PDA

View Full Version : How to rescue a neo-con




Suzu
05-24-2007, 06:37 PM
I've got an online friend that I've never met in person. We've been emailing and chatting online for years. He thinks Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al are A-OK.... This guy describes himself as a "darwinian, laissez faire, anarcho-capitalist" so I thought RP would be right up his alley, but when I first mentioned RP to him, he basically said "There's something fishy about him."

We got into an argument that night ;) and have been arguing ever since... about the upcoming election. I'm trying to get through to him about RP, because he's got a huge network of influential friends who value his opinion, and so if he starts supporting RP, it will be very good for the campaign. His friends have money, and networks of their own.

Earlier today I told him how well RP appears to be doing, got a reply, and sent a reply. I'd like to know what more I can do to influence his opinion. Here's what he said:


I assume you didn't get the memo... that Paul has a small but well lubricated and organized army of "ballot box stuffers" not unlike the ones that Howard Stern has. A group of fanatics that, however irrational their sentiments, flood the media with votes, comments, whatever, that deliberately and outrageously skew any non-scientific poll, or poll-like event (such as comments on a news article or blog.)

Stern's followers, for example, at his request, repeatedly "voted" for the most talentless guy on American Idol as a goof, and kept the guy on for weeks after he would normally have been voted off.

But everyone knew that.

Same with Paul. For example, how his few but busy loyalists affected the Fox News call-in "Who Won?" vote after the Fox debate became a story itself. I guess you missed that one. Everyone else knew about it, too.

So it is no surprise that every article or non-scientific poll about Paul will have the same flood of kooks typing their fingers off over and over again trying to obscure the reality.

How sad for them once there is a real vote. Then the reality that most thinking people will see him for what he is will slap Paul's "ballot box stuffers" silly.

And it is Paul who needs a history lesson. See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years - just a few hundred years less than Christianity. And Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" all that time - for centuries and centuries - long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religion.

And the very same 9/11 Commission Report Paul referred to actually says our activities in the region are only a small part of Bin Laden's motivation. Most of it comes from the centuries old political history of the region (again, before the USA was ever thought of.)

The centuries of war over there kinda supports that, don't you think? Duh. And historically Bin Laden and those before him we an equal opportunity hater, as evidenced by their attacks on a slew of other countries, too, including those who are not friends of ours.

But Paul's "argument" probably sounds good to those who don't know any better. And obviously sounds good to the America-Haters.

(As if anybody really believes the "they will leave us alone if we leave them alone" story. Since the beginning of Islam, there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If you are not a "believer" you are dead. Period.)

Of course, I do not particularly think Rudy is a very good candidate, either, nor McCain.

Of the announced crop, Tancredo is far and away the best, if not perfect. The addition of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich will bring out the best of all three and any one of them will keep America safe and offer its citizens plenty of opportunities, should they wish to make the effort to take advantage.

And my reply:


Just so you know, I've been on Paul's campaign mailing list since it began, and I have not received any message urging me to vote in polls or call in text messages or anything of the kind. This is nothing like Howard Stern. I am seeing a grassroots revolution unfold!

I've been watching the campaign quite closely. Every bit of it. I know that what you're reporting to me is what some MSM "pundits" have been saying. I've heard all that. They're squirming. They know who the actual front-runner is and are doing everything possible to minimalize and smear him.

Meanwhile he's reaching millions of people through other venues. RNC is trying to get primaries moved forward to ensure that he won't have enough time to get the momentum to win the nomination.

"Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" ... long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religion... Since the beginning of Islam... you are not a "believer" you are dead. Period."

You actually believe this? I am dumbfounded.

The word Jihad stems from an Arabic word which means "to strive." Other related words include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword."

For the record, the inhuman attacks of September 11 were condemned in the strongest terms by virtually all Islamic leaders, organizations, and countries. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia summarized that, "...hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."

"... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive... " (Quran 5:32)

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors... let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (Quran 2:190-193).

"It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just."(Quran 60:7-8)

"Of the announced crop, Tancredo is far and away the best, if not perfect." Again, that's not what you told me a few months ago. You liked Huckabee (one of the other two Creationist candidates - will you endorse Brownback next?)

You're a self-described anarcho-capitalist, why do you not support Ron Paul? Bikers love him... Check out this news blip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86OhirWqKGc) from Austin where he arrived for a fundraiser with a swarm of bikers as an escort.

His speech at the fundraiser was received with more enthusiasm than I have ever seen in a political context in my lifetime! You'd think they were celebrating the first Independence Day: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmwDH-Ynung) - Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVnZERC9OFs)

But this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VeaUW12pY) from Washington Journal on C-SPAN tells the real story.



"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Therion
05-24-2007, 06:45 PM
He doesn't seem very anarcho-capitalist...

Korey Kaczynski
05-24-2007, 06:47 PM
And it is Paul who needs a history lesson. See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years - just a few hundred years less than Christianity. And Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" all that time - for centuries and centuries - long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religion.

Wow, does the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials say anything? What about the majority of the Old Testament?

Korey Kaczynski
05-24-2007, 06:47 PM
He doesn't seem very anarcho-capitalist...

He's a "conservative marxist" with all the rest :rolleyes:

NewEnd
05-24-2007, 06:49 PM
you are wasting your time.

Christian conservatives are worth time.

neocons will never like Ron Paul.

Korey Kaczynski
05-24-2007, 06:52 PM
Might wanna ask him about the US helping Osama out when he was fighting the Soviets :)

Korey Kaczynski
05-24-2007, 06:54 PM
I reread his response, and all I have to say is that he's a huge moron, and it's laughable he has influence over others. If I was in charge he'd be in a work camp working 13 hours a day, 1500 calorie total in meals a day.

Suzu
05-24-2007, 06:55 PM
This guy is pretty smart about most things. In fact he's so smart in so many ways that I find his political views incredible. I just don't get it. I'm sure there's a key to unlock this one.

