suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[Predicto]

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 agree with this. When a formerly fringe candidate becomes less fringe, he still has to fight the predisposition of people to assume that he is not a serious candidate.

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?

Well, if you are telling me that Fox News is intentionally slanting its coverage against Paul, then I have no disagreement. Of course it is. Fox is shameless. But everyone is not Fox News.

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.

If you look at the subject I was talking about, it was not you, personally. I apologize if it read that way.

I was speaking of Ron Paul supporters in general, recognizing that the stereotype does not necessarily fit any particular individual.

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.

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

Again, if you got the impression that I was talking about you personally, I apologize.

[GibbsFactor]

Predicto, you get people that back Paul and defend him for very simple reasons. Even if it's a policy they do not personally agree with, they still defend him. It's not cultish. It's rather simple really and Hubbs has already correctly identified it. He can do wrong and has done wrong and some of his heaviest supporters on this site have even mentioned things he has done wrong.

But when RP, his positions and his supporters are constantly under attack, you can't expect them to sit back and let you hit them over the head. They will strike back.

No one else comes close to the ideas Paul says. No other politician has Paul's voting record to back up his talk. No other politician gives back his unspent budget at the end of the year. These are the things that separate Paul and what attracts many to him. Supporters will defend his positions even if they don't agree with it because they find themselves defending EVERYTHING.

The curious thing to me is why would anyone be downplaying the fact that Paul has often been right where establishment has failed miserably. Einstein would call the party loyalists, those that mock innovation and change, as insane. Anyone happy with anything going on in this government is insane according to Albert Einstein. None of these policies work. Government can't agree on simple things. The country is broke. The world hates us. WTF? If you're not in it for true change, Al Einstein would label you insane.

[Predicto]

Change is a good thing in general, but not all changes are for the better. Demonstrating problems that the current system has, standing alone, will never persuade me that Ron Paul's particular ideas can't be far worse. :whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

Change is a good thing in general, but not all changes are for the better. Demonstrating problems that the current system has, standing alone, will never persuade me that Ron Paul's particular ideas can't be far worse. :whoknows:

doesnt that lil word "never" kind of sound "cultish" to you?:evilg:

[Predicto]

doesnt that lil word "never" kind of sound "cultish" to you?:evilg:

Nope. Not if you know how to read.

I didn't say that Ron Paul's ideas could never get my support. I said that simply pointing out the known problems in the current system, without doing anything else, will never persuade me that Ron Pauls' ideas are good.

I know the current system is flawed. You still have to persuade me that Paul's approach would be an improvement.

[SkinsHokieFan]

A money shot, which has actually helped me at least get 3 liberal friends of mine thinking

" To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

Are rank and file Dems in 2011 so married to the current social welfare delivery system, which Paul would have minimal impact on regardless due to Congress controlling the purse (barring some miracle of 230 Ron Paul clones taking over the house and another 60 the Senate) that you will vote for a guy who has essentially been Bush 2 with regards to the war?

[jpyaks3]

A money shot, which has actually helped me at least get 3 liberal friends of mine thinking

" To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

Are rank and file Dems in 2011 so married to the current social welfare delivery system, which Paul would have minimal impact on regardless due to Congress controlling the purse (barring some miracle of 230 Ron Paul clones taking over the house and another 60 the Senate) that you will vote for a guy who has essentially been Bush 2 with regards to the war?

The problem with that is that the GOP wants to gut social spending something that Ron Paul agrees with, so that stuff has a very real possibility of getting pushed through. You don't need 230 Ron Paul clones just look at the **** the house has tried to pass since the 2010 elections. That will have a very real effect.

[Predicto]

A money shot, which has actually helped me at least get 3 liberal friends of mine thinking

" To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

Are rank and file Dems in 2011 so married to the current social welfare delivery system, which Paul would have minimal impact on regardless due to Congress controlling the purse (barring some miracle of 230 Ron Paul clones taking over the house and another 60 the Senate) that you will vote for a guy who has essentially been Bush 2 with regards to the war?

Since when did you join Code Pink?

I don't believe Obama has been Bush 2 with regards to the wars. We are out of Iraq, and winding down in Afganistan. If he was Bush 2, we would have started two new wars, one justified and one completely ridiculous.

