http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB3khd3MhLo&eurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/node/16355

Full Page advertisement (http://www.dailypaul.com/files/common-sense-2-nyt.pdf) in the New York Times

Full Page advertisement (http://www.dailypaul.com/files/common-sense-2-nyt.pdf) in the New York Times

Written by Ron Paul-estinians.:rolleyes:

Written by Ron Paul-estinians.:rolleyes:

You mean PAID FOR by Paul supporters. Which you won't read.:rolleyes:

from the cartoonists

Those aren't really from the "Cartoonist"- those are from the Paulestinians.

Those aren't really from the "Cartoonist"- those are from the Paulestinians.
Which "Cartoonist" are you referring to?

http://my.fit.edu/~jbobosky/BBS/Whambulance.jpg

Come on, let's see you defend McCain, Rudy, and Mitt. All you know how to do is demagogue. You can't even think of a clever response to the FACT that Ron Paul is polling third in Iowa, so you :bowrofl: have to wait until somebody else says something so you can comment on it. Priceless empty-headedness from the man without a candidate.

Which "Cartoonist" are you referring to?

http://my.fit.edu/~jbobosky/BBS/Whambulance.jpg

Come on, let's see you defend McCain, Rudy, and Mitt. All you know how to do is demagogue. You can't even think of a clever response to the FACT that Ron Paul is polling third in Iowa, so you :bowrofl: have to wait until somebody else says something so you can comment on it. Priceless empty-headedness from the man without a candidate.

Uh-oh... Though I didn't say anything to him or about him, I must have upset the little insecure chihuahua...
it is funny when he gets mad....
http://www.tishasharp.com/archives/chihuahua.jpg

Which one of the cartoons were written by Paulestians?
Well, one of them appears to have been done with MSPaint, taking an old David and Goliath illustration and scribbling on it.

The other is a ridiculous cut and paste.

And the top one, taking note of the size of Rudy's "noodle" was done by a blogger who was inspired after seeing Ron Paul at the South Carolina debate.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/TheTimeSink/

Those are hardly representative of the main stream media, the ones that 04 so often posts.

But I understand why you're so excited... Ron Paul is now the 2nd guy to lose, based on that poll.

Didn't Pat Buchanon WIN in New Hampshire in '96?

If Paul gains some real traction and can't just be dismissed as a crackpot watch the big guns start taking aim.
After all the DemocratoRepublican ruling dynasty can't allow the foreign policy status quo to be scrapped.

I post cartoons I find in search engines.
Not too many Paul cartoons yet (this was all I could find)but I'm sure that will change .
Paul will soon be portrayed as a demagogue isolationist in a dangerous world who will be a threat to our security and the new world order that's for sure.
Oh the fear of us leaving our foreign adventures is fertile ground for the interventionists.
Feel free to find and post cartoons you find witty and/or to your liking.
I hope this won't turn into another insult fest.

You mean PAID FOR by Paul supporters. Which you won't read.:rolleyes:

LMAO!

You were so dripping with excitement to post the ad you didn't read it yourself.

Bottom right hand corner my friend.:)

"Written with editing assistance from
Linda Lagana, John Barr, and the team at
RonPaulForums.com."

*owned*

I would even go so far as to say the whole group over at RonPaulForums was in a tizzy at the thought of co-writing a NYT full-page ad paid for by a member.

I post cartoons I find in search engines.
Quick note, I wasn't taking issue with anything you posted.
I was just making a distinction, you're searches usually turn up mainstream press stuff, stuff which tends to be leftist. Since Paul is a novelty act in the eyes of the mainstream media, you're simply not going to find much about him. So what you do find tends to be from his followers, not the adversarial media.

The people responsible for those particle pictures should have signed their names with little hearts over the "i"s and "j"s.

By the way, doesn't anyone else find it a little weird when a candidate's supporters start off their argument with "he's delivered 4,000 babies"? That's nice and all, but.... couldn't they lead with something else. Maybe throw that in as an aside later in the piece.