ThePieSwindler
05-24-2007, 06:56 PM
you are wasting your time.

Christian conservatives are worth time.

neocons will never like Ron Paul.

I'm a nominal christian, and a conservative. Not a neocon at all, but, i'm a huge Paul supporter. Im guessing you meant christian conservatives ARENT worth time?

enan
05-24-2007, 06:57 PM
I would say the opposite, NewEnd. We can't get the hardcore neocons to come out swinging for Ron Paul, but the rest of them, maybe not so much. They're indoctrinated, but they're not the source of the misery. It's their leadership that is. Indoctrinated neocons that we have no relation to, we can do nothing about. Those who are our friends and family, we can probably do a bit more for.

Forward him to the 9/11 report that discusses the causes of Osama bin Laden's attacks. If you can, try to find a list of all of the bombing raids that have happened. Talk about the trade sanctions which starved the Iraqi people of valuable food and medicine. He's only talking about the War on Terror, too. You can open up other fronts for Ron Paul by talking about his points on social issues (such as a lack of gun control) and the like.

Or perhaps you could remind him of our founding father's principles and precedents?

billv
05-24-2007, 06:57 PM
you are wasting your time.

Christian conservatives are worth time.

neocons will never like Ron Paul.

Not true, I'm an ex (and ashamed) Neo-con.

NewEnd
05-24-2007, 07:07 PM
I'm a nominal christian, and a conservative. Not a neocon at all, but, i'm a huge Paul supporter. Im guessing you meant christian conservatives ARENT worth time?

No, I meant they are, Christian conservatives draw their political moral superiority from being pro-life. James Dobson himself has said he cannot support rudy, because Rudy is pro choice.

I meant neocons, especialy the bigoted types who point out every single time a muslim farts as terrorism, are a lost cause.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt, by this time, after 5 years of seeing the whole neocon philosophy dashed on the rocky shores of reality, that somebody still clinging to it could have their mind changed with any sort of reason.

And the poster is not a "smart" one, he condenses over 1000 years of history into, "Since the beginning of Islam, there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If you are not a believer you are dead. Period."

Which is utter, total bullshit.

For example, Tariq Aziz is Christian. Lebanon has a huge Christian community. jews still live in Iran, and Iraq. I mean, it's just pure, hateful bullshit.

wwycher
05-24-2007, 07:10 PM
Right on maN, crack that nut. Keep it up. Persistance is the key. People have been listening to MSM pundits for so long that it is hard to untangle the knots they have tied in peoples heads. Just like getting knots loose, it take time. If you feel this guy is worth it, take you time and keep at it. I want RP's message to get to as many people as fast as it can. Without MSM helping us, we gotta do what we gotta do to to getta him in the white house. The way the RNC is trying to move primary dates up, it does'nt look like we have long. Christian conservatives, liberals or whoever will listen to RP's message. Plant seeds, reason with people or whatever will get them to listen to his message.

wwycher
05-24-2007, 07:16 PM
Bush got elected using the abortion issue. I think our message of freedom and peace will go deeper than that.

NewEnd
05-24-2007, 07:24 PM
Bush got elected using the abortion issue. I think our message of freedom and peace will go deeper than that.

that is why they have a chance.

They can be turned against Rudy or Romney, and McCain is sunk because of his record on immigration.

TheConstitutionLives
05-24-2007, 07:26 PM
You need to tell your friend "If you hate the Constitution then you should just say it."

And then proceed from there about who most supports it and who goes against it.

Who's gonna say they're against the Constitution? That's the best strategy I've found b/c they can't argue against that.

disciple
05-24-2007, 07:42 PM
Unfortunately, your friend is blinded by his own bigotry. It is very hard to reason with such people. Often times it takes more than a bright mind, but a good and sensible heart to make the right choices in life.

angelatc
05-24-2007, 08:13 PM
I too am I former neocon. If you can get your frind to at least listen to Ron Paul, you will have done him a favor.

Gosh, this *is* sounding like a religion, isn't it?

There's no way all of them are going to come around. But RP has awakened a part of the GOP that the neocons thought had died. They're horrified to find out that they're not truly conservatives after all.

NO matter how all this pans out, RP struck a nerve.

And I heard to Fox poll was limited to one call per cell phone. I don't even have a cell phone, so I didn't vote.

JosephTheLibertarian
05-24-2007, 08:14 PM
ha well. I have you ex-neo cons beat.. I'm an ex socialist :)

Therion
05-24-2007, 08:19 PM
You can't convince neocons. They have to come around on their own.

Suzu
05-24-2007, 08:22 PM
Unfortunately, your friend is blinded by his own bigotry. It is very hard to reason with such people. Often times it takes more than a bright mind, but a good and sensible heart to make the right choices in life.

I know this guy fairly well... There's been a lot of contact (not about politics much until now). It's not bigotry. When he doesn't know much about something, he usually tries to appear as if he does, to impress others. In this case he blew it because he doesn't know that I've studied comparative religion. But anyone could find out what I told him, just by looking at Islamic scripture.... He usually doesn't respond when I've given him food for thought. That's how I know I'm making headway. I don't expect to hear from him about Islam, but if I can show him 50 times over how wrong he is, he just might decide to find a reason to support RP in the near future.

disciple
05-24-2007, 08:23 PM
Neocons have an agenda, and it is not about supporting this country.

disciple
05-24-2007, 08:32 PM
I know this guy fairly well... There's been a lot of contact (not about politics much until now). It's not bigotry. When he doesn't know much about something, he usually tries to appear as if he does, to impress others. In this case he blew it because he doesn't know that I've studied comparative religion. But anyone could find out what I told him, just by looking at Islamic scripture.... He usually doesn't respond when I've given him food for thought. That's how I know I'm making headway. I don't expect to hear from him about Islam, but if I can show him 50 times over how wrong he is, he just might decide to find a reason to support RP in the near future.

