Debating Ron Paul

National Ledger ^ | Aug 29, 2007 | JB Williams

[mnehring]

Border security? Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul are the only ones with their heads wired correctly.

Paul is the only one of the three to vote against putting the National Guard on the border. (Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001).. Like many other things, he talks a lot, but his voting doesn't always match his rhetoric. IE, he doesn't put his votes where his mouth is.

[trisham]

His record speaks for itself:

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

[PlainOleAmerican]

I’ll play along...

What would Ronald Reagan do if he were President on the day that international jihadists proved they were interested and capable of destroying America’s financial districts and government and military headquarters while killing 3000 innocent Americans on their way to work, all in 20 minutes using no modern technology at all?

What would Ronald Reagan do after that day, upon learning that those same cells were operating in more than 60 countries, in search of access to WMD’s to level U.S. cities in a single moment, with no warning at all?

I had the honor of meeting Ronald Reagan once and based upon that experience, not to mention his well-known record as a serious national security hawk, I’m confident that he would do more than Bush has done.

Now that’s something I could support!

[PlainOleAmerican]

Yes it does...

[George W. Bush]

One wonders, why are Ron Paul supporters so “web savvy”? Their hacking would explain him getting 96% of straw polls.

RP supporters are disproportionately involved in IT. Among the Libertarian Party itself, the single most common profession was IT for many years (and may still be for all I know). This would include folks who are expert in UNIX scripting, programming, etc. A sample would be some of my own scripting which you can see at the following three Photobucket screenshots:

FreeRepublic screencaps as seen in altered mode (Javascript/XUL/Firefox): thread, posting comments, embedded YouTube video

As for the assertion that self-selected on-line polls have been rendered meaningless by those dirty UNIX hippies that support Ron Paul, well, it's completely silly. They were always meaningless. FR itself became notorious for blasting the online polls and annoying the libmedia. The Dinosaur Media (of which the writer is one) have always resented the interference of FreeRepublic with their little cheap tricks to deliver a guaranteed liberal online poll result. And FReepers ruined it for them. Now, FR can barely muster a freep of any poll and all you are bitching and crying that those wonderful online libmedia polls are being polluted by dirty hippies. Oh, the injustice...

As for the accusations that we have script kiddies blasting these polls, there are no indications. Do we have people capable of doing it easily? Well, of course. But if you follow the Ron Paul blogs and forums, they have packs of people that love to search these stupid online polls out just to freep them, just like we used to. With over 30,000 online activists signed up now and the expectation that we'll have over 40,000 by October, it isn't too surprising that we can produce the few thousand actual online votes needed to spam out any poll. Don't blame us if the rest of you are to fat and lazy to find and click a (stupid and meaningless) online libmedia poll for your candidate but prefer to spend your time sitting around bitching about people who do care enough to support their candidate (however little these polls actually mean).

Could we automate poll-spamming? Of course. Have we? I don't believe so. We have tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters who need something to do to support RP and chat about on a daily basis anyway.

[mnehring]

I’ve posted that on 2 threads now today alone. The anti-Paul’s won’t read it. It doesn’t fit their agenda.

No, it doesn't fit the world today, ie, that we are at war. IMHO, Reagan would disagree with how the current war is being fought, but not by sticking his head up his ass like Paul, instead, I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped a nuke on Baghdad. If Reagan went into Grenada, you know he sure as hell would have taken out Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other terrorist supporting country.

[PlainOleAmerican]

No, you’re confusing posts...

The cherry picking concerns cherry picking three current polls, which only confirm what I already said, that Paul has peaked as high as 3%. If you review ALL national polls, he usually has been a one percenter...

That cherry picking...

[mnehring]

I recall an article a while back that Paul was also the candidate of choice among Google employees.

[Dead Corpse]

The language of that bill included using the US military to prosecute the drug war. Where in the Constitution does it give the FedGov the power to wage such a war? Can you point to the clause? Or do you need to pull out the tired old tactic of "penumbras" and "emanations"?

Never mind, I suppose you were all for ANY legislation no matter what "poison pill" amendments or wording are added to them...

