The Disconcerting Truth of the Company Ron Paul Keeps

Thankfully, other people are starting to notice the dangerous cabal of misfits and revolutionistas that make up the Mob Zombies of Ron Paul supporters.

I’m not alone in my observations.

Ron Paul’s Fair Weather Friends

Much has already been made of the interest shown in the Ron Paul campaign by groups on the reactionary right, from 9/11 ‘truthers’ to white supremacists. Less widely reported but of growing concern to those watching the Paul campaign and wondering if it is going wildly astray is the involvement of far-left groups who are flocking to Paul’s banner for reasons which may be genuine or may mask an effort to undermine the entire Republican primary. I like Ron Paul and what he stands for on a great many issues and especially his devotion to the Constitution, but I can’t help but worry about the unsavory character his campaign is beginning to develop.

Stories are circulating on GOP email lists of interested Republicans attending Ron Paul meetups around the country and being confronted by openly hostile leftist/progressive/socialists who seem to be supporting Paul, but have no love for regular Republicans who also support the candidate. There are accounts that confrontations have become heated at some of these meetups, particularly the one held in Las Vegas earlier this month. Suspicion particularly focuses on attendees who are believed to be MoveOn.org operatives and why they are so interested in Ron Paul. Is their interest genuine, or is it only part of a campaign to disrupt the Republican primary?

The involvement of MoveOn.org in the Paul campaign can be confirmed on their page at meetup.com where they are shown as co-sponsoring a number of the regional Ron Paul meetups and they have also released a video ad in support of Paul. Paul’s campaign has also received positive public response from a variety of prominent leftists, including Cindy Sheehan. One socialist in the Netherlands of all places, makes a compelling argument for why US socialists should support Ron Paul.

Most Republicans see the objectives of MoveOn.org as inherently antithetical to the basic beliefs of the Republican Party. MoveOn.org is an openly anti-Republican, anti-Conservative and anti-Libertarian organization which is openly funded by a wealthy international socialist whose goal is to undermine and control the Democratic Party, and it is largely run by people with past associations with the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America. With its position at the far left of the American Political spectrum and as the main instrument through which George Soros seeks to undermine and control the American political system, it is understandable how Republicans might be concerned about MoveOn.org’s interest in and support of Ron Paul.

The key to Paul’s popularity on the left lies with his opposition to the Iraq War, but also with the suppor the has from a segment of the traditional Libertarian Party constituency, the left-libertarians or social anarchists. This element of the broad alliance which makes up the Libertarian Party, where Paul was once a prominent figure and presidential candidate, is philosophically compatible with the most extreme parts of the socialist leaning wing of the Democratic Party. As typified by Justin Raimondo, they are the anti-property, anti-war and anti-nationalist element of libertarianism. They differ from typical ‘minarchist’ libertarians and neolibertarians in their outspoken hostility to the Republican Party and their unwillingness to compromise their extreme principles in the interest of political reality. Strangely they don’t have the same hostility towards the Democrats, and many of them see socialists as their natural allies. As the Democratic Party becomes more dominated by socialist factions it becomes more appealing to them. Their enthusiastic support for Paul means that there is a nucleus within his following which is already allied with forces within the farthest left part of the Democratic Party, and they have been drawing on that association to bring more leftist/progressives into Paul’s camp.

Paul seems willing to take support from wherever he can get it and doesn’t seem particularly concerned that socialists may try to influence his campaign or distort the nomination process in the Republican primaries. Although he has promised that if he fails to get the nomination he will not jump parties and run as a Libertarian, he doesn’t seem to care that the newly registered pseudo-Republicans he’s creating will leave the party the moment the primary is over, even if one of the more moderate somewhat libertarian candidates wins.

In a recent interview with LibertyWatch Paul makes very clear that he’s aware of his appeal to the left. He commented that:

“Right now, liberals are the most enthusiastic about my campaign. If I get a speech on the House floor on foreign policy, I’ll get many hundreds — sometimes thousands — of comments sent to my office. I would say 90 percent of them are from Democrats.”

He doesn’t seem particularly concerned, and even accepts the idea that these supporters are ‘liberals’, even though it’s pretty clear that they don’t believe in most of the same liberal ideas that Paul or other libertarians in the Republican Party support. Paul even acknowledges this:
“liberals are very, very frustrated with their own Democrats. Although they know I have shortcomings from their viewpoint — because I’m for free enterprise and free markets — they love my position on civil liberties and they love my position on war.”

