Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Ron and the Paulbots celebrate a terrorist by raising $3.5 mil Update: Make that $3.8 $4.2 mil

posted at 8:34 am on November 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view

Remember, remember the 5th of November. That’s the day Ron Paul vaulted into serious political money.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie “V for Vendetta.” Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: “Remember, remember the 5th of November.”

It’s kind of odd and kind of fitting that the Paulians chose Guy Fawkes Day. Fawkes was a terrorist who tried blowing up the king and Parliament to overthrow the government. The Paulians seem to think of themselves as insurgents against the more establishment candidates, but the fact is if Paul’s foreign and security policies were to be implemented, a whole lot of stuff is likely to get blown up. Even after 9-11, Paul thinks it’s outlandish that anyone could attack the US and if he were president he wouldn’t do anything about Iran’s nuclear program or the real terrorist threat from al Qaeda. Well, other than abolish pretty much every security measure that’s been set up and abandon the Middle East to the biggest thug on the block. Which is why things would tend to blow up if Paul were president.

As it turns out, Paul’s devoted were the only ones celebrating the Gunpowder plot’s 402nd anniversary. In Fawkes’ hometown of York, health and safety regulations have stifled pretty much everything that might be any fun.

No wet floors. No obstructions in the passageways. Many well-lighted emergency exits. But even with her respect for such policies — “You don’t want anyone to hurt themselves,” she said — Ms. Stapylton said it was a bit much that, apparently because of health and safety rules, York would not be sponsoring a traditional fireworks celebration for Guy Fawkes Night on Monday.

“Personally, I think it’s a bit silly,” she said.

York, along with many other municipalities, has often been the scene of huge events — fireworks, bonfires, the burning of creepy effigies of Fawkes — to commemorate the failure of Fawkes’s plan to blow up Parliament and the king in 1605, a shocking moment in British history. But in the face of increasingly onerous regulations, none are taking place in the city this year.

This paragraph pretty much sums up what’s become of England.

Among other things, the Slough authorities have argued that a bonfire would violate environmental laws, upset residents from foreign countries with no tradition of Guy Fawkes Day and kill animals that settle into the wood before it is set alight and are unable to escape.

“…upset residents from foreign countries with no tradition of Guy Fawkes Day…” Now who might that be?

Update: Huh?

Among those for whom a sustained Iraq occupation is not a make-or-break issue, Paul’s big day is going to win him a second look. But he has to lay off the gold standard schtick (at least for a while) and start speaking to conservatives again about the many issues he has in common with them. If he does, he might actually be able to make something of all this.

The gold standard stuff is not a “schtick.” Neither are the batty foreign policy or the associations with Alex Jones et al. That’s who Ron Paul is. It’s like that Denny Green interview — Paul is exactly who we think he is. Which means he’s a Bircheresque crank who happens to be running as a Republican, and who is allowing himself to be an empty vessel for whatever crankery isn’t otherwise represented by any of the other candidates. The Corner may be in need of a Buckleyesque intervention.

Update: Even with Paul’s Fawkes haul, he’s still way behind the top tier candidates in terms of funding. Open Secrets has him behind Thompson, Giuliani and Romney in ascending order. It took about five seconds of research to check up on where Ron really stands wrt the top tier candidates in fundraising.

Thanks to Slu for the Open Secrets linky.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I agree that the nation building is fruitless and we have made some misjudgments, but we have to live with those misjudgments. In Ron Paul’s world we abandon the Middle East and everywhere else around the world and open Free Trade agreements. Then no one has any reason to hate us and we live in peace and harmony!

But let’s assume we created the Jihadist threat through interventionist policies. Now let’s look at Jihadism now. They hate us, and their goal is to remove our way of life. Whether we created this Frankenstein or not the monster HAS been created. The monster has to be delt with, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy doesn’t allow for that. It achieves the worst possible outcome short of carpet bombing major cities, or nuking Mecca.

