Why Ron Paul Scares the GOP - Time : Nice piece

[Kade]

From: Time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724358,00.html)

"There used to be an organization for people who believed in a truly limited government — limited taxes, limited spending, limited interference in individual lives and limited intervention in foreign affairs. That organization was known as the Republican Party. But the only one of those beliefs that still motivates the G.O.P. establishment is limited taxes. In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution.


But now the revolution is ebbing. Congressman Paul's new campaign finance report shows that he's raised nearly $35 million, including more than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, and he's inspired remarkable passion among the kind of diehards who hold up campaign signs on highway overpasses and post irate comments on obscure blogs. But the presidency isn't decided on YouTube or Technorati. Paul didn't win any Republican primaries, and he recently conceded that "victory in the conventional sense is not available."

Of course, nothing in Paul's world is ever done in the conventional sense, so he has refused to drop out of the race and endorse the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, Senator John McCain. Instead he argues that all Republicans should have "the right to vote for someone that stands for traditional Republican principles." And he's got a point.

The real significance of the Paul campaign is not the ubiquitous bumper stickers and lawn signs or the online fund-raising records ($6 million in one day, plus another $4 million, hilariously, on Guy Fawkes Day) but the mirror Paul held up to the modern Republican Party. When his fellow candidates denounced big government, Paul was there to remind them that President Bush and the G.O.P. Congress had shattered spending records and exploded the deficit. When they hailed freedom, Paul asked why they all supported the Patriot Act and other expansions of executive power. And when they called themselves conservatives, Paul asked what was so conservative about sending thousands of young Americans to try to transform the Middle East.

In some ways, Paul is a throwback to the frugal and isolationist wing of the old Republican Party, the fuddy-duddy GOP of Robert Taft and Calvin Coolidge. His fiscal policies evoke the idealistic Republican revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994; he wants to abolish the IRS, the Departments of Homeland Security, Education and Energy, and most of the federal government. He refuses to vote for unbalanced budgets, and he has opposed spending taxpayer dollars on Congressional Medals of Honor, even for Rosa Parks or Pope John Paul II. Typically, his campaign has reported no debts, and still has more than $5 million in the bank. Meanwhile, Paul's foreign policies evoke candidate George W. Bush's call for a "humbler foreign policy" in 2000, although Paul goes much further; not only did he oppose U.S. involvement in Iraq, Kosovo and the war on drugs, he opposes U.S. involvement in the United Nations and NATO.

Under Bush's leadership, of course, the Republican Party has been anything but frugal and anything but isolationist. The congressional Republican revolutionaries seemed to lose their zeal for shrinking the federal government once they controlled it, which is one reason voters expelled them from power in 2006. And these days, it's usually Democrats who call for a humbler foreign policy. Paul's leave-us-alone libertarianism hasn't fit in with a party anxious to read our e-mail, improve our values, assert American power abroad and subsidize friendly industries at home. The party's recent mix of "national greatness" neoconservatives, evangelical theoconservatives and K Street careerists has had many goals, but leaving people alone hasn't been one of them. That's why Paul was the one getting booed at G.O.P. debates. And that's one reason why Paul's fervent followers were banned from the activist Republican website RedState.

In fairness, though, another reason RedState's directors got tired of the Paulistas was that so many of them seemed — what's the polite word? — nuts. Paul's supporters aren't all black-helicopter paranoiacs, but the black-helicopter paranoiacs sure do support Ron Paul. The controversy over a few racist articles in his old newsletters was probably overblown; there's no evidence that Paul himself was ever a racist. But he is an extremist — partly in the Barry Goldwater extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice sense of the word, but also in the wacky let's-relitigate-the-currency-debates-of-the-1820s sense of the word. The late William F. Buckley wanted conservatives to stand athwart history yelling stop; Paul seems to want to slam history into reverse. The guy genuinely wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and start circulating gold again.

Still, even if you set aside Paul's kookier ideas, there just doesn't seem to be a road to the White House for any candidate who opposes the war in Iraq as well as higher taxes, the war on drugs as well as higher spending, restrictions on privacy as well as restrictions on guns. That's a real "freedom agenda," a true assault on big government, and while it clearly spoke to some angry dudes with high-speed web connections and time on their hands, it's just as clearly not where America stands today. Paul didn't have a lot of company on the House floor when he rose recently to complain about government overreach in the investigation of the disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who resigned after revelations that he had been a customer of a high-end prostitution ring.

