suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[Willy Wonka]

At some point Ron Paul supporters will have to learn to not get upset every time he gets questioned and live with the same kind of scrutiny the other candidates get.

This stuff is no worse than any of the others have gotten. The press from both sides tore up Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and the rest as well.

His supporters get upset because he is being accused of something that he did not do and has never shown support for. There is nothing wrong for this having been brought up long ago, since it was published under his name, but to continue to try and hammer away at it after the accusations have been debunked time and time again, it just becomes a little annoying after a while. The man has so much to teach and offer to people that the time spent asking him about this for the umpteenth time really could be put to more productive and beneficial use.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 12:53 AM ----------

As much as I love Ron Paul, this is an excuse, and a bad one at that. Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell made a conscious political decision in the 80s and 90s to race-bait, and appeal to the bigotry and ignorance of the "Angry White Man" in an effort to find a constituency for their movement (this is a decade and a half after Rothbard was pitching his message to the ****ing SDS during Vietnam btw, while writing effusive praise for the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panthers). Rothbard is a great economist but he's also a ****ing slimeball who has probably done more to hurt the libertarian movement than to help it (and this is keeping in mind he founded both the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute!) by trying to co-opt every mass movement he came across and looking like a fool in the process. They had a support base among the kind of people you see who favor libertarianism today - young, geeky, college educated, techno-savvy, etc. But Rothbard and co consciously decided that social AND economic liberalism was a losing strategy (which was another bad bet by Murray - social conservatism is pretty much dead in 2011- a majority of young evangelical Christians support gay marriage).

Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell have become Ron Paul's Jeremiah Wright , and Ron Paul will have to answer for it.

Can you provide any proof or evidence to back up your accusations against Rothbard or Rockwell? A quote, book, or article would suffice. Thanks!

[CurseReversed]

Oh I am sure they are used to it by now. But when people you support are treated unfairly it is always upsetting. You might think that it is all the same, but you also should consider that maybe you are not as well informed as you think on that subject.

Some would even go as far to say that the coverage is not even close to fair and that the bias is overwhelming but I doubt I could convince you of that.

I will just leave you with this to ponder. Ron Paul is no ordinary candidate, this is no ordinary election, his coverage is not ordinary and neither is the tools used against him in that coverage.

If the public starts to back him it will mean a real revolution in how the citizens of this country view the role of government. There is a lot at stake and a lot of people who have a lot more to loose with ron paul then any other serious candidate that I can remember.

These mainstreamers are fighting for their life, and the longer people do not realize it the better for them.

[visionary]

I don't really care about the particular racist or not issue.

But I'm seeing a lot of complaining in here about the media and the right going after Paul.

Keep in mind that every single candidate except perhaps Santorum and Huntsman (mostly because of a lack of exposure) have been pretty much torn to shreds by the media and their opponents so far this election.

Bachman has been skewered over and over again for coming off as a crazy lady.

Cain was chased out of the race because of his scandals and his lack of foreign policy knowledge.

Perry is constantly made fun of and called all sort of unsavory names.

Gingrich is accused of being evil, manipulative, arrogant, hypocritical, corrupt...etc.

Romney has been blasted from every side for changing positions on things and has been targeted at every debate by his rivals and every day by the democrats.

Ron Paul on the other hand has barely had any flack from the media or his opponents until now.

Well...now it's his turn. If he wants to be president, he better be ready to go through the gauntlet to get there.

Personally though I wish he would get pressed more closely on timely matters like various foreign policy situations.

[mojobo]

Bachman has been skewered over and over again for coming off as a crazy lady.

Cain was chased out of the race because of his scandals and his lack of foreign policy knowledge.

Perry is constantly made fun of and called all sort of unsavory names.

Gingrich is accused of being evil, manipulative, arrogant, hypocritical, corrupt...etc.

Romney has been blasted from every side for changing positions on things and has been targeted at every debate by his rivals and every day by the democrats.

Ron Paul on the other hand has barely had any flack from the media or his opponents until now.

Well...now it's his turn. If he wants to be president, he better be ready to go through the gauntlet to get there.

Personally though I wish he would get pressed more closely on timely matters like various foreign policy situations.

