Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous

NewsBull ^ | November 11, 2007 | JB Williams

[Iwo Jima]

Ron Paul’s foundation of his whole presidential run is based on a lie when he is a Libertarian and running as a Republican.

I don't understand why you would say such a thing. I am a libertarian who votes Republican and gives money to Republicans (individual candidates, never the party). Are you saying that I am living a lie? Do you want me to stop doing so? Apparently so, when you say that a libertarian cannot run as a Republican.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It used to be the predominant philosophy of the Republican Party.

There is a Libertarian Party, but not all libertarians are party members. The Libertarian Party was started when President Nixon instituted wage and price controls.

You seem to want all libertarians to abandon the Republicans and only work within the Libertarian Party. You may get your wish.

[William Terrell]

It's not like a football team because you don't back a team; you back individual players. If you back a hack destructive to our nation because he belongs to a team you root for, you lose, regardless if the team wins.

Political parties will destroy the nation, and a number of founder were against them.

[incindiary]

"However, he did convert about half the Libertarians to a pro-life position, a good thing IMO."

I think he is converting other people to a pro-life position too, which is SO cool. I was reading some comments on another forum, and a woman who was pro-choice posted that after listening to him speak about the pro-life issue, she she began to see it differently and has come to the other side.

A lot of young people respect him a lot and I think he is already influencing many, who may have been pro-choice to a pro-life position.

[listenhillary]

“You seem to want all libertarians to abandon the Republicans and only work within the Libertarian Party. “

Then after losing for another 20 years, maybe they will come to their senses.

[listenhillary]

“Political parties will destroy the nation, and a number of founder were against them. “

Lets make a law against political parties. Ban them. They lead to strife and division.

McCain might sponsor that bill for you.

[Iwo Jima]

So the answer is "yes," you want us to leave. Got it.

Just don't complain about those close races that they Republicans could have won if the libertarians had voted for them.

[listenhillary]

Wow! I underestimate my own power.

“Just don’t complain about those close races that they Republicans could have won if the libertarians had voted for them.”

I haven’t done so yet.

[april15Bendovr]

“Just don’t complain about those close races that they Republicans could have won if the libertarians had voted for them.”

If the Ron Paul libertarians can convince FReepers their campaign isn't receiving money overseas from George Soros maybe then we can appreciate the support.

[april15Bendovr]

Here is a good video from the Glenn Beck show

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016852.html

David Horowitz stating that many libertarian websites are indistinguishable from the Anti-American left websites lately.

[lormand]

I didn't use his name. You need a refresher course on netiquete.

Ron Paul is a suicide monkey and echoes enemy propaganda.

[lormand]

Brush up on “netiquete” rules. Both of you are wrong, as is your Presidential choice.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Both of you are wrong, as is your Presidential choice.

You presume to know the candidate I'm supporting for President?

[A CA Guy]

Yes, let’s hope he runs as the green party candidate. That is where he belongs.
Though I do think he stated he will not run outside of the Republican party.

Still, pray for the few brain cells of those who will enable Hillary by not voting for the Republican in the main election.
The ones who won’t vote or who will only vote third party will be the ones doing the most bitching if Hillary gets elected, but they will be the ones that would have caused her election.
They cut off their own heads, then complain about it. They are that child like at times.

[lormand]

"You presume to know the candidate I'm supporting for President?"

Oh yeah, I forgot, you only care about "English".

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Oh yeah, I forgot, you only care about "English".

Huh? Your song parody sucked. What does that have to do with "English"---whatever you mean by that?

[lormand]

"Huh? Your song parody sucked. What does that have to do with "English"---whatever you mean by that?"

I suspect that you are a closet Ron Paul apologists, but let's play your game that the parody sucks.

So, tell me, why does it suck? Though it is subjective, surely you can back it up right?

[jmc813]

If the Ron Paul libertarians can convince FReepers their campaign isn't receiving money overseas from George Soros

It's logically impossible to prove a negative, genius.

[Iwo Jima]

That is a good video. Did you even view it?

Did you hear Glenn say that "I am a libertarian at heart"? And the many positive references to Ron Paul and his campaign? Did you hear him say that it is OK to raise money however you want as long as you are not inciting people to violence?

The article from Lew Rockwell over-hyped and sensationalized Beck's and Horowitz's comments for dramatic effect. As a libertarian, I found little to disagree with, except that there was a certain amount of ignorance, such as the meaning of Guy Fawkes day to libertarians. Glenn's questioning of the use of the word "revolution" was comical. So much for the "Reagan Revolution."

Did you notice the results of Glenn's poll on CNN's website about whether (I'm paraphrasing) the Ron Paul campaign was encouraging violence (or something similar). 97% said NO.

[Iwo Jima]

If the Ron Paul libertarians can convince FReepers their campaign isn't receiving money overseas from George Soros maybe then we can appreciate the support.

And just how would one go about proving that to your satisfaction? How does one prove a negative.

While it is possible that Soros has provided some money to ANY campaign, there is no evidence that Soros has provided any money to Ron Paul's campaign. Paul's campaign records show that he gets small amounts of donations from many, many donors from all locales and walks of life. YOU just can't believe that he has that much support so YOU just HAVE to believe that Soros is behind it.

But you are wrong. These are honest donations. You can argue about what it means and whether it is a good or bad thing, but no knowledgeable person -- certain not Glenn Beck -- disputes that Ron Paul raised this money just as he says he did.

[Sloth]

If leftists are stupid enough to give their money to a small-government candidate, that’s something to celebrate, not lament.