But even if Paul's ideological purity is never going to get him to the White House, it does help illuminate the impurities — and sometimes the hypocrisies — of today's Republicans, just as Ralph Nader can do for the Democrats. The G.O.P. candidates all claimed to defend taxpayers, but Paul was the only one who refused to accept a taxpayer-funded pension or taxpayer-funded junkets. The candidates all talked about shrinking big government, but Paul was the only one who included the Pentagon and NSA wiretaps and petroleum subsidies in his definition. Bush's approval ratings have been abysmal for years, but Paul was the only Republican who really campaigned for change.

And in doing so Paul illustrated what was so striking about the Republican race. The leading candidates had all strayed from Bush and current orthodoxy in the past — Rudy Giuliani on abortion and gay rights, John McCain on tax cuts, torture, health care and campaign finance, Mitt Romney on just about everything. But while Paul was getting attacked every time he called for a new direction, the rest spent the primaries minimizing and renouncing their previous departures, implicitly promising four more years of Bushism. McCain is lucky he has some time to craft a new message, because that's not where America stands today, either. "


A perspective piece, in my opinion. Huge coverage. I didn't see this posted anywhere else, and I was surprised it wasn't mentioned more often.

[Mister Grieves]

Good read.

Thanks for posting this.

[DeadtoSin]

All in all its good. There are a few words I'd pick at, but a positive article nonetheless.

[Join The Paul Side]

Any article that suggests Ron Paul to be an extremist, an isolationist, or kooky, is only worth wiping my azz with. In fact I'm going to print it right now so I can do just that. ;)

[Kade]

Any article that suggests Ron Paul to be an extremist, an isolationist, or kooky, is only worth wiping my azz with. In fact I'm going to print it right now so I can do just that. ;)

For an often liberal publication, this was a very favorable piece.

[Kotin]

was a bit of a hit piece..

[DeadtoSin]

I don't think they meant to imply isolationism, I think they only misunderstand the usage of the word. They meant non-interventionist, and thats something you should probably email them NICELY about. And they called him an extremist in a Barry Goldwater "extremism in the defense of liberty" sense, which I can't really complain about.

[LittleLightShining]

Great article.

[angelatc]

This is a good post.

[acptulsa]

"...there just doesn't seem to be a road to the White House for any candidate who opposes the war in Iraq as well as higher taxes, the war on drugs as well as higher spending, restrictions on privacy as well as restrictions on guns. That's a real "freedom agenda..."

This is funny coming from the press, who shouted "he can't win" over and over until voters bought into it. Even with the references to his being a kook and us being nuts, I think this sort of decent (+/-) account is just the thing. As the economy gets worse and worse and we (occasionally) get heard placing the blame at the Fed's feet where it belongs, this kind of piece may just get people asking themselves, why isn't there a road to the White House for a small government Republican candidate? And that's just what we need them to ask. Hope it's prominently placed in the rag.

[Deborah K]

I thought this was a really good article. I passed it along my em-addy book. Thanks, Kade.

[acptulsa]

I thought this was a really good article. I passed it along my em-addy book. Thanks, Kade.

I'll second that. Lotta typing. Appreciate it.

[Rhys]

When I was a neocon, I LOVED TIME. I don't subscribe anymore.

They still do the best covers in the bizz though.

[Deborah K]

Okay, so call me obsessive. I sent the author this email as well:

Thank you for a very fair article about Dr. Paul. We, in the grassroots movement, are still in support of Dr. Paul for President, and plan to write him in if necessary. We are also planning a demonstration this summer in D.C. where we will invite Dr. Paul along with the congressmen who have thus far co-sponsored HCR40. This movement isn't gone by a long shot. We have 'Ron Paul' candidates running for office all over this country. We have over 1100 'meetup' groups nationwide. We are organizing our efforts with other like-minded, freedom loving groups such as second amendment and border security groups to name a couple.

No Sir, this isn't over - it is only just beginning.

Your insight is a rarity among journalists.

Deborah K
Revolution Management Foundation
www.revolutionmarch.com

[humanic]

I don't think they meant to imply isolationism, I think they only misunderstand the usage of the word. They meant non-interventionist, and thats something you should probably email them NICELY about. And they called him an extremist in a Barry Goldwater "extremism in the defense of liberty" sense, which I can't really complain about.

They didn't imply it, they explicitly said it.

"In some ways, Paul is a throwback to the frugal and isolationist wing of the old Republican Party"

Ron Paul has clarified over and over again the difference between advocating isolationism and non-intervention.

