FoC's Ron Paul Shitheap: Patel Melts the Internets starting on pg. 24

[Human Snorenado]

Are you gonna vote for Hillary?


If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.

Who's gonna step up and win that $38.54?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Are you gonna vote for Hillary?


If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.

Who's gonna step up and win that $38.54?

Is that all you have? I guess I would take that bet with you.

[Human Snorenado]

Are you gonna vote for Hillary?


If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.

Who's gonna step up and win that $38.54?

  Is that all you have? I guess I would take that bet with you.

 

[Gay Boy]

Are you gonna vote for Hillary?


If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.

Well if its Hillary vs. Romney or Rudy you have said you'd vote Hillary so she has your vote in the bag!

[FlameOfCallandor]

Are you gonna vote for Hillary?


If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.

Well if its Hillary vs. Romney or Rudy you have said you'd vote Hillary so she has your vote in the bag!

Really? I said that?

[Gay Boy]

Are you gonna vote for Hillary?


If the general election is Hilary vs. Ron Paul, I would bet my life savings on Dr. Paul.

Well if its Hillary vs. Romney or Rudy you have said you'd vote Hillary so she has your vote in the bag!

Really? I said that?

I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.

I don't remember that. If it was Hillary vs. Rudy I would go third party.

[Gay Boy]

I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.

I don't remember that. If it was Hillary vs. Rudy I would go third party.

even if the third party aint paul?

[FlameOfCallandor]

I asked you if it comes down to hillary vs. rudy/romney who would you pick. And you said you'd hate the choices but hillary is the least bad option or something.

I don't remember that. If it was Hillary vs. Rudy I would go third party.

even if the third party aint paul?

What? Write in nicca. Why do you care.

[Gay Boy]

you'll write him in? seriously?

[FlameOfCallandor]

you'll write him in? seriously?

Over voting for something i didnt believe in. Sure. Why? Is that a problem?

[Human Snorenado]

Yeah, I'm writing in Alfred E. Neuman if Hillary is the candidate and Nader isn't running.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Yeah, I'm writing in Alfred E. Neuman if Hillary is the candidate and Nader isn't running.

Ok

[Gay Boy]

I used to love Nader but he handed bush the white house. Voting third party usually leaves us with the worst of the two options in our electoral process due to the over barring control of the two party system.

[Fragamemnon]

Yeah, I'm writing in Alfred E. Neuman if Hillary is the candidate and Nader isn't running.

Hillary isn't so bad-not as good as either Edwards or Obama, but you just know she's steamroll over Republicans like nobody's business. Her administration would probably be as vindictive and spiteful to the other party as Dubya's is-only far more competent since she's got that same really strong technocrat streak that Big Dog has.

I'm OK with vindictive and spiteful-at least it's honest, unlike the nauseous false comity that normally permeates the DC atmosphere.

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://www.rightwingfacebook.org/index.html
 

[Howard Alan Treesong]

If you think "the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view," that "the notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers," that "the collectivist Left hates religion," and that "the secularists [are waging] an ongoing war against religion...Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war," gosh do I have a Presidential candidate for you! His name is Ron Paul.

The fact that, in the Republican debates, this guy comes off as the most reality-based of the bunch is mostly indicative of what a bunch of bug-eyed head cases they all are. It doesn't mean Rep. Paul isn't Upton Park, merely that he's the one inmate who displays occasional moments of lucidity.

[Van Cruncheon]

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html

According to phenry, Paul's newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report (renamed The Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993, in a bid to pander to the militia audience that was peaking that year) was a Patriot movement must-read, full of helpful advice on tax protest, gold-backed currency, urban race war and other pet legal and social theories of the extremist right. While content is very hard to come by now (Paul has scrubbed much of what was on the Web, and refuses to release the newsletter to the media), phenry dug up a few choice samples, including:

* A 1992 screed on African-American"racial terrorism" in Los Angeles, in which Paul insists that "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

* Another 1992 article, this one asserting that "complex embezzling" is "100% white and Asian;" and noting that young black male muggers are "unbelievably fleet-footed."

In the second post, phenry outlines Paul's connections to various white supremacists groups. In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by Christian Identity leader Larry Pratt (who had previously worked with David Duke, and resigned from Pat Buchanan's team when his Identity role became public). Paul refused to repudiate the endorsement; and Pratt has stepped forward again with a quasi-endorsement of Paul's current campaign.

Through the 90s, Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.

Those of us who are interested in getting to a sane and functional immigration policy should also reflect on the fact that he stands right next to Tom Tancredo on that issue.