Of course, no man is hopeless so long as he has breath; hopefully he comes around before it's too late.

You seem to have a lot of patience, and this is a big plus.

Keep up the good work.

jon_perez
05-24-2007, 08:49 PM
Neocons have an agenda, and it is not about supporting this country.Actually, even Ron Paul has said that Neocons do sincerely have america's interests as their long term goals (I guess in so much as they see themselves as the elite governing the country and that what's good for America is good for its elite), except that they are quite misguided in their attempts at securing such.

I have heard from more than one source that their philosophy is based on Straussian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%2C_Leo) thinking, which in turn is Machiavellian in nature.

disciple
05-24-2007, 08:56 PM
Another thing, I, myself, am an avid student of religions, and I know that the fearmongering and the propaganda against the Muslims is a tool that has been used to serve nefarious ends. That's why I believe that if we were to leave the Muslim lands and let them decide for themselves how to run their own affairs, the hostilities will cease almost overnight, and we will have over a billion friends on our side instead of foes.

Ron Paul has it right: do not invade but trade; it makes perfect sense.

disciple
05-24-2007, 09:04 PM
Actually, even Ron Paul has said that Neocons do sincerely have america's interests as their long term goals (I guess in so much as they see themselves as the elite governing the country and that what's good for America is good for its elite), except that they are quite misguided in their attempts at securing such.

I have heard from more than one source that their philosophy is based on Straussian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%2C_Leo) thinking, which in turn is Machiavellian in nature.

The whole neocon agenda is about supremacy and domination; it can never lead to friendly relations among the nations but to wars and conflict. And in the end, if you come to think about it, it does not even serve the interests of those who are promoting it.

It is an ideology born out of arrogance and pride and destined to hell.

adwads
05-24-2007, 09:08 PM
The main problem with this neo-con's argument is that fanatical Muslims were NOT attacking the United States for the greater part of this country's existence. Even though radical Islam accepts violence as a means to promote its religion, in the first 200 years that the United States existed we were not a target of Islam. Therefore, the neo-con's argument that radical Islam attacks us because radical Islam has been attacking for hundreds of years is flawed.

Brandybuck
05-24-2007, 10:43 PM
Christian conservatives ARE worth the time. There have been two main strains of christian politics in US history. One strain has been "do-goodism", using the state to promote morality. That is the strain that is currently dominant. But the other strain views the state as dangerous.

The problem with the modern Christian right is that it sees the state as a tool to be used to further social goals. In this regard they are not much different from atheist Marxists. But they will turn around. They are starting to see that they have been rendering far too much to Caesar. They are starting to see that they are turning people away from Christ with their heavy handed statism. They will come back to the worldview that the church's missions must be accomplished through voluntary persuasion, and not government coercion.

NewEnd
05-24-2007, 10:49 PM
Another thing, I, myself, am an avid student of religions, and I know that the fearmongering and the propaganda against the Muslims is a tool that has been used to serve nefarious ends. That's why I believe that if we were to leave the Muslim lands and let them decide for themselves how to run their own affairs, the hostilities will cease almost overnight, and we will have over a billion friends on our side instead of foes.

Ron Paul has it right: do not invade but trade; it makes perfect sense.

well, hrrmmm.... let's be real, muslims aren't going to like us for at least 20 years. But the healing process has to begin sometime.

IrrigatedPancake
05-25-2007, 01:16 AM
We are not very different from neo-cons, or any other group of people physically. Even our brains are structured in the same overall ways, made up of the same materials, and most importantly respond physically in the same ways as a neo-con brain. The main difference has been what the neo-con brains have been responding to, that is, the input.

Literally you have to reprogram them. I prefer to do it without appealing to their lower impulses (though for some of the tougher cases, ladies in low cut tops do help to break the ice) and group think methods partly because that's how others have been trying to manipulate them. I also like doing it this way because it requires clear logical or at least pretty reasonable explanations which, if communicated well, are hard to reverse with the blanket emotion and impulse appeals that televised and printed news use. Teach them to fish so you don't have to go back and feed them every week.

If you want to change anything in a particular way weather it's an essay that you want to bring to a different conclusion, a car that you want to make more efficient, or one's perspective on the world around them, you can't start at the result you want and expect everything to reform to work with that result. You have to understand what you are trying to change, so I strongly recommend asking people questions before explaining anything to them. Try to figure out why they feel Iran is such a threat that we should attack them, why Iraq can't be left to determine it's own future, why they think that bring troops home will lead to terrorists following them, why do them want global health care instead of a free market system, etc. Once you have a feel for where they're coming from, if the your views on those subjects produce more individual freedom and security for basic rights, then find the flaws in their arguments supporting why they, say, think we need to continue fighting the war on drugs, and show how your approach leads to more liberty and stronger rights.

Doing it this way requires that you know what ideas you think are best down to the details, but I think that if everyone was to demand that level of understanding before accepting anything, then it would be almost impossible to derail a constitutional republic like ours. It can, though, move it back onto the track as well.


I'll post a shot at doing this with the message your you're friend sent in the morning. It's getting pretty late here.

NMCB3
05-25-2007, 01:27 AM
And it is Paul who needs a history lesson. See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years - just a few hundred years less than Christianity. And Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" all that time - for centuries and centuries - long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religionThis is part of the neocon creed, to the Anti-Freedom crowd this statement trumps any rational argument. I know, I battle with them on a daily basis. They are basically brainwashed, and are tough nuts to crack. If you have the patience and allot of time to waste you may get him to come around, otherwise there are probably more productive things you could be doing with your time.

tnvoter
05-25-2007, 02:53 AM
Might wanna ask him about the US helping Osama out when he was fighting the Soviets :)

Yep.

SeanEdwards
05-25-2007, 03:07 AM
All I'm saying is, "How many jihad nuts are blowing themselves up in Switzerland, or Sweden, or Canada?"