Exposing the True Isolationists (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul401.html) by Ron Paul
Ron Paul: 'Isolationism' isn't what I advocate (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_isolationism_isnt_wha.html)
Noninterventionism: The Original Foreign Policy (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm) by Ron Paul

Even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism)clearly acknowledges the difference: "Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view."

Publications like Time that continue to label Paul and "isolationist" do not do so by accident. Non-interventionism has a much more positive connotation than isolationism, so even though the former is accurate and the latter is not, the latter is repeatedly used. We are dealing with writers with agendas contrary to ours, not ignoramuses. It is intentional spin, and it continues to marginalize Dr. Paul in the eyes of an unsuspecting public.

[Azprint]

Interesting article. :)

[Banana]

They didn't imply it, they explicitly said it.

"In some ways, Paul is a throwback to the frugal and isolationist wing of the old Republican Party"

I'm ignorant of the "old Republican Party", but were they truly isolationists or were they non-interventionists?

I wonder if it just happens that the isolationism of old Republican Party is actually today's non-interventionism?

[yongrel]

Spiffy

[acptulsa]

I'm ignorant of the "old Republican Party", but were they truly isolationists or were they non-interventionists?

I wonder if it just happens that the isolationism of old Republican Party is actually today's non-interventionism?

Go back far enough, and it was full on isolationism.

[Banana]

How far? Are we talking 'Nam or World Wars?

[acptulsa]

How far? Are we talking 'Nam or World Wars?

The only reason isolationism became a dirty word is because the popular opinion after World War II was that if we had paid more attention and intervened sooner, The Big One wouldn't have been so bad or could have been averted.

Of course, as much as FDR advocated for it starting around '39, Congress (Republican or Democratic) didn't jump.

[yongrel]

"Paul's supporters aren't all black-helicopter paranoiacs, but the black-helicopter paranoiacs sure do support Ron Paul."

Truer words have never been written.

[Banana]

The only reason isolationism became a dirty word is because the popular opinion after World War II was that if we had paid more attention and intervened sooner, The Big One wouldn't have been so bad or could have been averted.

Right, that's what I thought myself. But that implies that the isolationists then were non-interventionist... were they?


Of course, as much as FDR advocated for it starting around '39, Congress (Republican or Democratic) didn't jump.

A bit confusing... are you saying FDR advocated for isolationistism and Congress wanted to go to war regardless?

[acptulsa]

Right, that's what I thought myself. But that implies that the isolationists then were non-interventionist... were they?



A bit confusing... are you saying FDR advocated for isolationistism and Congress wanted to go to war regardless?

Isolationism is non-interventionism on steroids. It's everything non-interventionism is and much more.

No, FDR was trying to drag us into the war earlier than Pearl Harbor, and the Congress was as reluctant as the people.

[Kade]

I'm ignorant of the "old Republican Party", but were they truly isolationists or were they non-interventionists?

I wonder if it just happens that the isolationism of old Republican Party is actually today's non-interventionism?

They were non-interventionist. Taft and Coolidge are two of my favorite presidents... not a bad lot to be thrown in... I imagine a Paul presidency much like Coolidge, no crazy stupid shit, with the added bonus of overturning some executive weight.

[acptulsa]

They were non-interventionist. Taft and Coolidge are two of my favorite presidents... not a bad lot to be thrown in... I imagine a Paul presidency much like Coolidge, no crazy stupid shit, with the added bonus of overturning some executive weight.

You have a point. I wonder if non-interventionist is kind of a euphemism for isolationist like recession has become for depression. The old guard Republicans were a little to imperialist between the wars to be completely isolationist.

[Banana]

Isolationism is non-interventionism on steroids. It's everything non-interventionism is and much more.

Right. Isolationism wants both non-interventionism and protectionism; non-interventionists aren't necessarily protectionists. The question would then be did the old Right advocate protectionism as well? If they did, then they're bona fide isolationist; otherwise they were simply called isolationist in a different sense of word which has became dirty after the WW II.

Thanks for clarifying the FDR's intentions- we agree on that one.


They were non-interventionist. Taft and Coolidge are two of my favorite presidents... not a bad lot to be thrown in... I imagine a Paul presidency much like Coolidge, no crazy stupid shit, with the added bonus of overturning some executive weight.

In this case, I guess the author didn't have malicious intentions labeling Paul an "isolationist"as humanic suspected; this would be uninformed at best then.