And my problems with Paul have little to do with welfare, and a lot to do with basic economics, the environment, health care, law, business regulation, foreign relations, civil rights, global warming, immigration and citizenship, religious influence in government, and many other matters. The fact that he correctly wants to end both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror is a plus in my book, but doesn't begin to touch all the minuses.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The problem with that is that the GOP wants to gut social spending something that Ron Paul agrees with, so that stuff has a very real possibility of getting pushed through. You don't need 230 Ron Paul clones just look at the **** the house has tried to pass since the 2010 elections. That will have a very real effect.

So again, the current muddled goofy "welfare" state is more valuable to liberals then real change in the direction of our foreign policy, where President Paul would have a real impact?

[Hubbs]

I edited my previous post in the hope that it will better convey some of what many of Ron Paul's supporters feel like they're fighting against. So, please scroll up and read that before reading this.

Well, if you are telling me that Fox News is intentionally slanting its coverage against Paul, then I have no disagreement. Of course it is. Fox is shameless. But everyone is not Fox News.

No, "everyone" just does this:

cUXBz6AGJFM

Turns out I mis-remembered that it was a Fox News anchor who openly told his reporter in Iowa to not report on Ron Paul. It was a CNN anchor. I wish I had done that on purpose, because it would have been very clever, but doing it accidentally is probably good enough.

If you look at the subject I was talking about, it was not you, personally. I apologize if it read that way.

I was speaking of Ron Paul supporters in general, recognizing that the stereotype does not necessarily fit any particular individual.

But the subject was the newsletters. Even speaking about Ron Paul supporters in general doesn't match up to the things that you said, because that would only be true if there weren't plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to believe that he doesn't actually agree with the racist stuff that was said in those newsletters.

It's as if we're talking about whether or not the Fed played a role in inflating the housing bubble, and you said, "There go those crazy Ron Paul supporters again, saying that low interest rates were a factor. They'll believe anything Paul says."

Again, if you got the impression that I was talking about you personally, I apologize.

It doesn't have to be me personally. Everything I said applies to the vast majority of Paul supporters, largely because of how rabid they tend to be. A large number would be able to put together entire Powerpoint presentations explaining why it's extremely unlikely that he secretly agrees with the racist comments in those newsletters. And everything I said also applies to how incredibly frustrating it is for most Paul supporters to simply have a political conversation. If you're a liberal, and agree with most of the things that Barack Obama says, generally only the Rush Limbaughs of the world (and the people who only get their news from the Rush Limbaughs of the world) will say that you defend Obama because you're part of a cult. If you're a conservative, and you agree with most of the things that the "standard" Republican candidates of the world, generally only the Keith Olbermanns of the world (and the people... etc.) will say that you defend those candidates say because you're a member of a cult. But God forbid you happen to support Ron Paul. Then you can't even respond to accusations that Paul doesn't like black people without "cult" coming into the conversation. How preposterous is that situation? What in God's name are Paul supporters allowed to say without being labeled a cult? Can someone holding a Ron Paul sign say that the sky is blue and get away with it?

Before this thread, I was going to write up a post in which I would very specifically explain why, in this one instance, I was going to break my own rule about not creating a new thread that has anything to do with Ron Paul so long as there has been a recent thread about Ron Paul, because someone spent over 100 hours creating a video that's so incredibly well-done, so incredibly thorough in its explanation of Paul's foreign policy, that it's been mentioned in newspaper articles and reached hundreds of thousands of views in a week, which isn't typical for a 13-minute video even with Paul's massive online support. I thought it was so good that it could spark a broader conversation, and a very good one, about our foreign policy in general and how anyone who's president for the next four years should act in relation to the rest of the world. Now I'm going to wait, because there's a conversation about Ron Paul and cultism going on. I'm going to shut up because I think it would be too easy to dismiss my own political point of view with the wave of a hand, even if the conversation isn't about me personally.

But hey, "Four more years!" or whatever. Let's all go argue about whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will lie more often.

[GibbsFactor]

Nope. Not if you know how to read.

