I don't understand why this site seems to be paying so much attention to Ron Paul and his supporters...

after all Ron Paul is against all that "true conservatives" such as Fred Thompson stand for:

- federal govt intervention in schools
- McCain Feingold
- Farm Subsidies
- Rural Housing Subsidies
- billions of dollars of other miscellaneous federal subsidies.

http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-and-fred-thompson-comparison.html

E2

p.s. was the sarcasm not obvious enough?

E2, I find you guys amusing, I really do. And I appreciate the passion.

Thats your big counter argument?

I post a sarcastic attack on Fred "Subsidy" Thompson (god I hope that nickname sticks)..

and I post a link citing exactly the voting record I am referring to...

...and nothing?

You wrote: "I don't understand why this site seems to be paying so much attention to Ron Paul and his supporters..."

So, I wrote: "E2, I find you guys amusing, I really do. And I appreciate the passion."

As for the rest, my candidate might not be perfect but at least he has a better chance than me of actually becoming president. Your guy not so much.

Great point.

I just checked a recent opinion poll and apparantly a girl named "Hillary Clinton" has the best odds to win the 08 election.

So I'm gonna adopt your "voting for the likely winner is more important than voting for what I believe and can logically defend" mindset...

GO HILLARY GO!!!

Eye-roll.

in all seriousness...

Why is it that when you challenge a Thompson supporter on serious and relevant stances that HE HIMSELF has made (see above link for votes in favor of McCain Feingold, billions in subsidies), they can brush it off and say "I don't agree with him 100%"

Yet when you ask them about Ron Paul... the biggest counterargument they make is to hold Ron Paul somehow accountable for not only 100% of his voiting record... but also to hold him accountable for what some very very extreme anarchists (who pose as libertarians) say about like stop signs or something?!?!

So to sum up... you'd vote for Thompson despite disagreeing 1005 with HIS PERSONAL stance on McCain Feingold, subsidies... but wont even consider Paul because of someone else's stances on stop signs and military?!!?!?!

(that Ron Paul does not agree with)

Hey Karol,

See, and that's the problem is that we (collectively as a nation) are locked into this two-party spiral. I'm not saying it's a "death" spiral, but I am saying that I just saw an article where Congress's approval rating is 14%...yet the usual suspects keep getting reelected by the same village idiots. ("Congressman X is great! Why would I vote him out?" "Mmm, you're not happy with what's going on in the country?")
That being said, yeah, the problem here is that the Libertarians / libertarians have yet to field someone who sounds coherent. I mean, in 2004 when the options were "Bad" and "Worse" I had to actually _look up_ their candidate. Mmm, yeah, that indicates a lack of seriousness.

Same thing with Ron Paul--picking fights on conservative web sites by spoofing polls and taking over comments sections is _not_ the way to make your candidate seem viable or serious (I'm not saying you're doing it E2, I'm just saying people are doing it elsewhere). Thanks, but most independents were willing to look past incompetence once or even twice, but they're not going to waive incompetence _and_ choose a candidate who will arrive in Washington with little power to move Congress due to lack of party machinery.

It is morally bankrupt to vote for someone "because they can win" when what they will do with that win is more evil.

That's all there is to it.

I agree with this guy from Huffington Post/1938 Media.

Now c'mon, let's not be intellectually lazy and throw around "evil." Tell me what evidence you have that Fred Thompson (or, for that matter, any candidate) will do that is "evil." Evil is a pretty high bar to clear--part of our nation's problem is that both sides use it in order to demonize and discredit opposing views.

Iosef Stalin was evil. Hitler was evil. Pol Pot was evil. Somehow, I don't think any candidate, even in their ideal world, is evil. Misguided and hopelessly naive (yes, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, I am looking at you), yes. But evil, at least given their current evidence (as opposed to conspiracy-mongering), no.

So, yes, it is morally bankrupt to vote for I. Stalin as your primary candidate. However, making the decision that Federal subsidies or a proclivity for bombing the sh*t out of people who mess with the U.S. is, say, less painful than attempting to impose an unworkable health care system is making a hard choice.

My ideal candidate would've nuked Kabul and/or Kandahar sometime in the early morning hours of 12 September, 2001. However, I would be happy to settle for "competently conducting the war" in lieu of "demonstrating the terminal stupidity of attacking a nuclear power's homeland."

It's the blessing and curse of our system--you gotta make an educated decision based on the pros and cons. I think, at least at the moment (and not just because I'm posting on Karol's site), that Thompson at least _seems_ to understand the limitations of the Constitution. Not my ideal candidate, but better than the field so far.

who won the debate?

