Prominent conservative blog quashes Ron Paul

You still haven't addressed the fact that Paul has clearly stated he wants to keep their intelligence gathering function.

And projecting military might? You mean we can't do that while keeping our military at home? While better developing our weapons? While still retaliating when necessary? Remember that Paul isn't anti-war, and that he did vote for the US to go and catch Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9/11.

The cold war was a different war and the huge buildup of military won it not because our opponents were afraid of us, but because they were trying to match us in military might and couldn't afford it. Soviet Russia's twisted form of communism wasn't economically sustainable. It's as simple as that.

To you he may sound crazy. But to Pat Buchanan, whom I consider to be much more informed than you on these matters, Paul is someone who's correct on a number of issues.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55763
 
And so the smear campaign begins!!!!
It was just a matter of time.
Haha, and here's Tiassa at the fore front doing her best...well done Tissa.
Guess RP can no longer be ignored, once you can no longer ignore someone, the next step is to smear him.
Good for you T.
I'd be shocked if it was any other way.
 
You still haven't addressed the fact that Paul has clearly stated he wants to keep their intelligence gathering function.

And projecting military might? You mean we can't do that while keeping our military at home? While better developing our weapons?
Click to expand...

u wanna be stuck in the lab working on R&D, and bring the army back home NOW?
yea. i totally see Reagan in him.
 
Well, let's not overreact. If you think Tiassa's wrong, don't just accuse him/her of intentionally starting a smear campaign. It could just be that he/she saw the recent buzz Paul's been getting, looked for some info, and found what he/she recently posted.

Go after the arguments and correct the smears instead.
 
otheadp said:
u wanna be stuck in the lab working on R&D, and bring the army back home NOW?
yea. i totally see Reagan in him.
Click to expand...

You seem to think military is the only component in conservatism. And you totally ignored the point I made about how military build up had a very specific purpose against a very specific enemy in Reagan's era. That was to outspend the USSR. That's it. Against an huge arsenal of nukes, what good would the biggest army in the world have done?

Another quote from the same article: "Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the principles of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them)."
 
ashura said:
You seem to think military is the only component in conservatism. And you totally ignored the point I made about how military build up had a very specific purpose against a very specific enemy in Reagan's era. That was to outspend the USSR. That's it. Against an huge arsenal of nukes, what good would the biggest army in the world have done?

Another quote from the same article: "Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the principles of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them)."
Click to expand...

go back and read my previous posts. i've already wrote the response to who is the "true conservative" and what it means to be one today.

anyhow, if you really believe that RP's popularity comes from Republicans or people who have traditionally voted Republicans then you are wrong. his support is steady at 6% showing him as the incompatible "Republican" that he really is.
 
And I've already called BS on your revisionism. A true conservative then is still a true conservative now. Would you call Buchanan a fake conservative? A lot of his views are in line with Ron Paul's.

And I believe that RP's popularity is extremely diverse, and that those who believe in real conservative values will end up supporting him. Part of the reason why he doesn't have much support is when you mention Ron Paul, most people will go "Who?". He simply hasn't gotten as media coverage as the Republican front runners, or Huckabee. Once the grassroots campaign managed to force publicity out of the media via the November 5th moneybomb, his numbers starting climbing. Along with endorsements, money, etc. And other facts have to be taken into consideration when talking about the polls you mention such as their being conducted entirely on land lines or sometimes Paul's name not even being mentioned as an option.
 
your angry rants, together with this:
those who believe in real conservative values...
Click to expand...
make you sound like a religious fundy.

"TRUE conservatives are this this and that"

go back and read man. go see... or maybe get your head unstuck from under that big rock, what it means to be a conservative today. what it means to be a Republican today.
 
Hah, do you not see the irony in that? This is coming from the person who's also trying to limit the definition of conservatism to not include Ron Paul.

But you're right in that I shouldn't have used the word true. You still haven't addressed anything I've said though.
 
like what? he's got some conservative principles. but he goes too far. so far, in fact, that he sounds like a revolutionary.
i brought some concrete examples in the previous posts.
 
otheadp said:
like what? he's got some conservative principles. but he goes too far. so far, in fact, that he sounds like a revolutionary.
i brought some concrete examples in the previous posts.
Click to expand...

Revolutionary? Like his non-interventionism? That's a traditional paleoconservative view. His want reduce or remove government agencies that he feels are unnecessary or ineffective? That's also a traditional Republican view except Paul actually puts his money where his mouth is. Reagan himself wanted to do away with the DoE.

It's not that he's got some conservative values. He's as conservative as it gets. Just because you disagree with some of his plans doesn't make the plans any less conservative.

Note that you can disagree with him just fine. There are different branches of conservatism, how conservatism ideals should be implemented, etc. But again, that doesn't mean Paul's not a conservative.
 
ashura said:
Well, let's not overreact. If you think Tiassa's wrong, don't just accuse him/her of intentionally starting a smear campaign. It could just be that he/she saw the recent buzz Paul's been getting, looked for some info, and found what he/she recently posted.

Go after the arguments and correct the smears instead.
Click to expand...