I didn't say that Ron Paul's ideas could never get my support. I said that simply pointing out the known problems in the current system, without doing anything else, will never persuade me that Ron Pauls' ideas are good.

I know the current system is flawed. You still have to persuade me that Paul's approach would be an improvement.

They'd improve corporate influence for one. There simply wouldn't be the auctioning off of services in the guise of regulations like there are now.

The biggest hurdle to overcome Paul's agenda would be ability of the private sector to replace the agencies with non-profit organizations. In other words, we all agree that every agency and regulation is in existence because something happened, at one point in time, that led to it's creation. With the advent of social media, self governance in these matters is now more attainable than ever. The disagreement comes in who should be monitoring who? It's come to many Paul supporters that throwing a government agency or regulation at a problem doesn't fix it and puts the country deeper into debt and at the same time opening up newer issues in the form of corruption and self reliance on government. Now, that's not to say nothing works, just that far too little does. Under Paul's agenda, the legal industry would be the big boom industry.

Again, how many of Paul's policies would see the light of day? Not many. However, you know we'd have a balanced budget, crony capitalism would be under fire moreso than ever, military spending would be cut down dramatically, you'd have an incorruptible leader in the white house, and most importantly, talk of comprehensive reform with the New Deal and Great Society would be on the table.

[Predicto]

I But God forbid you happen to support Ron Paul. Then you can't even respond to accusations that Paul doesn't like black people without "cult" coming into the conversation. How preposterous is that situation? What in God's name are Paul supporters allowed to say without being labeled a cult? Can someone holding a Ron Paul sign say that the sky is blue and get away with it?

I call bull.

Go back to the original post that started this derail. It was the WAY all those posters talked about Ron Paul that was disturbing, the manner that they almost always choose to defend him that is weird.

Not the fact they defended him against charges of racism. I already said I don't think Paul is a racist.

[GibbsFactor]

And my problems with Paul have little to do with welfare, and a lot to do with basic economics, .

No offense, but you're school is under tremendous fire for teaching the wrong stuff. Do you know why no one "saw" 2008 coming? Because economics & finance is being taught wrong from the top.

[DjTj]

A money shot, which has actually helped me at least get 3 liberal friends of mine thinking

" To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

Are rank and file Dems in 2011 so married to the current social welfare delivery system, which Paul would have minimal impact on regardless due to Congress controlling the purse (barring some miracle of 230 Ron Paul clones taking over the house and another 60 the Senate) that you will vote for a guy who has essentially been Bush 2 with regards to the war?

I think a much bigger deal for rank and file Democrats is not welfare but conservative social positions.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

Allowing states to make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage, etc. means banning abortion, gay marriage, etc. in half of the states. Many rank and file Democrats believe that those are fundamental rights, and it's not a simple question of the social welfare delivery system.

I'm also not sure what this guy's criticism is about Obama and Libya. Were we supposed to just stay out of it completely and let Gadhafi massacre the rebels? Relatively few rank and file Democrats would have supported total inaction in that situation. I think that only strong ideological isolationists (which tend to be more conservative than liberal) would have supported sitting on our hands throughout the entire Libyan conflict.

[GibbsFactor]

I call bull.

Go back to the original post that started this derail. It was the WAY all those posters talked about Ron Paul that was disturbing, the manner that they almost always choose to defend him that is weird.

Not the fact they defended him against charges of racism. I already said I don't think Paul is a racist.

Paul and Obama are very similar in this regard. Guilty by association. Dems brushed off. Damn Obama cults.

[Predicto]

No offense, but you're school is under tremendous fire for teaching the wrong stuff. Do you know why no one "saw" 2008 coming? Because economics & finance is being taught wrong from the top.

Oh really? What "school" am I?

[GibbsFactor]

I think a much bigger deal for rank and file Democrats is not welfare but conservative social positions. Allowing states to make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage, etc. means banning abortion, gay marriage, etc. in half of the states. Many rank and file Democrats believe that those are fundamental rights, and it's not a simple question of the social welfare delivery system.

I'm also not sure what this guy's criticism is about Obama and Libya. Were we supposed to just stay out of it completely and let Gadhafi massacre the rebels? Relatively few rank and file Democrats would have supported total inaction in that situation. I think that only strong ideological isolationists (which tend to be more conservative than liberal) would have supported sitting on our hands throughout the entire Libyan conflict.