IrrigatedPancake
05-25-2007, 03:11 AM
All I'm saying is, "How many jihad nuts are blowing themselves up in Switzerland, or Sweden, or Canada?"

Good question, because it's more likely that our absolute support of Israel is the reason they particularly hate the US. Though they probably added the occupation of Iraq to their list by now.

Shmuel Spade
05-25-2007, 04:31 AM
I assume you didn't get the memo... that Paul has a small but well lubricated and organized army of "ballot box stuffers" not unlike the ones that Howard Stern has. A group of fanatics that, however irrational their sentiments, flood the media with votes, comments, whatever, that deliberately and outrageously skew any non-scientific poll, or poll-like event (such as comments on a news article or blog.)

Stern's followers, for example, at his request, repeatedly "voted" for the most talentless guy on American Idol as a goof, and kept the guy on for weeks after he would normally have been voted off.

But everyone knew that.

Same with Paul. For example, how his few but busy loyalists affected the Fox News call-in "Who Won?" vote after the Fox debate became a story itself. I guess you missed that one. Everyone else knew about it, too.

So it is no surprise that every article or non-scientific poll about Paul will have the same flood of kooks typing their fingers off over and over again trying to obscure the reality.

How sad for them once there is a real vote. Then the reality that most thinking people will see him for what he is will slap Paul's "ballot box stuffers" silly.

This has been a popular theory for those who support other candidates and are simply baffled by Ron Paul. Being the enigma he is to them they must rationalize the results, or their cognitive dissonance will not hold out. But all this is, is a theory. I invite you to try and prove this theory. On the other hand let's take what we can see with our own eyes as a given; that Ron Paul won the txt-in poll, and has won just about every online poll anywhere. Are there any numbers to help support this idea?

A primary place to look would be where Paul is getting his legendary support: the internet. Go to Ron Paul's MySpace page (insert link to page here), and count how many friends the congressman has. Go to his Facebook (insert link to page here) page and see how many friends he has there. Go to his YouTube page (insert link to page here) and see how many subscribers and viewers he has. These are real numbers, representing real people. See where he is popular, Reason magazine's blog. Know that they have tens of thousands of visitors everyday. Realize that Ron Paul has been a Libertarian Party candidate for president once before (1988), he got around half-a-million votes then. Understand that Ron Paul has successfully been reelected to his seat in the house about ten times now, has a high approval rating, and wins his congressional campaigns with high majorities (that's a built in base if you didn't know). Comprehend that Ron Paul has already been endorsed by the last LP candidate for POTUS: Michael Badnarik. He's already been endorsed by Barry Goldwater jr. Not to mention that his being anti-war garners him a fair amount of support and good will from the "lefty" anti-war community. All of this adds up to real and substantial support that translates itself into victories in polls like the one you saw on FNC, MSNBC, and soon CNN. There is no compelling evidence to support your theory.



And it is Paul who needs a history lesson. See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years - just a few hundred years less than Christianity. And Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" all that time - for centuries and centuries - long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religion.

And the very same 9/11 Commission Report Paul referred to actually says our activities in the region are only a small part of Bin Laden's motivation. Most of it comes from the centuries old political history of the region (again, before the USA was ever thought of.)

The centuries of war over there kinda supports that, don't you think? Duh. And historically Bin Laden and those before him we an equal opportunity hater, as evidenced by their attacks on a slew of other countries, too, including those who are not friends of ours.

But Paul's "argument" probably sounds good to those who don't know any better. And obviously sounds good to the America-Haters.

(As if anybody really believes the "they will leave us alone if we leave them alone" story. Since the beginning of Islam, there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If you are not a "believer" you are dead. Period.)

Yes, you are correct that Islam is an old religion (was this supposed to be news?). And I will go further and agree with you that yes, Islamist "extremists" have been killing, slaughtering, raping, pillaging, enslaving the mushrikun, the People of the Book, and general infidels for the entire history of Islam. It is a part of the religion, and those actions can find their support in the Koran, in the Hadith, in the Umdat al-Salik, and other Islamic jurisprudence. This really doesn't have much bearing on Iraq now does it? Ron Paul differs from the other GOP hopefuls (and DNC hopefuls) in at least one very distinct way: he's against the Iraq war. He is and has always been supportive of capturing and punishing those who were responsible for 9/11. Usually the point about the never ending jihad against the west is brought up as an ultimate "root cause" for just why we were attacked that day, and it may be a valid point. This needs no further discussion.

In my paperback copy of the 9/11 Commission Report it says here in chapter 2 on page 51:


Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you." These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.

Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."

and in chapter 12 on page 362 says:


The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin has shaped nd spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who onsider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters... He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of slam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of anctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.

I see nothing about a "small part." If you really want to understand what Bin Laden is saying go directly to the source, and we won't even have to have it filtered through a government commission report.

His 1996 Fatwa entitled, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

His 1998 Fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html)

His 2002 letter. (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html)

See if you can piece together a pattern in what he's saying his grievances are and what his motivation is. I'm not going to deny that he hates the United States in the same way Sayyid Qutb did, for it's licentiousness, but we are a match for Europe (and judging by some of their activities, are no match) in that regard.

Perhaps the evidence will show that the attacks on 9/11 were inevitable. That they were mostly the result of a resurrected Islamic revanchism. Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.org (who has also been against the Iraq war from the beginning) makes that case quite well. But it does not address the specific charges of American aggression and aid for aggression made by bin Laden. Prior to 1993 what attack was there by any part of the Islamic world on the soil of the United States? None? What was the cause of the February 1993 WTC bombing? Ramzi Yousef (nephew of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed) made three demands: 1) Stop aiding Israel. 2) End diplomatic relations with Israel. and 3) Pledge to never intervene with the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations again.

