They are hip to us lol

They look at us everyday and they seem to know when we are truly mad about Ron Paul or just trying to drag them out for a discussion.

They dont want a discussion like the above normal Ron Paul supporter, they have decided when we are really upset, they seem to post to support the guy.

But they dont realize we WANT to know where these people are coming from so we can examine all the candidates and make an informed decision.

Sounded good anyway

I’m surprised my fellow Paul supporters haven’t showed up. I think your post falls victim to the rule where good posts get few comments: post a complete and well-reasoned post, no one wants to argue, no on comments. Post something obviously half-assed and half a dozen people jump in to tell you how stupid you are…

Hmmm…I wrote in the introduction that there was something here for everyone. I even threw in some childish nicknames- “Pol Pots”- “Paul Reverists” to bring ‘em out. Not just substance.

Maybe the post just looks too long to read? I blockquoted like crazy!

Reminds me of the elusive Big Foot. If you come across one let me know.

Ron Paul SUCKS!

Ron Paul SUCKS!

As far as the donations, the whole thing is kinda silly to me. Its obvious looking at the numbers that the RP crowd has made it a point to get people to put down what their employment is seeing as how every other candidate has millions that were given with no employer stated.

Ron Paul?

There is no reasoning for this crackpot!

Yes I think he’s insane and he proves it every time he opens his mouth.

He should just drop out now before he is tossed out on his ass from Congress as well as any Presidential election!!

I’m surprised my fellow Paul supporters haven’t showed up. I think your post falls victim to the rule where good posts get few comments: post a complete and well-reasoned post, no one wants to argue, no on comments. Post something obviously half-assed and half a dozen people jump in to tell you how stupid you are…

I agree there is a isolationist fan in every camp, but as Word posed in his post it’s a belief based in fantasy.

As for Vietnam, whether we should of gone into Vietnam or not can be argued for eons. At the time Communism was a real threat and you cannot look at the present here and now to make a decision on whether a past generation should of gone in or not. As for the outcome…we went into Vietnam and made a committment to the Vietnamese that we would stay and win, and we were winning as Tet most definitely demonstrated. But the MSM and the politicians spun it another way, as they have with Iraq, and forced us to back out on our promises and committment. That is unforgivable in my book.

McCain specifically said “after we left” they wanted to build their own workers paradise. He didn’t say that was the argument at the time. The domino theory was most definitely happening across the planet, and has been happening across the middle east for decades when it comes to fanatical Islam.

We also disagree completely on the threat fanatical Islam poses.

So other then that we agree…..lol

But as always BB, good comment.

Bbartlog has clearly walked back from the brink of idiocy and as such is much less fun to play with.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I was actually waiting with the stopwatch for the Paulmites to crawl out of the woodworks; but all I got was you, the more reasoned of the Paul supporters, and I suppose turning into a regular reader here.

Good comment. I might come back later to comment on your comment; but for now, I’m going to just sit back, relax, sip a latte, and see what happens here.

- on the NAU: you are right, of course, that there are a lot of paranoid people out there. However, I defend the broad outlines of Paul’s stance: there is a conflict between those who favor globalization (things like LOST and the ICC, WTO and so on) and those who favor national sovereignty, and I come down firmly on the side of sovereignty. Partly on principle, but mainly because international organizations tend to be opaque, unaccountable, and corrupt. It doesn’t help matters that groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergers are deliberately fairly secretive. While their actual agendas are I imagine not sinister (albeit apparently globalist and therefore things I would oppose), I don’t like government behind closed doors by unelected people.
Also, while it certainly proves nothing, Paul is not the only one banging this drum. Tancredo and Hunter also have things to say about globalization. And here’s Goldwater on the CFR and Trilateral Commission:
‘David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination, and the presidency. To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community - which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations - and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR, and the Trilateral.’

- on draping himself in Reagan (wrt abolishing the DoE): nothing wrong with emphasizing an area where Reagan would have agreed with him. Mainly this is an attempt to remind the audience that this radical-sounding idea has a good pedigree.

- on foreign policy: I agree that claiming that America is traditionally non-interventionist is quite dubious, though the idea that there is an isolationist, America-first strain of thought (which can with a bit of a stretch be labeled a tradition) within the Republican party is surely true.
As for this: ‘And travel to them. And have diplomatic relations with them. Which of course would lead to things like trade treaties. Which lead to real treaties. Which lead to military obligations and charges of American Imperialism and makes a target of our trade partners.‘
… I don’t see the need for the progression. See: Switzerland for a counterexample (or China, if you think it’s only Switzerland’s size that keeps it at home).

For Vietnam, the argument will never be over. Yes, we could have won some sort of military victory had we stayed. You can lay out a happy alternate timeline where Pol Pot never came to power, Vietnam transitioned successfully to become something like South Korea, and all ended well. I can speculate that we might have ended up forced to extend the war to Laos and Cambodia, that we could never have normalized relations with China in 1978, that rather than Deng Xiaoping China would have ended up with some hardliner, and on and on. And this doesn’t even start to explore what might or might not have happened if we had never intervened in the first place.
But I did want to touch on one point: at the time of the Vietnam war, neither McCain nor any other supporter would have claimed that all the Vietnamese wanted to do was build their Worker’s Paradise. The domino theory was all the rage at the time. Much as advocates of aggressive foreign policy today throw a big blanket over Iran, Al-Qaeda, Salafists, and assorted Islamic fundamentalists and then portray the monstrous lump as ‘Islamofascism’, hawks at that time took all the communists and envisioned them as part of Communist International, bent on taking over the world. I think they had a better case than today’s hawks, but the parallels (and McCain’s apparent forgetfulness on this point) are interesting.

- on the threat of radical Islam: I agree it’s a threat. I think it’s not a very big threat at this time. I think it could turn in to one, and so bears watching; but I also don’t think that we can make it into a smaller threat with warfare short of total war. So yes, I prefer to take a certain risk with a peaceful policy, and a war of culture and ideas, rather than
- plunge deliberately headlong into WWIV, or
- dribble away money and lives, half a trillion dollars and a few thousand soldiers at a time, on half-assed pseudowars that don’t affect the overall strength of radical Islam in the slightest (note, I’m not trying to slag our *positive* accomplishments in Iraq here, but Iraq wasn’t a mainstay of Islamism before we got there any more than it is now).

Paul’s claim that the current peace in Iraq is a result of our withdrawal sucks and is lame. Sigh.

- On the matter of military donations, I agree that there’s room for doubt - but Paul isn’t fabricating anything; the best evidence we have from the FEC files does seem to match what he says. And from what I’ve seen at meetups and forums he does have some military support.

-