Asterisk-Free Libertarianism--The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters)

Liberty Reborm ^ | 8-26-07 | JJ Jackson

[DugwayDuke]

“I’ve never seen any posts or threads of Paul supporters accusing other FReepers of this. If there are, please provide the links. The only posts I’ve seen are those who refute the lie that “Giuliani is the only one who can beat Clinton.”” EEE.

I’ve seen several posts claiming that Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Hillary. I’m sure you’ve seen them too. The claim goes like this, only a anti-war candidate can win and Ron is the only antiwar republican. Therefore, he is the only ‘repubican’ who can beat Hillary.

[padre35]

Tooo funny, I think the comedy channel is now hiring, maybe you can get Jon Stewart a cup of coffee, you have a real skill here....

[tpaine]

Like you, I like Hunter, Thompson, or Gingrich.
I also like Paul.
But we all know the only viable candidate of that bunch is Thompson.

So why the constant nitpicking of Paul? -- Do you really believe he is some sort of boogyman?

I'm not nitpicking him.

Get real. You've been posting hissy fit articles like this one for quite some time.

I think the article made a relevant point. His supporters make all sorts of nonsensical claims on FR, from Ron as the heir to Ronald Reagan's foreign policy to the unconstitutionality of the income and social security taxes.

Big deal. Every candidate ever known has had a contingent of "nonsensical supporters".

Are you suggesting that shouldn't be addressed on long threads, allowing those unfamiliar with him to accept those positions?

No, I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Un american?; - unconstitutional?

[DugwayDuke]

“The article doesn’t mention how many of Ron Paul’s earmarks ever get funded. That’s because they don’t get funded.”

Absolutely totally irrelevent to the theme of the article which is if Ron Paul truly believed in and was a ‘staunch defender’ of the Constitution he wouldn’t propose them in the first place.

But, even if what you say is true that none of those earmarks were funded, then those that deleted these earmarks are better ‘staunch defenders of the Constitution’ than is Ron Paul.

[padre35]

I think the thing to keep in mind about folks who are on a Jihad Against Ron Paul is that while they are more then willing to attack Dr. Paul, they never bother to extend their logic to their own candidates.

To hug the truly pitiful libertarian practice of “peeing contest to see who is the most ideologically pure candidate” is to miss the fact that the issues Ron Paul talks about are actually “Conservative Republican” issues, from abortion to taxes to the 2nd amendment, Ron Paul has consistently supported a Constitutional Orginalist view of the Role of Government in America.

Only die ahrd libertarians and ron paul bashers can actually say “See, he isn’t perfect, he wanted 237,000 for the shrimp industry, and because he cheated on us, well...I’ll just go vote for Fred”

If we use the same yardstick to measure a Fred Thompson candidacy that is being used to measure a Ron Paul candidacy, the comparison isn’t even close, Thompson looks like a socialist in comparison to Paul, but that never breaks the stride of the Jihady’s attack on Paul.

There is a brightside however, they are bemusing in their jivvy toves....

[Graybeard58]

with regards to the Constitution; for it or against it. There is no “mostly”. Yes, you can certainly disagree with parts of it, but you still have to abide by it. It’s the law of the land so deal with it.

While it's easy to agree with that statement, it's all about interpretation isn't it? That's the reason for abortion on demand, gun laws and a host of welfare programs. Liberals finding new meaning every day in the constitution as a "living document".

[italianquaker]

Wrong he is the gops rosie. Has he apologized for blaming the USA for 9-11 yet?

[caltrop]

That's not even a nice try.

I'm not aware that the "Jewish Lobby" you refer to is responsible for our continued massive ground presence in Germany. Please feel free to let me know if I haven't gotten the word.

Ten years after the Berlin Wall came down we still had something like 75,000 ground troops there in addition to their dependents, the schools needed for their children, the medical and dental facilities, the cost of shipping household goods, etc. That's a pretty sizable force to maintain without any mission. The Defense Department could use the funds we spend to maintain our ground forces in Europe if we brought them home - the sooner the better - to defend the US by upgrading US facilities and equipment.