No, I think she knows what shes doing.
She's a smart girl.
The fact that she put the title "For a "Whiter" America" in her title says enough to me that she is putting her own personal slant on the issue, or at least purposely trying to blow it out of proportion.
If she was asking questions, rather than making assumptions I would counter more in line with that.
That's how I see it anyway.

I am in no way apposed to how you are responding however.
Keep at er mate:)
 
Moementum7

While I still denounce RedState's decision, I'm starting to understand a little bit about their motives. Look, Ron Paul's supporters need to realize he's running for president. Just because he's your favorite candidate does not mean he gets immunity from the grand circus we call American electoral politics.

I understand the argument: It's okay to profit off injustice as long as your only contribution to the injustice is giving it a newsletter.

Fine. I believe you all. Ron Paul isn't a racist. Yet he took political profit from racism and only got around to denouncing it once he could no longer play it for profit. If you think that maneuver should be ignored in American electoral politics, have fun stormin' the castle.
 
Tiassa said:
Moementum7

While I still denounce RedState's decision, I'm starting to understand a little bit about their motives. Look, Ron Paul's supporters need to realize he's running for president. Just because he's your favorite candidate does not mean he gets immunity from the grand circus we call American electoral politics.

I understand the argument: It's okay to profit off injustice as long as your only contribution to the injustice is giving it a newsletter.

Fine. I believe you all. Ron Paul isn't a racist. Yet he took political profit from racism and only got around to denouncing it once he could no longer play it for profit. If you think that maneuver should be ignored in American electoral politics, have fun stormin' the castle.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tiassa, that's the most balanced statement I have seen from you and have garnered respect from me for it, not that it probly matters to you;)
I just feel like the issue is being a little overblown.

Anyways, peace.
 
Madanthonywayne said:

It's pretty funny seeing all the liberals telling us what a true conservative is.
Click to expand...

I suppose a liberal's definition is as good as any other, seeing as how we're supposed to believe that Thompson (pro-choice lobbyist, adviser to terror) and Giuliani (pro-choice, pro-homosexual, business associate of al Qaeda supporter) are true conservatives.

I think that when this election is done—I haven't much hope for this progress during the cycle—the people might come to realize that old definitions no longer work. Bill Clinton found success by conceding the value of the Reagan economy and exploiting it. Republicans recognize they have to play ball on issues like abortion and health care. If they get trounced badly in '08, they might even come around on issues like gay marriage. Once they realize that the religious-fanatic element of true conservatism is a liability not only to the party, but also to American society at large, they'll adjust.
 
Last edited:
Tiassa said:
Once they realize that the religious-fanatic element of true conservatism is a liability not only to the party, but also to American society at large, they'll adjust.
Click to expand...

I think once they realize that it's a liability to their re-election campaigns they'll adjust.
 
Kane says ... so it's over

A Note to Ron Paul supporters:

Sometimes, something loses status or value in other people's eyes because of its supporters. I made this mistake for a long time with Metallica. I didn't like Metallica fans when I was a kid because at my school, they were all violent racists. I discovered too late how good Metallica was. By the time I figured it out, they sucked. (I only grant the quality of ... And Justice for All in retrospect, especially when compared to the black album, for instance. And since I can't actually get through St. Anger without wanting to find Lars Ulrich and punch him in the teeth ....)

Anyway ....

Or think of televangelists. Seriously, when you see some of these guys, how could anyone want to be like them? (If being a Christian means I have to act like that?) They don't exactly help the overall cause.

Now then ... I was just looking through my blog when I noticed a link about the Ron Paul currency thing in my dashboard. It was from CNN. Whoo-hoo.

But here's the thing. Read the comments. It's hard for any Paul supporters to object without slinging arrows at the government. Like one guy, who challenges the Federal Reserve. It's too bad he included that note because he actually raised a question I haven't seen answered yet—How are these coins illegal?

But then there's this comment from a guy named Matt. Now, Matt is from Kansas, and jokes about Kansas suggest the obvious answer to the question of what the hell is wrong with Matt. See, it actually reads like he's an anti-Paul provocateur trying to smear the Paul campaign by acting like a complete moron. But ... well, here:

Typical CNN mainstream media putting its touches on what it deems ILLEGAL! Once again here we are, having the FEDS RAID a LEGAL OPERATION! There was nothing WRONG or ILLEGAL with the liberty dollar ( it had to be approved by the MINT BEFORE being made ) and ALL THIS IS is again, the GOVT putting FREEDOM another step down!
I HOPE IT BACKFIRES on them! I hope it brings more attention to RON PAUL! BARRY GOLDWATER, KANE from WWE, Barry Manilow, ETC ETC have found RON PAUL, HAVE YOU?

DOWN W/ BIG GOVT
UP WITH FREEDOM

(CNN Political Ticker)
Click to expand...

Seriously, what are we supposed to think of that? Barry Manilow? Good, fine. Not exactly persuasive. Kane from WWE? Oh, right. That just settles it, eh? Once Kane is on-board with you, everyone else might as well quit.

(chortle!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top