I see where you are coming from, because I’ve been dealing with this as well. I’ve even gone to LewRockwell.com and taken their argument seriously for the sake of debate. This is where I am at currently. Humbler foreign policy yes, non-interventionism, no.

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 7:45 PM

BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 7:31 PM

So your problem with Paul is that he talks to and/or associates with some people who believe 9-11 to be an inside job? I don’t think that Paul in any way believes that 9-11 was an inside job at all, nor have I seen or read anywhere that he has indicated that it was. He only questions our governments ability and propensity to be secretive about what it does and how it lies about things. That is good in my book. I don’t like that he associates with some of the people he associates with. I understand your point about when does the company a man keeps eliminate him from consideration. The company that Paul keeps does not reach that limit for me anymore than the activities of the front runners positions and views does for you.

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 8:03 PM

In Ron Paul’s world . . .
open Free Trade agreements.

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Since this debate erupted I’ve been perusing the Ron Paul official campaign web site, and haven’t yet found his free trade writings. However a google search returned a Club for Growth white paper that included:

“While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”

Also listed several votes against various free trade bills.

rockhauler on November 6, 2007 at 8:12 PM

“While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”

Also listed several votes against various free trade bills.

Ron Paul is against those bills because he’s thinks they’re unconstitutional (it’s like a running joke at this point!). He says they install and extra-government bureaucracy which takes away Congress’ constitutional powers to trade and makes us less free.

I was wrong by saying “free trade agreements.” After reading from the ass’ mouth I see he’d rather eliminate tariffs and lower taxes. So we make a commitment to free trade, then hopefully others follow suit.

Here’s Paul on CAFTA- http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Humbler foreign policy yes, non-interventionism, no.

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 7:45 PM

That’s a good point. I can see why a lot of people, upset with current U.S. foreign policy, would gravitate towards Paul. I don’t like our current situation in the world that much either, and I wish it was as easy to make the world love us as Ron Paul makes it sounds. But it’s not, and Paul’s worldview is far too simplistic and outdated, to the point of being dangerous.

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Paul has said in a few interviews that he does not think 9/11 was an inside job. But he has refused to say this to Jones or any of his truther followers. He falls back on the point that no candidate can control the thoughts any views of their supporters, without ever answering why truthers would be overwhelmingly drawn to him as opposed to any other candidate.

It is primarily for Paul’s foreign policy and his willingness to be the truther candidate that most conservatives don’t take Paul seriously, and why people ridicule him constantly. It has nothing to do with his desire to have a smaller government. Most of HotAir’s readers are conservative; we all want smaller government.

BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM

If you truly like smaller government, why would you support a candidate that would do nothing but grow the government and our foreign entanglements? If the only thing you can say about Ron Paul is that some scumbags like him, I would say he is doing a fairly good job.

muyoso on November 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Our troops in those places are forces for stability.

Not that I expect any of that to sink in…

Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Why is it the job of the United States to provide stability to the rest of the world? Can’t they work out problems on their own? Shouldn’t the UN, EU or other groups step in and do the job of world police rather then one nation?

offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 6:04 PM

The UN has shown no ability to do anything except set up private gangs and rape people… or show me wrong. Name two wars where the UN was a net benefit instead of a net detriment. Then I’ll name all the net detriments. Pardon me for not being willing to rely on an organization that fails considerably more than it succeeds.

So do we need stability? Without it we can simply use our own oil (in refineries that can’t use it) and run our own industry (that is incapable of supporting our current needs) and use our own energy sources (which won’t cover our current usage, much less any economic expansion).

And then, when we run into the 1970’s energy crisis writ large; what do we do? Cutting off your nose, to spite your face; when a backup plan would require a functioning economy and a decade to evolve seems questionable. We could ask others for help, except we’ve just hung everyone out to dry.

Whining that we shouldn’t have to do it, and then collapsing our economy and every economy dependent on us, while letting several areas engage in spreading wars that could have been avoided… not exactly a good plan.

