PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party




Sentient Void
11-23-2011, 07:16 PM
My blog response here at RPF to an article from the Washington Times on how us Ron Paul supporters are now 'a scourge on the Republican party'.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?474-Ron-Paul-Supporters-are-a-Scourge-on-the-Republican-Party

Enjoy.

Aratus
11-23-2011, 07:23 PM
we are mild mannered Goldwaterites all.

John Brown was quite the scourge on our

political parties and politicians of the era.

acptulsa
11-23-2011, 07:33 PM
We are only a scourge on those elements of the Republican Party which are a scourge on We, the People, and the land we love.

AuH20
11-23-2011, 07:46 PM
Let's see. They've given us less-than-stellar candidates since 1968, and we're supposed to just fall in line? Come again?

pcosmar
11-23-2011, 07:47 PM
Are you seriously taking Eric Golub seriously?

Cleaner44
11-23-2011, 07:59 PM
Slowly but surely we are winning. The liberals do not ruin the GOP with their neocons overnight and it will take time to restore it. It will be done.

Miss Annie
11-23-2011, 08:01 PM
The light is only bright in the darkness.

nobody's_hero
11-23-2011, 08:08 PM
Well done.

We're the only part of the GOP that offers anything different than the Democrats, lol.

Sentient Void
11-23-2011, 08:13 PM
Are you seriously taking Eric Golub seriously?

It's not so much about Eric Golub (indeed, who?) - he is merely the mouthpiece in this instance of what all of the establishment and prominent republicans are saying. I will edit and clarify this in the post.

pcosmar
11-23-2011, 08:18 PM
It's not so much about Eric Golub (indeed, who?) - he is merely the mouthpiece in this instance of what all of the establishment and prominent republicans are saying. I will edit and clarify this in the post.

I didn't really think so,,reading your post.

but you did quote his drooling.
;)

Seraphim
11-23-2011, 08:23 PM
The Republican party is a scourge on America. So is the Democratic party.


Go fuck yourself.

Sentient Void
11-23-2011, 08:26 PM
The Republican part is a scourge on America. So is the Democratic party.


Go fuck yourself.

Dude, read the article. *I* am not the one saying this...

Seraphim
11-23-2011, 08:32 PM
I was talking to the guy who wrote the article, not you.

Lol.


Dude, read the article. *I* am not the one saying this...

Sentient Void
11-23-2011, 08:35 PM
I was talking to the guy who wrote the article, not you.

Lol.

lol, my bad.

LibertyEagle
11-23-2011, 08:39 PM
Good stuff, Sentient!!

Bman
11-23-2011, 08:41 PM
This guy clearly thinks Ron has already lost. Maybe just maybe we will be onboard with the Republican nomination.

wistfulthinker
11-23-2011, 09:02 PM
Such venom both for Paul supporters (original piece) and for the GOP (Sentient Void).

Paul's ideas and his rise in popularity are a challenge to the GOP, but the GOP has been dealing with a divide between philosophical Republicans and pragmatic Republicans for a couple of decades or more. Of course, the pragmatic folks are going to get their panties in a bunch when the other side scores a viable Presidential candidate. There's an internal battle going on. But, really, it's the same battle that goes on most everywhere, even on an individual level. Do we go with what's expedient? Do we go with what's rooted in foundational beliefs even when it doesn't seem to matter? Most folks feel that tug of war in even everyday decisions. Certainly groups do, and political parties do.

So what's a person who's been willing to go with expedience to do when they're called out by the the foundational beliefs folks? They get defensive and slap-happy. That's human nature. It's often the first step in the painful process of changing your mind.

If Paul has some success in early January, there will be more and more mainstream Republicans in this painful process of changing their minds. The foundationalists languishing in GOP will get a morale booster shot. This is good. There's no reason to get slap-happy and lash out. That just makes people more fearful of retreating from an old-friend belief. Better to offer them a bridge from one side to another.

LibertyEagle
11-23-2011, 09:12 PM
Wistfulthinker, please delineate between the establishment at the top of both major political parties and the rank-and-file within it. They are two totally different things. I think Sentient was speaking about the former. At least that Is how I took it.

LibertyEagle
11-23-2011, 09:18 PM
Such venom both for Paul supporters (original piece) and for the GOP (Sentient Void).