I suspect most of us who knew the War in Iraq was a counterproductive fool's errand from the start recognized that it was only a question of time before our involvement in the region would prompt one of the region's many warring factions to see us as opposing them and extend their war to the US.

My understanding of "truthers" is that they believe that 9/11 was undertaken by the US government - an idea I find ridiculous.

As long as you've asked about Jewish conspiracies could you tell me how I should answer those who ask about the Bergen Record's reporting on the Israelis who were seen cheering and recording the attacks on the WTCs from a rooftop in Jersey City? I'll admit that one stumps me.

[George W. Bush]

Dennis Kucinich Beating Ron Paul in Online Poll

Freeping polls is how we got our name as Freepers here at FR. The DUmmies and the Kos bunch have finally caught on and are doing the same thing. These polls don't mean that much unless you're looking at one that follows a major political event and even then they're too easy to spam.

Strangely enough, just when Ron Paul has had a string of actual straw poll victories, you choose to post about some meaningless online poll that is usually controlled by whose supporters find it first.

I visited USAElectionPolls.com and your cited poll showing a head-to-head on their page. As usual, your posts are nothing but lies. You had to resort to quoting some confused obscure message board as your little news source before the Paulian Horde arrived at that poll to represent the true levels of online support.

---

Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)

Rudy Giuliani 2% (38)
Fred Thompson 1% (18)
Mitt Romney 3% (68)
John McCain 0% (7)
Newt Gingrich 0% (10)
Mike Huckabee 1% (30)
Ron Paul 52% (1152)
Tom Tancredo 0% (3)
Sam Brownback 0% (3)
Duncan Hunter 0% (4)
Barack Obama 9% (203)
John Edwards 2% (40)
Hillary Clinton 4% (90)
Bill Richardson 1% (18)
Dennis Kucinich 20% (448)
Joe Biden 1% (15)
Mike Gravel 1% (17)
Chris Dodd 0% (5)
Al Gore 2% (40)

---

Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes which you can then attribute as truth. You rely upon the laziness of FReepers to believe your little lies so you can spread your FUD.

For a candidate you claim to be so marginal, you certainly jump through hoops to try to lie about him by quoting "others". You're pathetic and post disinformation routinely.

Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.

[Harvey105]

Are you saying that misguided interventionism won’t anger people in the countries involved?

Are you furthe suggesting that even doing the right things for the right reasons still won’t cause anger and backlash?

If you step between your next door neighbor and his wife as he beats her, do you think that he is going to thank you or will he look for ways to retaliate?

Actions have consequences. Even good actions can bring negative consequences.

[Allegra]

[billbears]

I’m suprised that you would not notice that ‘centered on America’s interests’ is a phrase commonly used by paleo-conservatives and libertarians to refer to the ‘Jewish lobby that controls our national policy’.

So anyone that uses such statements could most likely be anti-semitic? That's rich. Unless you accept the role of empire, you hate people. To think that has always been the standard, well except for Democrats who used to always start the wars....What does that say about Junior who called for a 'more humble foreign policy' in his 2000 campaign? That would have been 'centered on America's interests'.

I guess then that you agree with the ‘truthers’ and Ron Paul that we were attacked because of our troops overseas?

So you discount the concept that every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. Damn Iraqis. They should be thankful we're using our bombs on them...thankful!?!? They should be grateful.

When the police action in Iraq is over and Iraq evolves into a theocracy (if it doesn't fall apart altogether), will your excuse then be that if we stayed just a 'little longer' everything would have been okay as well?

In effect all we're doing is trying to keep together a nation that has only been in existence for 80+ years. And a nation that was created by outside forces. Keep it up. It will work this time...really it will....

[Borax Queen]

bttt

[George W. Bush]

I thought I should repost SJackson's post and my own response and flag all of you to it.

SJackson, Post #39

Since we're discussing moonbat candidates, that makes sense. After all, like Paul, Dennis is winning the moonbat vote. Dennis Kucinich Beating Ron Paul in Online Poll http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=21531&ret=Default.aspx Washington D.C. 8/25/2007 9:59 AM GMT (FINDITT) USAElectionPolls.com is currently holding an online straw poll on the front page of its website. The questions is worded "Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)". Dennis Kucinich is leading the Democrats by a 3:1 margin over Barack Obama. Ron Paul has a commanding 5:1 lead over Mitt Romney. If it was a head to head bout, Dennis Kucinich would be beating Internet Phenom Ron Paul. Go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com.