Your mileage may differ, but I don’t burn down my house because I think property taxes are too high. Our economy is the best in the world… but is also dependent on trade with the rest of the world; and is dependent on a certain level of stability in the rest of the world. Why shouldn’t the largest economy, that is also the most depended on stability, have to do the lion’s share of the work supporting that stability?

But, you’d expect others to keep the stability we need for our economy, or trash the economy in a fit of pique?

Sorry, I’ll hold out for a better plan. Like Giuliani’s, or Romney’s, or Thompson’s, or McCain’s, or Huckabee’s, or Hunter’s, or Tancredo’s, or Obama’s, or Hillary’s, or Edwards’s, or Kucinich’s, or Gore’s, or Richardson’s, or Biden’s, or Dodd’s (not in any particular order).

Honestly, I cant come up with an idea designed to leave the American economy in worse shape than Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

Can you wait to revisit the 1970’s oil crisis until those of us who remember how it went last time aren’t around any more though? We’d appreciate it.

gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Paul is anti-trade, he’s basically advocating national suicide and once that happens so will trade

jp on November 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Paul is not anti trade. What do you base that on?

muyoso on November 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Yawn………no…….

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Why thank you……/s

Hmm something doesn’t make sense here. I did a quick yahoo search on our friend Stephen Walker / Dorian Grey. I dont see where he was involved with the CIA? Maybe I have the wrong guy?

offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Thats one of the reasons that I keep laughing at and mocking you, you see but you dont understand what it is that you see. You quoted my Bona Fide, but don’t know what it is that you quoted. You just told everyone in the intelligence community exactly where I did my work and when, but you don’t know what you said that did it.

I’m 20 plus years out of the business, now a days I just sit around and drink beers and catch shit from my wet work operatives.

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Keep dreaming, some do and some don’t, depends on what you did. I was not James Bond, much much closer to Joseph Turner. Not that you would know who that was.

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM

Paul is anti-trade, he’s basically advocating national suicide and once that happens so will trade

jp on November 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Paul is not anti-trade. Check out my link up above, he’s just off his rocker.

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 10:54 PM

I see John McCain arising.
I see things may finally be going his way.
I see rumbling and hear noises.
I see better times for him today.

Chorus:
Dont go around writing off McCain,
Well, its bound to take your prognosticating life,
John McCain is on the rise.
- CCR

MB4 on November 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

muyoso on November 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM

In the end the ronulan support boils to a trivial sound bite with no meaning. At what point did a faux libertarian crank become the absolute authority on all things constitutional? Never mind that he has voted against nearly every attempt to reduce the size of the government because it did not fit his naive Utopian ideal.

The more I learn about Paul the more I wonder, “was Jimmah Carter this impotent?”

For those who are incapable if figuring this out for themselves, free trade goes hand in hand with “foreign entanglements.”

jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

MB4 on November 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

I kind of like that one, mainly because I like CCR. But what is it doing on this thread?

BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 11:09 PM

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM

The wise, mysterious and dangerous one speaketh. Gather near and listen. He hath wisdom to dispense. What?! Hold that. . . nevermind, that is just gibberish he is talking.

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I kind of like that one, mainly because I like CCR. But what is it doing on this thread?

BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Everything has got to be someplace.

MB4 on November 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM

offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Losing the argument, so you’ve got to go on the attack?

Despicable post.

Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 PM

King of the Trolls on November 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Sure whatever dude…….

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM

offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Missed this one. Wow.

You stay classy, Paulbots. If these are the depths to which you need to resort, then you’ve already lost the argument and any claim at moral superiority.

This is why people have nothing but disdain for you and your candidate.

Nice work. Really.

Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 PM

It’s all Dorien’s fault. It’s blowback, ya know? Poor old offroadaz didn’t have any free will in the matter.

But if Dorien leaves these boards all will be back to normal.

:p

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Wow, am I finally getting my 15 minuets of Hitler fame??

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM

I don’t know…dorian will have to return to the gold standard before I trust him.

Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Wow, am I finally getting my 15 minuets of Hitler fame??

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM

When ya got it, flaunt it. FLAUNT IT!