[davver]

Its a slanted hit piece. Time has been ripping on Paul since this started. Gold will be at $4,000/ounce and they will still call crazy ideas like balancing the budget "kooky".

[acptulsa]

Its a slanted hit piece. Time has been ripping on Paul since this started. Gold will be at $4,000/ounce and they will still call crazy ideas like balancing the budget "kooky".

Yes but... Seems to me the rhetoric is toning down since Dr. Paul "ceased to have a chance" and events are proving Dr. Paul a prophet. So, all of this looks like a positive step. The MSM isn't doing their agenda any favors even mentioning him.

[Rhys]

you guys have to remember, a Democrat wrote that and Democrats read that. "Conservatives" lump it in with the "liberal press"

[acptulsa]

you guys have to remember, a Democrat wrote that and Democrats read that. "Conservatives" lump it in with the "liberal press"

That's o.k. The message of freedom is appealing to them too. So is the idea of the federal government cutting taxes to the bone and leaving the states free to exercise their states' rights and provide social services themselves.

[Shink]

A sugary slap to the face if you ask me.

[acptulsa]

A sugary slap to the face if you ask me.

Yup. But, it has more information in it than I have seen on Ron Paul since way, way before the primaries--at least in the MSM. Sad but true. They've got their spin on it, but there's information too. They seem to be challenging us to get enough of our spin on the information to pull off the upset we'd like to do at the convention. Given the economy...

What, you don't love a challenge?

[Rhys]

Yup. But, it has more information in it than I have seen on Ron Paul since way, way before the primaries--at least in the MSM. Sad but true. They've got their spin on it, but there's information too. They seem to be challenging us to get enough of our spin on the information to pull off the upset we'd like to do at the convention. Given the economy...

What, you don't love a challenge?

i love a challenge, but that's TIME Magazine. It's not the Buger Daily.

[speciallyblend]

BS CRAP ARTICLE, this is a hit piece. a bunch of BS

[gb13]

I don't know. It was ok, but I am annoyed with the way they have to slip in jabs like "kook", "internet support", "wacky", "isolationism", "won't be president", etc. This little blip had them all scattered throughout.

I did like how the article pointed out GOP hypocrisy, even if it really wasn't a "pro-Paul" piece.

[Broadlighter]

But he is an extremist — partly in the Barry Goldwater extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice sense of the word, but also in the wacky let's-relitigate-the-currency-debates-of-the-1820s sense of the word. The late William F. Buckley wanted conservatives to stand athwart history yelling stop; Paul seems to want to slam history into reverse. The guy genuinely wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and start circulating gold again.

Here again is the pejorative slap on reforming the monetary system. In their own way the MSM tells you these ideas are kooky, outdated, weird and impractical, but never going into the reasons why. They just expect the average reader to swallow it.

All in all, he illuminates what the campaign and revolution are about. Yet it's hard to tell if he's encouraging it or just laughing at it.

[yongrel]

BS CRAP ARTICLE, this is a hit piece. a bunch of BS

Which article were you reading? Surely not the one the OP posted.

[ARealConservative]

Which article were you reading? Surely not the one the OP posted.

Yes that one.

It was a well disguised hit piece, but it got the buzzwords in.

Isolationist kook more fitting for 1812 then 2012 is worthy of being filed as a hit piece.

Coverage has gotten so bad some people are happy with scraps of dog food lying on the floor.

[Truth Warrior]

The US government became interventionist BIG TIME with WWI. Once The Fed and the income tax came on line, government figured that we could then afford the risk. In the main the vast majority of the people were still isolationist. Wilson lied about the war in order to get elected. FDR lied about US involvement in WWII in order to get reelected. The people at the time were still strongly isolationist, hence the need for the campaign lies.

[Fields]

As long as people get to hear his damn name and get to know him. I see no problem. Yeah, granted, it's not a love letter, like you guys want.

[Rhys]

Yes that one.

It was a well disguised hit piece, but it got the buzzwords in.

Isolationist kook more fitting for 1812 then 2012 is worthy of being filed as a hit piece.

Coverage has gotten so bad some people are happy with scraps of dog food lying on the floor.

+1

[Bossobass]

I love how we're nuts but the neocon lunatics who believe we should bankrupt America by borrowing from Communists to chase some goat herders by occupying Iraq get a free pass.

If any jack ass like this article's author ever wants a real bad headache, he should say Ron Paul is a kook to my face.

Bosso

[humanic]

Isolationism wants both non-interventionism and protectionism; non-interventionists aren't necessarily protectionists.