Because Cain had an affair (which shouldn't have any bearing but it did) and lacked foreign policy knowledge, Perry has done horribly in the debates, Gingrich took $1.5 million from a GSE for a history lesson, and Romney has flip flopped. If Ron Paul has a bad policy or has done something unethically in Congress then discuss that, not some wise ass racist comment that some random person wrote in a newsletter seen by a few thousand people 20 years ago. If they want to put his policies and his record through the gauntlet, great! Grill him on why he thinks we should come home from the wars or legalize drugs if they really want to scare neocons away from him. Don't call him a third party candidate and blame him for someone elses stupid comments.

[SnyderShrugged]

In general, as a middle of the road conservative, I'm having a difficult time getting behind any republican candidate.

I dont understand what a middle of the road conservative is. You either espouse conservative values or you dont. One candidate embodies them.

[JimboDaMan]

Because Cain had an affair (which shouldn't have any bearing but it did) and lacked foreign policy knowledge, Perry has done horribly in the debates, Gingrich took $1.5 million from a GSE for a history lesson, and Romney has flip flopped. If Ron Paul has a bad policy or has done something unethically in Congress then discuss that, not some wise ass racist comment that some random person wrote in a newsletter seen by a few thousand people 20 years ago. If they want to put his policies and his record through the gauntlet, great! Grill him on why he thinks we should come home from the wars or legalize drugs if they really want to scare neocons away from him. Don't call him a third party candidate and blame him for someone elses stupid comments.

And Ron Paul has a history of allowing arguably racist commentary to be attached to his name. Of course there are reasons and explanations that can be given, just like all of the above candidates have explanations for the things you cite. In Cain's case, you make a statement you can't even prove, we don't know for sure that an affair happened. If Gingrich accepting payment for teaching is relevant to his policy positions, why isn't it relevant that Paul had printed under his name that 95% of blacks were criminals? It shouldn't be this way, but it always has been and always will be. Every candidate who comes under attack becomes convinced that he or she has been singled out for special treatment. Ron Paul is in this position only because everybody else who rises to the top has gone through the exact same thing. Now its his turn, and we'll find out how well he can deal with it. I hope he can do better than the crotchety old man performance. Herman Cain never did learn that these issues don't go away just because you don't want to talk about them. You WILL talk about them, again and again and again. There's no other way out.

[SnyderShrugged]

And Ron Paul has a history of allowing arguably racist commentary to be attached to his name. Of course there are reasons and explanations that can be given, just like all of the above candidates have explanations for the things you cite. In Cain's case, you make a statement you can't even prove, we don't know for sure that an affair happened. If Gingrich accepting payment for teaching is relevant to his policy positions, why isn't it relevant that Paul had printed under his name that 95% of blacks were criminals? It shouldn't be this way, but it always has been and always will be. Every candidate who comes under attack becomes convinced that he or she has been singled out for special treatment. Ron Paul is in this position only because everybody else who rises to the top has gone through the exact same thing. Now its his turn, and we'll find out how well he can deal with it. I hope he can do better than the crotchety old man performance. Herman Cain never did learn that these issues don't go away just because you don't want to talk about them. You WILL talk about them, again and again and again. There's no other way out.

I cant disagree with this and really dislike that he ended that CNNinterview. I understand why he did it, especially after answering this question literally 100's of times over 2 full campaigns along with the thousands of times during his congressional runs. But I just dont like the idea of giving them the editing power to paint it as anything but what it was, a rejection of obvious media idiocy and muck raking.

Obviously, the media will continue to pretend he hasnt answered this and that its some sort of "new" revelation. I really wish the coward who actually wrote them would come forward, as Paul has too much integrity to throw them under the bus. This could very well backfire on the media as well, as most thinking people see through this stuff, especially when compared to a 20+ year history of zero racist actions and support for various minorities as individuals rather than groups.

I wonder what part of "I didnt write it, I disavow and reject it, and I made a mistake in not overseeing the newsletters while practicing medicine" they dont fathom?

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 07:56 AM ----------

I wonder when they will attack Romney for his "Tar Baby" comments from last go around?

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 08:06 AM ----------

Cavuto tells it how it is, (for a second day in a row!)