Keljeck on November 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Losing the argument, so you’ve got to go on the attack?

Despicable post.

Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 PM

I don’t know…dorian will have to return to the gold standard before I trust him.

Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM

You want a gold standard from me, well here it comes……I released that CD in 1996, it was on the internet for almost ten years before that comment offroadaz quoted was posted. Oddly enough right after I made an argument right here at HotAir that really pissed off some of the resident atheists???

However the gold comes with the simple fact that I couldn’t give two $hits what anyone wants to say about my music. I do what I do and you either like it or you don’t, end of story. I really don’t give a flying f^&k if you don’t and I don’t give a flying f^&k what you have to say about it if you don’t like it.

Idiots that think they are going to hurt my feelings or score some blood drawing points by insulting me or my music are amusing beyond words. I’ve been a musician for something like 32 years, I went professional after about 5 years of playing. I have heard every imaginable insult to me and my musical abilities you could possible imagine and they quit phasing me even in the slightest 20 years ago.

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Glad to hear it. I still believe the Paulbots should feel some shame for such a low attempt at discourse.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Well I will say it after reading a number of his comments, I like “King of the Britons” style.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Glad to hear it. I still believe the Paulbots should feel some shame for such a low attempt at discourse.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Meh..who cares, it’s not like Paultards have either maturity morals ethics or a sense of shame. Might as well wish that truthers would wake from their somnolence.

Well I will say it after reading a number of his comments, I like “King of the Britons” style.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Ha ha ha you would………

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Ha ha ha you would………

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.
- Confucius

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Ha ha ha you would………

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM

If I am walking with two other men, each of them will serve as my teacher. I will pick out the good points from each and try to imitate them, and the bad points from each and try to correct them in myself.
- Confucius

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 12:40 AM

I was stationed in Japan for four years. Paul’s notion that recalling troops from overseas “so they’ll be available for America’s defense” is just more proof that he’s an idiot. The troops in Japan served to keep the Soviets and Chinese out and Communism and Shintoism down long enough for democracy to take root, which it has.

It made sense immediately following WWII — after a declared war.

Now they’re there to protect other interests in the neighborhood and to keep everyone over there from devolving into chaos. We’ve had similar reasons for staying on in Germany and South Korea. Our troops in those places are forces for stability.

Not that I expect any of that to sink in…

I understand it — I just don’t see the Constitutional basis for the formation of an American “World Police” (or “World Peace”) force. Our founding fathers including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson explicitly warned against such alliances. It is driving our country into debt and destroying our currency as a result. It’s not sustainable. There isn’t enough money and there aren’t enough people to force peace and democracy on the rest of the world. We subsidize the pacification of foreign regions — and what does it benefit us? It’s welfare on a global scale, and we’re stuck with the tab in terms of bodies, money, and the hatred of the people who are negatively affected by our meddling (and even sometimes the hatred of people positively affected). If our goal is American security, this is an expensive, circuituitous and often counter-productive way of going about it. And if our goal is imposing world peace and world democracy — it’s a severely misguided and futile mission.

So, Mark, do you support Paul’s relationship with Alex Jones?

As far as I am aware, the extent of Paul’s actions towards Alex Jones are that he appeared on Mr. Jones’ radio show. I don’t agree with Mr. Jones with regard to 9/11 (and neither does Ron Paul — he explicitly said that on national television), but I don’t think that 9/11 conspiracy theories make someone hateful or unamerican or deserving of being blacklisted by all political candidates. Are there are other things that Jones has said that makes him more objectionable? I’m unfamiliar with him besides the fact that he’s a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and that he supports Dr. Paul’s candidacy.

Mark Jaquith on November 7, 2007 at 3:57 AM

Thats the difference between Ron Paultards and everybody else, no other rational intelligent person could possible mistake the condescending air of mockery being inflicted on you here.

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Utter bull$hit……..This is a perfect example of why you Paultards are ridiculed so often by so many. Intellectually dishonest disingenuous obfuscating arrogant little miscreants. How you retards manage to convince yourselves that you are so much smarter than all the rest of society confounds and amazes me.