Why do you think the jihadists weren't singling America out for attack in the 1930s, or anytime prior to open American support for Israel? America was certainly decadent then, and other Western countries even more so. The West was even more un-Islamic back then. What changed between then and now? I'll tell you. We further deviated from the Constitutional position of defined powers for the government. The feds not only wanted to be masters of America, but masters of the universe in their 40 year fight with the blood red Soviets.

Intervention is the complaint, and intervention is what Ron Paul seeks to end. Those who have attacked us will still be brought to justice under president Paul. The United States will be a free (that is, consistently Capitalist), and prosperous society through a return to the Constitution. A Paul presidency will mean a United States that is essentially unassailable by foreign enemies. A United States that returns to it's Constitution will respect the 2nd Amendment again, assuring that 9/11 can never happen again.



Of course, I do not particularly think Rudy is a very good candidate, either, nor McCain.

Of the announced crop, Tancredo is far and away the best, if not perfect. The addition of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich will bring out the best of all three and any one of them will keep America safe and offer its citizens plenty of opportunities, should they wish to make the effort to take advantage.

No other candidate comes close to Paul in his respect for individual Liberty. And it's to be expected, he is a libertarian after all. No other candidate can honestly say that they have never voted to violate some part of the Constitution or based their political decisions on defending the inalienable rights of men. A know nothing nobody like Fred Thompson is a sham candidate who's not even in the running, Newt Gingrich betrayed small government conservatives many times in his position as Speaker (talked an okay game though). Tancredo is a madman. Rudy Giuliani is a joke, and McCain will drop out of the race soon enough.







This is a basic beginning.

PaleoForPaul
05-25-2007, 10:26 AM
I have a few things to mention before I reply to the original poster.

I am a paleoconservative, of the school of Pat Buchanan. I too like Tancredo, but for now my vote goes to Paul. It might amaze you that I could like two candidates with such different foregin policies, but the truth is Tancredo is no neoconservative despite his support for the war.

Most conservatives don't even KNOW what a neoconservative is. They haven't read Kristol, or the weekly standard. They don't know what paleoconservatives are either, or the arguements against neoconservatism such as those put forth in the American conservative magazine. They usually have these core wants out of government:

Economic Freedon
Lower taxes
Less government
Patriotic politicians that 'put America first"

in addition some care about the culture war. The way to win these people over isn't by calling them neocons, ninnys, morons, or madmen. You simply have to give proof for why Ron Paul puts America first and has the best economic, social, and foreign policy plan for America.

Economic Freedom - This is simple. None of the candidates plan to cut taxes or programs like Ron Paul will. Simply say he will start with the department of education and he's for free trade.

Lower taxes - See above.

Less government - See above. Mention how Ron Paul puts an emphisis on states rights and personal freedoms, yet is pro-life.

America first - This is a tricky one I will address in my reply to the original post, but you simply must state how Ron Paul's plan is the best for American citizens.

Here is how I would reply to him:


I've got an online friend that I've never met in person. We've been emailing and chatting online for years. He thinks Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al are A-OK.... This guy describes himself as a "darwinian, laissez faire, anarcho-capitalist" so I thought RP would be right up his alley, but when I first mentioned RP to him, he basically said "There's something fishy about him."

We got into an argument that night ;) and have been arguing ever since... about the upcoming election. I'm trying to get through to him about RP, because he's got a huge network of influential friends who value his opinion, and so if he starts supporting RP, it will be very good for the campaign. His friends have money, and networks of their own.

Earlier today I told him how well RP appears to be doing, got a reply, and sent a reply. I'd like to know what more I can do to influence his opinion. Here's what he said:

I assume you didn't get the memo... that Paul has a small but well lubricated and organized army of "ballot box stuffers" not unlike the ones that Howard Stern has. A group of fanatics that, however irrational their sentiments, flood the media with votes, comments, whatever, that deliberately and outrageously skew any non-scientific poll, or poll-like event (such as comments on a news article or blog.)

Stern's followers, for example, at his request, repeatedly "voted" for the most talentless guy on American Idol as a goof, and kept the guy on for weeks after he would normally have been voted off.

But everyone knew that.

Same with Paul. For example, how his few but busy loyalists affected the Fox News call-in "Who Won?" vote after the Fox debate became a story itself. I guess you missed that one. Everyone else knew about it, too.


You know, the fox poll was only allowing one vote per phone number and Paul got about 10,000 votes. On websites like Digg.com that have sophisticated algorithms to prevent gaming, Paul stories often get 4,000 votes. Now, you are right that it is a small group of people when you are talking about a national election, but doesn't it say something for the man that he's inspired so many people that he is not paying to go out and promote his vision? What does it say about the other candidates that they can not evoke this type of excitement in their supporters? Isn't grass roots support what fuels campaigns?




So it is no surprise that every article or non-scientific poll about Paul will have the same flood of kooks typing their fingers off over and over again trying to obscure the reality.

It's unfortunate that you consider people kooks because they disagree with your point of view. I would propose that they are more representitive of the type of people who would vote in a primary. Typically primaries have very low turn out numbers, only attracting the most interested voters. A call in poll during a debate is more likely to include people who will vote in the primary than randomly calling 100 people like Zolgby does and asking them 'Hey are you going to vote?'



How sad for them once there is a real vote. Then the reality that most thinking people will see him for what he is will slap Paul's "ballot box stuffers" silly.


What exactly is he to you?



And it is Paul who needs a history lesson. See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years - just a few hundred years less than Christianity. And Islam extremists have been trying to terrorize and kill "Infidels" all that time - for centuries and centuries - long before there ever was a United States. It is a part of their religion.


You are correct, Islam has been around for about a thousand and five hundred years, and yes Islam has a bloody history.



And the very same 9/11 Commission Report Paul referred to actually says our activities in the region are only a small part of Bin Laden's motivation. Most of it comes from the centuries old political history of the region (again, before the USA was ever thought of.)


Could you reference some of this? While there are obviously other motivating factors, what I took from the reading was that the main factors were our lopsided support of Israel, and our soliders (particularly female) on the holy soil of mecca and medina.