I was in traffic earlier, and that was the number one bullet point on some guys rear window, supporting Paul.

By the way, doesn't anyone else find it a little weird when a candidate's supporters start off their argument with "he's delivered 4,000 babies"? That's nice and all, but.... couldn't they lead with something else. Maybe throw that in as an aside later in the piece.

I was in traffic earlier, and that was the number one bullet point on some guys rear window, supporting Paul.
No, it's not weird. It lets people know that he is a physician. It gives credibility to his pro life stance, something that Rudy does not claim and Mitt does not have.

Nobody's surprised that you would pick nits with Ron Paul. I supposed you'd prefer all his bumper stickers lead with "...took money from nazis..." right?

No, it's not weird. It lets people know that he is a physician. It gives credibility to his pro life stance, something that Rudy does not claim and Mitt does not have.

Nobody's surprised that you would pick nits with Ron Paul. I supposed you'd prefer all his bumper stickers lead with "...took money from nazis..." right?

Actually, I'd rather it said, took money from the Nazis- DID NOT GIVE IT BACK, but donated to a holocaust memorial museum instead..... something like that would have been good.

Should I vote for the candidate who delivered 5,000 babies? If one only delivered 2,000 babies, would his "pro-life" status be in question? Does it even matter that a lot of abortion doctors also have delivered thousands of living babies as well?

None of this is important in the mind of a Paulestinian.

With the events in Pakistan this morning, a Ron Paul presidency would be even more dangerous.

Actually, I'd rather it said, took money from the Nazis- DID NOT GIVE IT BACK, but donated to a holocaust memorial museum instead..... something like that would have been good.
Not that anybody cares what you think other people should do with their campaign donations.

Should I vote for the candidate who delivered 5,000 babies? If one only delivered 2,000 babies, would his "pro-life" status be in question? Does it even matter that a lot of abortion doctors also have delivered thousands of living babies as well?
This is a stupid, irrelevant comment.

None of this is important in the mind of a Paulestinian.
Look who presumes to know the minds of others while spouting pejoratives.
With the events in Pakistan this morning, a Ron Paul presidency would be even more dangerous.
Feel free to actually explain your position. You're not convincing anybody with rhetoric. Time for you to buckle down and use actual facts and reasoning.

Not that anybody cares what you think other people should do with their campaign donations.
Maybe if he'd asked me he now wouldn't be linked to White Supremacists and hostile lunatics.

This is a stupid, irrelevant comment.
So is including the number of "babies delivered" in every ridiculous piece of fanboy praise. Unless he's going to deliver babies in the Oval Office, this hardly seems important.

Interestingly enough, Ronald Reagan never delivered any babies....


Feel free to actually explain your position. You're not convincing anybody with rhetoric. Time for you to buckle down and use actual facts and reasoning.
What's to a argue? I always elect the guy who's delivered the most babies. That's usually on my list of "must have" traits when I elect a President.

Maybe if he'd asked me he now wouldn't be linked to White Supremacists and hostile lunatics.
Still spouting the NYT's already discredited disinformation, eh? Well, whatever it takes, even if you have to lie to do it, right?

Still spouting the NYT's already discredited disinformation, eh? Well, whatever it takes, even if you have to lie to do it, right?

What was discredited?
He didn't get money from the racist organization, he simply got it from the founder of said racist, white supremest organization. That's an important distinction to you?

Stormfront still posted links to Ron Paul on their website as well... again, that doesn't make Paul a Nazi, but it did look bad, especially after keeping the contributions that came from the founder.

Perception is reality in politics. If Paul had a real campaign, and not lunatics on Youtube doing all the organizing and work, they'd have told him that.

What was discredited?
He didn't get money from the racist organization, he simply got it from the founder of said racist, white supremest organization. That's an important distinction to you?

Stormfront still posted links to Ron Paul on their website as well... again, that doesn't make Paul a Nazi, but it did look bad, especially after keeping the contributions that came from the founder.