Exactly, which is why it is wrong to call Paul an isolationist just because he is a non-interventionist.


In this case, I guess the author didn't have malicious intentions labeling Paul an "isolationist"as humanic suspected; this would be uninformed at best then.

"Some people don't mind the use of the word 'isolationism', but the word's been destroyed, and it's been used as a pejorative."
- Ron Paul, 12/1/07 (video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM))

McCain himself used it as a pejorative in a debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-7C57psCU

It is indeed used as a pejorative most of the time this day in age (especially in this election cycle), and thus it tends to have a negative connotation in the eyes of the mainstream news media consumer. The MSM talking heads said to him over and over and over and over again "you're an isolationist" or "your opponents say that you're an isolationist", and he would have to go on the defensive explaining that he was not an isolationist, only to have to answer to the same charges in the next interview/debate. No matter how many times he would make it clear that he was a non-interventionist and not an isolationist (and what the difference is) they would go on the air the next day as if the conversation never happened and repeat the factually inaccurate "isolationist" claim. Anyone who has followed the media coverage of Dr. Paul closely for the past year knows that there has been a deliberate effort by the MSM to marginalize him, and this is part of it.

[DFF]

They also got it dead wrong on the gold standard.

RP wants gold legalized as a commenting currency.

Big difference between a 100% pure gold standard.

[Conza88]

Any article that suggests Ron Paul to be an extremist, an isolationist, or kooky, is only worth wiping my azz with. In fact I'm going to print it right now so I can do just that. ;)

lmfao.:D

[ZzzImAsleep]

That whole article comes off as a bit sarcastic to me.

[expatinireland]

Could someone explain what the term "black-helicopter paranoiac" means?

It is good that Time still finds Ron Paul important enough to write but I wouldn't call the article a "nice piece" as it contains the usual pejorative spin and some inaccuracies as pointed out by others.

[Todd]

Good article, but I tire of the Isolationist smear.

[acptulsa]

Could someone explain what the term "black-helicopter paranoiac" means?

Interestingly provocative perjorative, isn't it? Not sure, myself, what he means by that. Could be anything from a schizophrenic to a realist with open eyes.

[Aratus]

people who think MIBs are REALLY here and like to fly about sometimes mistake
an unmarked gov't helecopter for one flown by an "e.t alien"/human hybrid... and i do think
you can get more than a tad paranoid about what you think are Uncle Sam's choppers or perhaps
them there "MEN IN BLACK" SPACE-ALIEN CHOPPERs that are now in the liturature! ------(2 lynx)
enjoy! http://www.crystalinks.com/mib.html and also http://www.theblackvault.com/

[Anti Federalist]

I love how we're nuts but the neocon lunatics who believe we should bankrupt America by borrowing from Communists to chase some goat herders by occupying Iraq get a free pass.

If any jack ass like this article's author ever wants a real bad headache, he should say Ron Paul is a kook to my face.

Bosso

+1000:D

[Aratus]

dr. ron paul is not the person this election year who had
to admit to this UFO sighting during the debates. correct me
if i am wrong, but its dennis kucinich who had to own up!

[Anti Federalist]

From the article:


He refuses to vote for unbalanced budgets, and he has opposed spending taxpayer dollars on Congressional Medals of Honor, even for Rosa Parks or Pope John Paul II.

This is why I take so little of what the lamestream media has to say seriously.

How can you be so sloppy and ill-informed?

[Aratus]

Anti-Federalist,

even though i KNOW there is a
roswell cover-up as well as a 911
cover-up, i heartily AGREE with you!

[SteveMartin]

Paul's supporters aren't all black-helicopter paranoiacs, but the black-helicopter paranoiacs sure do support Ron Paul.

A black attack helicopter with no markings and an infrared scanner buoy hovered over my home for a couple of minutes in downtown Livermore Falls, ME the day after my letter to the editor discussing Lt. Gen Benton Partin's problems with the government story about what happened at Oklahoma City (4-19-95) was published in Maine's second larget daily newspaper.

The chopper was witnessed by dozens of people, and a story about the event was carried in the local paper.

Turns out it was from Fort Drum, NY, although I never got any further information as to why it decided my house was a comfy hovering spot.

But, we're all paranoid, huh??

[Aratus]

SteveMartin, not if barium is in for real chemtrails!!! there was an object
up in the sky when both shirley maclaine and dennis kucinich saw what
they said they saw! again, the vast range of explanations, each of which
sounding initially valid, until you delve deeper. "bluebook" had its critics!!!