He’s clearly willing to take support from wherever he can get it, which is understandable, but it does put his loyalty to the Republican party and true libertarian ideals in question, as much as his unwillingness to speak out against the racists, conspiracy fanatics and other extremists who support him does.
It is Paul’s anti-war position which seems to drive much of the interest of the left in his campaign, which begs the question of whether their support is genuine, or just based on the single issue of the War in Iraq? Do they support Paul and everything he stands for or do they just see his candidacy as a chance to strike a blow against the evil Republican warmongers in their own primary. What will leftist/progressives who are flocking to register Republican so that they can vote for Paul do if he doesn’t get nominated? Would they stick with a candidate like Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson who share many of Paul’s positions on issues other than the Iraq War, or will they flee back to the Democratic party once Paul loses the nomination and they’ve done as much damage to the primary process as they can? Perhaps the most important question for Republicans is whether Paul could hold onto some of their votes in a national election if he were a Vice Presidential candidate?

Paul seems to have decided that whatever advances his campaign is a good idea, no matter where that support comes from or what strings may be attached to it. Distressing though it may be to admit, it looks like ambition is turning Ron Paul into a real politician.

24 Comments

Filed under Politics

24 responses to “The Disconcerting Truth of the Company Ron Paul Keeps

  1. The man’s message hasn’t changed. If you are a Christians and appreciate and understand the theory of Just War and support the Rule of Law–not the arbitrary rule of men, then Ron Paul is for you. I think it’s low of you to attack him based on who you claim supports him (even if true). I’m a conservative Christian who supports Ron Paul. I can’t imagine supporting any of the other current candidates. Why won’t you argue the issues? Why attack the supporters?

  2. Chris

    There is nothing disconcerting about the leftist support. Hillary leaves too much room in her rhetoric for continuous war. Kucinich has no traction. I say welcome their votes and the debate they bring. I

  3. Jim Anderson

    Where are the “strings attached” to these “groups” that you so fear. I have contributed to Ron Paul for many years and I guess I forgot to attach a string to the dollars I sent. Relax, Dr. Paul can’t be bought.

  4. implicaverse

    “As typified by Justin Raimondo, they are the anti-property, anti-war and anti-nationalist element of libertarianism. ”

    Justin Raimondo is about as traditional libertarian as they come. If you want folks who are anti-property and anti-nationalist, look no further than the corrupt big-government/open-borders Republicans like John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

    If you define The War on Terror as having something to do with going after Osama bin Laden, then the mainstream GOP is studiously anti-war as well.

  5. SF_guy(RET)

    The writer of this piece has been influenced by modern politics. Social mores, personal liberty, and government abstinence are both mutually exclusive and intersecting. These “lines” have been blurred by government trying to instill morality. Morality that is not realized is unstable and open to attack, whether it’s parents or some other authority. The rebellion and acquiescence are psychologically proven reactions.
    One of the best things about MY HOME used to be that I didn’t have to agree with anyone; we didn’t have to be a homogeneous society, but could appreciate our similarities and our differences. That has changed. From GW Bush “you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” to anything Disney, we are gradually losing our individual identity and submitting to “groupthink” which is more easily noticed, ostracized, and even punished (the “Violent Religions Act” in the Senate). We are one people that are united around one idea-“Fuck off, mind your business” and we have gradually moved away from selective involvement (personally chosen) to mandatory compliance (majority dictated). When all the groups gradual “corral” people into whatever mindset, social situation, personal action, or “don’t stand out” scenario, we as individuals become less AS INDIVIDUALS.
    I spent 21 yrs in the military-Ranger, SF, even CAG. I have been in a vacuum for that time, and after getting out I am astonished to find very few individuals left in my home town; but here is the opposite side-they have to exist. Rebellion is never defeated, just driven from sight, and nature happens everywhere. It is unfortunate that these people are not allowed to be open about their tastes, be they substances, sexuality, politics, or even why American Idol is retarded demonspawn of Jerry Springer and Star Search.
    It is not our group similarities that make us strong, or our military, or even our dollar; it’s our differences, the acknowledgement and more importantly RESPECT for those differences. We become better individuals when we can find commonality with each other individually. Until that begins to happen en masse, we are more demanding, temperamental, and selfish. Then comes the legislation, taxation, and resentment.