Perception is reality in politics. If Paul had a real campaign, and not lunatics on Youtube doing all the organizing and work, they'd have told him that.
If I were a nazi organization and wanted a candidate to look bad, I would link to him. Duh. The fact that total suckers like you fall for it only validates the actions of such an organization.

By the way, if perception is reality in politics as you say, then THIRD PLACE IN IOWA far ahead of Fred Thompson must be reality for Ron Paul.

I hope this won't turn into another insult fest.

LMFAO too late 04SCTLS

Looks like fossten and Calabrio are back at it :p

If I were a nazi organization and wanted a candidate to look bad, I would link to him. Duh. The fact that total suckers like you fall for it only validates the actions of such an organization.

So this is yet ANOTHER conspiracy you've uncovered against Ron Paul. Good work!! Keep digging then up, it takes a special brand of crazy to do it, and it would appear that it's right up your alley.

So, white supremacists are now pretending to support the candidate with single digit support. They are sending him money to make him look bad, because once linked to these racists groups, the Nazis realize his popularity will plummet from 4% all the way down to the equally irrelevant 2%.

Are the 9/11 Truthers doing this too? Supporting Paul to hurt him?
Maybe you can expose them later on.


By the way, if perception is reality in politics as you say, then THIRD PLACE IN IOWA far ahead of Fred Thompson must be reality for Ron Paul.

Nationally, Paul is at about 3.8%
Where as Thompson is at about 11%
And in Iowa, Paul is averaging 6.8 to Thomspon's 9.3%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

To which I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

My understanding is that in a gentleman's debate the first person to start calling the other one names is admitting he's losing, if not the debate then at least his cool.
It looks like fossten called callabrio "stupid" and "a liar" to which calabrio called fossten "a sucker like you"
I can see Larry and Curly poking each other in the eyes.
But seriously, the media today is mostly in the entertainment business and Paul makes for an entertaining story in an otherwise turgid field.
When I was in school almost 30 years ago I would delight myself in saying provocative things and generally making a joke of school.
One day I walked into economics class and pulled out a starters pistol, pointed it at the prof who was 6 feet away and fired it. The look on his face was priceless but then he just shrugged and laughed it off. After class one of my fellow wise asses came up to me and said "I thought he was going to have a heart attack when you pulled the trigger!" (the prof was in his 60's but was really cool)
After that I toned down my antics and never did the starter pistol thing again. I suppose today I would be arrested and charged with a felony.
But I digress.
BIG Government today is so heavily entrenched that Paul comes across like a breath of fresh air in a hot stuffy room.
People sometimes like to think about overthrowing the government whether Republican or Democrat and starting new. Paul makes it seem like it may actually be possible and that's a big part of his appeal.

So this is yet ANOTHER conspiracy you've uncovered against Ron Paul. Good work!! Keep digging then up, it takes a special brand of crazy to do it, and it would appear that it's right up your alley.

So, white supremacists are now pretending to support the candidate with single digit support. They are sending him money to make him look bad, because once linked to these racists groups, the Nazis realize his popularity will plummet from 4% all the way down to the equally irrelevant 2%.

Are the 9/11 Truthers doing this too? Supporting Paul to hurt him?
Maybe you can expose them later on.

It takes a special brand of STUPID to think that Ron Paul must be a nazi or a truther JUST BECAUSE a person or persons from either of those groups support him. Another explanation could be that one nazi and several "truthers" want freedom and liberty like everybody else (except cradle-to-the-grave big government statist sheeple like you of course). There are many possible reasons they could be endorsing Ron Paul, NONE OF WHICH include him being a nazi or a truther. I was simply presenting a possible reason, not exposing a conspiracy. Yet another asinine straw man created out of thin air by you. You're the one idiotically grasping at straws here, not me.

Nationally, Paul is at about 3.8%
Where as Thompson is at about 11%
And in Iowa, Paul is averaging 6.8 to Thomspon's 9.3%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

To which I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

Surging Huckabee Takes Lead in Iowa Over Romney

By Jon Cohen and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, December 20, 2007; A01

The race before Iowa's Republican caucuses has narrowed to a two-person contest between former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, with Huckabee now perched atop the field, propelled by a big jump in support among religious women.

