Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
What you are demonstrating so memorably is that you do not have courage of your convictions. You have a point, so make it.
Actually, I vastly prefer letting his supporters speak for themselves.
Wow. Real swamp, huh...?
“He is a certifiable nut-case.” They say it takes one to know one.
I think my point is far more memorably demonstrated when left as an exercise for the reader.
In other words: "no." Thanks for playing.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan, 1975.
Now, what?
Each night I would choose a different stack and select the toughest, most intimidating and most opaque tomes I could find and read until my mind reeled. Even if they were beyond my ken, at least I understood that the ideas were there and that men, now the dust of the ages, had thought and pondered and written on ideas now nascent in my mind.
One evening I came across a container full of a little periodical called American Opinion , from the John Birch Society, mostly unread and gathering dust. I recognized the name and, mostly for s#its and giggles, I thumbed through a few copies. There were, as I expected, the most preposterous of conspiracy theories. But there was something else. Usually toward the back and written in the turgid prose reserved for those seeking to express ideas both profound and precise was a description of the education that I was not getting and a bemoanal of its demise. Here was brilliance, here was intelligence, here was the flickering flame of a civilization in decline.
The problem became how to reconcile the two, the brilliance running on a parallel track but separate from the world and the base fear of forces, ominous and conspiratorial, lurking in the darkness beyond. They were right in lamenting the loss of Classical Thought and the decoupling of our social strictures from the forces driving them for millennia. I think that they were wrong and giving too much credence to the power of conspirators and the sympathetic mutuality of their goals. The lesson I took was that good intentioned men can be brilliant, educated and wrong. Were they wrong or was I? Even in my dotage I recall the cautionary words of novelist Taylor Caldwell when she was asked how on earth she could possibly believe in such conspiratorial rot. Her retort: “How can you not.”
And which country do you support if you support anyone else in this race?
“Understood.”
Cool.
Nope.
Yes, it is. What has that to do with Paul? I’m not being a smartass. Just curious. Every registered person in America can vote for someone. Is gaining a vote from any one of these an indication of the candidate him(her)self?
Wouldn’t it be more constructive to be pointing out which communist organizations are funding which democraps, for a conservative, if that’s what’s still here in freeperland?
Has anyone looked into what weirdo groups are supporting the other repubs running? -Glenn
You left out the CFR.
The problem became how to reconcile the two, the brilliance running on a parallel track but separate from the world and the base fear of forces, ominous and conspiratorial, lurking in the darkness beyond. They were right in lamenting the loss of Classical Thought and the decoupling of our social strictures from the forces driving them for millennia. I think that they were wrong and giving too much credence to the power of conspirators and the sympathetic mutuality of their goals. The lesson I took was that good intentioned men can be brilliant, educated and wrong. Were they wrong or was I?
A combination of negative and positive, balance so to speak. Maybe they present both sides of the coin.
Very interesting take on them. Thank you. I shall read them.
I looked at your Stormfront link and I see some like him and some don’t. That mix of opinions proves nothing about Ron Paul.
Keep on trying, that last argument is not persuasive.
If this is a serious question -- and I've always known you to be a serious poster in the past; so I'll gladly grant the assumption, in your case -- then, Serious Answer (repeated from earlier): what Ron Paul's most feverishly ardent supporters "see" in him -- and what they believe his true goals and positions to be (and they'd know best, surely!) has, obviously, a great deal to do with Ron Paul, the Candidate.
Are they wrong, in their collective estimation of Ron Paul, and where he stands on the issues nearest and dearest to their hearts? If so, then how, specifically? (If not... well, then: the next logical step becomes rather self-evident from there.)
The Paul haters will turn on Reagan before this is over.
On a strictly technical, quibbling-for-the-cowardly-sake-of-quibbling level: a split of roughly 90% FOR Ron Paul and 10% AGAINST would qualify as "some like him and some don't," of course.
Speaking of "arguments not being persuasive," I mean.
That was genuinely pathetic. Try again, please.
Anti-communist, but pro-fascist? So, you've bought into the propaganda that fascism is right wing communism? Get a clue, communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin.
A Bircher might tell you, "Well, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad, afterall?"
Ridiculous assertion.
Also, they were radical isolationists, thus, the pro-Axis Charles Lindberg is a Birchite icon.
Radical isolationists? Is that anything like radical constitutionalists? Lindberg is an icon because he was a valiant defender of the constitution.
I assume you are being facetious. I don’t know if these folks run the world, but anybody who denies they have great influence over what takes place in the world, are politically naive, unread, or into denial.-Glenn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.