The girl who said it's harder to be the dumpee.

again, I disagree.

lets compare Thompson vs Paul for a second...

Negatives for Thompson:
McCain Feingold
Supports No Child Left Behind
Supports Billions in federal subsidies

Negatives for Paul:
Paul is a self-labeled libertarian just like some guy in DC who is also is a self-labeled "libertarian" and the guy in DC takes some extreme position that the military has no right to exist (a stance which Paul, to the best of my knowlege - does not agree with)

So weighing the above results in Thompson being the more conservative? Ok.

And please save me the unsolicited advice on how a debate doesn't win converts... We know going into this I wont "convert" you and you wont "convert" me... save the persuasion for undecided voters.

Its hard out here for a Ron Paul supporter.
(sung to the tune of 3-6 mafia)

When supporting Ron Paul, or more specifically, when making the arguments in support of the same policies that Ron Paul supports, its very difficult to keep people focused on the points.
I don't know if it is deliberate on their part or not... I just know it happens.

The good news is that the smokescreens usually come in 3 distinct and predictable ways:

1) "Ron Paul is a nut" (ad hominem attack on Ron Paul and does not address the topic. Also a circular reference - you believe he's a nut because you don't agree with his logic. And now you're saying you don't agree with his logic because he's a nut?)

2) "Ron Paul doesn't have a chance" (we're not predicting, if so, bet on Hillary. We're talking about the logical and moral merits of Ron Paul and his policies of small gov't / Goldwater conservativism)

3) "You really need to be less confrontational - arguing with people is no way to convert them" (ad hominem attack, this time on me. I'd gladly be your test case for your Psych class... lets save that for AFTER you address the points, please)

Come on E2 - don't you know the old adage?

Never trust anyone with two first names (or last names).

OK, E2: Apparently Karol does not want to, but I can tell you why I, personally, will not vote for Paul, and it's this statement:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/

Almost every line of it turns my stomach. Everything else is fine and pretty. If he gets over his outdated and blind isolationism, I too will change my mind.

See, this is my point:

"lets compare Thompson vs Paul for a second...

Negatives for Thompson:
McCain Feingold
Supports No Child Left Behind
Supports Billions in federal subsidies

Negatives for Paul:
Paul is a self-labeled libertarian just like some guy in DC who is also is a self-labeled "libertarian" and the guy in DC takes some extreme position that the military has no right to exist (a stance which Paul, to the best of my knowlege - does not agree with)"

If I was a person who had not actually read Ron Paul, how has the above argument furthered your position?

One, you've taken a cheap shot at the person who owns the blog. That's like being an idiot who goes to a party and insults the host--not only are you not coming back to _that_ house, but you're not going to the house of anyone who observed the slight. Both for yourself (as a commenter) and for Ron Paul, don't be an inconsiderate guest.

Two, if I was someone who had limited amount of time and didn't want to go to Ron Paul's site but thought this one was witty and funny, you haven't taken the opportunity to compare and contrast R.P. to F.T.'s positions on these issues. Sure, you tell me that he's a Goldwater conservative, but _show me the money_ via voting record, policy statements, endowments, etc.. You've got a free shot here...and you just bricked harder than John Starks in the Finals.

Three, never assume your audience can't be moved. Sure, Karol et. al. have all indicated that they're drinking the Fred Kool Aid, but she was sipping the Rudy Kool Aid a few weeks ago. In addition to demonstrating she has more cyanide resistance than Rasputin, it also indicates that she's open to persuasion.

I don't think your intent is to demonstrate that Ron Paul is solely supported by wild eyed zealots, but you're definitely getting me to start wondering.

I don't mind the ad hominem attacks... but were the personal insults really necessary?

ps. still waiting for you to stay on point and address the points without ad hominem attacks.

I said that I'd gladly let you psychoanalyze me... tell me all my flaws etc... after you stay focused.

we both know you won't.

Okay, I'm about ten seconds away from declaring the "20 minute rule."

E2, the reason I haven't _addressed your points_ is that _you have presented no points_. This was the driving thesis of the above. You seem content to sit and whine in the corner about how I'm launching ad hominem attacks on you without, you know, actually getting up and maybe doing something about the issues raised. Meanwhile, I note that you are carefully avoiding the individuals who are specifically picking pieces of your candidate's policy they have an issue with. So, since the sound of whimpering tends to annoy me, allow me to address why _I_ cannot vote for Ron Paul in hopes that you can defend your candidate.

Rather than the fact that he cannot win (and I think he as about as much chance as stopping Hillary as I do of flying to Krypton), Ron Paul will not get my vote for three reasons:

1.) His statements during the debate, in addition to demonstrating that he has the political survival skills of a sick kitten, indicate someone who believes that if we just stop doing things that tick "those people" off, they'll go away.