No lets get something straight. No rational intelligent educated individual lacking serious psychosis or dementia could possible could possibly side with Ron Paul. Or for that matter consider him a genuinely viable candidate.

You really have to be suffering from a serious mental disorder to have chosen him. Simply stated your claims of once having been a normal rational intelligent person require a willing suspension of disbelief, one that I am not going to grant you.

doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 4:46 PM

The above are just two of the examples of why I will no longer take douchegrey seriously. If he wants to come out hurling insults at anyone who doesn’t get his maverick intellectual style and insult me (I am a Paul supporter) then he, his stylish jheri curl, his Jr. High band quality music, and his mysterious, dangerous, and utterly bogus spooky background deserves to be ridiculed.

I have had rational and civil discussions with everyone on this board regarding my support and their non-support of Ron Paul. douchegrey isn’t the only one who feels it necessary to insult Paul supporters, his is just more over the top than most. I enjoy the debate on this board and will continue from time to time to engage in it, but when the international man of mystery, douchegrey, playing his Fisher-Price keyboard and sporting his Red Ryder BB gun comes swooping in with his cheesy Van-Dyke and beautiful hair insulting everyone, it tends to ruin any actual debate or rational discussion of any issue.

This message will self-destruct in 10 seconds so that I don’t “catch shit” from some of douchegrey’s “wet work operatives.” Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

King of the Britons on November 7, 2007 at 6:54 AM

Docta Paul = wacky version of Kucinich

Clean that crud out of the debates.

saved on November 7, 2007 at 6:59 AM

Slublog,

You stay classy, Paulbots. If these are the depths to which you need to resort, then you’ve already lost the argument and any claim at moral superiority.

This is why people have nothing but disdain for you and your candidate.

Nice work. Really.

Indeed. I wish the Ronulans on this thread would go spam an internet poll or something.

Mike Honcho on November 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Are they telling the truth? I don’t trust Paul’s supporters after all the other shenanigans they’ve pulled. Is this a proven figure? The only reasons he has any supporters are that most of them are too young to know any better and they do not have an anarchist to support so he’s the next best thing.

jeanie on November 7, 2007 at 9:06 AM

King of the Trolls on November 7, 2007 at 6:54 AM

You think you have been having a rational and civil discussion, but then again you are a Ronulan. I do however greatly appreciate your singling me out for attention, it just warms the cockles of my heart knowing that my poor and inadequate efforts are not going to waste. Ronulans such as yourself always try to pretend that they are rational and civil, it is however a facade that isn’t even as thick as a single coat of cheap spray paint.

I do want to thank you for playing along so that everyone can witness the hypocrisy that is the hallmark of all Ronulans, truly a good time has been had here by all, except for you of course, but thats besides the point.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 9:45 AM

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 9:45 AM

You know after reading your posts, looking at all the insults and listenint to your vulgarity; it doesn’t really look like you had all that good of a time.

You sound no different then those on DailyKos and other sites.

Its sad that you and some others really feel so threatened by anyone who questions your political belief system. I came in here with honest questions.

From my limited research that I have done online I drew conclusions on our foreign policy and affairs around the world. I believe that our foreign policy is on the wrong track. We need to change.

There is only one republican candidates running who advocates a new foreign policy. This candidate just happens to also be for smaller government, less taxes and has simmilar views to mine on social security and healthcare. As an added bonus this candidate also strongly supports the 2nd ammendment and is pro-life.

There are over 300 comments and 6+ trackbacks in this thread. Im willing to bet that at least 1 person learned something good about Paul and his domestic ideas. Hopefully that 1 person shares some of his ideas with someone else. There is no reason for our country to continue on the course that it is on. We need a smaller government and we need to fix the problems we have. We do not need socialized healthcare, more taxes and more spending.

offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 9:56 AM

You know after reading your posts, looking at all the insults and listenint to your vulgarity; it doesn’t really look like you had all that good of a time.

offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 9:56 AM

As I said before, you see, but do not understand what it is that you see.