The findings, from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, show how dramatically the wide-open GOP contest has changed over the past few months. Huckabee's support in Iowa has quadrupled since the summer, while former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) have lost ground.

Immigration now stands as the top issue for the state's GOP voters. Many Republicans think voter anger about illegal immigration will be a flash point, not only in the race for their party's presidential nomination but also in the general election. The emergence of immigration as a major issue in Iowa, where three in 10 GOP voters call it a top concern, creates an early test of its political potency.

With two weeks to go before the first-in-the-nation caucuses, Huckabee registered the support of 35 percent of likely Republican caucusgoer, just above Romney, the longtime Iowa front-runner, at 27 percent. For the first time in Post-ABC Iowa polling, no other candidate registered in the double digits.

Thompson was backed by 9 percent, down from 15 percent a month ago, and Giuliani was the choice of 8 percent, down five percentage points. Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) also won 8 percent support, followed by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at 6 percent, Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) at 2 percent and Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.) at 1 percent.

3-way tie for third. I meant McCain, not Thompson.

It takes a special brand of STUPID to think that Ron Paul must be a nazi or a truther JUST BECAUSE a person or persons from either of those groups support him.
You used to love to throw the term "strawman" around. What you've done IS build a strawman argument.

No one has ever called Paul a nazi because of the Nazi's interest in supporting his campaign. Whether he's a truther or not is a little shadier, but Beck provided him the opportunity to clarify and distance himself from that.

But he does COURT the truthers.....



Another explanation could be that one nazi and several "truthers" want freedom and liberty like everybody else (except cradle-to-the-grave big government statist sheeple like you of course).

Can you provide me a single example of me ever being in favor of a cradle to grave big government state? Just one.... Or will you simple respond by telling me why you don't need to respond?


There are many possible reasons they could be endorsing Ron Paul, NONE OF WHICH include him being a nazi or a truther. I was simply presenting a possible reason, not exposing a conspiracy. Yet another asinine straw man created out of thin air by you. You're the one idiotically grasping at straws here, not me.
See, there you go again, misusing the strawman term.
I've never said Paul was a Nazi. Never. I have mocked his lunatic fan base, you included.

It's entertaining, though you are even less persuasive when you're frustrated.... you are twice as funny.

You used to love to throw the term "strawman" around. What you've done IS build a strawman argument.

No one has ever called Paul a nazi because of the Nazi's interest in supporting his campaign. Whether he's a truther or not is a little shadier, but Beck provided him the opportunity to clarify and distance himself from that.

But he does COURT the truthers.....

You called him a nazi when you posted this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=37697). You weren't joking. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

He also courts the conservatives, far more aggressively, yet you certainly aren't ever to be accused of giving him credit there, are you? So which one is he, conservative, or truther? You can't have it both ways. If he courts one and not the other, then you might have a case. But you have yet to produce one single quote that demonstrates his belief in any of that truther nonsense. So your entire argument is a straw man based on association alone, and you attribute the beliefs of any of his supporters EXCEPT conservatives to Ron Paul.

Can you provide me a single example of me ever being in favor of a cradle to grave big government state? Just one.... Or will you simple respond by telling me why you don't need to respond?
I will as soon as you give me one single example of me saying anything that proves that I'm a kook, and I'll reciprocate. Everything is subjective, and I'm convinced that you are not a conservative.

See, there you go again, misusing the strawman term.
I've never said Paul was a Nazi. Never. I have mocked his lunatic fan base, you included.
See my comment above. Many conservatives who are not lunatics support Ron Paul. Are you claiming otherwise?

It's entertaining, though you are even less persuasive when you're frustrated.... you are twice as funny.
I don't see you laughing. I see you still wondering who to vote for. By the way, I hope Ron Paul does go independent. Would teach the Republican RINOs a lesson. I'm not beholden to the party that has abandoned conservative principles. Either they get back to their base or they lose.

