I found these paragraphs quite interesting -
“Now try explaining why any Republicans support him? When you are through studying the views of his supporters, you will find that they have two common values, a strong anti-war isolationist view of world events and a deep love of their money.
At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters on both sides of the political aisle are driven by only two beliefs and one motivating factor. They are anti-war because they are anti-tax. They do not look beyond the agenda to reduce or eliminate taxes to see the consequences of the decisions they make. They would bring the war on terror abroad right to our own doorstep to save a few tax dollars and that allows Ron Paul to appeal to anti-war voters from the far left and the far right.”
From having some discussions with some here, beyond those who are just rabble rousers, most are so desperate for a return to pure Constitutional values, they latch on to anyone talking about it.. basically, they've been duped. There are two others here who are pretty rabid Paul supports that have a different reason. One admitted he worked for and was trained by Paul's campaign and another said he is close friends with Paul.
Democratic Underground called. They want their talking point back.
I found those paragraphs interesting too, because the author is not questioning the policies, but rather the intentions of the supporters of those policies. Sort of like how the left says republicans are greedy cuz they (at least the principles ones) don’t support so called ‘antipoverty’ distributist legislation; ignoring that these republicans (mostly) care about the poor the same as the left, they just understand government hurts more than it helps in this regard, and in fact hurts the poorest of the poor by their (the govs) actions. So, I think one should always start with the premise that peoples’ motives are pure, as going down the road this author starts down doesn’t particularly set the tone for rational discussion.