[Larry]

And Ron Paul has a history of allowing arguably racist commentary to be attached to his name. Of course there are reasons and explanations that can be given, just like all of the above candidates have explanations for the things you cite. In Cain's case, you make a statement you can't even prove, we don't know for sure that an affair happened. If Gingrich accepting payment for teaching is relevant to his policy positions, why isn't it relevant that Paul had printed under his name that 95% of blacks were criminals? It shouldn't be this way, but it always has been and always will be. Every candidate who comes under attack becomes convinced that he or she has been singled out for special treatment. Ron Paul is in this position only because everybody else who rises to the top has gone through the exact same thing. Now its his turn, and we'll find out how well he can deal with it. I hope he can do better than the crotchety old man performance. Herman Cain never did learn that these issues don't go away just because you don't want to talk about them. You WILL talk about them, again and again and again. There's no other way out.

Possibly a different way of saying the same thing, but having **** thrown at you is part of the job.

Just ask Obama.

[JimboDaMan]

Possibly a different way of saying the same thing, but having **** thrown at you is part of the job.

Just ask Obama.

Well of course. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. Everybody gets worked over, by the media and by their opponents.

[88Comrade2000]

Paul should win Iowa unless voters decide it's better to go with Romney. Good thing about Iowa; that should end Bachmann's campaign if she doesn't finish in the Top 3. Ron Paul's electability ends at Iowa. He may rack up some delegates the rest of the way but he will not win more states except maybe Vermont?? He will not be the Republican nominee.

Now, should he run third party; I think he can get up to 10% of the vote but if he does that, then he better expect nothing to change. Obama will definitely get reelected with Paul in as a third party candidate and should the dems get complete control again- they will triple down what they did in 2009-2010 and finish the job.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't really care about the particular racist or not issue.

But I'm seeing a lot of complaining in here about the media and the right going after Paul.

Keep in mind that every single candidate except perhaps Santorum and Huntsman (mostly because of a lack of exposure) have been pretty much torn to shreds by the media and their opponents so far this election.

Bachman has been skewered over and over again for coming off as a crazy lady.

Cain was chased out of the race because of his scandals and his lack of foreign policy knowledge.

Perry is constantly made fun of and called all sort of unsavory names.

Gingrich is accused of being evil, manipulative, arrogant, hypocritical, corrupt...etc.

Romney has been blasted from every side for changing positions on things and has been targeted at every debate by his rivals and every day by the democrats.

Ron Paul on the other hand has barely had any flack from the media or his opponents until now.

Well...now it's his turn. If he wants to be president, he better be ready to go through the gauntlet to get there.

Personally though I wish he would get pressed more closely on timely matters like various foreign policy situations.

The difference is that they werent attacked to this degree by their own party.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 09:28 AM ----------

Paul should win Iowa unless voters decide it's better to go with Romney. Good thing about Iowa; that should end Bachmann's campaign if she doesn't finish in the Top 3. Ron Paul's electability ends at Iowa. He may rack up some delegates the rest of the way but he will not win more states except maybe Vermont?? He will not be the Republican nominee.

Now, should he run third party; I think he can get up to 10% of the vote but if he does that, then he better expect nothing to change. Obama will definitely get reelected with Paul in as a third party candidate and should the dems get complete control again- they will triple down what they did in 2009-2010 and finish the job.

Intrade is saying that should he win Iowa, there is a 38% chance of taking NH, At this point, the "unelectable" argument is losing weight quickly.

That said, personally, I feel about the same as Hubbs mentioned earlier. Either it will take off as hugely successful (ala Obama 2008 after his Iowa win) or the polar opposite of crash and burn.

[Kilmer17]

Local radio in Tampa was talking this morning that a poll coming out in Fla today or tomorrow is going to show Paul with a huge bump. But I couldnt tell if they were talking about a local poll or a national one.

If he wins Iowa and finishes top 3 in NH, it's going to be very interesting heading into Fla.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Local radio in Tampa was talking this morning that a poll coming out in Fla today or tomorrow is going to show Paul with a huge bump. But I couldnt tell if they were talking about a local poll or a national one.

If he wins Iowa and finishes top 3 in NH, it's going to be very interesting heading into Fla.

A lot of older Repubs in Florida. Not sure RP is going to do well with that crowd.

