Replies

Extremely Extreme Extremist 76-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.

You don’t address the point.

An indicted drug dealer in Canada attempts to organize support groups for Ron Paul. When the campaign is queried, they reply (longer quotes in post 47)

Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, says the fledgling campaign welcomes all support. But Emery shouldn't necessarily expect amnesty from a Paul administration. "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."

The issue isn’t whether he’s grant amnesty, his right as President, or oppose current drug laws, I think he would and that’s his job as President.

The issue is where he looks for support.

For me, I’d expect a campaign to turn down the support of an indicted drug dealer, as I would a racist, neonazi, or terrorist funder.

Others, like the Paul campaign, are happy to accept support from wherever they can get it.

We simply disagree on this.

------------------------------

NCSteve 90You need to find a different hobby. Your Paul-hating borders on clinical neurosis.

Always’s nice to hear from FR’s MD’s.

------------------------------

Gondring 103 The problem is, Ron Paul is a Reagan Republican

We disagree that he’s Reagan incarnate

112 SJackson, if you are related to Jeff Jackson or have some direct line to him, would you please pass along these comments, since I'm too dumb to figure out how to send him the comments that he claims to receive. Thanks! :-)

Someone upthread thinks he’s related to JJ Walker, might be a screenname, I don’t know. You can probably reach them both at their blogs.

------------------------------

dcwusmc 136 Let's see here... Your list: My list: See how easy that was? Nothing left that doesn't fit the Constitution and now we can pare taxes down to nearly zilch

Yes, simple, thank you for proving my point that Paul’s solutions are laughably simplistic. You trim the budget to $852 billion, yet neglect to answer the question I asked, How do you provide for $852 billion in spending on the $200 billion or so in revenue remaining after repealing social security and the income tax? BTW, though you’re willing to cease benefits to those collecting them, most Paul supporters say he won’t. I tend to believe them. If they’re right, you’ve got another $550 billion to finance, nearly $1.4 trillion on $200 billion in revenue. Sorry, the numbers just don’t work.

------------------------------

52-nother blatantly dishonest article from you. Hardly surprising.
The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.
Produce proof that any of Ron Paul's earmarks have passed the relevant budget committees and made it past reconciliation.
But then, that would spoil your entire little ongoing trollfest, wouldn't it? Because there are no Ron Paul earmarks that have been funded. We can find plenty of others for House leaders and committee chairmen and the senior minority leaders on the committees. But none for Ron Paul.
Produce these earmarks.
58 -You know they don't. That's why the CoC types that want fed money to renovate their stupid theater say, when congratulated by the local paper, that it's all fine for Ron Paul to submit their earmark to the appropriate committee but that they'd like him a lot more if only he would vote for porky earmarks.
The problem is that to get your own porky earmarks, you have to collude with the other porksters in Congress. And Ron Paul won't do it. Therefore, he gets no earmarks that he submits.
An interesting use of time then.
How ignorant and malicious can you be? Really.
He has an earmark list that was less than 70 items, each a single page made from a word processor template. These earmark requests are submitted to the relevant committee.
My estimate is that it probably takes about one afternoon for a single staffer to type them up and deliver them to the appropriate committee.

If he believes they’re unconstitutional, I don’t, he shouldn’t submit them. All the rest is posturing. If you’re suggesting none of his earmarks get funded, as I noted before that’s the height of absurdity. Let his staff do something productive.

A President who will advocate “unconstitutional” legislation to pacify supporters, then veto it would be a joke.

----------------------------------

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

I didn’t remember that so I did a quick title search for Paul and Paul’s back to mid July and found these two in addition to this thread.

Aug 6Ed Thompson considers becoming Pro-9/11 Truth U.S. Presidential Candidate [If Paul doesn't]

July 24 White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official (Paul Craig Roberts Nutjob alert!)

It would appear the objection isn’t to the number of articles I post, rather the fact that I post on Ron Paul threads, and as the author suggests his supporters are completely intolerant of opposing views, attacking critics personally, as you’ll see up and down this and other Paul threads.

tpaine 63-No, I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Un american?; - unconstitutional?

Comical comes to mind, but it’s important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party.

----------------------------------

George W. Bush 69 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.
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.

74-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.
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.

Ahh, yes, the reasoned attacks of George W. Bush, of great interest to the Paul supporters, thus his ping.

Right, a Paul supporter suggests I’d be more comfortable with Kuchinich as my candidate, I post a internet poll showing Dennis has more support than Ron, and you’re in a hissy fit.

Guess what, internet polls are irrelevant, even when Paul wins. So are straw polls. Get over it.

As to the rest of your rant, proving the Ron Paul derangement, grow a set and take your complaints to management. You attacks on my dishonesty have gotten very, very old. And feel free to have your cohorts do the same.

BTW, your allegations of a conspiracy being conducted by the anti-Paul FR crew are laughable.

A courtesy ping to the end of my last post.

FR appears to have a serious problem.

Not only crystal clear history of dishonest posting, but an apparent underground conspiracy to control the content of the site.

I happen to think George W. Bush is a liar, but this may be something for you to look into.

If he's right, clearly you should ban me as well as other members of the conspiracy.

blatantly dishonest article from you.
your entire little ongoing trollfest
How ignorant and malicious can you be?
Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes
Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.
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
her little crew of Paul-haters
It doesn't get much more dishonest than this
This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.
They attempt to get someone to say someone about 9/11 Trutherism or something antisemitic so they all hit Abuse.
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.
I thought that due to the repeated dishonest posting and baiting tactics the Paul-haters use, we need to start pointing it out.
see exactly how the Paul-haters operate, who they are, who some of them truly support, the anti-FReeper forums some of them belong to, etc.
Many of the Paul-haters are not what they appear to be. They are FUDsters and rely on people's laziness to believe their lies and distortions. I think everyone needs to know about it before they waste their time responding to such obvious trollish and baiting posts.