From my limited research that I have done online I drew conclusions on our foreign policy and affairs around the world. I believe that our foreign policy is on the wrong track. We need to change.

Translation: I didn’t know anything about our foreign policy before and still don’t, but I feel confident to reiterate conspiracy theorist clap-trap while maintaining my ignorance on the subject.

There is only one republican candidates running who advocates a new foreign policy. This candidate just happens to also be for smaller government, less taxes and has simmilar views to mine on social security and healthcare. As an added bonus this candidate also strongly supports the 2nd ammendment and is pro-life.

Translation: I am a completely brainwashed Ronulan and never at any time during this discussion did I engage in good faith dialog.

Yea, well we all knew that right from the very start, which is why everyone has been mocking and ridiculing you and “The King of Trolls” for the entire duration of this thread.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM

have an nice day

offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

The Ron Paulians are on another planet. Earthly reality doesn’t seem to penetrate.

astuddis on November 7, 2007 at 12:18 PM

have an nice day

offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Thank you I will, you too…….. :)

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM

have an nice day

offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Thank you I will, you too…….. :)

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM

I think both you guys miss the point. Ron Paul is a controversial guy that gets the juices flowing. That is a good thing and appreciate it for what it is. He will not be elected, but he will influence the conversation and offer a totally different point of reference rarely visited.

saiga on November 7, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Paulbots, Paultards, nice constuctive creativity. Who are really the chumps here. Paul sucks energy from the dems more than he does the Republicans. He is proof that the Republican party is a growing tent and the tunnel vision same old same old usual suspects have not run him off the stage yet. New and crazy ideas help spice up the Republican gumbo. Just lay back and enjoy it.

saiga on November 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Remember; keep your eye on the ball. Voters want change. They are fed up with both parties and the status quo. Fringe candidates help voters think about what is practical and what is not. Paul will most likely help the mainstream candidates by causing voters to think about where the practical political parameters end and the unrealalistic ones begin. Paul is not a threat, he is a thought provoker.

saiga on November 7, 2007 at 2:38 PM

saiga on November 7, 2007 at 2:38 PM

No Paul is not a thought provoker, he is a headache provoker.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM

No Paul is not a thought provoker, he is a headache provoker.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Hows that?

saiga on November 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Hows that?

saiga on November 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Have you heard him in any of the debates? Have you checked out any of his positions? The vast majority of people who have listen to him, grab their heads and groan…what the he11 is this retard doing here.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM

jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

It doesnt when he specifically mentions that he supports trade in several of his interviews and speeches. But if you are too ignorant, which is obvious by reading your grammatical abortion of a post, to simply read up on him to get a REAL understanding about where he stands on issues, then I guess you will have to remain in the assumption that you agree with none of his viewpoints.

muyoso on November 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM

@ doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I would be willing to bargain that a majority of the people listening to Paul in the debates AGREE with his positions. You might contend that Paul isnt a thinker, maybe he isnt. His viewpoints are so common sense that it surely wouldnt take a thinker to formulate them. Following the constitution and taking care of Americans before we give our money away overseas, how much thinking is involved in that?

muyoso on November 7, 2007 at 4:01 PM

King of the Britons on November 7, 2007 at 6:54 AM

I thought our discourse was pretty civil. But I still reserve my right to mock Paul’s foreign policy for being ridiculous and naive. We’re cool just as long as you’re not a truther and you stick to your word regarding the general election (even if Paul runs as a 3rd candidate for some reason).

Take it easy dude.

BadgerHawk on November 7, 2007 at 4:48 PM

King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 8:55 AM

I reached my limit years ago.

Even the conservatives seek safety and solutions from the government. I can’t distinguish them from the left most of the time.

AZ_Redneck on November 7, 2007 at 10:24 PM

What the Paultards have done to the Internet is the same thing spam did to email.

The little fireants don’t understand overkill.