[SnyderShrugged]

Local radio in Tampa was talking this morning that a poll coming out in Fla today or tomorrow is going to show Paul with a huge bump. But I couldnt tell if they were talking about a local poll or a national one.

If he wins Iowa and finishes top 3 in NH, it's going to be very interesting heading into Fla.

I heard yesterday that a new FL based superpac was starting in an effort to boost ads and campaigning in FL.

[Predicto]

All he does is get pressed. They twist his views to the worst possible hypothetical scenario and present this as his position, over and over again, in almost every interview, this is the game plan.

Of course they do. Ron Paul is suggesting enormous, radical changes that pretty much have never been tried before and that are opposed by nearly all economists and foreign policy experts. It is natural (and responsible) to try to figure out the potential risks from the policies he supports, because you have no modern time real life scenarios in which you can see how these policies worked out. You have to speculate. Hell, Paul himself is speculating all the time about the glorious results that would be achieved. Pretty much the entire Austrian school of economics is just theoretical speculation, because they refuse to engage in any traditional economic modelling or statistical testing.

If Paul were suggesting incremental changes, it would not be as big of a deal, and would not get scruitinized the same way.

Ok, now read these next few posts in a row.

The problem is, there is really not that much to press him on. It almost always turns against the interviewer when he explains in a million different ways why they are incorrect and he is not.

The man has so much to teach and offer to people that the time spent asking him about this for the umpteenth time really could be put to more productive and beneficial use.

I will just leave you with this to ponder. Ron Paul is no ordinary candidate, this is no ordinary election, his coverage is not ordinary and neither is the tools used against him in that coverage.

I dont understand what a middle of the road conservative is. You either espouse conservative values or you dont. One candidate embodies them.

I really wish the coward who actually wrote them would come forward, as Paul has too much integrity to throw them under the bus.

If Ron Paul supporters want to know why some of us view their behavior as sort of "cult-like," these posts kind of illustrate why we feel this way.

[SnyderShrugged]

Of course they do. Ron Paul is suggesting enormous, radical changes that pretty much have never been tried before and that are opposed by nearly all economists and foreign policy experts. It is natural (and responsible) to try to figure out the potential risks from the policies he supports, because you have no modern time real life scenarios in which you can see how these policies worked out. You have to speculate. Hell, Paul himself is speculating all the time about the glorious results that would be achieved. Pretty much the entire Austrian school of economics is just theoretical speculation, because they refuse to engage in any traditional economic modelling or statistical testing.

If Paul were suggesting incremental changes, it would not be as big of a deal, and would not get scruitinized the same way.

Ok, now read these next few posts in a row.

If Ron Paul supporters want to know why some of us view their behavior as sort of "cult-like," these posts kind of illustrate why we feel this way.

I suppose I need to ask why my two posts that you referenced have any indicating pattern of cultism? what is your basis for saying that accusation please?

[Predicto]

I suppose I need to ask why my two posts that you referenced have any indicating pattern of cultism? what is your basis for saying that accusation please?

1) Ron Paul is not just a conservative. He personally embodies conservatism, the only true conservatism.

2) The only reason that Ron Paul has never explained who wrote these racist newsletters that went out under his name for years and years is because he has too much personal integrity. He's that great of a man, so great that he would not even try to clear his own name if it might mean hurting someone else.

These and the other quotes I listed are not really the responses of ordinary political supporters. Read together, they look like the responses of true believers (in the borderline cult of personality sense). :whoknows:

[Hubbs]

1) Ron Paul is not just a conservative. He personally embodies conservatism, the only true conservatism.

2) The only reason that Ron Paul has never explained who wrote these racist newsletters that went out under his name for years and years is because he has too much personal integrity. He's that great of a man, so great that he would not even try to clear his own name if it might mean hurting someone else.

These and the other quotes I listed are not really the responses of ordinary political supporters. Read together, they look like the responses of true believers (in the borderline cult of personality sense). :whoknows:

The things you quoted would apply equally to a cult leader, or to an incredibly unconventional politician in an incredibly unconventional election year. I don't know how many times people have said this, but Ron Paul the person is uncharasmatic as hell. He's not the kind of guy who would ever convince me to drink the Kool-Aid.

