongue in cheek".
[quote]The cartoon flap was a very different issue. [/quote]...which makes the same point. If a newsman or broadcaster is threatened with a loss of income, or livelihood, or life, in other words, if there is a mob in the street, who is a fault for an individual not being able to pass? The individual who was not brave enough to face the mob or the mob. I know! It's a different [i]issue[/i]!But, the same [i]principle![/i]

Jason Mitchell · 2 years ago

The reason that you got so much feedback is because everyone who gets a google news alert about Ron Paul was directed to your posting. Thats the only reason I had read it, although I didn't comment on that one, I did think it was misrepresentative of Ron Paul. Just because he said that he agrees with some of what the John Birch Society does does not mean that he is a conspiracy theorist or whatever. If I say I agree with Hillary Clinton on some things, does that mean I support her or endorce everything she stands for? Uh... no.

The truth is that the Paul message resonates with lots of different people for lots of different reasons. Disallusioned members of both parties, indepenents, and yes, the fringe wackos. Personal liberty is a pretty broad message with pretty broad support.

Personally, I can't stand 9/11 truthers, conspiracy nuts etc... but I do believe in their right to think whatever they want, so long as they don't interfere with my right to think that they are nuts. That is the appeal, its really the message that does it for me, not Ron Paul the man, although I do hold him in high regard for standing up for what he believes in, and being rational even right after 9/11 when most of us were rash and emotional.

docdave · 2 years ago

[quote]The big question is why Ron Paul is running as a Republican while he really is a Libertarian.

Well, he's on his 10th term as a Republican Congressman. How many years does one need to be in the Republican party to be considered a Republican[/quote] Nancy, I guess you never heard of RINOs which Paul is one. Anyway it's a far reach from representative of a local district to the president of the entire country and I think that someone who is going to run as a Republican candidate they should really be a Republican. Paul is only a Republican because he could never be elected as a Libertarian candidate.

I don't think that Ron Paul is a bad person but I also think he is a little bit out of his element here with his presidential bid. That being said I would vote for Paul if he were the Republican candidate as he would be better than any of the Democrats.

2Hotel9 · 2 years ago

You paulettes really want to get people on your side? Then start posting Ron's copious statements and comments about UFOs and US Government coverup thereof.

Then get back to me.

John Stossel · 2 years ago

It gets worse. In addition to deleting your points, libertarians are now trying to undermine the voter rights act and take away your right to vote. Don't believe me? Check out this article by John Stossel, where he argues in favor of "permitting only the economically literate to vote, or giving them more votes."

And how does Stossel define "economic literacy"? Well, surprise, surprise, it's defined as how well in line your opinions are with modern libertarianism. Only people with a direct financial stake in the outcomes (e.g., rich people) can be rational in their voting. Therefore, only rich people should be allowed to vote.

I suppose that's one of insuriing that Ron Paul might have a shot of winning, by excluding any voter who doesn't support Ron Paul's platform from the rolls. No wonder Ron Paul was one of the few congressmen out their who voted against the renewal of the voter's rights act.