The centuries of war over there kinda supports that, don't you think? Duh.


Yet America has been around for 200 years, and the attacks on us have been minimal up until recently. Why do you think that is?



And historically Bin Laden and those before him we an equal opportunity hater, as evidenced by their attacks on a slew of other countries, too, including those who are not friends of ours.

But Paul's "argument" probably sounds good to those who don't know any better. And obviously sounds good to the America-Haters.


The assumption that people who diagree with you must not 'know any better' or that they are 'America-Haters' is not healthy. I agree that there are some people in this country who hate America, and that is unfortunate. However, you should consider the fact that one can want what is best for America but have a different point of view that yourself. Consider the following:

If you listen to Bin Laden, and what he is saying it is basically that he attacked us for putting our soliders on holy land and our unequivocal support Israel.

Now, maybe he's lying but it pays to listen to him. Hitler told us he was going to kill the Jews long before he did, and many leaders will flat out tell people when they are going to do something awful, and give the reasons why.

So, if Bin Laden is telling the truth, then our involvement in the first Gulf War is a factor that led to 9/11 as is trying to broker a peace deal in the middle east. In the first gulf war, we defended Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion. We've tried many times to obtain peace in the middle east for Israel. Were these objectives worth losing 3000 citizens on 9/11?

Nothing excuses what Bin Laden did on 9/11, but we must constantly ask ourselves what is in the best interests of the American people?

Ron Paul authorized the war in Afghanistan. He also tried to get the president to approve letters of Marque and Reprisal against Bin Laden and 'Any co-conspirator'. This basically would have put a bounty on the head of every Al-Quadia member, which could be collected by any private group or citizen, and would allow for going into ANY country which harbored these people. Unfortunately it didn't pass.

Ron Paul's policy's would actually do more to protect America than what Bush has done so far. I know you think this is a far-fetched statement, but give me a fair hearing.

1. Ron Paul would close the border, end all welfare, free medical services, and handouts to illegalls. Considering how many of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, and how many more people since 9/11 we've found here illegally that were potential terrorists, this action alone would deliver more safety than anything Bush has done.

2. Ron Paul supports Gun rights for everyone, especially airplane pilots. After 9/11, it became obvious to all of us that pilots should have the right to bear arms. Bush has done nothing about this. Paul has been preaching that pilots should have the right to defend themselves. Instead of insisting pilots have the right they are entitled to from the constitution, we consent to having our mothers strip searched, as if they are the next Mohammad Atta.



(As if anybody really believes the "they will leave us alone if we leave them alone" story. Since the beginning of Islam, there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If you are not a "believer" you are dead. Period.)


Really, how many American citizens did Islam kill from 1900-1970? Again, hear me out. There are these BIG oceans between America and the Middle East. If we demanded a rational immigration policy, and didn't stir the hornets nest in the middle east, what do you think would happen?

I believe they would end up fighting Israel (and, getting their asses handed to them), Europe or fighting amongst themselves. Sure, some of them might hate us just to hate us, but that wouldn't motivate them to attempt to find a way over here to make sucide attacks. Hell, I hate france but I'm not about to kill a frenchman over it.

Also, we must realistically consider what kind of threat these people are to us. Theirs is a society that has invented nothing of note in the last 100 years. There is no Al Quadia navy or airforce, except the occasional hijacked plane or bomb laden blow up raft. Many of the people in the middle east still wipe their asses with their bare hands. Their society of oppression and tribalism is incompatible with modern society and they know it, they will adapt or collapse upon themselves as soviet socialism did.

These are the people we are afraid of?

I think we'd be better off to leave them to their own devices. Let them kill one another or catch up to modern society.

If we are truly at war with Islam, what is your solution? Do you think we can force democracy upon these people? If we do, will they elect the very terrorists we detest as they did in Gaza and Lebanon? If so, is that in the interests of the American people? I think that trying to bring democracy to the Islamic world is like trying 'end poverty' or 'stop racism'. You can't stop the way people think by force, and often you end up making things worse rather than better.



Of course, I do not particularly think Rudy is a very good candidate, either, nor McCain.

Of the announced crop, Tancredo is far and away the best, if not perfect. The addition of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich will bring out the best of all three and any one of them will keep America safe and offer its citizens plenty of opportunities, should they wish to make the effort to take advantage.[/COLOR][/I][/INDENT]


Tancredo is a good candidate, and he and Paul agree on many subjects other than foreign policy. Even if you aren't going to vote for Paul, I'd like to you take a look at some of his positions. You might find them interesting.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

Also, I'd like to ask you, what do you think is the biggest threat to America?

Do you think it is America's slow decent into socialism, growing debt, immigration policies, pork barrel spending and the trillions of dollars that America will owe to social security, medicare and medicade recipients?

Or do you think it's a small group of islamic idiots who sit silently in a cave, wiping their rear on their right hand?

Suzu
05-25-2007, 10:33 AM
This is a basic beginning.

Excellent! Thanks a million. I will use it.

Suzu
05-25-2007, 10:44 AM
PaleoForPaul - you've made some excellent points, and I will use them.

Thanks to your efforts and those of many other posters here, I might just have this fellow in the bag soon!

PaleoForPaul
05-25-2007, 10:59 AM
PaleoForPaul - you've made some excellent points, and I will use them.

Thanks to your efforts and those of many other posters here, I might just have this fellow in the bag soon!

I just did an edit to fix up one or two words that were out of place. Good luck with your neocon friend. :)

Shmuel Spade
05-26-2007, 01:38 PM
Excellent! Thanks a million. I will use it.

You're welcome, it was cathartic getting it out.

Also I'd recommend you not use those Koran verses you brought up in your original reply. An experienced debater on Islam can chew right through that (I know I can). Why does this call himself an AnCap when he's so clearly in love with the state?