I guess what I'd say to you is this: There's only one way you can understand what it's like to never have anyone in politics speak to your own personal beliefs, except for one guy. (Yes, I'm including Gary Johnson. I like a lot of his positions, but not as many as Ron Paul's.) The "only way" is if it actually happens to you. And if it does, and if the response of the entire political world is to call that guy a total loon, a crazy man, a person who doesn't even deserve to be mentioned when it comes to the results of votes, then I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you might get a little defensive.

As far as SS's posts go, try to step into his shoes for a moment. If you really do hold the position that the entire field of GOP candidates has lost its way because of their political positions, other than this one guy, how is #1 anything other than analysis of said field? And honestly, I don't even get your point on #2. The guy doesn't want to throw his friend under the bus. If some sort of newsletter went out with my name attached to it, and it included things that I don't agree with that were written by a close friend, I'd probably do the exact same thing when questioned. I'd say that it wasn't written by me, but I wouldn't call out my friend by name. I'd probably try to convince my friend in private that the position was dumb. How is that some sort of inexplicable response?

[visionary]

And Ron Paul has a history of allowing arguably racist commentary to be attached to his name. Of course there are reasons and explanations that can be given, just like all of the above candidates have explanations for the things you cite. In Cain's case, you make a statement you can't even prove, we don't know for sure that an affair happened. If Gingrich accepting payment for teaching is relevant to his policy positions, why isn't it relevant that Paul had printed under his name that 95% of blacks were criminals? It shouldn't be this way, but it always has been and always will be. Every candidate who comes under attack becomes convinced that he or she has been singled out for special treatment. Ron Paul is in this position only because everybody else who rises to the top has gone through the exact same thing. Now its his turn, and we'll find out how well he can deal with it. I hope he can do better than the crotchety old man performance. Herman Cain never did learn that these issues don't go away just because you don't want to talk about them. You WILL talk about them, again and again and again. There's no other way out.

Exactly. This stuff isn't coming out of thin air. Every candidate has their achilles heels and they will be exposed for all to see.

The question is how do they deal with it when that happens?

I do admit thoigh that Paul will probably get the hardest attacks of the bunch from a lot of the right, because many of them see him as more of a threat than the others.

Then again, when you propose the sorts of sweeping changes in some areas that he has, you have to be ready for the backlash. For his sake I hope he is.

[Predicto]

The things you quoted would apply equally to a cult leader, or to an incredibly unconventional politician in an incredibly unconventional election year. I don't know how many times people have said this, but Ron Paul the person is uncharasmatic as hell. He's not the kind of guy who would ever convince me to drink the Kool-Aid.

I guess what I'd say to you is this: There's only one way you can understand what it's like to never have anyone in politics speak to your own personal beliefs, except for one guy. (Yes, I'm including Gary Johnson. I like a lot of his positions, but not as many as Ron Paul's.) The "only way" is if it actually happens to you. And if it does, and if the response of the entire political world is to call that guy a total loon, a crazy man, a person who doesn't even deserve to be mentioned when it comes to the results of votes, then I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you might get a little defensive.

When someone seems to speak your own personal beliefs on every single issue, and you feel the need to jump to their defense every time, and you feel that everyone in power is in a big conspiracy to silence that person - it may be a sign that you are no longer objective about that person.

As far as SS's posts go, try to step into his shoes for a moment. If you really do hold the position that the entire field of GOP candidates has lost its way because of their political positions, other than this one guy, how is #1 anything other than analysis of said field? And honestly, I don't even get your point on #2. The guy doesn't want to throw his friend under the bus. If some sort of newsletter went out with my name attached to it, and it included things that I don't agree with that were written by a close friend, I'd probably do the exact same thing when questioned. I'd say that it wasn't written by me, but I wouldn't call out my friend my name. How is that some sort of inexplicable response?

It is not an inexplicable response. It is a perfectly predictable response. If Ron Paul can do no wrong in your eyes, you are going to assume that it is only his personal integrity and loyalty that keeps him from explaining a subject that any other political candidate would be required to explain in great detail. Even if you have no objective evidence that personal integrity and loyalty is the reason for Paul's decision, you are going to assume that it is the reason and just state it as fact, because it fits with your personal feelings about the specialness of Ron Paul.

This is how it looks to a person who is outside the Ron Paul sphere. I may be wrong, but that is how it looks to me. :whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

1) Ron Paul is not just a conservative. He personally embodies conservatism, the only true conservatism.