Well, sorry, the radical Islamicists aren't going away until we _really_ go away, i.e. completely leave the Middle East, and let them do what they will with Israel. Until the last Jews' blood is dripping into the Mediterranean, there will be some "grievance" with the West.

So, until Ron Paul demonstrates that he understands that the other sides' grievances don't stop until they get their way, he remains untenable as a candidate to me.

2.) While we're on foreign policy, I see no declarative statements how he gets us out of all the treaties he believes strip our sovereignty. To wit, when Ron Paul says, "If elected President I will immediately nullify the following treaties...", I'm not feeling any more commitment from him than the last two or three folks who have said, "Those are problems.

3.) Finally, I see no declaritive statements on his domestic policies. Sorry, all the things he's saying have been known facts for a while--what we haven't had is a conservative who will say, "Look, in order to achieve this goal (smaller government), my first act after dropping my right hand will be to neuter the following agencies."

Now, I'm an independent because I trust neither side. But that being said, if I _was_ a GOP and my choices were Ron Paul's platitudes or Fred Thompson's platitudes, I'm going with the guy whose platitudes at least seem grounded in common sense.

I opened with a link.

click it.

explain how supporting all those policies is consistent with small government.

or don't.

Come on guys, this isn't about Ron Paul. Its supposed to be about me.

always the practical one.

a little pointless internet arguments never hurt anyone.

Karol and many other good Freedom-loving Republicans will be sipping the Paul Cool-Aid soon.

lol... provided you do all the talking...

I'm too much of a sucker for an argument (even if it means ruining the sale)

According to that documentary on the Peoples Temple (I forgot if it was history or discovery channel) technically it was Flavor Ade @ Jonestown...

...so if anyone corrects you on the typo, correct them on the factual error.

E2, your link didn't work the first time--hence my comment on you not referring to your candidates' vote rather than the link.

However, thankfully I found it somewhere else and followed it.

Now _THAT_ (the followed link) is enough to make someone thirsty. Almost. However, my 3 points remain unanswered.

Wow, 27 comments! I'm writing about Ron Paul everyday!

Right... technically not a link.. I just copy and pasted what was in the firefox bar... how do I make links (for future reference) - as I have the same problem with other blogs, too.

I know with Outlook and Word if I just copy and paste it makes a link automatically... but whats the protocol for blogs?

Karol...

you going to the thing today after work?

I'm gonna try to make it, but doubtful.

p.s. is there a better place for me to post random comments other than as a comment for an unrelated article?

(I'm blog illiterate)

E2

Karol, how DARE you mock The Only Man Who Can Save America!!!

Where do I sign up so I can take my turn with your hot girlfriend???

The key to meeting my hot sister or my hot girlfriend is to go to Ron Paul events:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/50

See - we should call Rachael from youtube
"Paulgirl". Way classier than obamagirl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8rsMhQUFkA

When will Ron Paul officially drop out?

Libertarians have their own party, so why doesn't he just run on that and leave the GOP alone?

That, or just go bother the Democrats. Ron Paul and his Libertarian loonies have far more in common with the Democrats that Republicans.

I'm just so sick and tired of them already.

Be careful what you wish for. I know many "libertarians" and right-leaning independents who vote for the GOP as, until recently, the lesser of two evils. Telling them to "go away" is a good way to keep having a repeat of 1992, i.e. a Dem sneaking in because the conservative side of the political spectrum was fractured.

I mean, seriously--is the Republican Party doing so well that it can afford to tell people to take a flying leap? Seems to be the opinion of the political leadership--but these are the same folks who think Trent Lott, Part II ("This time with half the segregationist sentiment!") was a good idea.

agrees with James Young.

I thought it was just a LP thing... where you do your damnedest to convince new or prospective members that your club actually ISN'T a good fit for them and they aren't "ideologically pure" enough, or whatever...

Honestly, if the only reason I'm registered as a republican is because I like elephants (even though I may not agree with the party at all) Isn't it in the GOPs interest NOT to point this out and have me keep adding one more vote to any candidate with the cute little elephant pin on his lapel?

And to address Sean, in recent times (with Ron Paul running for prez) it does seem that all us libertarians do is rant about Ron Paul and specifically his view on the war. (and the other GOP members see us as inconsistent with their way of thinking) But there are times where we discuss other topics. Trust me - wait till the election is over and we stay active in the GOP and the GOP liberty caucus... and you'll see that most of us use the same energy towards topics we (hopefully) agree on:

- minimum wage
- social health-care
- border security/amnesty
- subsidies
- affirmative action
- right to bear arms
- eminent domain

believe me... I'm no friend of the Dems.