Paul's ideas and his rise in popularity are a challenge to the GOP, but the GOP has been dealing with a divide between philosophical Republicans and pragmatic Republicans for a couple of decades or more. Of course, the pragmatic folks are going to get their panties in a bunch when the other side scores a viable Presidential candidate. There's an internal battle going on. But, really, it's the same battle that goes on most everywhere, even on an individual level. Do we go with what's expedient? Do we go with what's rooted in foundational beliefs even when it doesn't seem to matter? Most folks feel that tug of war in even everyday decisions. Certainly groups do, and political parties do.

So what's a person who's been willing to go with expedience to do when they're called out by the the foundational beliefs folks? They get defensive and slap-happy. That's human nature. It's often the first step in the painful process of changing your mind.

If Paul has some success in early January, there will be more and more mainstream Republicans in this painful process of changing their minds. The foundationalists languishing in GOP will get a morale booster shot. This is good. There's no reason to get slap-happy and lash out. That just makes people more fearful of retreating from an old-friend belief. Better to offer them a bridge from one side to another.

I pray that is so. Our country needs them. Be assured that they will be welcomed with open arms.

Come home, folks. It's time to take a stand for your country.

MelissaWV
11-23-2011, 09:18 PM
Dude, read the article. *I* am not the one saying this...

Yet once again this is a title that will be repeated out there on the internet. Just the titles go out.

Either posters need to get smarter about this, or it has to be stopped some way.

trey4sports
11-23-2011, 09:26 PM
we must take the high road and allow those who have constantly belittled us and told us that we are zealots, and that we "blame America" a way to save face and safely move to our side. It would be easy to rub their face in it but if we want to win we must be diplomatic and know that the best revenge is to win.

heavenlyboy34
11-23-2011, 09:27 PM
Yet once again this is a title that will be repeated out there on the internet. Just the titles go out.

Either posters need to get smarter about this, or it has to be stopped some way.
Yes! Bring on the Thought Police! ;)

LibertyEagle
11-23-2011, 09:33 PM
My understanding is that only the titles from Grassroots Central are being tweeted, but I could be wrong.

fj45lvr
11-23-2011, 09:38 PM
I think they meant to say "LIKUD" party.....

DamianTV
11-23-2011, 09:44 PM
Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party

The Republican Party is a Scourge, not only to the American People, but to all people who cherish and embrace Liberty and Freedom.

I read the comments from the others, and their mentality is not inline with what a Republican really is. They dont give a rats ass about the US being a Republic, they care about what the Country can do for them, and how to take from those less fortunate than themselves to further their own selfish ambitions.

The Republican Party itself has corrupted its purpose. They do not care about the Republic, they do not care about the people, and until we enact change, will continue to put Party Politics ahead of the needs of the people. There will always exist as much Tyranny as the people allow to exist. And the current Status Quo of the GOP is doing their damnedest to marginalize every single Ron Paul supporter out there. They do their best to suppress our numbers, our results, and the voice of the people. And the people are demanding that Ron Paul should be the GOP candidate, whether the GOP wants them or not. Truth be told, the GOP had better wake the fuck up to the fact that they were chosen to Represent the People, not to obscure and distort their voices. And the GOP is in it for the long haul. The people that barely support the current Status Quo only do so because they have listened to the propoganda of the GOP, but I think many of them will absolutely embrace Dr. Paul.

When an Honest Man discovers that he has been mistaken, he either ceases being mistaken, or ceases being Honest. It is clear to me what decision the GOP has made. I have made my choice as well. I have chosen to be Honest. I have chosen Ron Paul.

LibertyEagle
11-23-2011, 09:47 PM
T And the people are demanding that Ron Paul should be the GOP candidate, whether the GOP wants them or not.

Many of those people are in the GOP, you know. I am one of them.

amy31416
11-23-2011, 09:47 PM
When an Honest Man discovers that he has been mistaken, he either ceases being mistaken, or ceases being Honest.

I like that quote--yours?

AuH20
11-23-2011, 09:51 PM
The GOP has alot of good politicians who's voices have been long suppressed. I personally have no problem with about a quarter of the representatives. The other 75% can go to hell.

amy31416
11-23-2011, 09:57 PM
The GOP has alot of good politicians who's voices have been long suppressed. I personally have no problem with about a quarter of the representatives. The other 75% can go to hell.

We have weak ones who would be good if the herd was good (Boehner, DeMint come to mind), we have repulsive ones who will be atrocious no matter what (Lindsay Graham, Peter King, etc.)...and then we have Ron Paul, and because of him, Justin Amash....maybe a couple others. Still wish we had BJ Lawson.

When I think about this country's political environment--Ron Paul is as close to a miracle as I'll ever witness...and I don't even go for that religious stuff most of the time.