2) The only reason that Ron Paul has never explained who wrote these racist newsletters that went out under his name for years and years is because he has too much personal integrity. He's that great of a man, so great that he would not even try to clear his own name if it might mean hurting someone else.

These and the other quotes I listed are not really the responses of ordinary political supporters. Read together, they look like the responses of true believers (in the borderline cult of personality sense). :whoknows:

so let me get this straight so I better understand your position.

I am "cultish" because

1) I feel, with evidence that Ron Paul embodies conservatism over the false neo-con brand better than anyone else in the race

2) I feel that he has integrity because he doesnt want to throw another person under a bus to save his own skin

This is really how you feel about my views? I honestly thought we had a bit better understanding of each other and am sad that we obviously dont.

I dont in any regard feel that he is a "god" or perfect in any way shape or form. I've even mentioned in this thread that I think he has handled this poorly for decades.

[Predicto]

so let me get this straight so I better understand your position.

I am "cultish" because

1) I feel, with evidence that Ron Paul embodies conservatism over the false neo-con brand better than anyone else in the race

2) I feel that he has integrity because he doesnt want to throw another person under a bus to save his own skin

This is really how you feel about my views? I honestly thought we had a bit better understanding of each other and am sad that we obviously dont.

I dont in any regard feel that he is a "god" or perfect in any way shape or form. I've even mentioned in this thread that I think he has handled this poorly for decades.

I wasn't trying to start anything, and I don't think you are a "cultist." I think you are a true believer in libertarianism, and I think you have trouble being objective about the subject of Ron Paul because he has come to personally symbolize everything about your belief structure.

My original post was trying to point out how it looks from the outside. Reading several of the posts by Paul supporters in this thread in a row, the same theme pops out. To you guys, everything Ron Paul says makes perfect sense, in fact it is undeniable. And so you interpret any disagreements as coordinated attacks from the evil entrenched establishment rather than as genuine disagreement.

"Everyone is scared of Paul, so they are out to get him." "Everyone knows that what Paul is saying is true, they just won't admit it." "He is no ordinary candidate, he has so much to teach us." If people said that about Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin, or anyone else, you would laugh at them, and rightfully so.

I want to bail out of this thread now, because I did not come here intending to offend anyone, least of all you.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Its funny, in my conversations with people the last few days who ahve asked me about Paul, these newsletters never come up.

Its actually fascinating in that regard that this quirkly old man is able to articulate a vision of America that at least makes people think.

The newsletters from the '90s? That'll blow over IMO

[SnyderShrugged]

I wasn't trying to start anything, and I don't think you are a "cultist." I think you are a true believer in libertarianism, and I think you have trouble being objective about the subject of Ron Paul because he has come to personally symbolize everything about your belief structure.

My original post was trying to point out how it looks from the outside. Reading several of the posts by Paul supporters in this thread in a row, the same theme pops out. To you guys, everything Ron Paul says makes perfect sense, in fact it is undeniable. And so you interpret any disagreements as coordinated attacks from the evil entrenched establishment rather than as genuine disagreement.

"Everyone is scared of Paul, so they are out to get him." "Everyone knows that what Paul is saying is true, they just won't admit it." "He is no ordinary candidate, he has so much to teach us." If people said that about Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin, or anyone else, you would laugh at them, and rightfully so.

I want to bail out of this thread now, because I did not come here intending to offend anyone, least of all you.

You didnt offend, you are just incorrect in your perception, at least in regards to me personally. I just wanted to better understand what you were saying is all. No biggie.

[Hubbs]

When someone seems to speak your own personal beliefs on every single issue, and you feel the need to jump to their defense every time, and you feel that everyone in power is in a big conspiracy to silence that person - it may be a sign that you are no longer objective about that person.

Except he doesn't, and I don't. In fact, I often go out of my way to highlight the areas in which I disagree with Ron Paul, like air pollution policy. But if you're seriously telling me that I believe in a "conspiracy" about the media shunning Ron Paul, when everyone from Media Matters to Jon Stewart to Neil Cavuto—quite the range—have argued that this shunning is going on, I really don't know what else to tell you. It's not a conspiracy. Nobody's huddling in smoke-filled rooms to plan the downfall of this particular candidate. It's just a popular mindset that Ron Paul isn't worth listening to. I mean, there was an anchor on Fox News who flat-out said, on air, during the Ames straw poll, that he didn't want Fox's reporters in Iowa to report on Ron Paul. And I'm supposedly on the same level as a 9/11 Truther?

