Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
The Ron Paul epiphany

Posted: September 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Vox Day


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57545



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

Judging by the sounds of the laughter of the other Republican candidates directed at their rival, Ron Paul has now reached the second of Mohandas K. Ghandi's four stages. It is still unlikely that he will win the nomination of a party which has proven it doesn't deserve him, but it is far less unlikely than it was back when Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were still considered "electable" by most political observers. The candidates, never a particularly bright lot, may be laughing, but as the neocons and party leaders turn to Fred Thompson in desperation, more intelligent observers are not.

Why is there so much cheering for Ron Paul?
– Andy McCarthy, National Review, Sept. 5, 2007





The reason there is so much cheering for Ron Paul is that he is the only Republican who has staked out popular positions on the two most significant issues of the 2008 election cycle. He is anti-occupation and pro-border control. No amount of Bush administration spin is going to change the fact that "the surge" is strategically irrelevant, that the neocon's Democratic World Revolution is a total failure and that Mexico is being allowed to invade the United States. In short, Ron Paul is the only Republican whose positions on the two primary issues are different than Hillary Clinton's stance on them, and, more importantly, are more credible and more popular than Hillary Clinton's. He is the only Republican whose nomination can realistically be considered a potential impediment to what otherwise looks like a Democratic landslide.

The Gay Old Party's leadership, which is far more interested in propositioning interns and policemen than the Constitution, hates Ron Paul and quite rightly feels threatened by him. But their incessant spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding his candidacy is no more believable than a Microsoft treatise on Linux. In fact, I surmise that most of the top Republicans would prefer a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency to a Paul one. This may be why they have drafted the sluggish, uncharismatic Thompson; Giuliani, Romney and McCain are so obviously unelectable that none of them can even manage to put themselves in a position to get run over by Hillary in November.


When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.
– Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2007




What's going on is the same as in 1976 and 1980, the Republican peasantry is rebelling against the choices that their lords and masters have laid before them. This is not merely a threat to the Republican leadership, but to the very concept of the bifactional ruling party that rules America in a "bipartisan" spirit. Ron Paul threatens the notion of politics as a team sport; his focus on actual constitutional principles makes him equally appealing to anti-occupation, pro-border Democrats as to anti-occupation, pro-border Republicans. That's why he is the only candidate in either party whose support ranges from devout Christian conservatives to gay, peacenik Ralph Nader fans.

Between now and November 2008, many Americans will experience the Ron Paul epiphany, in which the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will suddenly realize that they do not want the nation to continue in the direction that George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Hussein Osama and Rudy McRomney all intend on taking it. At this point, a 1976 scenario looks far more likely than a 1980 one, but then, few pundits thought Ron Paul would still require consideration at this point in the campaign.

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the forseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one. There is no significant difference between President Bush and Sen. Clinton, or between Sen. Thompson and Sen. Obama. If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Ron Paul got his butt whupped by Mike Huckabee in the Durham, NH debate and looked like an idiot on OReilly tonight. Apparently Paul wants to "defend the United States" - but only when al Queda or the Iranians lay siege to the Alamo. He wouldn't, for example, have attacked al Queda in Afghanistan after 9/11!

Just not a serious contender, and not in touch with reality, at least not since December 7, 1941 when the price for isolation became to high to accept.

Paul's nailed his flag to the isolationist, pacifist mast and is going down with that ship along with MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
...and later said he wouldn't have voted for it if he knew blah blah blah, just like Kerry, Clinton, eect...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Finish the thought, ret Marine...

Paul reminded O'Reilly he objected to the way Bush took his eyes of the objective (Osama WHO?) and diverted manpower and other resources from the hunt for al-Qaeda in order to invade a country that had NOT attacked us.

Remember?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Every time Ron Paul gets asked a direct question about fighting a foreign war he evades, squirms around, and tries to switch the topic.
IMHO he only voted for Afghanistan because he'd have been out of office in the next election if he didn't. Now, of course, he's against it.
Face it, DT. He's scum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,675 Posts
I have a hard time trusting anyone with Two first names.

Besides that,Try this; say outloud-President Paul............Sounds as stupid as president Putin.It is all in the name.:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Finish the thought, ret Marine...

Paul reminded O'Reilly he objected to the way Bush took his eyes of the objective (Osama WHO?) and diverted manpower and other resources from the hunt for al-Qaeda in order to invade a country that had NOT attacked us.

Remember?

I think you have your tinfoil helmet wrapped too tight.

If you care to remember there were indeed training activities and terrorists in Iraq.

One of the immediate reasons for "invading" had a lot more to do with our ground troops being attacked by insurgents whom were using Iraq as a shield.

Another important one was continued defied U.N. resolutions.

Yet another was Saddam's and Iraqi official claims to having WMD's and support for anything anti America.

If someone wants to make that claim in times of war and has any possibility of possessing those things it immediately becomes necessary to have an intervention.

You may have to resort to vintage hard copies of your favorite lefty rags to find this information in case your memory is too short to remember this fact.

(These publications usually delete information like that in their online journals, makes it easier to pretend it was never written and never happened that way.)

It is unfortunate that in our modern political system we have to spend so much time trying to appease people like you. (who complain about all matters of things that you know nothing about and don't really care to know anything outside of your assumptions)
It is likely that if we would have intervened several months earlier (when we observed heavy trucks moving cargo into Syria) there would be less WMD's floating around out there.