[Aratus]

SteveMartin, our fbi got a multiple number of calls over a year and a half...

[Aratus]

timeframe 1999 to 2001...

[SteveMartin]

huh?

[acptulsa]

huh?

This thread was hijacked by a black helicopter. Hope it has a parachute. I'd like to see it come back to earth.

[Aratus]

steve martin, OUR fbi was warned about a specific date
and timeframe by a semi-retired person from 1999 to 2001...


jane swift is our governor for NINE months.
sarah buckingham steps down from massport!!!

go figure! as howard dean is the ONLY governor to
communicate with canada and allow people north...

[SteveMartin]

Shut up, acp. I have as much right to point out flaws in the article as anyone else. Aratus is the one who carried on about it.

[mczerone]

Publications like Time that continue to label Paul and "isolationist" do not do so by accident. Non-interventionism has a much more positive connotation than isolationism, so even though the former is accurate and the latter is not, the latter is repeatedly used. We are dealing with writers with agendas contrary to ours, not ignoramuses. It is intentional spin, and it continues to marginalize Dr. Paul in the eyes of an unsuspecting public.

I started complaining about this to editors and authors in September - Every article about Paul in any publication quoted 'long-shot', 'extremist', 'kook', 'can't win' and/or 'isolationist' in some order, but it made sure to use those keywords. Regardless of any "poll numbers" (which measure media exposure first, then creates a feedback loop of 'viability'), every candidate has just as much 'chance' before people start voting. No one candidate is a shoe-in, nor should be counted out, especially in political commentary. Use the colorful adjectives for reflexion on the story, not for the reporting if it. Now that the nomination is presumably locked up only makes the 'fair reporting' of this Time article too little, too late, and still it uses the same disparaging tone and keywords.

Even in a relatively positive article on Paul, such as this, or a few from the Seattle Times and a couple other local newspapers, the tone is set to dismiss him anyway. Add to that the articles that only criticize how fervent his supporters are ("look at the goofy 'LaRouche' supporters), or paint him as an America-hating Socialist-Racist, and no undecided voter was ever going to join the bandwagon without massive self-directed research.

People come away thinking, and it is the most common sentiment I've heard, that they mostly think that Paul "has some really good ideas, but couldn't win". Or that he is "certifiably insane" (FoxNews focus group participant's 'off the cuff' remark after the Dearborn,MI debate), so even his 'decent' ideas (to those so inclined) are just a blind squirrel finding a nut.

[Aratus]

am one source journalism and i shall...

[SteveMartin]

Aratus,

As usual, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please stop responding to all of my posts with this type of barely comprehensible mumbo jumbo. TIA...

[Aratus]

SteveMartin, GOTO hot topics, and those by SL...

[ronpaul.republican]

Any article that suggests Ron Paul to be an extremist, an isolationist, or kooky, is only worth wiping my azz with. In fact I'm going to print it right now so I can do just that. ;)

I agree. This is not a good article. It's the usual MSM trash.

It's kooky to want to abolish the Federal Reserve? Oh, americunts deserve everything they have coming to them. Absolute scum, those people.

[acptulsa]

I agree. This is not a good article. It's the usual MSM trash.

It's kooky to want to abolish the Federal Reserve? Oh, americunts deserve everything they have coming to them. Absolute scum, those people.

It starts out so well, though.

"There used to be an organization for people who believed in a truly limited government — limited taxes, limited spending, limited interference in individual lives and limited intervention in foreign affairs. That organization was known as the Republican Party. But the only one of those beliefs that still motivates the G.O.P. establishment is limited taxes. In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution."

The whole business does leave me feeling like a hungry dog glad to see any bone. The MSM articles that have the tone, he advocates the good stuff but we can't have him" make me say "Why not?" And I'm ready for anyone to join me.

It would be nice to think, especially with the economy sinking fast, that the MSM isn't doing itself any favors with this.

[Anti Federalist]

Anti-Federalist,

even though i KNOW there is a
roswell cover-up as well as a 911
cover-up, i heartily AGREE with you!

Ummm, well good.

But...huh? Roswell?:confused:

Clarify please.

[acptulsa]

Ummm, well good.

But...huh? Roswell?:confused:

Clarify please.

NO! DON'T ASK THAT! Oh, Lord, here we go...

[Anti Federalist]

NO! DON'T ASK THAT! Oh, Lord, here we go...

Ummm...OK.
http://skugg.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/can-of-worms.jpg