J-Reg
11-23-2011, 10:07 PM
I have gotten disgusted with the GOP. So much controlling everyone and uncritical acceptance of banging the war drums. I really am a Ron Paul Republican. I don't think that there is a good political party outside of the Libertarian Party. Of course, you can't get debate time unless you're in the big two!

Hospitaller
11-23-2011, 10:08 PM
lol, my bad.

stop saying lol

lol

AuH20
11-23-2011, 10:14 PM
great article about the post-war purge in the GOP:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch1.html


This power was reinforced by a brilliantly successful strategy (perhaps guided by National Review editors trained in Marxist cadre tactics) of creating front groups: ISI for college intellectuals, Young Americans for Freedom for campus activists. Moreover, lead by veteran Republican politico and National Review publisher Bill Rusher, the National Review complex was able to take over, in swift succession, the College Young Republicans, then the National Young Republicans, and finally to create a Goldwater movement in 1960 and beyond.

And so, with almost Blitzkrieg swiftness, by the early 1960s, the new global crusading conservative movement, transformed and headed by Bill Buckley, was almost ready to take power in America. But not quite, because first, all the various heretics of the right, some left over from the original right, all the groups that were in any way radical or could deprive the new conservative movement of its much-desired respectability in the eyes of the liberal and centrist elite, all these had to be jettisoned. Only such a denatured, respectable, non-radical conserving right was worthy of power.

And so the purges began. One after another, Buckley and National Review purged and excommunicated all the radicals, all the non-respectables. Consider the roll-call: isolationists (such as John T. Flynn), anti-Zionists, libertarians, Ayn Randians, the John Birch Society, and all those who continued, like the early National Review, to dare to oppose Martin Luther King and the civil rights revolution after Buckley had changed and decided to embrace it. But if, by the middle and late 1960s, Buckley had purged the conservative movement of the genuine right, he also hastened to embrace any group that proclaimed its hard anti-communism, or rather anti-Sovietism or anti-Stalinism.

And of course the first anti-Stalinists were the devotees of the martyred communist Leon Trotsky. And so the conservative movement, while purging itself of genuine right-wingers, was happy to embrace anyone, any variety of Marxist: Trotskyites, Schachtmanites, Mensheviks, social democrats (such as grouped around the magazine The New Leader), Lovestonite theoreticians of the American Federation of Labor, extreme right-wing Marxists like the incredibly beloved Sidney Hook, anyone who could present not anti-socialist but suitably anti-Soviet, anti-Stalinist credentials.

The way was then paved for the final, fateful influx: that of the ex-Trotskyite, right-wing social democrat, democrat capitalist, Truman-Humphrey-Scoop Jackson liberals, displaced from their home in the Democratic party by the loony left that we know so well: the feminist, deconstructing, quota-loving, advanced victimological left. And also, we should point out, at least a semi-isolationist, semi anti-war left. These displaced people are, of course, the famed neoconservatives, a tiny but ubiquitous group with Bill Buckley as their aging figurehead, now dominating the conservative movement. Of the 35 neoconservatives, 34 seem to be syndicated columnists.

And so the neocons have managed to establish themselves as the only right-wing alternative to the left. The neocons now constitute the right-wing end of the ideological spectrum. Of the respectable, responsible right wing, that is. For the neocons have managed to establish the notion that anyone who might be to the right of them is, by definition, a representative of the forces of darkness, of chaos, old night, racism, and anti-Semitism. At the very least.

And for the record, MLK is still a fraud, even if he has a huge statue in D.C. :) The Neocons can eat my shorts!

Despite losing the war, we've never gone away and this pisses them off to no end:


The original right, the radical right, had pretty much disappeared by the time of the second edition of the Bell volume in 1963, and in a minute we shall see why. But now, all of a sudden, with the entry of Pat Buchanan into the presidential race, my God, they're back! The radical right is back, all over the place, feistier than ever and getting stronger!


The response to this historic phenomenon, by the entire spectrum of established and correct thought, by all the elites from left over to official conservatives and neoconservatives, is very much like the reaction to the return of Godzilla in the old movies. And wouldn't you know that they would trot out the old psychobabble, as well as the old smears of bigotry, anti-Semitism, the specter of Franco, and all the rest? Every interview with, and article on Pat, dredges his "authoritarian Catholic" background (ooh!) and the fact that he fought a lot when he was a kid (gee whiz, like most of the American male population).