It is not an inexplicable response. It is a perfectly predictable response. If Ron Paul can do no wrong in your eyes,

Stop. Stop right there. You sure seem like you're being equally "predictable" for the exact same reason. You've made up your mind already, and everything I say is irrelevant. There isn't a single word in the post you quoted that has anything to do with Ron Paul doing no wrong. I'll once again go out of my way to showcase some things that I'd argue with Ron Paul about:

- The aforementioned air pollution policy

- Water pollution as well

- The gold standard. I actually don't think a currency standard has to be gold.

- Closing bases like Diego Garcia

- Not sending in the SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan

So just stop. You're a smart guy, Predicto, but this is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe I actually have to prove to you that I'm not speaking from a mindset of, "Ron Paul can do no wrong." It's total nonsense.

you are going to assume that it is only his personal integrity and loyalty that keeps him from explaining a subject that any other political candidate would be required to explain in great detail. Even if you have no objective evidence that personal integrity and loyalty is the reason for Paul's decision, you are going to assume that it is the reason and just state it as fact, because it fits with your personal feelings about the specialness of Ron Paul.

This is how it looks to a person who is outside the Ron Paul sphere. I may be wrong, but that is how it looks to me. :whoknows:

No objective evidence. Right. Because if anyone would know very little about Ron Paul, it would be me. That's why I believe his answer about his newsletters. I'm just making an assumption. It couldn't possibly be that I've seen the guy make countless statements about race that are, quite frankly, much more inclusive than statements that other politicians are willing to make. It couldn't possibly be that I understand his philosophy on individualism vs. collectivism, and how that relates to race. It couldn't possibly be that I've seen him openly make the case that a major motivator for his stance on the War on Drugs is its disproportionate affect on African-Americans, not only when it comes to the shockingly large ratio of convicts to the actual percentage of the general population, but also when it comes to the sentences given out for the average black person and the average white person who committed the exact same crime. It couldn't possibly be that as someone who understands Ron Paul quite well, while being at the same time someone who's perfectly willing to say that he's a squeaky-voiced, arm-flailing politician who stubbornly refuses to change his campaign in certain ways that would help his own cause and who seems to be unwilling to accept that there are some occasions when he's too dogmatic and other times when I think he's just plain wrong in his interpretation of his own dogma, I feel as confident in stating that this man is not a racist as I would in stating that I'm not a racist. It couldn't possibly be that the enthusiasm of Ron Paul's supporters is often way over the top, that they frequently don't know when they're shooting themselves in the foot, that his fans unfortunately include crazies who believe in things like 9/11 conspiracies, and that these factors have led you to come to additional conclusions about Paul's base that might have the slightest chance of not being 100% true. It couldn't possibly be that I'm writing this rant because I'm sick and ****ing tired of being told that I agree with everything Ron Paul says, that I'll slavishly defend anything that comes out of his mouth, that I'm a member of a cult, and that I want bad things to happen to my own country, even though none of that is true, all because I happen to believe a certain politician is right in his assessment of what our government is doing, at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans are pissed off at Washington for one reason or another. It couldn't possibly be that I'm trying to convey to you just how hard it is to be on this end of the conversation, how threads like this are actually part of the reason why so many Ron Paul supporters seem too fanatic, because I actually know people who have told me in private that they'd probably support Ron Paul in public if it weren't for the fact that so many people would immediately label them as mental patients who likely believe that there's a UFO behind Haley's Comet, so the only people left tend to be those who are so very committed to Paul that they're willing to take on the enormous amount of suck that comes with their views. It couldn't possibly be that all I'd like to hear from so many people is, "Okay, I'm willing to merely consider the possibility that you're saying what you're saying for reasons other than your being a member of something equivalent to Jonestown." It couldn't possibly be that if you were in my shoes, you'd be pretty exasperated, too.

No, I just can't say that Ron Paul is wrong about anything. That's my stance.

-VR9YbBquRY