EvoPro
06-21-2007, 10:09 PM
Great comments guys/gals. My brother is a neocon. I got in a somewhat-civilized argument with him the other day about our foreign policy. I held my own, but these posts will help me strengthen my position when/if we butt heads again.

I used the "We should have gone after al-qaeda" and "this war-mongering breeds hatred" and "We have been meddling in the middle-east for 50 years." He didn't know about the CIA operation in 1953...

Estanislao
07-07-2007, 10:12 AM
Sorry, but your friend is a FOX zombie.

I can tell just by his statements. FOX news has brainwashed their audience, no joke.

He will never see reason as long as he's stuck to the tet.

Best thing is a slow drip of reason on him.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&q=outfoxed&total=188&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

There's some great videos out there, just send him a link every week.

Also might want to read 1984 and the part about the 10 minutes of hate.
FOX viewers "hate" anything FOX tells them to hate... it's scary.

Tsoman
07-07-2007, 10:17 AM
See, Islam has been around for a couple of thousand years

I'm not so sure this is a factual statement...;)

wasn't Islam founded in the 600's?

paulitics
07-07-2007, 04:59 PM
He seems just too far gone to me. His talking points sound like O'reilly or Michelle Malkin. He does not have a broad enough view or knowledge of how the world works. He seems to want to wait for the mainstream media to give him support (which will never happen), because he is just parroting the mainstream's vitriol of RP and his fans.

BarryDonegan
07-07-2007, 05:08 PM
the best way to open a neocons eyes, is to teach them that they are a trotskyist communist, by quoting leo strauss.

leo strauss is their philosophical originator, and he has some of the shadiest idealogy ever, all of which is a crafty way to install international socialism.

paulitics
07-07-2007, 05:11 PM
But Paul's "argument" probably sounds good to those who don't know any better. And obviously sounds good to the America-Haters.

(As if anybody really believes the "they will leave us alone if we leave them alone" story. Since the beginning of Islam, there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If you are not a "believer" you are dead. Period.)

Its this type of thinking that is so dangerous, (well its actaully emotion that he tries to fit logic around). This emotion is fear, that breeds hatred, that breeds irrational behvior leading to unjust wars. "We must strike them before they strike us" type attitude. Its also the same type of emotion that causes someone to trade their liberties for security ending up with niether. Hitler played on this fear very well, until of course it was too late.


I would recomend some serious reading for this guy, and maybe recomend Freedom to Fascism or similar movie to wake him up. You can debate him after he has broadened his horizons. But that is just my opinion and good luck.

hells_unicorn
07-07-2007, 05:21 PM
[COLOR="DarkRed"][COLOR="Blue"]I would recomend some serious reading for this guy, and maybe recomend Freedom to Fascism or similar movie to wake him up. You can debate him after he has broadened his horizons. But that is just my opinion and good luck.

I would definitely concur that you introduce him to Freedom to Fascism, this movie is excellent for roping in Neo-Cons who hate the income tax (and the wide support of the fair tax, which is obviously not a solution, proves that many of them do) and then re-introducing the concept of civil liberties to them.

klamath
07-07-2007, 08:17 PM
This is a paragraph I use against people that believe we are at war with all of islam. Has this person served in the military and in the war on terror? I have real low tolerance for hawks that didn't serve in the foxholes of war.

If we as Americans believe we are at war with all of Islam or we are at war to keep the oil flowing then we had better buckle down and fight this war all out like WWII. Quit trying to live in a state of denial that we can go on living a peace time life while tossing a few son’s and daughters lives toward a far off battle that is only going to get worse. And if this is the case that we are at war with all Islamic people of the world and not just a radical few, every American Mother and Father with their sons and daughters in tow needs to walk down to the military recruiting station and sign on the dotted line. It is going to take a lot of bodies to kill 1.5 billion Muslims. Nukes in places like India wouldn’t be a good idea or we will end up fighting 1 billion Hindu’s.

thomaspaine23
07-07-2007, 08:53 PM
I had this conversation with what I would say is a similar guy today.
Two important questions,

Which is more important, securing the borders or securing Iraq?
He answers Iraq then good luck (i'd ask him why he isn't over there then?)
He answers borders, then Ghouliani is out (he made NY a virtual sanctuary)
Mccain is out, which leaves Romney? Paul or Tancredo.

Second question the debt and entitlement programs?
None of the others will stop the bleeding on either side of the aisle.

Paul would IMO clearly bring the troops home, secure the borders and stop
the spending. His voting record is the only consistent one in these respects.
With entitlements thrown in the govt debt is something like 40~70 TRILLION
dollars not the 9 trillion they admit to. I believe that is on the order of the entire net worth of the country.

BTW, he loved Reagan and I threw in the "Paul was one of only 6 sitting congressmen to endorse reagan in 1976" and the fact that Paul voted against Reagan's freedom medal but offered to pony up $100.00 amd challenged the others in Congress to do so.

He went home, googled him and said he's going to do some reading but he REALLY likes what he's heard so far.

Suzu
08-03-2007, 06:38 AM
The correspondence continues. He does seems to be softening up just a tiny bit.... Here are some excerpts from our latest exchanges. His initials are RWE:

_______________________



"Libertarians, who are desperate for a saleable candidate, think Paul is a flake and poser."
~ RWE - 3/19/2007, 11:54 PM

February 23, 2007 7:51 pm - Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, has endorsed Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) for President. “My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008,” Badnarik said Friday night at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project.