Isolationist is the wrong term. Non-interventionist is a better fit.

These social issues are too divisive as they are. It comes down to how much stock you put in states rights. However, if you followed the framers intent, you'd see that such social issues perfectly identify states laws.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 04:44 PM ----------

Oh really? What "school" am I?

Chi-town!! UofChicago. Freshwater. Monetarism. Something like that.

[Hubbs]

I call bull.

Go back to the original post that started this derail. It was the WAY all those posters talked about Ron Paul that was disturbing, the manner that they almost always choose to defend him that is weird.

Not the fact they defended him against charges of racism. I already said I don't think Paul is a racist.

Yes, let's go back to those posts you quoted:

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.

Have you seen the Gloria Berger interview? This is exactly what happened. He said, for the billionth time, that he didn't write the newsletters and he doesn't agree with what they said. She kept pressing. He got fed up and started taking off his microphone. Not cultish.

Originally Posted by Willy Wonka

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.

The only thing that could be considered cultish here is the word "teach." The rest of it is, again, a complaint about Paul being asked about the newsletters over and over and over again, even though he always gives the exact same answer.

Originally Posted by CurseReversed

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.

Even most of Paul's detractors would agree with this statement. He's not "ordinary," whether you consider that to be a good thing or not. And again, I defy you to argue with Media Matters, Jon Stewart, and Neil Cavuto about the coverage of Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by SnyderShrugged

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

Apparently your problem here was the word "embodies." I assume you're not trying to argue that Ron Paul's collection of political stances is not unique among the GOP field (or among our politicians in general). In which case you're reading into this post way too much. Go ahead and find me the people who would cry "Cult!" if someone said that Mitt Romney "embodies" moderate positions.

Originally Posted by SnyderShrugged

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

I really don't know what word you'd prefer other than "integrity" if you take SS's assertion about Lew Rockwell to be correct. Paul doesn't want to throw a friend under the bus. Are you trying to tell me that there aren't any politicians who would be happy to do that kind of throwing if it meant a rise in the polls? Again, find me the people who would say that Mitt Romney's supporters are just part of a cult if they would say that he has too much integrity to call one of his friends a racist in front of television cameras.

[Predicto]

Isolationist is the wrong term. Non-interventionist is a better fit.

These social issues are too divisive as they are. It comes down to how much stock you put in states rights. However, if you followed the framers intent, you'd see that such social issues perfectly identify states laws.

Claiming to know the Framers' intent is just as invalid when libertarians do it as it is when Christian conservatives do it.

Chi-town!! UofChicago. Freshwater. Monetarism. Something like that.

Yep. That's what all we liberals think. Heck, I have a poster of Milton Friedman tatooed on my shoulder.

[SnyderShrugged]

somewhat off topic, but didnt want to start a new thread for this.

Seems that Huntsman, Bachman and Santorum arent going to be on the VA Primary ballot now

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/22/bachmann-huntsman-santorum-not-on-va-primary-ballo-ar-1563033/

[Larry]

Well, odds that any of them would still be alive by then were . . .

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, odds that any of them would still be alive by then were . . .

when is the VA primary btw?

[GibbsFactor]

when is the VA primary btw?

March 6th.

[SnyderShrugged]

March 6th.

I think I have to agree with Larry then, that they likely would be gone anyway.

[GibbsFactor]

Claiming to know the Framers' intent is just as invalid when libertarians do it as it is when Christian conservatives do it. :

Fair enough, I'd think that pro-choicers would like Paul's position, if not as an absolute victory, at least they wouldn't have a President actively pursuing national legislation against abortion or gay rights.

Yep. That's what all we liberals think. Heck, I have a poster of Milton Friedman tatooed on my shoulder.

I'm just jabbing you, didn't you go to UofChi? I'm sure you didn't major in economics.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 06:39 PM ----------

I think I have to agree with Larry then, that they likely would be gone anyway.

It was fun getting signatures last cycle, I admitedly haven't been as active this year. In 07, I got Congressman Jim Moran to sign it during his Iran town hall.