Thread: Ron Paul Supporters Continue To Dog Rudy Giuliani

I agree, there is something seriously wrong with them. They are always talking about how people are trying to censor "Dr. Paul"but yet its them who are the ones trying to censor everyone else and if you dont support "Dr. Paul" then you are a "neocon shill".

The sheer level of idiocy displayed by Ron Paul fanatics doesn't surprise me anymore.

well ron paul has done better than Giuliani so far.
he came second in nevada primary despite the fact that
he has recieved the least coverage in the mainstream media.

Originally Posted by asif1986

well ron paul has done better than Giuliani so far.
he came second in nevada primary despite the fact that
he has recieved the least coverage in the mainstream media.

We're not talking about Ron Paul, we're talking about his crazy followers.

-dale

What do you expect us to do? It is clear that the Main-Stream media is not interested in covering a candidate who wants to shrink government. That was clear from the start, and has become clearer as time has gone on. So we get out there and get our our message. Sure, I know, "we haven't got a chance". I seem to recall that the "colinist rabble" who defeated the most powerful army in the world "didn't have a chance", at least until they won.

It's a CONSPRIRACY, I tells ya! They're all out to GET us!

Originally Posted by cxxguy

What do you expect us to do? It is clear that the Main-Stream media is not interested in covering a candidate who wants to shrink government. That was clear from the start, and has become clearer as time has gone on. So we get out there and get our our message. Sure, I know, "we haven't got a chance". I seem to recall that the "colinist rabble" who defeated the most powerful army in the world "didn't have a chance", at least until they won.

What I would expect you to do is let your candidate stand or fall on his own merits, which, persecutions complexes aside, have found more than ample fora for expression in various outlets, the main one being, of course the internet.

What I would not expect you to do is be thugs that attempt to shut down any other candidates expression of their ideas. Aside from being hopelessly rude, it doesn't help your cause, you know.

And please, comparing yourselves to Revolutionary War soldiers? Delusions of Grandeur much?

The misconception that the Continental Army was a band of rabble is nothing but myth. Maybe at first they were little more then militia but as the war progressed and people like Baron von Steuben came along the Continental Army became actually pretty capable.

Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman

What I would expect you to do is let your candidate stand or fall on his own merits, which, persecutions complexes aside, have found more than ample fora for expression in various outlets, the main one being, of course the internet.

Not everyone is on the internet. From the number of people who didn't even know who Ron Paul was a few months ago, when I was canvassing, I would say that much of the Republican base is not. The bottom line is that Faux News and CNN were not going to cover Ron Paul unless we did newsworthy things. The Ron Paul Blimp was newsworthy. Showing up and the functions of opposing candidates was newsworthy. Some people found out, through our attempts, that there was a candidate out there who wanted to return to the Constitution. I will cry no tears over this.

If it was rude, it was no ruder than the treatment Dr. Paul got at the last debate, where he wasted 2 hours of his time for <2minutes of air time.

Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman

What I would not expect you to do is be thugs that attempt to shut down any other candidates expression of their ideas. Aside from being hopelessly rude, it doesn't help your cause, you know.

When you are at the stage of the game where people don't yet know you exist, any publicity is good publicity. Yes, we might have annoyed some people who future freedom candidates will have to win over. But we would be no worse off if nobody knew who we were.

Speaking your mind, even loudly and publicly, does not rise to the level of being "thugs". It is part of political discourse. It is what unpopular groups must do in order to be heard at all.

Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman

And please, comparing yourselves to Revolutionary War soldiers? Delusions of Grandeur much?

I would say that a return to Constitutional principals from our current distance would be as momentous a change as the change from English rule to self-government. That is why it is a concept that makes many nervous. Lets face it,

Fiat money is unconstitutional (see the decision made on greenbacks after the civil war, where one of the supreme court justices who voted to find the action unconstitutional had actually been the treasury secretary who took the action)

The New Deal is unconstitutional (and was found so, until FDR tried to pack the court, and sadly, the court backed down),

The average rate of taxation which inspired the Revolution was 10% of income. Our taxes, combining all levels of government, approach 50% of our income.

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Only congress has the power to go to war. This was specifically because the Founding Fathers feared an 'imperial president'. If you look that up in the dictionary, I suspect you'll find Dubya's picture.

There are 30,000 gun laws in America, of which I'm sure at least half (those that do not deal with felons) are at least partially unconstitutional. That's a conservative (not a neocon) estimate.

And on, and on, and on, and on. By some estimates, only 2% of what congress does is covered by it's 18 enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 9.

So yes, I do believe that a return to the constitution would be a revolutionary change. My guess is that it will not happen (if at all) until after an economic collapse that makes the Great Depression (caused by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve) look like a passing bad mood. But I, personally, want better for my country.

Originally Posted by ChrisF202

The misconception that the Continental Army was a band of rabble is nothing but myth. Maybe at first they were little more then militia but as the war progressed and people like Baron von Steuben came along the Continental Army became actually pretty capable.

They were considered a rabble by the British. I would say that winning was enough to clear them of that charge.

Your people behave like Brownshirts. They're SCARY. They INTIMIDATE. They THREATEN. They're not so much about politics, they're about making war on the opposition, in whatever form they find them.

Chasing Hannity down the street, they were a mob, barely able to resist the urge to attack.

Chasing Guiliani into a ferryboat's wheelhouse, they were a mob, barely able to resist the urge to attack.

When other candidates do fundraising, the verb is something along the lines of 'engage', or 'undertake', or maybe 'operate', as if it were an activity suited to the purpose. When YOUR people do it, the verb should be 'commit', such as a crime, or 'perpetrate', ditto. There have been numerous cases of the Paul campaign refunding 'donations' that were gathered in the same way that credit card fraud is done.

When there are any online polls emplaced for the purpose of information gathering, it is immediately hijacked and used as a weapon. It has gotten SO bad that it is an Internet joke...but the reality isn't humorous.

Here's the bottom line, you whackjob: the man you support is beloved by the fringes, and nobody else. And the tactics and thuggery employed are based almost entirely on deception and/or intimidation. This campaign is rotten, it's essentially just a repository for the worst political impulses to be found in the 'activist' wing of a motley collection of people that can charitably be described as cranks and crackpots, and that don't believe they'll ever have a voice any other way but to declare war on the enemies that are better at actually convincing people to adopt rational platforms that are acceptable to large numbers of people.

And note this: I didn't mention one dam' thang about whatever notions the man himself has in his heart or his head. Whatever he may feel about racial issues, or whatever his positions on policy may be I don't find particulalrly relevent. Because to ME, and almost any person even passingly familiar with this cult-disguised-as-a-campaign, none of that even makes it out of the starting gate, because the back they're riding on is more reptile than racehorse.