NYT: Ron Paul for President... of the 'Wackos'? [Birchers, Israel-Haters, etc.]

Editor and Publisher.com ^ | 07/20/07 | E&P Staff

[GlennD]

“Can you please explain to me what it is that Paul said that is not true?”
How can any decent human being who also happens to be a member of Freerepublic NOT see the insanity of propagating kook conspiracies?

Please, lormand, tell me what kook conspiracies you are talking about. I re-read what you posted and NR had, and I have no idea what conspiracies Ron Paul is propagating. You may have mentioned it in some other thread, but not in this one, so far. I’d like to understand your view, but I haven’t an idea of what you are talking about, yet.

I have been reading everything I have found from Paul, and I’ve never noticed any conspiracies. I’ve been following his political career since the 70’s, and think I would have seen something like that, but haven’t. Please take the time to enlighten me. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do listen(read). Take a few minutes, please, and tell me.-Glenn

[CJ Wolf]

You know I like him be cause he speaks well and is grandfatherly. I see wisdom and love in those eyes. I also like him for his principles, his righteousness's and you can tell he spends 15 bucks for a haircut.

[lormand]

I guess there were too many words to get in the way for some of you, so I pruned the interview to the "money shot" quote.

Alex Jones: "How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?”

Ron Paul: “Well, I think we are in great danger of it. We are danger in many ways

I will make you Paulistinians eat these words until there is no longer a Ron Paul 08 campaign and beyond.

America is too great to turn it into France.

[Celtman]

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.”

      Actually, the alternative is to believe in an amazingly improbable set of coincidences.

[processing please hold]

I was reading about the Tobin tax today.

[George W. Bush]

And yet National Review thinks your attack is unfair and idiotic. And they’re no fans of Ron Paul either.

[billbears]

This is how neo-conservatism is reshaping the G.O.P.

I would almost say was shaping the GOP. They've had their run and frankly shot for the moon on Iraq. The 2006 election combined with 25% that are 'undecided' (to the pollsters meaning that 25% did not give a positive on any of the candidates chosen by the media) is a pretty clear statement that many Republicans gave Bush and Friends a chance and now they want to return to old conservatism.

Some here can spin it any way they want but the evidence points in a clearly different direction

[GlennD]

“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.”

I am serious. You haven’t found me to be serious before, because I haven’t been posting on FR for 2-3 years, other than a few weeks ago, with some evolutionists.

I’m not sure what you mean. I have been following his political adventures since the 70’s. I am impressed with him, because he actually wants to use the Constitution and the intent of the framers of same. You seem to have some insight to some other intention he may have, that I haven’t read or heard. If so, I’d like to know what they are. As far as I know, he has:
-Kept any promise he’s made
-Always looks to the Constitution for any votes
-Tries to determine original intent
-Votes according to his principles, even if it looks bad for press and enemies to bash him
-seems to be willing to roll back unconstitutional programs

I don’t know if I’m one of his most ardent supporters, but I think after all the years of following his votes (as opposed to his speeches, as with most other pols), he says what he means, and does what he says. I just can’t find any reason to disbelieve him. Since his first term in congress, he has been true to his word. I’m not sure I can name another pol that I can say that about, including R. Reagan. You may have some info I don’t but on this thread, I haven’t seen anything other than guilt by association, for wackos posting his articles, and innuendo. If you have some info I don’t know about, please post it.

I’m not sure what you mean by your last paragraph:

“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.)”

I think he’s been clear on issues. Some don’t like some things, but that’s the same with any candidate. Over the many years, I’ve read a lot of his articles, and lately, seen a lot of his talks, and I don’t think he holds back on any subject.

I don’t mind if folks don’t like his ideas, but I would like to know why they don’t. Otherwise, I’ll never be wise as to the other side of the argument. Just calling him a nut or kook doesn’t teach me anything. Tell me where he’s wrong or dishonest. After reading through this thread, I get the impression other candidates’ workers are here trying to slime him, but I keep asking, “Where’s the beef?” I can’t see why he’s anti-American, for trying to apply the Constitution to determine US law, policies and programs. That’s pro-American, to me.-Glenn

[takenoprisoner]

The New York Times trashes a constitutionally conservative Presidential candidate. Are we supposed to be surprised?

