Posted on 07/20/2007 4:27:18 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.
The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."
The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."
Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."
The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."
Wouldn't it be easier to do a simple search based on your confidence that such posts exist at all, or in a manner that represents the majority view of Freerepublic, rather than make things up out of thin air about me and spend 5 hours/day trying to refute my documented quotes from Ron Paul himself?
I'm just trying to help out :)
You wrote that Ron Paul “frequently” appears on the Alex Jones show. How many times has Ron Paul appeared on that show?
And I don't make up things about how you vote. You claim that you vote for candidates who support less government. I in fact admitted the possiblity that you do i.e. that you vote differently than you post.
You and I just admitted to voting for Dubya, and would have to do it again given the same choices.
Right.
The difference between you and I is I pay attention to what the candidates say, and who they associate with.
I do too. The difference is a political one. You think the Iraq war is the singular most important issue. I think that the size of government it is. You call me a traitor for not agreeing with you, I don't call you a traitor for not agreeing with me. That is the difference between us.
That there are Bush Bots who have supported everything that th e prisident has done is like saying the sky is blue.
I'm guessing maybe 20 times or more.
Click here are browse the wonderful world of Alex Jones (major barf alert)
Browse around and find all of the Ron Paul interviews and other Ron Paul goodies on this nut-ball site.
If this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
I must have missed the part where Bush eliminated the Americorps and the National Endowment for the Arts.
I do remember him funding Fatah, though. With us or against us, he said.
You are guessing(?) 20 times? I only saw one occurrence, that you have linked to several times on various Ron Paul threads.
Rodney King says about Lormand:
"When I have the option, I vote for the candidate for smaller government. You don't."
Supporting Ron Paul has got you all messed up.
"I listened to the interview and Ron Paul says nothing about a "possible staged false flag operation". Those are Alex Jone's words, not Ron Paul's. This report is inaccurate and false. What's worse, anti-Ron Paul sites are picking up this story and using it do discredit the good doctor. I urge you to print an apology and issue a retraction. Thanks."
I didn't think you could put your money where you mouth was.
You are correct. I did say that you don’t vote for the candidate who is for less government. Although, I have changed my mind, I now admit that it is possible that you vote differently than you post.
I have no interest in spending hourse tracking down the obvious. I would with some posters, but you are a waste in that regards since you don't debate on a logical premise. Your whole frame of mind is that anyone who isn't willing to turn socialist and be overrun at home as long as we win the war in Iraq is a traitor.
Nothing I can possibly say will change your mind, so I am not going to waste the time proving the obvious.
The internet is not easy for you huh?
...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.
....Like when I voted for GW Bush over Gore and Kerry?
You think Bush is for smaller government? And yet you can call Ron Paul supporters stupid? My Lord, man, do you ever actually stop and THINK about the crap you are posting, or do you just open up and let it flow? Bush has actually increased the size of government FASTER than Clinton/Gore did. The hysterical idiocy of neocons knows no bounds.
Is that all you got out of it?
God help us all.
I looked at the link and it appears as though there are exactly TWO times that Ron Paul was on the Alex Jones show.
You keep saying that. Another possibility is that whereas you are willing to turn socialist at home, so long as we win the war in Iraq, we are not.
Therefore, while no candidate is perfect, you don't mind if a candidate has endless flaws on big government and immigration so long as he is ok on Iraq. That's fine. We see it differently. We don't mind if Paul has some flaws on conspiracy stuff, since he is great on size of government and immigration.
The only reason we are having this debate is that you insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
I see some growth there.
“Open borders, pro-abortion, drugs are other huge contrasts in Libertarian versus Conservative beliefs.”
Here you go again spewing lies about things you know little or nothing about.
Open borders in libertarian principle does not mean unrestricted access and movement across national borders.
Course in action today with no influence from libertarians, an open border our side of the rio grande is exactly what we have.
As to pro abortion, have you ever learned of libertarians for life? Like other parties, the abortion issue has members on both sides of the aisle both pro and con.
Drugs? At least you didn’t say libertarians are pro drugs.
Libertarians are pro freedom anti prohibition.
No, I am not a libertarian. I am a registered republican since 1980. After the Carter nightmare presidency, I decided it was time for me to vote. So I did so for the first time in my life in 1980 registering as a republican and voting for Ronald Reagan. In fact then, we had one lever we could pull voting for all republican candidates.
I took that option and did so for years.
Now do libertarians have standing in conservatism? I believe they do:
“REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Now let’s review. Ronald Reagan said, “But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Do you also believe Ronald Reagan was a “kook, whackjob, and a nut?”
Freerepublic has a basic search engine. If these things are as prevelant as you say, it should take you less than a minute. If it is pure "wishful thinking", hyperbole or plain old BS, then you have much work cut out for you.
"Nothing I can possibly say will change your mind, so I am not going to waste the time proving the obvious."
Words mean things. Ron Paul was quoted verbatim. There is no "change your mind" nessessary here. What was said was said.
The fact that a few Freepers here still fawn over this nut-ball is astonishing.
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.