Also: that Pat has been angry a lot. Ooh, anger! And of course, since Pat is not only a right-winger but hails from a designated oppressor group (White Male Irish Catholic), his anger can never be righteous rage, but only a reflection of a paranoid, status-anxious personality, filled with, you got it, "resentment." And sure enough, this week, January 13, the august New York Times, whose every word, unlike the words of the rest of us, is fit to print, in its lead editorial sets the establishment line, a line which by definition is fixed in concrete, on Pat Buchanan.

After deploring the hard-edged and therefore politically incorrect vocabulary (tsk, tsk!) of Pat Buchanan, the New York Times, I am sure for the first time, solemnly quotes Bill Buckley as if his words were holy writ (and I'll get to that in a minute), and therefore decides that Buchanan, if not actually anti-Semitic, has said anti-Semitic things. And the Times concludes with this final punchline, so reminiscent of the Bell-Hofstadter line of yesteryear: "What his words convey, much as his bid for the nomination conveys, is the politics, the dangerous politics, of resentment."

Resentment! Why should anyone, in his right mind, resent contemporary America? Why should anyone, for example, going out into the streets of Washington or New York, resent what is surely going to happen to him? But, for heaven's sake, what person in his right mind, doesn't resent it? What person is not filled with noble rage, or ignoble resentment, or whatever you choose to call it?

Finally, I want to turn to the question: what happened to the original right, anyway? And how did the conservative movement get into its present mess? Why does it need to be sundered, and split apart, and a new radical right movement created upon its ashes?

Occam's Banana
11-24-2011, 01:24 AM
scourge, noun: a person or thing that applies or administers punishment or severe criticism.
Break out the cat-o-nine-tails! A thorough scourging is just what the Republican party needs - let's flay off all the dead, rotting flesh (aka, "the Establishment").

Sematary
11-24-2011, 01:31 AM
I will vote ONLY for Ron Paul

FreedomProsperityPeace
11-24-2011, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by Eric Golub
"If Ron Paul supporters will vote for Ron Paul and nobody else, then get lost. Nobody needs you. Your candidate is the fringe, and you remain a scourge."If that's true, then why are hosts always asking Dr. Paul about a 3rd party run, and if he'll endorse another Republican nominee? The answer is they're terrified, because they know this "scourge" has the power to hand them another defeat.

Sematary
11-24-2011, 02:11 AM
If that's true, then why are hosts always asking Dr. Paul about a 3rd party run, and if he'll endorse another Republican nominee? The answer is they're terrified, because they know this "scourge" has the power to hand them another defeat.

ONLY Ron Paul in 2012. Third party or NO party. ONLY Ron Paul in 2012

ryanmkeisling
11-24-2011, 02:15 AM
The Republican party is a scourge on America. So is the Democratic party.


Go fuck yourself.

This^^^ + rep NO ONE BUT PAUL!

DamianTV
11-24-2011, 02:53 AM
Many of those people are in the GOP, you know. I am one of them.

I am too. We all are. A person doesnt have to be registered as a Republican to be for Liberty. I was talking about the people at the very top of the GOP, not us, not the politicial frontrunners, the banksters that fund are the ones I have a beef with, and I think the rest of the 99% do as well.

---


I like that quote--yours?

Nope. Not sure where it came from, but you can have it if you'd like! :P

---


stop saying lol

lol

+Lol, I mean +Rep!

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

anaconda
11-24-2011, 03:52 AM
My blog response here at RPF to an article from the Washington Times on how us Ron Paul supporters are now 'a scourge on the Republican party'.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?474-Ron-Paul-Supporters-are-a-Scourge-on-the-Republican-Party

Enjoy.

Terrific! Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to write this and submit it! You are a fine writer.

Cabal
11-24-2011, 04:02 AM
I don't give a shit about taking over the Republican party, quite frankly. Similarly, I don't give a shit about the circus known as partisan politics in general.

Sentient Void
11-24-2011, 09:52 AM
I don't give a shit about taking over the Republican party, quite frankly. Similarly, I don't give a shit about the circus known as partisan politics in general.

Electoral politics, changing the republican party, etc - IMO are all tools to be utilized in the toolbox of advancing liberty.

acptulsa
11-24-2011, 09:56 AM
Electoral politics, changing the republican party, etc - IMO are all tools to be utilized in the toolbox of advancing liberty.

This. When you find yourself on a football field, and you really, really want to get to the end zone, try to get a first down. What else is there?

We are where we are, and the only way to get to where we need to be is to do what we have to do to get down the paths that are available to us.

kylejack
11-24-2011, 09:57 AM
Washington Times is run by a cult. No worries.