Has the msm NYT times suddenly become credible? Are anti constitutionalist “freepers” actually so fearfully challenged now that they must resort to the NYTs to justify their despise of an actual strict constructionist like RP?

This is getting better all the time.

[KDD]

Ah, the wonderful sophmore year in high school! and with your spam pictures and nonsensical rants, seem to be the level of debate that you are most comfortable with.

In 1998 when we discussed allowing such posters as you to share this conservative forum some of us complained that allowing posters with misconceptions or just plain ignorance about conservatism to post here would just lower the level of debate to, well, what it has become here. You are an example...and a case in point against lowering the playing field to promote debate dialog in quantity while neglecting the quality and accuracy of debate.

[KDD]

You are right but some of our slower thinkers are a little behind on the curve. And their reaction to the repudiation of neo-conservatism is rather shrill.

[GlennD]

“Ron Paul: “Well, I think we are in great danger of it. We are danger in many ways

I will make you Paulistinians eat these words until there is no longer a Ron Paul 08 campaign and beyond.

America is too great to turn it into France.”

I guess you are saying the idea of an incident to cause an expansion of war is a faulty fear? Is that your assertion? Is the idea beyond consideration? The gulf of Tonkin made congress give permission to Johnson, the authority to do what he saw fit without further approval from congress. Bush already has that. The only result from an incident now, would be an expansion of war, presumably with Iran.

I have to ask. Is that beyond reason?

I’m just wondering why you seem to think that statement is something that would be detrimental to Paul’s candidacy.-Glenn

[CJ Wolf]

Sounds like you has a vendetta. Not sure what it is but it's sure sounds personal. You are on every Paul thread simply trashing, thrashing and reaching. You say you "doesn't have a dog in this hunt" and Won't support anybody other republican or say who you likes. But since it's Paul, you is constantly attacking, I guess the mods don't care about it as much, since he is only a "fringe" Republican candidate, if he was any other Republican me thinks it wouldn't be allowed... But that's fine. I believe in the 1st amendment and all, so keep on trashing. Hmm, you are not Guliani or someone close to him are you?

[radioman]

Ron Paul isn't going to haul you to the camps and offer you a shower

Lol...It's interesting that they have to resort to slander and lies. That leads me to believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate to support for those who love liberty.
.

[ejonesie22]

Wow, just Wow...

Speechless.

[radioman]

Gosh. I haven’t spent much time on FR for a couple years. I never would have dreamed that a politician who is opposed to big government, and wishes to follow the Constitution and intent of the founding fathers would be called “anti-American,” on Free Republic.

Lol...yeah, I can remember when all FReepers, including the owner of this site, were Ron Paul fans. Things change...not always for the better.
.

[ejonesie22]

I always shared the same thought on Birch Society information. It’s tricky because they drew so many extremest but the general philosophies were sound with basic Conservative thought.

It was like taking a straight road that would often make an inexplicable sharp turn then go right back. It would leave you going “What the hell was that all about?”

The problem came in separating the organization from the members. The wackiness made the rest hard to take seriously for most people and caused them to to dismiss the whole. Hence why the Birch society has never really taken off.

[ejonesie22]

It is probably not worth the effort. Like Romney spending millions to get another 2% in the polls...

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

FReepers siding with The New York Times against a constitutionalist Republican.

That's nothing. FReepers sided with the UN just because Paul didn't support another worthless non-biding resolution against Iran. I mean, the U.N. They were probably wearing the light blue berets too ROFL

[ejonesie22]

I know that I have been here half the time you have, I am not one of the esteemed founders, however I am grateful I am allowed to post here. I also agree that some of their post are a bit over the top, but I have to ask, if I may be so bold, exactly what are the definitions of a “poster like you” and where is the line between misconceptions and ignorance about conservatism and a difference of opinion drawn?

I ask this because another poster with more time in than myself told me that all “True Conservatives” would only vote for Hunter. Now you as a Paul supporter seemed to have the inside track on all things conservative. So you will have to pardon my confusion...