Which brings us to the Big Question: How can someone who's been such a darling of the extremist right for over 20 years now become the Next Big Thing on the left as well?

and for foc:

Straight talk is powerful. Americans are addicted to it -- and, too often, addled by it. We've seen this before with Ross Perot and John McCain, two other right-wing candidates who charmed us with their apparent penchant for telling us uncomfortable but necessary truths. (And to give the man his due: pointing out that 9/11 was the inevitable outcome of decades of monstrous US foreign policy was a very necessary truth.)

But -- as we learned the hard way on both those earlier occasions -- just because someone can cut through the political drivel and speak with some clarity now and again, it doesn't mean they're someone we should dump our principles and better judgment out the window for, and rush right out and follow. The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There's twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact.

man, yglesias' comment that ron paul is the candidate of "cranky young kids" and chronic racists couldn't be more apt

foc fits both categories like he was made for the role

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I think you've forgotten one very important thing...

[Van Cruncheon]

it is divine writ, this constitution; it is the bible ii

[Howard Alan Treesong]

it is divine writ, this constitution; it is the bible ii

you mean the bible iii; the new testament is the bible ii

[Van Cruncheon]

not at all; the council of nicea created the bible post new testament in 325 ad

i mean lol god created it all, ink to papyrus

if english was good enough for jesus, it's good enough for the holy constitution yadda yadda

[Howard Alan Treesong]

actually I think the book of mormon is the bible iii, you'll have to settle for the bible iv

(the apocrypha are collectively known as the bible gaiden)

[Van Cruncheon]

hahaha, i need to remember that "bible gaiden" bit to annoy christian jappanerds

[Howard Alan Treesong]

i bet dragonforce writes the stump themes for the ron paul campaign

Revolution Ronsquad

Flying over darkened skies the voting booth will call
Distant Republicrats crying in the eye of the storm
And the world falls under the starlight shining from the Constitution

Eight years of pain and sorrow searching for more
Cry for the touch of freedom as never before
And the stars fall on the horizon onwards through the police state

Ride the wind and fight the demon gold standard bright
Standing together forever onwards internet voting strong
Hot wind in hell pain and sorrow now and
We stare into the dawn of a YouTube video

Cry out for the fallen heroes lost in the Iraq war
In our mind they still belong when their Diggs are gone

Rise over shadow mountains blazing with power
Crossing valleys endless tears in unity we stand
Far and wide across the land the victory is ours
On towards the gates of reason
Fight for the truth and the freedom
AMERICA

[Van Cruncheon]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Ron Paul 2008

[Van Cruncheon]

THROUGH THE FIRE AND THE FLAMES, THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN WILL CARRY ON

[FlameOfCallandor]

Awesome, yall are coming around.

[Human Snorenado]

It all makes sense now.  Racists can smell their own.  Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.

[FlameOfCallandor]

But -- as we learned the hard way on both those earlier occasions -- just because someone can cut through the political drivel and speak with some clarity now and again, it doesn't mean they're someone we should dump our principles and better judgment out the window for, and rush right out and follow. The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There's twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact.

[/quote]
 

Ron Paul, fascist? Your  fucking dumb ass drinky you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you think Ron Paul "panders." 

[FlameOfCallandor]

It all makes sense now.  Racists can smell their own.  Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.

He's not racist. Nice try.

Do you think we should give federal money to foreign students?

[Human Snorenado]

Racist.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Racist.

You are Winnar!!!

[Synbios459]

RACIST!!!

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html
The article has been updated. I'll quote it for people who are too dumb to make it over there.

on Paul distortions and smears
(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:
Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.
He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning.
But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Party front-runner who, "along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal" -- Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes frequently -- that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.
Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous." And he urged his colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced:

As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.
It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. . . .
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people -- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach.
Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws

Rep. Paul did exactly the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, which he opposed. He argued (accurately) that the only constitutional method for Congress to authorize the President to invade another country was to declare war on that country. The Constitution does not allow the Congress to "authorize" military force without a war declaration. Rep. Paul thus introduced a Declaration of War in the House on the ground that such a Declaration was constitutionally required to invade Iraq -- and he then proceeded to vote against the AUMF (because, unlike Hillary Clinton, he actually opposed the invasion). Thus, saying that Paul wants to outlaw flag burning (as Neiwert's post does) -- or that he supported the war in Iraq -- is just false.
* * * * *
This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo," "fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003, as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that "it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently said that "t looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."
For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."
Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?
Or how about her recent support for Joe Lieberman's Iran warmongering amendment, or her desire to criminalize flag burning, or her vow to strongly consider an attack on Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons? Is all of that sane, normal, and serious?
And I read every day that corporations and their lobbyists are the bane of our country, responsible for most of its ills. What does it say about her that her campaign is fueled in large part by support from exactly those factions? Are she and all of her supporters nonetheless squarely within the realm of the sane and normal? And none of this is to say anything of the Giulianis and Podhoretzs and Romneys and Krauthammers and Kristols with ideas so extreme and dangerous, yet still deemed "serious."
That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.
And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.
Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo." Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.
* * * * * *
This whole concept of singling out and labelling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms.
Under the right circumstances, enforcement of norms might have some utility. Where things are going relatively well, and the country has a healthy political dialogue, perhaps there isn't much of a need to expand the scope of ideas that we consider "normal." Having all the people whose views fit comfortably in the mainstream stigmatize as "fruitcakes" all those whose views are outside of the mainstream might, under those happy circumstances, bear little cost.
But our country isn't doing all that well right now. Our political dialogue isn't really vibrant or healthy. It seems rather self-evident that it is preferable to enlarge the scope of ideas that we consider and to expand the debates that we engage. The "norms" that have prevailed over the last six years have led the country quite astray and are in need of fundamental re-examination, at the very least. That a political figure (or pundit) clings loyally to prevailing norms isn't exactly evidence of their worth, let alone their mental health. The contrary proposition might actually be more plausible.
There is something disorienting about watching the same people who cheered much of this on, or who will enthusiastically support for President a candidate who enabled and cheered much of it on, trying to constrict debate by labeling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" those who have most aggressively opposed it all. As the debates of 2002 should have proved rather conclusively, the arguments that are deemed to be the province of the weirdos and losers may actually be the ideas that are right. They at least deserve an honest airing, especially in a presidential campaign with as much at stake as this one.
* * * * * *
For anyone with any questions about what this post means and, more importantly, what it does not mean, please see here (Update II).

UPDATE: Bruce Fein is an example of a conservative who -- by virtue of his outspoken opposition to Bush lawbreaking -- has generated substantial respect among Bush critics, including many liberals. Yet Fein hasn't changed his views at all. He is, for instance, emphatically pro-life, and rather recently urged that "President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Judge Robert H. Bork." Fein is still a hard-core conservative, but a principled one. At least in that regard, I would compare Fein to Paul.
On another note, I wrote in my prior post concerning Paul that I found the efforts (by Neiwert and others) to smear him by linking him to some of his extremist and hate-mongering supporters to be unfair (for reasons I explained here). Neiwert responded and compiled what he thinks is the best evidence to justify this linkage here.
For reasons I'll detail at another time, I found virtually all of that to be unpersuasive, relying almost entirely on lame guilt-by-association arguments that could sink most if not all candidates (the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn't mention, and the pro-Paul response is here). Everyone can review the evidence -- all of which is quite old and very little of which relies on any of Paul's own statements -- and make up their own minds.

UPDATE II: Interesting, and otherwise passed on without comment (h/t selise):



UPDATE III: For a sense of how consistently Paul applies his principles regarding the proper role of the federal government, consider his emphatic opposition to a Congressional Gold Medal to be awarded to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, on the ground that "appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government" (on the other hand, his recent vote in favor of the Congressional resolution to condemn MoveOn.org, which he'd presumably justify on the ground that it is non-binding, certainly seems in tension with his underlying view of federal power).
There is certainly ample ground to dispute Paul's view of the proper, constitutional role of the federal versus the state government in various matters. That is probably a worthwhile debate to have. But the claim that Paul's federalism is just an unprincipled ruse to promote some sort of neo-Nazi or racist agenda is plainly belied by such acts, and is exactly the type of dishonest smear designed to discredit his views without bothering to do the work to engage and refute them.

UPDATE IV: The aforementioned Bruce Fein is legal counsel to the Ron Paul campaign. Liberal pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf recently sang Paul's praises, hailing him as "the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these [constitutional] values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses."
Have Bruce Fein and Naomi Wolf been concealing a neo-Nazi agenda which they are finally able to express through the Ron Paul campaign, or are they simply impressed by the obvious convictions and intense (though rare) passion he brings to issues which they seem to think are of vital importance -- restoration of our constitutional framework and the rule of law, along with principled opposition to America's imperialistic and militarized role in the world?

[Tauntaun]

THROUGH THE FIRE AND THE FLAMES, THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN WILL CARRY ON

[Human Snorenado]

Racist!

[Van Cruncheon]

do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Racist!

[Howard Alan Treesong]

It all makes sense now.  Racists can smell their own.  Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.