I don't see you laughing. I see you still wondering who to vote for. By the way, I hope Ron Paul does go independent. Would teach the Republican RINOs a lesson. I'm not beholden to the party that has abandoned conservative principles. Either they

Good point fossten my hats off to you you have picked who you like and defended him to the bitter end.

Calabrio on the other hand has not come out for anybody, just who he is against which is a easy stand to take.

You called him a nazi when you posted this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=37697). You weren't joking. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

No, I called his supporters Nazis....
His supporters bought the blimp.
nice try... eventually one of your charges will be substantiated.


He also courts the conservatives, far more aggressively, yet you certainly aren't ever to be accused of giving him credit there, are you? So which one is he, conservative, or truther? You can't have it both ways. If he courts one and not the other, then you might have a case. But you have yet to produce one single quote that demonstrates his belief in any of that truther nonsense.
You're logic is horribly flawed. As is the judgement of the rag-tag group of misfits that make up the Ron Paul campaign.

Let's first establish what we agree on. Ron Paul IS courting the "truthers." You do not dispute this?

Is Ron Paul a truther? I'd like to think he wasn't. On Beck, he distanced himself from the Truthers. So I do not have any need to provide you quotes, because I've never made the claim that Paul was a truther.

He has made other odd-ball, conspiratorial statements in the past, and I HAVE posted some of them before. Yesterday I posted Paul talking about how the invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by the desire to build an oil pipeline, a sentiment similar to the one made by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911.

And after Bhutto was killed yesterday, he managed to find a way to indirectly blame America for it, somehow.

It's tiresome being asked by you to defend statements I've never made.
I haven't said that Paul was a Nazi. I never said he was a "Truther" (Truther being the group that specifically believes that 9/11 was a inside job).


So your entire argument is a straw man based on association alone, and you attribute the beliefs of any of his supporters EXCEPT conservatives to Ron Paul.
You can't possibly be this obtuse.

Paul does court some conservatives. Good.

But he also courts Truthers and lunatics.
Actively courts them. So when criticisms of his "support" are made, they are valid. And when you criticize Paul, it's fair to criticize his judgment for courting those lunatics.


I will as soon as you give me one single example of me saying anything that proves that I'm a kook, and I'll reciprocate. Everything is subjective, and I'm convinced that you are not a conservative.
Oh, another excuse.
You've made very specific charges recently, that I'm in favor of big federal government and that I'm a supporter of the U.N.

That's not subjective statement.

As mentioned before, I have thousands of posts. If that were the case, you should be able to find at least one example of either of them, provided you weren't either lying, or terribly confused.

See my comment above. Many conservatives who are not lunatics support Ron Paul. Are you claiming otherwise?
Never said anything about ALL Paul supporters being lunatics.

I don't see you laughing. I see you still wondering who to vote for. By the way, I hope Ron Paul does go independent. Would teach the Republican RINOs a lesson.

Wow, I have nothing to add to that.
I'm just going to quote that for emphasis.

"By the way, I hope Ron Paul does go independent. Would teach the Republican RINOs a lesson."

You're on the record now.

That'll teach the GOP a lesson, alright.

I fail to see how four to eight years of a Democrat President Obama-Clinton would be good for the country. You do understand that a Democrat victory will likely also lead to an expanded majority in the Congress?


Paul can't win, Paul has to court lunatics, because he can't generate the support in the general population. Some people aren't ready to embrace that kind of libertarianism, the rest of us realize he'd simply be a bad President. If Paul were a strong candidate, he'd be a front runner. If you need proof that it's possible for a second tier guy to shoot up, despite the N.E. power structure, Huckabee demonstrates that it's possible. If Paul were a better candidate, had better foreign policy, and a better grasp of political reality, he'd have broken out of the single digits by now.

What lesson do you think you'd teach the country by indirectly electing Obama or Clinton? That in four years, the population will respond by electing some one in the mold of Ron Paul?

