Posted on 05/28/2007 2:00:11 PM PDT by bnelson44
Analysis of the GOP Bloggers Straw Poll
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ron Paul supporters like nobody less than Giuliani — for whom most observers called that debate based on his response to Paul’s “blowback” comments, even as the Ronbots contended that the very same exchange proved Ron Paul the obvious winner.
Unlike supporters of the realistic (and popular, arguably faddish and maybe unrealistic) candidates, Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary — though intriguingly, a minority would consider Tancredo.
I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Paul’s online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters. Activists for every other candidate have their fallbacks, nemeses and frenemies, but no other group is so far outside the mainstream as the activists for Ron Paul.
Maybe Ron Paul is the GOP vanguard. More likely, his support measures something besides the current Republican mood.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogpi.net ...
Those two would be good for starters, as would Clarke himself, but it seems most of the big fish are immune from any dispersions cast their way. I’d at least like to know which of the faults uncovered in the 1993 WTC bombing investigation and the 2001 WTC bombing investigation have been addressed and corrected. Some of the major ones we all know about...some of the others....who knows.
Wow, the obligatory knee-jerk ad-hominem. I'm impressed.
If you don't remember, you should probably go back and look.
No, you cut off half the sentence and then addressed the part that was left...which in no way resembled the original meaning.
That's all they can do.
Paul's critics subscribe to the milquetoast neo-con globalist policies of Bush and the RNC that'll lead us to the same path as the Democrats are taking us.
Credit Ron Paul for talking about the real issues and forcing the other Republicans to at least acknowledge the Constitution. Because all of them with the exception of Tancredo doesn't care about limiting the size of the federal government or waging a real war on terrorism.
Paul's critics can't debate the facts so they resort to the same old lame name-calling & ad-hominems. Just re-read the thread. Every other post calls Paul a nut or a kook.
Here's a question no RP supporter has ever been able to answer: Is Paul an "originalist" as some RP supporters claim, or is he a "strict constructionist" as other RP supporters claim?
The man is a supporter of our Constitution both as it was originally written and as it was strictly constructed.
Bonus points for explaining the difference.
Any difference you see is only what you want to see, - in your mind.
Bogus points to you if you can explain your "originalist" vs "strict constructionist" false dichotomy.
Here's a clue: an originalist tries to discern what the intent of the Framers was in drafting the Constitution and attempts to hew to their understanding of the Constitution.
I discern that the intent of the Framers in drafting the 2nd was to prevent infringements on owning/carrying arms. And I attempt to hew to that understanding of the Constitution.
A strict constructionist treats the Constitution as a self-contained document and attempts to interpret it on its own terms without reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
As a strict constructionist, I treat the 2nd as a self-contained amendment and can interpret it on its own terms without need to reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
My two positions do not conflict, - but please, feel free to ping me again when you have decided to take such matters seriously.
I am very interested in debate.
I say we begin from the following premise:
Ron Paul is not God, but a fallible human being who is capable of being right about foreign policy or being wrong about foreign policy as well as being capable of sound Constitutional interpretation or unsound Constitutional interpretation as circumstances may dictate.
ignore factual rebuttals
I've received none.
That is my perogative as a poster, and it is your perogative to repost whatever you wish.
Go back an re-read the link at post 123. You may not like the content, despite your attempt to parse the hell out of it, but it is factual and destroys your hypothesis.
Having a flame war deficiency?
No, basically, I took the part of what you said that emphasized what my point was about Paul followers all along. Sorry I assumed that Paul followers were intelligent enough to pick up on that.
Ah, well, that's okay - waste your time on Ronnie. That keeps you busy and out of the way of the rest of us.
Nah, I’m doing just fine. But thanks for your concern. ;)
There will be many points of contact where a strict constructionist's conclusion and an originalist's conclusion will be identical - they are, after all, working from the same text.
However, there will be points where they bump heads.
The 2nd Amendment creates a potential conflict between the two views because an originalist will be relying on what the Framers notion of a "militia" is, while a strict constructionist can - but is not obligated to - take a more regulatory view of firearm ownership based on the use of "militia" in the text of the Amendment.
The two approaches are not identical.
“Who, me?”. Heh.
I love Alex Jones. The only thing is he doesn’t add bible prophecy to the NWO. Then he would be totally cool. I support Ron Paul
You're not even close.
May I suggest that if you are going to try to demonize some of your fellow Americans, you should at least attempt to first understand our position.
You're wrong about us and about Ron Paul.
Most of us have been Republicans for many years. The fact is that we are elated that for once there is an educated Republican running for office.
There's nothing to parse - you can't parse words that were added after the interview by the sympathetic interviewer.
What did Ron Paul say in that gap which was amended by the interviewer to read: "inside job"?
Here is what I have said about Ron Paul and the 9/11 "Truthers"
(1) That he was interviewed by an approving Alex Jones on Alex Jones' radio show. Alex Jones is a leading "truther" with a big following and Ron Paul chose to legitimate him by agreeing to be interviewed by him.
(2) That the LIHOP "truthers" are particularly exercised about repealing the PATRIOT Act and reopening the 9/11 investigation.
(3) That Ron Paul has not only appeared on "truther" Jones' show, he repeatedly calls for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act and a "new investigation."
There are three possible conclusions to draw: (a) Ron Paul is a "truther" or (b) Ron Paul is not a "truther" but is cynically exploiting this group by championing their legislative agenda in the hopes that "truthers" will support his campaign or (c) Ron Paul is so laserfocused on his personal obsessions that he does not realize how his meeting with Jones and his incorporation of "truther" policy goals looks.
I vote c.
Yes, I do believe Ron Paul is a nutcase, just like his followers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.