Notice how SJackson posts a false and misleading result from an obscure website. Although providing a link to the real online poll page, SJackson relies on the laziness of FReepers to fall for her little trick.

Here's the real online poll result:

---

Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)

Rudy Giuliani 2% (38)
Fred Thompson 1% (18)
Mitt Romney 3% (68)
John McCain 0% (7)
Newt Gingrich 0% (10)
Mike Huckabee 1% (30)
Ron Paul 52% (1152)
Tom Tancredo 0% (3)
Sam Brownback 0% (3)
Duncan Hunter 0% (4)
Barack Obama 9% (203)
John Edwards 2% (40)
Hillary Clinton 4% (90)
Bill Richardson 1% (18)
Dennis Kucinich 20% (448)
Joe Biden 1% (15)
Mike Gravel 1% (17)
Chris Dodd 0% (5)
Al Gore 2% (40)

---

I thought it was worth pointing out how SJackson and the other Paul-haters routinely use misleading quotes from obscure websites to trash Ron Paul. It shows how desperate and dishonest they really are. Well, if the malicious keyword spamming they engage in isn't enough to tip readers off to begin with.

As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through. Of course, when someone like SJackson has done this exact same trick dozens of times on countless threads with her little crew of Paul-haters, the denials become pretty hard to believe. Any ordinary person who examines such a post would conclude that SJackson is a deliberate smearer who has no interest in the truth.

It doesn't get much more dishonest than this. But I'm sure the Paul-haters are just waiting for another chance to smear Ron Paul as they have done so many times before. This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.

[Borax Queen]

So anyone that uses such statements could most likely be anti-semitic? That's rich.

I noticed that is this morning's disgusting and repeated ad nauseum tactic to try to shut down any conversation in the Paul threads.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Why Is This Canadian Pot Dealer Campaigning for Ron Paul?

LOL! Boy you're really scraping the bottom of the dumpster there aren't you General Stonewall.

"You would see a cooling of the federal war on drugs [under Paul]," Benton says. "But Ron believes in the rule of law, and I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free."

So...where in this statement that Paul supports complete legalization of drugs or would give dealers amnesty? Paul would likely end the paramilitary, no-knock raids on law-abiding citizens perpetrated by the DEA and out of control local cops and let states handle drug policy.

[ejonesie22]

Oh good Lord. I have not even read the thread and I am laughing...

[George W. Bush]

I noticed that is this morning's disgusting and repeated ad nauseum tactic to try to shut down any conversation in the Paul threads.

Actually, it's a deliberate tactic which they have used repeatedly to either try to get all Ron Paul supporters banned or to get at least a few RP supporters banned.

They attempt to get someone to say someone about 9/11 Trutherism or something antisemitic so they all hit Abuse. This is a standard tactic they have adopted. The pattern is quite clear. Notice how they have to keep introducing the subject on thread after thread, whether there is any Truther/antisemitic content or not. Notice how they spam the keywords, again, this is part of their deliberate ongoing smear campaign.

This is an organized disinformation effort by the Paul-haters, likely coordinated via FRmail if you notice the pattern of how they appear on these threads.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I’ve seen several posts claiming that Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Hillary. I’m sure you’ve seen them too.

I've read the NRO column by Todd Seavey that makes a good case for Paul. Can he beat Hillary? It's possible, considering that he'll get the Christian vote, the libertarian vote, and all the swing and independent vote, in addition to traditional liberals.

The claim goes like this, only a anti-war candidate can win and Ron is the only antiwar republican. Therefore, he is the only ‘repubican’ who can beat Hillary.

I've always made the claim that whoever is the GOP nominee is going to need to reach out to Paul and his supporters. Paul's supporters are not going to hold their noses for the GOP nominee if the establishment and candidates keep trashing Paul.

BTW - you can lose your tagline now. The earmark claim is bunk.

[Allegra]

Oh good Lord. I have not even read the thread and I am laughing...

They're in rare form today, aren't they? ;-)