Connie on November 8, 2007 at 1:56 AM

What the Paultards have done to the Internet is the same thing spam did to email.

The little fireants don’t understand overkill.

Connie on November 8, 2007 at 1:56 AM

What specifically do you dislike about Ron Paul, Connie? Is it his stance on debt and taxes, border security and immigration reform, home schooling, social security, emminent domain and personal property rights, abortion, or is it his views on the war in Iraq and our foreign policy? Certainly, as a conservative, you must like his honesty and belief in a smaller, less obtrusive government. I suspect, like most people, you don’t like his foreign policy views and the fact that we are fighting a war in Iraq. Good issues to disagree with Paul, as they are controversial and much debated issues. Can you please tell me what your understanding is of why we attacked Iraq and why we are fighting a war there? Did we not once support Saddam in his fighting a war only to turn around and have to fight him twice? Can you tell me honestly that our support for Israel does not ignite a hatred for us around the Muslim world (1 billion + Muslims in the world)?

I am not saying that I agree with Ron Paul and all of his issues, just like you most likely cannot say that your agree with John Rudy Thompson Romney’s every issue. Does that make you a Rutard or a Fredbot? I would say probably not. Why do you feel the need to jump in head first with a Paultard comment? I would simply point you to a one doriangrey on this site to give you a great example of an idiot. He will support whatever Republican that gets the nomination (except for Paul) but yet feels the need to try to impress everyone with his ‘genius.’ I will freely admit that there are some who support Paul who I wouldn’t want to call a friend or associate, but all candidates have that.
You want to debate the merits and demerits of Ron Paul, let’s do it. You want to hurl insults and sound clever, go to the DKos or HuffPo.

King of the Britons on November 8, 2007 at 8:03 AM

muyoso on November 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Interviews and speeches are nothing more then talk. Saying and doing are two different animals. Thanks for proving my point about the paultards. When faced with anything that runs counter to their beliefs they replay the sound bite and call the non-believers ignorant. Naturally had I really “listened” I would be singing the praises of the messiah. No, my unwillingness to “listen” only proves that I an one of the ignorant sheeple who cannot think for themselves. What makes this humorously pathetic is the paul-monkeys fail to see the irony in their cult like response.

jdkchem on November 8, 2007 at 10:09 AM

His foreign policy and economic viewpoints are naive and suicidal. Free trade is a two-way street. It does no good for the U.S. to remove or lower tariffs and expect that everyone else will do the same. It is naive, stupid and suicidal. That is why you have free-trade agreements, “foreign entanglements”.

jdkchem on November 8, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Following the constitution and taking care of Americans before we give our money away overseas, how much thinking is involved in that?

muyoso on November 7, 2007 at 4:01 PM

ROFLMAO Exactly the point, ‘how much thinking is involved in that’.

Naivet’e thy name is muyoso.

rockhauler on November 9, 2007 at 1:20 AM

rockhauler on November 9, 2007 at 1:20 AM

You’re too kind!

jdkchem on November 9, 2007 at 1:28 AM

The only vindictive carpet bombing I can think of during that war was of Dresden. That was British RAF anyways, not us…

mojowire on November 6, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Well, America hit Tokyo pretty hard with incendiaries, and I’ll bet there were a few vindictive mutterings from flight crews to the effect of; That’ll teach you people to live in paper houses”.

Warranted?

soundingboard on November 9, 2007 at 3:24 AM

soundingboard on November 9, 2007 at 3:24 AM

Warranted?

Wake Island.

jdkchem on November 9, 2007 at 9:08 AM

soundingboard on November 9, 2007 at 3:24 AM
Warranted?
Wake Island.

jdkchem on November 9, 2007 at 9:08 AM

And…

Nanking.

Pearl Harbor.

Battan.

Unit 731.

Etc. etc.
The “?” was a rhetorical device.

soundingboard on November 9, 2007 at 3:49 PM

A LOT more people died in Tokyo than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Mojave Mark on November 12, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4


You must be logged in to post a comment.