[deport]

That Paul fellar is really tearing them up in public support across the fruited plain.

Paul's numbers:

• Fox News: 3%
• Gallup: 3%
• Quinnipiac: 2%
• CNN: 1%
• USA Today: 2%
• Newsweek: 2%

And so it goes...... Make this your last hurrah.

RUN PAUL RUN

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. I really don't want Marines doing no-knock raids on wrong addresses. And? Maybe we should call in Air Force air strikes to take out suspected crack houses?

Of course, there's that little stumbling block of the Constitution, but hey... it's just a "G*dd*mn piece of paper" right?

[PlainOleAmerican]

I’m NOT suggesting he is a Marxist at all.

I’m simply pointing out that just because “most Americans” want something, no matter what it is, does not mean that this is something worth supporting.

[George W. Bush]

well, last night I went to a Ron Paul meetup (my first) here in Vegas and there were some 20-30 hard core lifelong republicans working to support Ron Paul. They were antigovernment, antisocialism, and antiliberal.

Cool. Too bad you don't have some pics for us. Including the inevitable adjournment to the local watering hole until the wee hours, a required conclusion to RP Meetups.

Funny how RP's supporters always end up hanging out in bars when we're so notorious for whiffing the ganja fumes supposedly. What's remarkable is not merely how malicious and dishonest the reporting on Ron Paul is from both liberal media and neo-con media figures (Fox News, etc.) but that they love to portray RP's supporters so inaccurately. I suspect they're just lazy and reprinting gossip, never actually going to find out anything about our MeetUps.

[PlainOleAmerican]

70% of American voters like socialism too....

70% of Americans have been trained by a leftist press to agree with Paul on Iraq.

70% of Americans might hate the foreign war on terror, but not as much as they will hate that war on their own doorstep if we retreat from the war abroad...

70% of Americans believe all sorts of foolish ideas these days...

You are right about one thing, Ron Paul represents much of the foolishness...

[SJackson]

No, it doesn't fit the world today, ie, that we are at war. IMHO, Reagan would disagree with how the current war is being fought, but not by sticking his head up his ass like Paul, instead, I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped a nuke on Baghdad. If Reagan went into Grenada, you know he sure as hell would have taken out Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other terrorist supporting country.

Policy comparisons between Paul and Reagan are ludicrous. The most important distinction thoug, Reagan recognized we were fighting a virulent, ideologically motivated enemy, the Evil Empire. Paul does not recognize the nature of the enemy, in fact denies that Islam plays any role in terrorism, and attributes the violence to what is essentially American colonialism. From Reagan's perspective, yes, we're at war. From Paul's, there's no coherent enemy, we're dealing with the actions of individuals motivated by our transgressions. More a criminal issue than a world conflict.

[trisham]

Take it easy, friend. Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee. It would be best if he were to drop out during the next few months, for the sake of the GOP.

[PlainOleAmerican]

I’m with ya, give me liberty or give me death...

But let’s not let the drug dealers take over our nation...

[Captain Kirk]

Funny how RP's supporters always end up hanging out in bars when we're so notorious for whiffing the ganja fumes

At least, not one of us has been caught doing something untoward in a public restroom in Minneapolis.

[David Isaac]

I did not mean to imply that Paul was a lefty, though some of his ideas are pretty far out, somewhere. At least he does not claim his first allegience is to the GOP (or does he?), like some other candidates, who for the sake of peace, shall not be named. I was just trying to point out that conservatism, when comprehensively and competently explained to the voters, is a proven winner.

[mnehring]

The language of that bill included using the US military to prosecute the drug war. Where in the Constitution does it give the FedGov the power to wage such a war?

Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 1 (provide for the common defense )

Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 3 (To regulate commerce with foreign nations)

Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10 (To define and punish offenses against the law of nations)

Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 14 (To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces)

Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 15 (To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions)

....want to keep going? Now, unless you don't consider drugs entering the country as commerce (if you believe it should be legal) or invasion (if you believe entering is illegal) than you may have something..