2008 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Steve Kubby Endorses Ron Paul (http://www.kubby2008.com/)

Libertarian presidential poll: Ron Paul the top choice of 69.6% of libertarians (http://capitalistdove.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/libertarian-presidential-poll-results/)

Andrew Napolitano Endorsement of Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8)

Libertarian Party of California Endorses Ron Paul (http://ca.lp.org/lp20070604.shtml)

http://www.libertariansforpaul.com/


"If some politician said Gays should be treated just like the rest of us, the Gay Coalition would endorse them in a heartbeat, regardless of the rest of their views. It is soooo easy to pander to a specific market."
~ RWE, 3/19/2007, 11:57 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Gay_equality

http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/ron-paul-and-gay-rights/


"I am comparing how someone can sell to a market of people who already have certain preferences."
~ RWE, 3/20/2007, 12:09 AM

http://www.chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=B52E605DD82A1002

__________________________


RWE: Rank and file Libertarians generally do not like Ron Paul, the man. Sure, they endorse the ideas he espouses - they are rip and read from the Libertarian platform! Duh. But it is Paul the man that the rank and file thinks is too flaky and unsaleable to be electable. Another guy saying the exact same thing, but who is more presidential (than whiney, as Paul is) would get their support. They see Paul as having become his own best fan, enjoying way too much his newfound glory and fame. Like Perot, he revels in the spotlight. Libertarians don't want a showman; they want a guy who tolerates the spotlight, and understands its place (that is, a candidate who sees it as a necessary evil) but who really wants to get to work behind the desk. Paul is way too caught up in the spirit of the moment and does not have (if he ever had) his eye on the prize, which, to a Libertarian, is actually doing something, and not just talking about what is wrong with the current situation.

What a wise person (like me) does, is separate the support for the ideology from support for the man. Perot was an example of a guy with great ideas, but who was not (as the election results show) particularly desirable as the man to implement those ideas.

Dumber people who subscribe to an ideology just automatically accept the package the ideas come in, no matter how flawed or, in the case of Paul, shallow. A poser who is not electable, but as an independent would siphon off enough votes from a Republican candidate to allow a Dem to win (as Perot did to allow Clinton to win, much to Clinton's delight. I am sure the Clinton's this time hope and pray that Paul will run as an independent.)

My gay comment had nothing to do with gays. It was an example.

I coulda said "If some politician said Sex Pistols Fans should be elevated to a higher standing, the Sex Pistols Fan Club would endorse them in a heartbeat, regardless of the rest of their views. It is soooo easy to pander to a specific market."

You need to look up "pandering."

The last comment you quoted was related, about how easy it is to preach to a choir.

If you were run on the position that kittens should be stomped by sexy women in high-heels, you would easily get the votes from those who like crush videos.

You can easily sell your product to people who already have expressed a preference for that product. Duh.

________________________


Clearly, you looked at NONE of the links I provided. Particularly not Libertarian presidential poll: Ron Paul the top choice of 69.6% of libertarians

That figure again is: 69.6% of Libertarians

I guess the party has a really small "rank-and-file" membership....

And I've never heard a more humble candidate who felt less comfortable in the spotlight than Ron Paul.

Listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZaCENfBzB8

_____________________


RWE: Right - no time for those links.

And we know that polls re: Paul are way off, due to the cult-like behavior of his followers, but at best, 69.6% of those polled accept the packaging that the message comes in. It shows how powerful that Libertarian message is to them. And if it was Libertarians who were polled (all of whom, obviously, buy into the message) then it is impressive that 30.4% of them so dislike the messenger that they vote against him EVEN THOUGH HE CARRIES THE MESSAGE THAT THEY ENDORSE!!

30.4% is an almost unheard of metric when comparing the message to the box it comes in.

It's like if 30.4% of Budweiser lovers stopped drinking Bud because they didn't like the shape of the new bottle in came in. That would have to be one repulsive bottle. A 3% loss due to dislike of packaging for an otherwise accepted product is considered high. 30%? Off the scale.

And yeah, a big chunk of Libertarians are dumb.

_______________________


But you do have time to be a spin doctor. If what you're saying is true, it must also be true that no less than 97% of Republicans should be endorsing *one* candidate at this early stage.

I don't believe you don't like Ron Paul. No other candidate is so aligned with the ways of thinking that you've espoused the whole time I've known you. And there's no way you're dumb enough to really believe all the crap you've handed me about him.

_______________________


RWE: Yes, the stuff he says is not too far off from my own anarcho-libertarian laissez faire capitalistic free market thinking, which is derived from my way of looking at things from a common sense, logical standpoint. With a background in science and engineering, how could one think otherwise? That is why the law, usually, makes so much sense - it goes thru that same filter, usually.

I look at things, like political stuff, as how they should work, meaning how should they work that is the most efficient, the most "good" and the best for the American people and the country overall. I don't look at it as what's best for me specifically, or, if I was a candidate, for those who financially support me and expect something back that will be in their favor at the expense of the American People.

That's my stand.

And Paul says stuff like that, too.

But the huge difference, and one you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, is that you also have to take the measure of the man *apart* from his beliefs. There are probably pedophiles who believe, politically, what I believe and what Paul says. Yet those sickos, despite having great political ideology, are not qualified to be President.

And while Paul can recite chapter and verse about that logical sounding rhetoric, as a man he is nowhere near having what it takes to be President. Proof is that only a small fraction of like-minded potential voters support him, and that is against a pretty lame field! With such weak support he'll never be able to carry a very big stick, and that stick is essential when dealing with a congress that is pretty much bought and paid for, and is surely needed when dealing internationally. Dunno the word that is opposite the word "mandate" but what ever it is, it's what Paul's got and that ain't very good.

Related, well, almost the same thing, he has done a pitiful job of selling himself to real voters, and being able to do that is elementary if you wanna be President. Paul couldn't sell water on the desert.

Despite what you wanna think, what I really believe about Paul is that he just doesn't have it, will never have it, and is not worth 2 seconds of my time to pay attention to him. Great if some people now hear a new (to them) point of view on some stuff from him. Maybe if a real, qualified candidate with those beliefs comes along they will support him.

Paul will not be nominated, and believing he will is a fantasy. A nice one to dream about, I guess, if you have nothing better to do.

_____________________


I don't know what to say to the guy anymore. He won't read an article online or watch a video if it concerns RP. I will have to make all the arguments in my own words. I think I need help....