He's not racist. Nice try.

Do you think we should give federal money to foreign students?

As a public service to Evilbore I will be translating all of FoC's posts into Dragonforcese:

Through the Liars and the Lames
Ron Paul's not racist against the shadow people of the dark
Your lies brand your forehead like the devil's searing mark
The sweat of your brow is yours to carry to the stars
Aliens know nothing save to die in US wars
THE CONSTITUTION

[Human Snorenado]

do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?

Of course he does, because FoC is RACIST!

[Van Cruncheon]

[FlameOfCallandor]

do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?

He hasn't pandered to them.

[Van Cruncheon]

did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?

[brawndolicious]

It all makes sense now.  Racists can smell their own.  Of COURSE FoC is gonna support Ron Paul; hell, he probably researched it and knew about the disgusting Iranian student proposal and it appealed to his hate of all brown people but Arabs in particular.

He's not racist. Nice try.
Do you think we should give federal money to foreign students?

why would they relocate across the earth to study in the US if they're not going to make a career in the US?

most of the people that can get accepted to UC Berkeley can get accepted to a comparable Iranian university but it wouldn't make sense unless your going to work here.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

do you enjoy apologizing for a man who has pandered to neo-nazis and fascists for decades, foc?

He hasn't pandered to them.

Roll your eyes to heaven where the angels soar through sunlight's flame
You say, "Ron sold his soul for silver," I say he heals the lame
AMERICA

[recursivelyenumerable]

man, yglesias' comment that ron paul is the candidate of "cranky young kids" and chronic racists couldn't be more apt

but Yglesias has now come out in support of Ron Paul! 

I guess that's right. On the subjects where Paul seems unusually wrong for a Republican, there's just no chance of Paul's policy preferences being enacted into law. On the issues where Paul's views are a lot closer to mine than they are to the average Republican, by contrast, the executive has a great deal of discretion. Paul's foreign policy ideas about the use of force are a good deal more dovish than mine, but I think at this point I'd rather see the country go too far in Paul's direction than too far in Giuliani's. So there you have it. Ron Paul: "Less Torture and His Domestic Policy's So Crazy Congress Will Be Able to Block It" it seems like a convincing least-pernicious Republican bid to me.

[FlameOfCallandor]

did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?

I did, they are bullshit. He's none in washington as the one guy no one lobbies to because it's not going to change his opinion. You fail.

[FlameOfCallandor]

why would they relocate across the earth to study in the US if they're not going to make a career in the US?

most of the people that can get accepted to UC Berkeley can get accepted to a comparable Iranian university but it wouldn't make sense unless your going to work here.

What does that do with the government giving money to pay for education?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?

I did, they are bullshit. He's none in washington as the one guy no one lobbies to because it's not going to change his opinion. You fail.

It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington!

[FlameOfCallandor]

It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington!

He will be when he is elected president of the united states.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington!

He will be when he is elected president of the united states.

have we ever had a lame duck president from the first day of office?

[Gay Boy]

It's true, Ron Paul is noone in Washington!

He will be when he is elected president of the united states.

why would a country where the majority want a govt. funded universal health care system vote for ron paul?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Because the Constitution!

[Fragamemnon]

Because the Constitution!

And the soundtrack!

Ron Paul's little speech in front of a secessionist group sort of sealed the deal for angry white southern fuck you boys, when he decided to run he knew they'd be behind him. Ron Paul is Johnny Reb for the 21st centrury.

[FlameOfCallandor]

why would a country where the majority want a govt. funded universal health care system vote for ron paul?

Because thats not the role of the federal government. If you want it so bad, why not try to encourage your state to get it.

[Van Cruncheon]

did you NOT read the direct citations i provided?

I did, they are bullshit. He's none in washington as the one guy no one lobbies to because it's not going to change his opinion. You fail.

that's hardly a refutation -- these are DIRECT QUOTES from ron paul. they -- the larouchians, the secessionists, the bunker badgers, the stormfront set -- don't lobby to him because they are assured he's one of them!

[Van Cruncheon]

man, yglesias' comment that ron paul is the candidate of "cranky young kids" and chronic racists couldn't be more apt

but Yglesias has now come out in support of Ron Paul! 

well, yglesias supports him over the other republican candidates -- as do i. i'd take any of the democratic set -- even hillary -- over herr doktor paul.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I ate at Johnny Reb's last night! (http://www.johnnyrebs.com/JR_Main.html). Does this make a Ron Paul supporter?

FoC, why do you want people to die in the name of the free market? Seriously. Health care is good! People shouldn't die because they're poor. Or do you think they should?