  6. George P

    Ron Paul is no worse than any other candidate. I do not think he courts fringe dwellers. I think they are drawn to his simple to understand and no spin message. It takes all kinds of people to make up a world. Look at the crooks that support Guliani and Clinton. Look at the lengths our own government goes to in suppressing the truth about their actions. His message may seem simple and somewhat naive at times, but he also seems to be the most benign of them all. Not all Ron Paul supporters are kooks and conspiracy theorists, just like not all the other candidates supporters are crooks and liars. When oh when will you people stop lumping all RP supporters in the same camp? At the end of the day, all of us are disgusted with what is happening in this country today. This country was founded on the principles of dissenting views and commentary. Lets not get twisted around the axle by focusing on minor issues like who supports whom (except in the cases of outrageous criminal actions by folks trying to skew or control the election – which RP supporters don’t seem to be in the same class as the mainstream candidates.) We’ve got bigger fish to fry. This post just seems to fuel defamatory rhetoric, and does not help anyone at all – except to bump up your blog readership. Grow up already.

  7. invar

    Bush “you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” to anything Disney, we are gradually losing our individual identity and submitting to “groupthink”

    I could make the same charge of some of the Mob Zombie supporters of Ron Paul.

    “If you don’t support RP – you don’t believe in liberty….blah…blah…blah”

    It is not our group similarities that make us strong, or our military, or even our dollar; it’s our differences, the acknowledgement and more importantly RESPECT for those differences.

    I NEVER belived that “diversity is our strength”.

    Talk about groupthink!

    Our strength was built upon a core set of principles and values that – while we were all individuals – we held the same foundational principles and morals that we were willing to live our lives by, work, sacrifice, fight and even die for.

  8. invar

    Why won’t you argue the issues? Why attack the supporters?

    Excuse you – the article I posted is from David Nalle – and as I stated plainly – he makes the same observations about many Ron Paul supporters that I do, and those observations ARE the issue in this entry.

    I think they are drawn to his simple to understand and no spin message

    As Nalle points out, and I myself have observed, a large chunk of RP supporters are into his candidacy for ONE THING ONLY – his anti-war message, which they like because he makes an argument cloaked in legitimate constitutional grounds rather than the insane emoting vitriol of the MoveOn.org/Code Pinkos.

    Others want bloodshed and ‘revolution’ for whatever pet cause they have and are willing to ride the RP bandwagon towards inciting their dreams of rebellion – be they Anarchists, Communists or Stormfront neo-Nazis.

    When enough of a mob wants blood, riot and upheaval – they usually get it.

    And that is why the subject of this zombie mob is so important. They romanticize they are patriots like the Founders struggling for independence when they are nothing like the Founders- and more like Robespierre and the cabal that brought wholesale slaughter and revolution to anyone who they decreed was an ‘oppressor’.

    Considering the threats already received – the similarites are frightening.

  9. jmklein

    uhhhh, Paul is pro property. He sorta wants to abolish a lot of taxes and allow people to trade gold and silver as legal tender. He also wants to end all sanctions and let Americans have free property transactions with the world.

    This is sorta, um… pro property and I don’t know where the author pulled out the idea that he is a socialist.

    I guess you do some blackwhite on it, but it shouldn’t be convincing to critical thinking.

  10. invar

    He sorta wants to abolish a lot of taxes and allow people to trade gold and silver as legal tender.

    How does he plan to get Congress to go along with abolishing taxes – or as usual – will an Executive Order from your wannabe King suffice?

    Also, his tax plan is bogus and built on faulty numbers.

    As with all politicans – Ron Paul wants to promote an idea – but has NO SUBSTANCE to make his utopian views a reality – unless he plans on ruling like a dictator.

    Ron Paul received 4 Pinnochios on his tax elimination plans.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

    As far as Property goes – how does Paul think he is going to deal with Judicial Activism from SCOTUS? Abolish them? Or wait to appoint someone to the Court when another dies?

    Then – how does he plan to get a strict Constructionist on the Court when Congress had made it perfectly clear that no such Constructionist will ever be confirmed again?

  11. Timur Rozenfeld

    It doesn’t matter who supports him. It is what his policies are and what he plans to do. These have not changed and we have 30 years of record to prove what he did and did not do. He doesn’t do flip-flopping nor is he in anyone’s pocket. He is not political as he made it clear he wouldn’t support just any Republican nominee.

    This idea of tying him to his supporters is guilt by association. We can find all kinds of unsavory characters supporting every one of the candidates, yet Ron Paul’s supporters are given extra special scrutiny. Why? Because he is rocking the boat and is outside the so-called mainstream. He is a danger to those in power and to those vested in the current establishment.

  12. invar

    It doesn’t matter who supports him.

    Sorry, but YES it does.

    As has been discussed – some support him ONLY because of his Anti-war position. They can care less about the rest of the Constitutional issues he stands for, or think those issues are not as important as stopping the war. Some support him only for political maneuvering in getting Hillary elected.

    Some support him because he has a following, and his calls for “revolution” match their desire for upheaval, chaos and bloodshed.

    So, yes – it does matter WHO is supporting him.

    He doesn’t do flip-flopping nor is he in anyone’s pocket.

    A large percentage of suppporters with an agenda have a way of ‘influencing’ politicians.

    And lest you forgot – Ron Paul IS a politician, and HAS been for decades.

    This idea of tying him to his supporters is guilt by association.

    Why will he not disavow them, or the stated agendas that he does not agree with? He has no problem taking Stormfront or Liberal Democrat money, and is willing to accept them into his campaign because of their shared hatred of the war effort ONLY.

    Nonetheless, Ron Paul himself is sounding more and more like these same kind of fringe kooks that make up the Anti-war leftists currently supporting him in the primary.

    We can find all kinds of unsavory characters supporting every one of the candidates, yet Ron Paul’s supporters are given extra special scrutiny. Why? Because he is rocking the boat and is outside the so-called mainstream. He is a danger to those in power and to those vested in the current establishment.

    No, because his supporters are a freaking mob – and act like a mob, complete with threats of violence and death for those who disagree or even mention their messiah in a negative light.

    Many of us are noticing just how much of an unruly and unhinged mob some of the more vocal Ron Paul nitwits are.

    They are as I have described – mob zombies, complte with foam-at-the-mouth threatenings and vitriol on ANYONE -especially Republicans and Conservative “neocons” in whom they hate with apparently the same zeal Hitler hated the Jews.

    For I have experienced it myself.

  13. SF_guy(RET)

    invar:
    You have misunderstood what I wrote. It is the RESPECT for each others differences that makes us strong; when we can respect each others differences we can find out what we have in common (and form/maintain a community-as you pointed out).
    Groupthink, as studied by Irving Janis (who studied thousands of historical documents including the Bay of Pigs [location of Escombre mountains] and the lack of preparation regarding Pearl Harbor) is may be applicable to SOME Ron Paul supporters. However, their inability to explain their choice in presidents (or support it with details) is not the CONSENSUS required to be classified as groupthink, as he is the “longshot, underdog, loon, and my personal favorite, moonbat. Fervor, vehemence, overzealousness would be appropriate.
    But let’s discuss groupthink further (it’s a break from my graduate work in International Relations).
    As there are supposedly so FEW Ron Paul supporters, then the group in question is a minority, and the situation does not occur in that context. You may pose the idea of an “information vacuum” but that may be too slippery a slope for you-it could cause questions that require unconventional (and perhaps socially ostracizing) research, ideas, and principles. Once someone becomes a RP supporter, there is no other choice because to recognize the issues he discusses isolates him from the other candidates (unless the person is simply “lover of the underdog, let’s rebel type”-and every campaign has those supporters-from vote for Hillary-“we need a woman” to Giuliani “he will protect us”.
    Now you may say that RP has more than his share-perhaps, but how many people can tell you why he/she is supporting candidate “X”.

    –Our strength was built upon a core set of principles and values that – while we were all individuals – we held the same foundational principles and morals that we were willing to live our lives by, work, sacrifice, fight and even die for.

    And if we can’t get past our differences we will never find our commonality. I just have one more thing for you—what have you put YOUR LIFE on the line for; freedom for Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs, Somalians.
    Your statement in defense of “our way of life” may be the intellectual masturbation fueling your ignorance.

  14. invar

    It is the RESPECT for each others differences that makes us strong; when we can respect each others differences we can find out what we have in common (and form/maintain a community-as you pointed out).

    You have it backwards.

    Our Founders stood on a common foundation of commonality and shared moral and principled values. Their respect for differences was due those shared values, not because their differences made them share their values.

    What made us strong was those core values and principles that were immutable, immovable and uncompromising to Americans – but in an age where the poison of multiculturalism has robbed our attachment to those principles and foundations – we have bought the lie that diversity is what made us strong. It isn’t and never was.

    The strength of our core allowed the respect for benign differences because the foundation was solid.

    And if we can’t get past our differences we will never find our commonality.

    You have it bass ackwards AGAIN. Commonality is helped us look past the differences. What you espouse is the same stupid multicultural crap that forces us to notice the differences IN THE HOPE OF finding commonality -and if not – artificially creating commonality for nothing more than feeling good about yourself.

    That kind of of unity does not last or endure.

    I just have one more thing for you—what have you put YOUR LIFE on the line for; freedom for Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs, Somalians.

    Anyone who seeks and strives for true liberty deserves the opportunity to risk achieving it.

    In a world of instant communication, travel and unfettered nuclear and other weapons with barbarians who do not share our values or principles and see divine duty in eliminating those who are different in belief than they are – risking and maintaining liberty is no longer something that is a ‘local issue’ any longer.

    But Americans today have very short memories, or assuage those memories with blaming and hating fellow countrymen with all sorts of malfiescance and conspiracy because it is easier to do, and has less risk attached to it.

  15. What on earth is this guy (the writer of the article you posted) talking about?? He was doing a decent job until he started spouting off completely undocumented nonsense about libertarians being socialists and how Paul’s campaign was benefitting from far left socialists.

    Gee, I’ve been a supporter in Atlanta, Columbia, Greenville, and Philadelphia; and with maybe three exceptions, everyone I’ve seen and worked with has been a former rank-and-file Republican who thinks the GOP is the lite version of the Democrat party. Pro-life, pro-family people. Homeschoolers. I guess all the socialists stay home.

    And then you cite the Washington Post. Riiiiight. Did you read some of the comments on there? That guy (who is a liberal) left out the bulk of the Paul’s argument.

    I’m done.

  16. invar

    For all the personal loathing of the Washington Compost I have – math is math and their numbers from Paul’s “plan” do not lie.

    Perhaps it is exactly as the “spokesman” said – and that is that the idea is more important than specifics.

    And that is one of the HUGE problems I have with Ron Paul. he talks a great game – just like Ross Perot did – but when it comes to practical, realistic specifics – it all falls down.

  17. SF_guy(RET)

    As entertainingly uniformed as you are, your inverted logic has begun to bore me.
    If I don’t respect our differences (which are far outweighed by our similarities) then we could not have any discourse (as we have had).
    If you have done any historical research on our “founding fathers” you would know they often perceived issues differently, political as well as personal. Would Hamilton and Jefferson both participated on the Federalist Papers had they not been able to RESPECT each others views on the birth of the nation. Have you read the Federalist Papers? If Franklin (who may have been the first American pederast) had found Jefferson’s “slave love” distasteful, or vice versa, would we have a nation today?
    Your insistence on a homogeneous society is belied by the very document that founded the country, and just so you know, I don’t go in for the touchy feely multicultural crap anymore than I tolerate referring to all Arabs as “haji”. Which brings me to the point you glossed over with broad generality in an effort to include yourself in the “they may kill us at any moment” idea of personal jeopardy. Unless you have signed the paper making you a “bullet magnet”, been in a building that has exploded, or risked YOUR IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL EXISTENCE for an ideal, you insult every person that has, does, or will, with your tripe.
    Enjoy your idealist rhetoric from the couch, hero.
    PS Feel free to find new vocabulary words in this
    post. Try to use them in the correct context
    and conjugation-break out the LEXICON when
    you need to😉

    CW3 David Michael Haldolfsen (RET)

  18. invar

    As entertainingly uniformed as you are, your inverted logic has begun to bore me.

    Likewise.

    If I don’t respect our differences (which are far outweighed by our similarities) then we could not have any discourse (as we have had).

    Excuse you SIR, but much of the discourse you and your Ron Paul pals showcases a complete and total lack of respect for differences.

    There is more hatred, vitriol and threats of violence both implied and literal from Ron Paul supporters TOWARDS Republicans, Conservatives and bloggers like me if we DARE disagree with or have doubts about your messiah candidate Ron Paul.

    Not even the Stalinists on the Left have demonstrated the level of disrespect and hatred towards those who have said anything even remotely negative about your messiah, that you Ron Paul people have.

    As your Ron Paul forums and blogs so clearly illustrate – you people HATE anyone who supports the war effort or those who do not think 9-11 was a conspiracy. You call them “neocons” the “Jew Lobby” and descend like locusts to attack Conservatives like me who disagree with your candidates positions, far more than you do those leftists who have been busy stripping our rights away for decades via the courts and the Congress.

    One can only assume you people are happy to respect the differences of Leftists and Stalinists in the Democrat/moveOn.org Left – but any Conservative who supports this war or dares to say anything bad about Ron Paul is worthy of death and violence according to the nuts in your camp.

    Yours is a mob. An insane angry mob with bloodlust and zeal for upheaval.

    If you have done any historical research on our “founding fathers” you would know they often perceived issues differently, political as well as personal.

    I have a library of very well-researched literature on the Founders and have the pleasure to call outstanding authors and experts in our Founding Fathers, William J. Federer and the Rev. Peter Marshall, freinds.

    The Founders did not start from a premise of noticing differences and patting themselves on the back because they were willing to ‘respect’ differences. In fact, they had little respect for some differences and became bitter rivals because of them. If it were not for Franklin’s call to Adjournment for a day of fasting and prayer because of all the fighting and intense argumentation at the conjoining of the Convention – the Constitution would never have had a pen laid to parchment or come into being.

    The Founders stood on a common foundation of belief and understanding and ARGUED about the differences – even to the point of fisticuffs and duels their passions were so high.

    Respect for differences came because of their common ground in religious principles, but it ended when they felt those principles encroached upon or threatened.

    Slavery was an issue they could not “respect” one another on, and had to let that divisive issue pass in order to establish a working government. That divisive issue would of course be paid in blood less than a hundred years later.

    The one needing a more complete course in History of the Founders would be you sir. I recommend some time reading such men as Marshall, Manuel and Federer.

    Unless you have signed the paper making you a “bullet magnet”, been in a building that has exploded, or risked YOUR IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL EXISTENCE for an ideal, you insult every person that has, does, or will, with your tripe.

    How the hell do you know that I haven’t?

    Hell, according to some of your compatriots wanting a real revolution – I’m risking my very existence for daring to “be on the wrong side” of your messiah, and will “wake up with a bullet in my head” for nothing more than posting what I type.

    Enjoy your idealist rhetoric from the couch, hero.

    Nope , no hero. I don’t pretend to be one, or think that label applies to me in any way shape or form. My nephew, his unit, my neighbors and fellow countrymen doing time in the sand, and anyone who slugged it out on beaches, jungles, seas and the skies over enemy territory are the heroes.

    And actually, I enjoy posting my rhetoric from the comfort of the office chair.

  19. Numbers do lie when human beings are in control of them. The analysis of the article _right below_ the article spelled out that that journalist didn’t incorporate the bulk of Paul’s arguments (things like closing down our bases in places like Europe, Korea, &c.).

    And thanks for picking and choosing like 20% of what I say to address. :-\

  20. Timur Rozenfeld

    Timur: It doesn’t matter who supports him.

    Invar: Sorry, but YES it does.

    As has been discussed – some support him ONLY because of his Anti-war position. They can care less about the rest of the Constitutional issues he stands for, or think those issues are not as important as stopping the war. Some support him only for political maneuvering in getting Hillary elected.

    Some support him because he has a following, and his calls for “revolution” match their desire for upheaval, chaos and bloodshed.

    So, yes – it does matter WHO is supporting him.

    Timur: I still don’t see why it matter who supports him. He has stated his positions and if others don’t understand that, then how is that his problem or mine? They have given their money with false hope of getting their agenda passed.

    Timur: He doesn’t do flip-flopping nor is he in anyone’s pocket.

    Invar: A large percentage of suppporters with an agenda have a way of ‘influencing’ politicians.

    And lest you forgot – Ron Paul IS a politician, and HAS been for decades.

    Timur: This implies he will flip-flop or will likely be in someone’s pocket. His record shows that he is the least likely person to be in someone’s pocket.

    Timur: This idea of tying him to his supporters is guilt by association.