No, to the contrary. Either, as the fed expands, the public either embraces it or simply accepts and expects it. Since it's near impossible to end a government program, expect any high minded social liberal policy to last long past the 4-8 years the next President serves.

And if things really did get bad. The backlash, or the political recoil, doesn't mean the public votes for some like Paul, they would look for the fed to fix the problems quickly, regardless the cost in money or freedom. Especially if we're dealing in a time of war or continued hostility.

You Paulestinians live in a vacuum. It's not about him. Politics is not an all-or-nothing endevour.

Hopefully Paul has better sense than you do and makes good on his statements saying he has no plans or interest in running third party.

Good point fossten my hats off to you you have picked who you like and defended him to the bitter end.
Defend him in the face of logic and reason.
I don't consider that a positive attribute.

Calabrio on the other hand has not come out for anybody, just who he is against which is a easy stand to take.

I'm not making a relative stance, who I ultimately vote for only serves as a distraction in a thread like this. I'm not arguing that one candidate is better than another. I'm not even arguing to persuade someone to support anyone in particular.

I'm simply pointing out how horribly flawed the Paul campaign is, and I've repeatedly cited (in the various threads) some of his ridiculous statements, his poorly informed policy, and the gross misrepresentations of reality made on his behalf by his supporters.

My position is simply Paul is the worst of the candidates.

Given Paul's inability to break out of the single digits, it's really irrelevant. He has NO chance of being nominated. No chance of being selected for Vice-President. I'm glad he's returning to congress and I hope he uses his new found prominence to recruit college kids and educate the public on libertarianism.

Paul and Huckabee are the only two candidates I'm actively opposed to.

And though I loved Rudy as a Mayor, I'm not excited to see him as the President. If there's any candidate who would use legal maneuvers to erode our freedoms in an effort to pursue a policy goal, I'm confident it would be him.

December 27, 2007

Ron Paul Is A Nut
Because "respectable" opinions must make sense, right?

by James Leroy Wilson, jim102670@yahoo.com

Ron Paul is a nut, and his supporters are crackpots. If you are a conservative, it is better to support Obama or Clinton than Paul, and if you are a progressive, it is better to support Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Huckabee than Paul. Because if you are a reasonable Democrat or Republican, you acknowledge and embrace several core ideas that have evolved over the past century, which Paul has the audacity to question. Paul's views on the Constitution, national security, and money are just too far out of the mainstream. Moreover, they are crazy.

While there may be some room for quibbling around the edges, most educated, rational people would agree with all, or almost all, of these seventeen principles:

1. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," gives the federal government the power to tell you what decisions you can make regarding your own property.

2. The penumbra of the Bill of Rights creates a "right to privacy" that forces states to respect a woman's right to choose abortion, but does not force the federal government to respect a woman's right to choose medical marijuana.

3. The United States has an obligation to fight poverty worldwide - and also has an obligation to create even more poverty through economic sanctions against certain regimes we don't like.

4. Iraq was a failure in execution, but not in principle; in principle America's young men and women should be sent overseas to fight wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States.

5. Inflationary policies are good for the poor, and falling prices relative to precious metal-backed dollars are bad for the people.

6. Deficits don't matter.

7. There should be compulsory national service (military or civil) for young people; the Constitution's prohibition against "involuntary servitude" means something else.

8. The Second Amendment empowers the federal government to restrict personal firearms ownership.

9. If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't trouble you that the government is monitoring your activities.

10. When the country starts an ill-conceived war, rather than end the war, we must instead pull together and try to save the careers of the politicians responsible.

11. The Crusades were evil, but we must impose Western-style freedom and democracy on foreign peoples through the barrel of a gun.

12. Imperialism and colonialism were racist and evil, but today the USA and European powers have the right to dictate the economic and defense policies of every other country in the world.

13. Prohibition didn't work, but we must continue the War on Drugs.

14. Communism doesn't work, but central planning in education and health care is a necessity.

15. Fascism is evil, but the federal government must invest the Chief Executive with more powers, must go to war against more countries, must spy on its own people without warrants, must regulate the campaign speech of non-incumbents, and must control the economy while Big Business collects the profits.

