Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP — And It's Driving People Insane

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
This pattern of pandering to racists is appalling and in fact it continues in his pandering to neoconfederates with his nonsense speechifying and falsification of history.

I was going to ask you exactly when Ron Paul has "Falsified History"... but then I realized that it's best not to feed the trolls, as they will always be hungry for more.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Lew Rockwell?

I remember hearing about him from a fringe poster on another forum. Also the first time I had heard of Ron Paul.

reply to post by spacekc929


My personal preferrence for Ron Paul this election season is not the small government angle but his social libertarian views and a champion for personal liberty. If Dennis Kucinich were running against Paul I might be somewhat pressed as to who I favor as he is another one, and one of the very few, who is not a complete sell-out either. There was a thread some time back about how a Paul/Kucinich ticket would be a great thing to see. Many here agreed even if we were not 100% in agreement with either of the two candidates there was a good deal of respect for them both, and there seems to be some public statements that indicate they feel the same for each other.

I'm not sure if you read the post I was replying to. They were obviously trolling by the kind of statements used in their post, adding nothing of substance to the thread or even offering an insight to their choice among the contenders. Ron Pauls or non-Pauls, they give all the voice here in these elections forums, I just prefer the more positive and constructive voices. Thank you for your response, and I mean that sincerely. -Eron

reply to post by Monts


Here you go... Ron Paul talking a very long line of BS. PS this load of horsepuckey comes straight from the neo-con* friendly "Mises Institute" a fringe propaganda outfit from Auburn, Alabama.




It's BS from beginning to end. He starts off lying by claiming that slavery was not the main issue that prompted the civil war. If you want an education on this just read some of the Declarations of Causes. Four of the States explained in no uncertain terms that it really was pretty much all about slavery, and its extension into the new territories of the southwest and west.

Then he winds up with this tired old canard about peaceful solutions to the problem, including by legislation. Well the funny part of it is that that's exactly what might have happened if the Southern states hadn't attacked fort Sumpter!!! The war was started to prevent just such an event. It was the south that chose secession and war over a peaceful elimination of slavery.

He gave this bs speech in 2003, pandering to those who long for a vanished past. I have no patience for this BS.


*neo-confederate, that is. Yuk, Yuk.

reply to post by trust_no_one


Doesn't Canada have enough problems of your own to deal with...ehh...?

Sniper

reply to post by The Sword


Sure, Lew Rockwell. He has an ugly website and helped set up the Mises Institute with Murray Rothbard.

He makes the rounds on rightwing talk radio where he can, so you might here him on a local libertarian leaning station.

He was also an aide to Ron Paul in his 78-82 congressional term, and worked with him on projects since then, including the newsletter.

These guys all subscribe to a nasty ideology, promoted by the Mises Institute, called Anarcho-Capitalism, which rejects all government. When you hear these guys denouncing the wars that this country is fighting, it's not because they abhor war, per se. