Meta-irony alert- RPaul sues fans for rights to RonPaul.com

[Turner Coates]

Nope.
You lose.
I win.

[Turner Coates]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Once you jack-asses actually get SOMETHING right, I'll tell you when that happens.

You're ranting about getting something right?
There's no hyphen in the word "jackasses", you fucking ignoramus.

YOU LOSE again!

[KneelandBobDylan]

Wrong...yet AGAIN.

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

Three things:

1) LOL @ "one HAS to be part of the two party system." (See #3)

2) What part of his career was he a Republican? Oh yeah, the last part. He ran as a REPUBLICAN for President LAST year, douche maven. That would make him a Republican that espouses Libertarian views. Prove what I'm saying is wrong.

3) If you HAVE to be part of a "two party system" why run for President as a Libertarian in 1988. By your own words: "one HAS to be part of the two party system." He wasn't part of either party then so that would imply that his 1988 Presidential run was, in fact, worthless, and dare I say, stupid.


Oh, Wronggio, the intellectual knots you're tying yourself into are starting to make you resemble a pretzel.


Owned.

[Moggio]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Once you jack-asses actually get SOMETHING right, I'll tell you when that happens.

You're ranting about getting something right?
There's no hyphen in the word "jackasses", you fucking ignoramus.

YOU LOSE again!

Weak. Just weak. But then again, this is you. So unfortunately, THAT is the best you can do.

Wrong...yet AGAIN.

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

Three things:

1) LOL @ "one HAS to be part of the two party system." (See #3)

2) What part of his career was he a Republican? Oh yeah, the last part. He ran as a REPUBLICAN for President LAST year, douche maven. That would make him a Republican that espouses Libertarian views. Prove what I'm saying is wrong.

3) If you HAVE to be part of a "two party system" why run for President as a Libertarian in 1988. By your own words: "one HAS to be part of the two party system." He wasn't part of either party then so that would imply that his 1988 Presidential run was, in fact, worthless, and dare I say, stupid.


Oh, Wronggio, the intellectual knots you're tying yourself into are starting to make you resemble a pretzel.


Owned.

1) See #3.

2) Why does it matter which PART of his career he ran with the Republican Party? My point is that he's primarily a Libertarian and has been for about 40 years now. ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about Ron Paul knows this. Except idiots like you, that is. Read his bio, dipshit.

3) I've already explained why and in THIS very thread, you fucking moron. Now go find it, so I can OWN you AGAIN.

Btw, you're taking my, "...one HAS to be part of the two party system...", quote OUT OF CONTEXT. The original quote read:

"The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system."





Keep tryin'...and you'll keep failin'...

[Turner Coates]

[Luminiferous]

He has very little in common with the Republican Party. He's primarily a Libertarian, moron.

[Turner Coates]

Perception is reality.
Whatever Moggio's addled brain conjures up is HIS reality....not the rest of the world's.
His consciousness is based around bickering.
It's a way of life for him.
He's broken and cannot be repaired.
If he desires to kicked around, so be it.

[Moggio]

Perception is reality.
Whatever Moggio's addled brain conjures up is HIS reality....not the rest of the world's.
His consciousness is based around bickering.
It's a way of life for him.
He's broken and cannot be repaired.
If he desires to kicked around, so be it.

I guess KneelandBobDylan, Luminiferous and you STILL haven't read Ron Paul's bio yet, have ya?! But keep posting pics.


Keep tryin' and you'll keep failin'...

[Luminiferous]

No explanation as to why you ignored the huge "THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES DEBATE" at the top in the first photo and the "REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE" in the second.

If Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party, why is he participating in their primary debates?


Why did he waste his and his supporter's (and your) money and run AGAIN on the Republican ticket in 2012 after his 2008 failure and just not run as the Libertarian candidate and save he and his supporters money?

[Turner Coates]

[Moggio]

No explanation as to why you ignored the huge "THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES DEBATE" at the top in the first photo and the "REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE" in the second.

If Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party, why is he participating in their primary debates?

I did NOT say Ron Paul had "NOTHING" in common with the Republican Party. I said RP has very LITTLE in common with them, you fucking idiot.

Why did he waste his and his supporter's (and your) money and run AGAIN on the Republican ticket in 2012 after his 2008 failure and just not run as the Libertarian candidate and save he and his supporters money?

I've already explained why...and in this very thread (in fact, even on this very page). Now, go find it, dipshit.


Holy fucking shit, some of you people are ABSOLUTE morons...

[Turner Coates]

[Luminiferous]

No explanation as to why you ignored the huge "THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES DEBATE" at the top in the first photo and the "REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE" in the second.

If Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party, why is he participating in their primary debates?

I did NOT say Ron Paul had "NOTHING" in common with the Republican Party. I said RP has very LITTLE in common with them, you fucking idiot.

But yet he still participates in their debates, would have run as a Republican candidate had he won the nomination and sucks moola from his drooling followers like you..

So he was a Republican for "part of his career"...even as late as 2012..

[Moggio]

I did NOT say Ron Paul had "NOTHING" in common with the Republican Party. I said RP has very LITTLE in common with them, you fucking idiot.

But yet he still participates in their debates, would have run as a Republican candidate had he won the nomination and sucks moola from his drooling followers like you..

So he was a Republican for "part of his career"...even as late as 2012..

[Luminiferous]

I did NOT say Ron Paul had "NOTHING" in common with the Republican Party. I said RP has very LITTLE in common with them, you fucking idiot.

But yet he still participates in their debates, would have run as a Republican candidate had he won the nomination and sucks moola from his drooling followers like you..

So he was a Republican for "part of his career"...even as late as 2012..

But yet you do every time you post...

[Moggio]

But yet you do every time you post...

This coming from someone who actually thinks Ron Paul joined the Republican Party for part of his career because he agrees with most or all of their platform and that he isn't primarily a Libertarian.

Maybe this will clear things up...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_mSx-lmGM

[Turner Coates]

This coming from someone who actually thinks Ron Paul joined the Republican Party for part of his career because he agrees with most or all of their platform and that he isn't primarily a Libertarian.

If he is not a Republican, then he is patently dishonest for attempting to win an election by riding the GOP's coattails.

[Luminiferous]

But yet you do every time you post...

This coming from someone who actually thinks Ron Paul joined the Republican Party for part of his career because he agrees with most or all of their platform and that he isn't primarily a Libertarian.

Well the guy's lost my vote then... If he's a Libertarian and trying to be sneaky and running on the Republican ticket, he sounds like an awful dishonest and shady person...

[Moggio]

This coming from someone who actually thinks Ron Paul joined the Republican Party for part of his career because he agrees with most or all of their platform and that he isn't primarily a Libertarian.

Well the guy's lost my vote then... If he's a Libertarian and trying to be sneaky and running on the Republican ticket, he sounds like an awful dishonest and shady person...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

[ralphwiggumsdealer]

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

Exactly!

Just like the way Ross Perot had to...

[Danzig in the Dark]

This coming from someone who actually thinks Ron Paul joined the Republican Party for part of his career because he agrees with most or all of their platform and that he isn't primarily a Libertarian.

Well the guy's lost my vote then... If he's a Libertarian and trying to be sneaky and running on the Republican ticket, he sounds like an awful dishonest and shady person...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

It wasn't his fault. He had to sell out.

[Moggio]

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

It wasn't his fault. He had to sell out.

He wasn't selling out, moron.

SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.


You can now continue FAILING...

[Turner Coates]

[Danzig in the Dark]

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

It wasn't his fault. He had to sell out.

He wasn't selling out, moron.

SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.


You can now continue FAILING...

I understand. By 'part', you mean 'the vast majority'. Just like Metallica and Areosmith had to sell out to get radio play and mainstream success, Dr. Paul had to sell out and become a Republican to get mainstream recognition and political success.

[Moggio]

He wasn't selling out, moron.

SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.


You can now continue FAILING...

I understand. By 'part', you mean 'the vast majority'. Just like Metallica and Areosmith had to sell out to get radio play and mainstream success, Dr. Paul had to sell out and become a Republican to get mainstream recognition and political success.

RETURN. OF. THE. SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


He wasn't selling out, moron.

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.


You can now continue FAILING...

[Turner Coates]

SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

[Luminiferous]

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.

Part of his career which includes as lately as six months ago..

Didn't Mr. Paul already run on the Libertarian ticket in 1988? He has his name out there, people KNOW who he is as he has kept his name in the public eye ever since, so why continue to participate in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012?


Why did he not run on the Libertarian ticket in 1992 instead of Andre Marrou?
Why did he not run on the Libertarian ticket in 1996 instead of Harry Browne?
Why did he not run on the Libertarian ticket in 2000 instead of (again) Harry Browne?
Why did he not run on the Libertarian ticket in 2004 instead of Michael Badnarik?
Why did he not run on the Libertarian ticket in 2004 instead of Bob Barr?
Why did he not run on the Libertarian ticket in 2012 instead of Gary Johnson?

Something shady about this guy I say...

[Turner Coates]

The strange and scary candidacy of Ron Paul
By Matt Bruenig On January 1, 2012
http://mattbruenig.com/2012/01/01/the-s ... -ron-paul/

"Like Kevin Drum, I have a hard time imagining Ron Paul actually winning the GOP nomination. But with Paul’s recent surge in the Iowa polls and Nate Silver projecting a 20% chance of a Ron Paul Iowa victory, it might be worthwhile to actually dedicate a post to his strange and scary candidacy.

Some on the left, including Ralph Nader, have oddly embraced Ron Paul at times. Tentatively embracing Paul is somewhat understandable given his opposition to the wars, opposition to the drug war, and support for civil liberties. Paul’s motivation for those positions differs from those on the left, but I guess if policy preferences align, it may not matter precisely why.

Paul’s Shady History
Except for those few policy overlaps however, Ron Paul is an unmitigated disaster as a candidate. For most of his career, Ron Paul has strangely occupied the same fringe, right-wing political space as survivalists, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists. For more than a decade, Paul published a racist, homophobic, conspiracy-rich newsletter known as The Ron Paul Survival Report. In the newsletter, Paul discussed the coming race war, the New World Order, the enjoyment gays derive from contracting AIDS, and even more twisted stuff.

Ron Paul’s only defense to date has been that he did not write the newsletters and did not know what was in them. Although it is plausible that Paul did not write the newsletters — prominent people tend to have people write for them — it is doubtful that he had no idea what was being published under his name for ten years. The name of the newsletter itself, the Ron Paul Survival Report, is a clear homage to the survivalist fringe that Paul’s newsletter appeared to be targeting. Paul would have known generally what it was about from the name alone.

Even if his totally implausible defense on the newsletter was believed to be true, a number of recorded statements reflect similar sentiments. For instance, when challenged on his written claim that “95 percent of the black males in [DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul defended himself saying “These aren’t my figures [...] that is the assumption you can gather from [criminal justice statistics].” When challenged on his written statement that “only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,” Paul’s spokesman defended by saying that this statement is true because only 5% of blacks share the same views as Paul.

In addition to those recorded statements, Paul appeared in a 1998 John Birch Society video along with other conspiracy theorists claiming — among other things — that the UN was going to come into the US and take everyone’s guns, a frequent worry among the New World Order conspiracy nuts. Paul has also received considerable vocal support from white supremacists and conspiracy theorists including the premiere white supremacist website stormfront.org. Pictures of him hanging out with Don Black, the stormfront.org founder, have recently been circulating the internet. The most famous American conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, and his base of right-wing conspiracy nuts at infowars.com have been beating the drum for Ron Paul for years now.

Generally, it may not be fair to fault someone for attracting disgusting communities of support, but Ron Paul has clearly been courting and participating in these communities for decades. Regardless of whether Ron Paul believes all the crazy stuff he has published and said, he at least knew what he was doing when publishing it: reaching out to fringe groups to boost his support.

As the New York Times notes, creating a “right-wing populist” coalition of libertarians, paleoconservatives, and racists to boost the libertarian cause has long been an intentional strategy among tacticians within the libertarian community. It was this coalition of support that got David Duke into congress a short while ago, much to Ron Paul’s longtime cohort Lew Rockwell’s delight. This long-term intentional effort at building a broad coalition for right-wing populism arguably manifested itself with the recent Tea Party, a movement that Ron Paul has heavily involved himself in.

Paul’s Platform
Amazingly enough, Paul’s tilt towards the racist and fringe right wing is not even the scariest thing about his presidential candidacy. A quick glance at his platform and history of policy advocacy reveals a political ideology that would absolutely devastate poor and working people.

Ron Paul is a famous supporter of re-implementing a gold-backed currency in line with with the policy preferences of the heterodox Austrian School of Economics. Paul is so committed to the gold standard that he persistently peppers federal reserve officials with gold-related questions during congressional hearings, including one comical exchange between Paul and Ben Bernanke where Paul asks “Do you think gold is money?” and Ben Bernanke replies simply “no.”

This might seem like a technical issue, but outside of the rather marginal Austrian School, the idea of moving back to a gold standard with inflexible monetary policy is almost universally panned in the economics community. The famed libertarian economist, Milton Friedman, won a Nobel Prize showing that the gold standard and tight monetary policy of the sort Ron Paul is advocating caused the Great Depression. Up against Ron Paul’s extremism, Milton Friedman’s monetarism makes him look like a bleeding heart liberal.

In addition to his gold obsession, Paul also has promised to impose $1 trillion of austerity in his first year in office. The U.S. GDP in 2010 was $14.58 trillion. Cutting $1 trillion would push GDP downward by more than 6.5 percent without even counting any multiplier effects. By comparison, GDP shrank by 8.9 percent in the worst quarter of the recent recession. In a fragile economy like this one, Paul’s sudden austerity is sure to throw the country into another recession, causing an enormous number of job losses. Combined with his inflexible monetary policy, Paul’s austerity would be an absolute disaster for employment and production.

Ron Paul’s libertarianism also leads him to oppose welfare programs that help poor and working families avoid starvation and homelessness. He wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, programs which keep millions of seniors out of poverty. He opposes efficient universal healthcare, opposes the Civil Rights Act, opposes union protection, opposes abortion, and opposes just about anything else a typical right-winger does. The only thing unique or revolutionary about Paul’s political positions with respect to poor and working people is that they are even more extreme than the policies Republicans usually trot out there.

For certain populations, these are very appealing positions to hold. Religious conservatives, racists, conspiracy theorists, and those who think the poor are lazy have a lot to like about Ron Paul’s candidacy. Those on the left however should be distancing as much as possible. Somehow, Ron Paul has managed to sire a LaRouche-style army of young white college students to beat the Ron Paul drum endlessly across the internet and even on the ground in Iowa. Paul’s branding of himself as some sort of anti-establishment hero no doubt accounts for this support.

Because it is very unlikely Paul will win the GOP nomination or the presidency, I am not that concerned that his scary platform will ever see the light of day. I am concerned however that some on the left will buy into the bizarre hype, and waste their time on his candidacy, especially with prominent figures like Ralph Nader promoting the idea that Paul is an ally to progressives. He is not an ally, and the quicker he gets knocked back into irrelevancy the better off we will all be."

[Danzig in the Dark]

He wasn't selling out, moron.

SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.


You can now continue FAILING...

I understand. By 'part', you mean 'the vast majority'. Just like Metallica and Areosmith had to sell out to get radio play and mainstream success, Dr. Paul had to sell out and become a Republican to get mainstream recognition and political success.

RETURN. OF. THE. SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


He wasn't selling out, moron.

The ONLY reason why Ron Paul was a member of the Republican Party for a part of his career was because in order to gain a substantial following and get his message across to the masses, one HAS to be part of the two party system.


You can now continue FAILING...

[Moggio]

The strange and scary candidacy of Ron Paul
By Matt Bruenig On January 1, 2012
http://mattbruenig.com/2012/01/01/the-s ... -ron-paul/

"Like Kevin Drum, I have a hard time imagining Ron Paul actually winning the GOP nomination. But with Paul’s recent surge in the Iowa polls and Nate Silver projecting a 20% chance of a Ron Paul Iowa victory, it might be worthwhile to actually dedicate a post to his strange and scary candidacy.

Some on the left, including Ralph Nader, have oddly embraced Ron Paul at times. Tentatively embracing Paul is somewhat understandable given his opposition to the wars, opposition to the drug war, and support for civil liberties. Paul’s motivation for those positions differs from those on the left, but I guess if policy preferences align, it may not matter precisely why.

Paul’s Shady History
Except for those few policy overlaps however, Ron Paul is an unmitigated disaster as a candidate. For most of his career, Ron Paul has strangely occupied the same fringe, right-wing political space as survivalists, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists. For more than a decade, Paul published a racist, homophobic, conspiracy-rich newsletter known as The Ron Paul Survival Report. In the newsletter, Paul discussed the coming race war, the New World Order, the enjoyment gays derive from contracting AIDS, and even more twisted stuff.

Ron Paul’s only defense to date has been that he did not write the newsletters and did not know what was in them. Although it is plausible that Paul did not write the newsletters — prominent people tend to have people write for them — it is doubtful that he had no idea what was being published under his name for ten years. The name of the newsletter itself, the Ron Paul Survival Report, is a clear homage to the survivalist fringe that Paul’s newsletter appeared to be targeting. Paul would have known generally what it was about from the name alone.

Even if his totally implausible defense on the newsletter was believed to be true, a number of recorded statements reflect similar sentiments. For instance, when challenged on his written claim that “95 percent of the black males in [DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul defended himself saying “These aren’t my figures [...] that is the assumption you can gather from [criminal justice statistics].” When challenged on his written statement that “only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,” Paul’s spokesman defended by saying that this statement is true because only 5% of blacks share the same views as Paul.

In addition to those recorded statements, Paul appeared in a 1998 John Birch Society video along with other conspiracy theorists claiming — among other things — that the UN was going to come into the US and take everyone’s guns, a frequent worry among the New World Order conspiracy nuts. Paul has also received considerable vocal support from white supremacists and conspiracy theorists including the premiere white supremacist website stormfront.org. Pictures of him hanging out with Don Black, the stormfront.org founder, have recently been circulating the internet. The most famous American conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, and his base of right-wing conspiracy nuts at infowars.com have been beating the drum for Ron Paul for years now.

Generally, it may not be fair to fault someone for attracting disgusting communities of support, but Ron Paul has clearly been courting and participating in these communities for decades. Regardless of whether Ron Paul believes all the crazy stuff he has published and said, he at least knew what he was doing when publishing it: reaching out to fringe groups to boost his support.

As the New York Times notes, creating a “right-wing populist” coalition of libertarians, paleoconservatives, and racists to boost the libertarian cause has long been an intentional strategy among tacticians within the libertarian community. It was this coalition of support that got David Duke into congress a short while ago, much to Ron Paul’s longtime cohort Lew Rockwell’s delight. This long-term intentional effort at building a broad coalition for right-wing populism arguably manifested itself with the recent Tea Party, a movement that Ron Paul has heavily involved himself in.

Paul’s Platform
Amazingly enough, Paul’s tilt towards the racist and fringe right wing is not even the scariest thing about his presidential candidacy. A quick glance at his platform and history of policy advocacy reveals a political ideology that would absolutely devastate poor and working people.

Ron Paul is a famous supporter of re-implementing a gold-backed currency in line with with the policy preferences of the heterodox Austrian School of Economics. Paul is so committed to the gold standard that he persistently peppers federal reserve officials with gold-related questions during congressional hearings, including one comical exchange between Paul and Ben Bernanke where Paul asks “Do you think gold is money?” and Ben Bernanke replies simply “no.”

This might seem like a technical issue, but outside of the rather marginal Austrian School, the idea of moving back to a gold standard with inflexible monetary policy is almost universally panned in the economics community. The famed libertarian economist, Milton Friedman, won a Nobel Prize showing that the gold standard and tight monetary policy of the sort Ron Paul is advocating caused the Great Depression. Up against Ron Paul’s extremism, Milton Friedman’s monetarism makes him look like a bleeding heart liberal.

In addition to his gold obsession, Paul also has promised to impose $1 trillion of austerity in his first year in office. The U.S. GDP in 2010 was $14.58 trillion. Cutting $1 trillion would push GDP downward by more than 6.5 percent without even counting any multiplier effects. By comparison, GDP shrank by 8.9 percent in the worst quarter of the recent recession. In a fragile economy like this one, Paul’s sudden austerity is sure to throw the country into another recession, causing an enormous number of job losses. Combined with his inflexible monetary policy, Paul’s austerity would be an absolute disaster for employment and production.

Ron Paul’s libertarianism also leads him to oppose welfare programs that help poor and working families avoid starvation and homelessness. He wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, programs which keep millions of seniors out of poverty. He opposes efficient universal healthcare, opposes the Civil Rights Act, opposes union protection, opposes abortion, and opposes just about anything else a typical right-winger does. The only thing unique or revolutionary about Paul’s political positions with respect to poor and working people is that they are even more extreme than the policies Republicans usually trot out there.

For certain populations, these are very appealing positions to hold. Religious conservatives, racists, conspiracy theorists, and those who think the poor are lazy have a lot to like about Ron Paul’s candidacy. Those on the left however should be distancing as much as possible. Somehow, Ron Paul has managed to sire a LaRouche-style army of young white college students to beat the Ron Paul drum endlessly across the internet and even on the ground in Iowa. Paul’s branding of himself as some sort of anti-establishment hero no doubt accounts for this support.

Because it is very unlikely Paul will win the GOP nomination or the presidency, I am not that concerned that his scary platform will ever see the light of day. I am concerned however that some on the left will buy into the bizarre hype, and waste their time on his candidacy, especially with prominent figures like Ralph Nader promoting the idea that Paul is an ally to progressives. He is not an ally, and the quicker he gets knocked back into irrelevancy the better off we will all be."

Leftist BS that skews RP's platform and has already been DISPROVEN...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=274729

Proves NOTHING...