Telling them to "go away" is a good way to keep having a repeat of 1992, i.e. a Dem sneaking in because the conservative side of the political spectrum was fractured.

Get over yourselves. Libertarians don't have that kind of power.

Ron Paul is not Ross Perot, who got almost 20% of the vote in 1992. Perot was (1) a billionaire and (2) a populist. That's why Perot got 20% of the vote, and that's why Clinton beat out George Bush.

Not because Perot was a nutjob supported by other nutjobs, who think a clever viral internet strategy is all you need.

In fact, this year is ripe for another populist like Perot or Buchanan, even though I don't like either one. With Nader entering the race, it seems like a no-brainer, and we could have a revolutionary election in 2008, with 4 candidates (5 if Ron Paul would do us a favor, leave the GOP alone and run as a Libertarian/Socialist ticket), each drawing somewhere between 20-30% of the vote.

I had the misfortune of watching a bunch of rather high-profile libertarians discuss issues amongst themselves in 2004 (their presidential aspirants). It was then I realized how insane you all are.

And yes, even though I haven't met you, and know nothing about you, all I need to know is that you call yourself a libertarian, and I know you have no real understanding of reality.

And the more you talk/write/debate, the more you prove it.

Ron Paul running as a Libertarian/Socialist? And you accuse a libertarian of having no understanding of reality? In what universe and on what issue does Ron Paul agree with that which a socialist would?

I can understand people being sick and tired of Ron Paul and his looney supporters. After all, they are right and there is nothing more irritating than people who are right AND disagree with us. We must defeat them by generalizing and never being honest or specific about our disagreements with them. We have many months to smear and ridicule them. Anyway, Ron Paul has two first names. How stupid.
-John Howard

We in the two-party party have spent over twenty years rigging the ballot access laws in state after state to make it impossible for third party candidates to run effectively. So now this Ron Paul guy runs as a republican instead of a libertarian. We ignore him in our mainstream media and he still keeps coming on. I agree with John Reading. Smear and ridicule, people. Smear and ridicule. Do not discuss issues. He has us there. Anyway Ron Paul has two first names. What a whack-job! Those of us that can clearly see the future know he has no chance, so everyone should ignore him and pay attention to us.

I agree with John Reading.

You are John Reading. And according to your IP address, you're also John Howard. Stop that. We get it. You love the Ron Paul and want everyone to know. Setting up fake comments isn't going to change anyone's mind, swear.

I agree with everything E2 has ever said. ever.

Enh, those who say Libertarians "don't have that much power" are the intellectual fellow travelers as those who still think that Dubya stole the first election. 500-1000 votes, folks--that's what decided the 2000 election. Why do Dems hate Ralph Nader? Oh, that's right, because they didn't feel the need to reach out to his constituency--and it is why Al Gore makes documentaries now.

I am _not_ a Libertarian (read my comment again). I will reiterate my point, however--I think that a GOP that tells Libertarians to get bent in 2008 is going to wake up with a 2-4 year hangover on a certain Wednesday morning in November. I don't claim to know a lot of folks, but those I do know tend to lean rightward. Suffice to say when they're commenting the GOP Brand "doesn't work for them", then things are bleak for the elephant gang--and one doesn't make a bad situation better by telling those who have a common enemy (big government) to "sod off."

That being said, I don't think Ron Paul's the unifying candidate. Why? Well, I covered that up above--his foreign policy won't fly with the American electorate at large. Joe and Janet Six Pack, even if they're inclined to accept that there are legitimate grievances, will _not_ accept that the proper response is to mix aircraft with buildings and mix until collapse. Likewise, the majority of people who vote realize we can't just pull up the drawbridge anymore (darn those technological advances) until the rest of the world comes to its senses. A candidate can't have the stance of, "We're pulling our troops out of the 130 countries [then watching the smoke rise from our battlements]..." and be taken seriously.

Ron Paul might've gotten some traction in 2000. Unfortunately, America got punched in the mouth in 2001...and many voters are still angry at the memory. Ron Paul's comment during the debate pretty much doomed him, especially in the YouTube era. Like it or lump it ("Man, that's some good looking domestic Kool-Aid..."), them's the breaks.

Yes, That comment at the debate sure did DOOM him alright.

Boy, Paul sure got his a$$ whooped by Giuliani, who clearly is a foreign policy genius.

Giuliani also respects freedom MUCH more than Paul does.

Ive seen the light. Thank you sirs.