[birddog]

This is a great article and should be mandatory reading before the election. I hope more people will take the red pill and realize that the GOP and Dem parties are two sides of the same progressive coin. They are both going to take us to the same place - a new order hell where the freedoms that the founding fathers fought for are gone. Please read Orwell's 1984 - that is where we are going. The only person in this election who will work to preserve our country and our freedom is Ron Paul.

[Thunder90]

Signed up today to post this???!!!

[RonPaulLives]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. You have been on Free Republic for 13 years; I have been on here for 11 years. Dr. Ron Paul’s views have not changed. My U.S. Senator (and his son) Dr. Rand Paul’s views have not changed. But the majority of Free Republic and the Republican Party sure have changed. So the sheep who blindly follow Unfit Mitt or Newt World Order Gingrich can flame me now if they like. I don’t give a damn. I tell them to kiss my ass.

[donmeaker]

Except the red pill leads to 4 more years of Obama. Even if Obama loses, 4 years of Crazy Uncle Ron will destroy the country. Crazy Ron if he won would be the second most powerful man in the world.

The first most powerful man in the world would be the last person to whisper a lunatic conspiracy theory in his ear.

[RobinOfKingston]

The only person in this election who will work to preserve our country and our freedom is Ron Paul.

How do you explain this? bluerepublican.org

The one unacceptable explanation is that they are some sort of ron paul equivalent to the Reagan Democrats.

[ejonesie22]

Um...

Ok...

(Backing out of room, not breaking eye contact...)

[Rooivalk]

Since you are a dyed in the wool Ron Paul supporter perhaps you can answer this question about Mr. Paul: Do you believe that the jihadists are following a strategy and code when they profess hate for America that has nothing to do with American actions in the world? In other words do the jihadists attack America for us being Americans rather than for us having bases in other countries?

Countless times I have spoken with muslims who say they hate Americans for the way our women dress and behave. Or because we refuse to accepting their tenets of believing in the worship of allah as the "one true God"

Please explain to me if you can the Ron Paul idea that if we leave every base we have in the world and return to the continental United States, these true believing muslims will hate us any less. I really am having a hard time with the logic behind the Ron Paul thinking and wish that someone could explain it to me. Can you do it?

[Proud2BeRight]

The time I spent reading that drivel is time I'll never get back. More hidden agenda promoting Paul as the perfect useful idiot to run amok polluting the GOP primary process with his anti-national defense, pro-dope, wacko conspiracy theory ridden crappola.

[Lazlo in PA]

That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues). Just judge for yourself: consider some of what Ron Paul is advocating on vital issues

Looks like if I were a Commie Pinko or a Leftist, I would be excited about Paul. Unfortunately for this long winded writer, I am neither and have absolutely no interest in the fraud.

[Scoutmaster]

On December 29, Ron Paul said there were only "a total of eight or ten sentences" that were "bad stuff" out of all of his newsletters. You've asked me to read this article. Have you read enough of his newsletters to know that if he thinks only eight or ten sentences are bad, he's a nut?

Which eight or ten? The parts about tracking us with our money and converting to a single card? The sentences in each newsletter warning about the Trilateralists? The sentences from an M.D. warning us that AIDS may have been created by the government? Or that ones that say AIDs can be transmitted by kissing? Or through the skin?

Or the whole Ten Militia Commandments, about how many members to have, where to hide your guns, how to select your members, how to avoid wiretaps, and how to keep things from your wives and girlfriends?

All of the comments about the New World Order?

The ad hominem insult to Martin Luther King in almost every newsletter?

The suggestion that the Mossad was behind the first World Trade Center bombing?

The bit about how the government was spreading disinformation about how crack was bad for you? Or about how crack should be legalized?

All of the racial comments, such as how a city named for blacks should be called Rapetown? Or how gatherings of blacks should be held at a crackhouse or welfare office?

All of the references to Haitians as HAIDstians?

The part about how the Panama Canal treaty was the result of an international blackmail scheme involving Trilateralists?

I could go on and on.

But which eight to ten sentences were, in Paul's opinion, bad? Because the negative pregnant of his statement is the rest of that crazy cr*p he is standing behind. Should we read that stuff, too?

[Yardstick]

Well, I read it and it actually is a pretty good piece.

[ncalburt]

Being a Jew hating ,9-11 truther, calling our troops war criminals,
Cheering on Iran getting the bomb, trashing Reagan , supporting Code Pink is sheer lunacy and will get us all killed .

[VicVega]

Interesting article.

So much division in the GOP that we might have to prepare ourselves for another 4 years of Zero.

[Drill Thrawl]

Greenwald is a first class ass clown. He is constantly nailed for either being wrong to.out right fabrication. If he supports Paul that is all the more reason to NOT support. You know a man by his friends.

[Gator113]

“The only person in this election who will work to preserve our country and our freedom is Ron Paul.”

Beck, is that you Glenn?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I especially like the mental gymnastics liberals have to endure with Ron Paul’s agenda. As for his reception amongst Freeperdom, you must understand that reverting to 1773 principles has a shock effect of sorts. I’ve taken time to peruse much material on all the GOP candidates, and Ron Paul seems to be most in accord with my convictions to date. The price to be paid: corny graphics portending doom at the behest of Viking Kitties, and some sharp insults here and there. Oh well.

[x]

This is a great article and should be mandatory reading before the election. I hope more people will take the red pill and realize that the GOP and Dem parties are two sides of the same progressive coin. They are both going to take us to the same place - a new order hell where the freedoms that the founding fathers fought for are gone. Please read Orwell's 1984 - that is where we are going. The only person in this election who will work to preserve our country and our freedom is Ron Paul.

Uh, yeah, but it sounds like Ron Paul and the progressives of The Nation and salon.com are also two sides of the same coin.

This article is like a funhouse full of strange mirrors. There's this:

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

But there's also this:

Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues). Just judge for yourself: consider some of what Ron Paul is advocating on vital issues — not secondary issues, but ones progressives have long insisted are paramount — and ask how else these debates will be had and who else will advocate these views

Like Barney and Alan aren't part of the ugly face of American liberalism?

Bottom line: at least some of the anti-terrorism measures the government undertakes are useful, important, and necessary.

If Ron Paul opposes them, I oppose him.