    Invar: Why will he not disavow them, or the stated agendas that he does not agree with? He has no problem taking Stormfront or Liberal Democrat money, and is willing to accept them into his campaign because of their shared hatred of the war effort ONLY.

    Nonetheless, Ron Paul himself is sounding more and more like these same kind of fringe kooks that make up the Anti-war leftists currently supporting him in the primary.

    Timur: How so? Calling him a kook and on the fringe and whatever other deragatory terms you can think up is no argument.

    Timur: We can find all kinds of unsavory characters supporting every one of the candidates, yet Ron Paul’s supporters are given extra special scrutiny. Why? Because he is rocking the boat and is outside the so-called mainstream. He is a danger to those in power and to those vested in the current establishment.

    Invar: No, because his supporters are a freaking mob – and act like a mob, complete with threats of violence and death for those who disagree or even mention their messiah in a negative light.

    Many of us are noticing just how much of an unruly and unhinged mob some of the more vocal Ron Paul nitwits are.

    Timur: I have noticed that Anti-Paul people tend to be far more vitriolic in their writings. And I think that Ron Paul supporters have a right to respond to patent distortions of what he is saying.

    Invar: They are as I have described – mob zombies, complte with foam-at-the-mouth threatenings and vitriol on ANYONE -especially Republicans and Conservative “neocons” in whom they hate with apparently the same zeal Hitler hated the Jews.

    For I have experienced it myself.

    Timur: Well, I have experienced the same from Ron Paul haters. What does this prove? That some people are fanatical. You are just picking out the Ron Paul supporters because they happen to be passionate about their candidate and a minority can get out of hand.

    You make gross generalizations indicating that your comments are based on your dislike or hatred of Ron Paul, not on the issues he discusses.

  21. invar

    This idea of tying him to his supporters is guilt by association.

    No, it’s indicative of the kind of mindsets and agendas supporting his bid for president.

    The majority are anti-war – and that is the ONLY agenda on his platform they are willing to discuss.

    Others, such as Stormfront, Anarchists and Che Guevera lovers – support the idea of blooshed and revolution, tying that to Ron Paul’s campaign slogan of ‘Revolution’.

    I have noticed that Anti-Paul people tend to be far more vitriolic in their writings. And I think that Ron Paul supporters have a right to respond to patent distortions of what he is saying.

    By threatening violence and death on those who are passionate in their opposition to Ron Paul’s ideas???

    Sorry. NO Anti-Paul blog, rant, forum discussion or editorial I’ve ever read has threatened a Ron Paul supporter with death for merely expressing their political views. We might call them tinfoil hat wearers, kooks and mob zombies – but that is not the same as threatening to find out where someone lives so they can “put a bullet in their brain” or demand that the editorial writer or blogger be shut down.

    The Ron paul mob zombies cannot help themselves but threaten violence and death, and deprive their detractors of their free speech liberties to those who disagree with their messiah.

    You make gross generalizations indicating that your comments are based on your dislike or hatred of Ron Paul, not on the issues he discusses.

    No, wrong again. I have taken his speeches and essays and debated them sentence by sentence.

    It’s defelection on your part to automatically assume my comments are based on a personal dislike of your messiah.

    I oppose him because of what his positions are regarding foreign policy, and how shrill and kooky he sounds in just about every debate he is in these days.

  22. Pingback: Ron Paul: Bought and Paid For By Anti-War Socialists at MoveOn.org « Sword At-The-Ready

  23. Funny thing, kooky as Ron Paul may be (he’s my favorite fruitloop) he still rates very high after the republican debates.

    Only the teeniest percentage of US Citizens qualify as bonafide, card-carrying kooks. If every kook hopped on the Ron Paul bandwagon it would barely touch his overall numbers, which despite the lying media’s distortions, are very high.

    That said, it would sure make the meetups pretty interesting, don’t you think?

    I don’t know much about Soros but here’s the acid test: Is he a member of the CFR, Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission? Because if Soros is one of those Commie New World Order dudes there is NO WAY he’d support Ron Paul, because Paul is the very antithesis of what those organizations are all about: World Socialist Government, imposed by force if necessary.

    If Soros is a closet Bolshevik he’s already calling Hillary Clinton “President Clinton.” Because SHE is the one who has been tapped by the CFR to lead us all into perdition.

  24. Your information are very good.I like it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s