As it is there have been gas weapons (these are WMD's) that have been used against coalition forces by terrorists)

Yes, they were Iraqi gas weapons.

There are many more out there somewhere either buried in the sand or across the border.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,319 Posts
The Ron Paul epiphany

Posted: September 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Vox Day


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57545



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

Judging by the sounds of the laughter of the other Republican candidates directed at their rival, Ron Paul has now reached the second of Mohandas K. Ghandi's four stages. It is still unlikely that he will win the nomination of a party which has proven it doesn't deserve him, but it is far less unlikely than it was back when Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were still considered "electable" by most political observers. The candidates, never a particularly bright lot, may be laughing, but as the neocons and party leaders turn to Fred Thompson in desperation, more intelligent observers are not.



– Andy McCarthy, National Review, Sept. 5, 2007





The reason there is so much cheering for Ron Paul is that he is the only Republican who has staked out popular positions on the two most significant issues of the 2008 election cycle. He is anti-occupation and pro-border control. No amount of Bush administration spin is going to change the fact that "the surge" is strategically irrelevant, that the neocon's Democratic World Revolution is a total failure and that Mexico is being allowed to invade the United States. In short, Ron Paul is the only Republican whose positions on the two primary issues are different than Hillary Clinton's stance on them, and, more importantly, are more credible and more popular than Hillary Clinton's. He is the only Republican whose nomination can realistically be considered a potential impediment to what otherwise looks like a Democratic landslide.

The Gay Old Party's leadership, which is far more interested in propositioning interns and policemen than the Constitution, hates Ron Paul and quite rightly feels threatened by him. But their incessant spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding his candidacy is no more believable than a Microsoft treatise on Linux. In fact, I surmise that most of the top Republicans would prefer a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency to a Paul one. This may be why they have drafted the sluggish, uncharismatic Thompson; Giuliani, Romney and McCain are so obviously unelectable that none of them can even manage to put themselves in a position to get run over by Hillary in November.




– Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2007




What's going on is the same as in 1976 and 1980, the Republican peasantry is rebelling against the choices that their lords and masters have laid before them. This is not merely a threat to the Republican leadership, but to the very concept of the bifactional ruling party that rules America in a "bipartisan" spirit. Ron Paul threatens the notion of politics as a team sport; his focus on actual constitutional principles makes him equally appealing to anti-occupation, pro-border Democrats as to anti-occupation, pro-border Republicans. That's why he is the only candidate in either party whose support ranges from devout Christian conservatives to gay, peacenik Ralph Nader fans.

Between now and November 2008, many Americans will experience the Ron Paul epiphany, in which the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will suddenly realize that they do not want the nation to continue in the direction that George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Hussein Osama and Rudy McRomney all intend on taking it. At this point, a 1976 scenario looks far more likely than a 1980 one, but then, few pundits thought Ron Paul would still require consideration at this point in the campaign.

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the forseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one. There is no significant difference between President Bush and Sen. Clinton, or between Sen. Thompson and Sen. Obama. If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
It is unfortunate that in our modern political system we have to spend so much time trying to appease people like you.
Comrades Kim, Fidel and Hu certainly know how to handle dissenters, perhaps you'd feel less "unfortunate" living someplace where those who question the Party Line get "disappeared". On the other hand, you could just stick around until the Lizard Queen beats Rudy McThompsaRomnaHuntaHuckaBush and designates anyone who won't register their guns as an "enemy combatant".


It is likely that if we would have intervened several months earlier (when we observed heavy trucks moving cargo into Syria) there would be less WMD's floating around out there.

Bush's Dogged, Unflappable 28%- Making Their Own Reality Since 2003....




As it is there have been gas weapons (these are WMD's) that have been used against coalition forces by terrorists)

Yes, they were Iraqi gas weapons.
If you count a long-expired dud left over from the 1980s Iran/Iraq war (the shithead who set the bomb likely didn't even know that's what it was). Classic liberal tactic- if you're program's a failure, just redefine success.


Speaking of liberal tactics, who could forget this classic, in use since at least the New Deal:


"If it’s going well, we need to continue it. If it isn’t working... well, that just proves we need to pour even MORE resources down that bottomless hole until it DOES work!"


Ret Marine, jjk308, Sukey, et al, bless their hearts, would never accept that sort of “logic” in regards to any domestic government boondoggle, but they'll swallow it hook, line and sinker when it comes to a war....


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
The following has been mined from Animal Mothers post:

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the forseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one. There is no significant difference between President Bush and Sen. Clinton, or between Sen. Thompson and Sen. Obama. If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.

My question is: How many political parties besides the Dems have failed to realize that they are not going to be running against President Bush?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
I would respond directly to Dirty's twist on reality, but since it was so poorly written and exposes so much ignorance in general; I will have to let it stand as is and laugh.

Fear, loathing, resentment, lust, envy, blah, blah, blah.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
I watched about 2 minutes of Ron Paul all I can say
is he's a IDIOT . Not worth my efforts of typing .
Just have to wonder the mentality of those who'd vote for him ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
I'd prefer Mike Huckabee (AR Gov.), but since he's a staunch conservative, not to mention a Baptist preacher, he's simply un-electable by this country. Fred is my close second choice.

Either way, RP got slapped silly in the NH debate by a lowly Arkansan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
I wouldn't say that.

The silent majority that does the voting may be ready for something like that.

The past several elections have proven the networks and their mysterious polls wrong.

The simple reason why is that the networks were trying to determine the outcomes based on what they wished for instead of what was really going on.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top