16.When Congress authorizes the President to "use force," i.e., to start a war, Congress is exercising its Constitutional power to "declare war." And when it authorizes unelected bureaucrats to write and impose regulations on businesses, Congress is fulfilling its responsibility to "regulate commerce." That is to say, Congress has the authority to surrender its powers to the Executive Branch.

17. "Free trade" doesn't mean unregulated, tariff-free trade, it means surrendering the nation's sovereignty by transferring its power to make its own laws to bureaucrats in international organizations. This is a good thing.

How can anyone, Left or Right, liberal or conservative, possibly dispute these rational, common-sense positions? It's not possible, but Ron Paul is doing it. That's why he must be stopped, by any means necessary.

James Leroy Wilson blogs at Independent Country and writes for DownsizeDC.org.

Defend him in the face of logic and reason.
I don't consider that a positive attribute.



I'm not making a relative stance, who I ultimately vote for only serves as a distraction in a thread like this. I'm not arguing that one candidate is better than another. I'm not even arguing to persuade someone to support anyone in particular.

I'm simply pointing out how horribly flawed the Paul campaign is, and I've repeatedly cited (in the various threads) some of his ridiculous statements, his poorly informed policy, and the gross misrepresentations of reality made on his behalf by his supporters.

My position is simply Paul is the worst of the candidates.


Exactly as I and Ford Nut said. You are an attack dog. You serve no substantive purpose. You are irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Yes, the United States sucks. We are an evil empire set on destroying the world. - Taken from the Book of the Paulestinians.

Yes, the United States sucks. We are an evil empire set on destroying the world. - Taken from the Book of the Paulestinians.
You still think this is a free country? You think we're heading in the correct direction? You know better than that. Don't knee-jerk like your incompetent moderator Calabrio. Think about what I'm saying. Of course America is a force for good in the world. We just need to start acting like it. And we need to focus harder on the problems we have here at home. We're swooning over every two-bit dictator around the world and in the meantime we're losing all our civil liberties and our buying power.

Defend him in the face of logic and reason.
I don't consider that a positive attribute

I thinks its been more your opinion then logic and reason.

I'm not making a relative stance, who I ultimately vote for only serves as a distraction in a thread like this. I'm not arguing that one candidate is better than another. I'm not even arguing to persuade someone to support anyone in particular

Or any thread you only bash canidates and mostly Ron Paul of as late.

Who would you make a stand for if you had to....like fossten has.

Or any thread you only bash canidates and mostly Ron Paul of as late.

Who would you make a stand for if you had to....like fossten has.
He doesn't dare. He knows how easily I would take his candidate apart. His noodle backbone quakes at the thought. My prediction - he will NEVER tell us who he supports until after the primary in Florida. I doubt he will even vote in the primary.

I thinks its been more your opinion then logic and reason.
And my opinion is based on logic and reason. If you go through the countless pages of banter, of me making arguments and Fossten responding by stating why he need not answer them, you'll find countless criticisms of Paul based on statements he's made and policies he's publicly supported.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims or criticism of Ron Paul. And I briefly entertained the premise of supporting him several months ago.. until I did the research.

If YOU would like to have a rational discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Paul candidacy contrasted with any other candidate in particular, I would be very happy to partake in it. Fossten has demonstrated himself incapable of doing so.

The mere fact that I'm on friendly terms with everybody BUT Fossten around here is yet another thing that distinguishes Fossten from myself.


Who would you make a stand for if you had to....like fossten has.
There is no politician who I would blindly defend and align myself with in the manner that Fossten has. There is no such thing as a "perfect candidate." Fossten's inability to recognize the critical flaws of the Paul campaign demonstrates a blind, unreasonable, allegiance. I would not make a stand like that for any politician.

We are talking about politicians, not spiritual leaders. Fossten apparently heard Paul speak and drank the Kool-Aid.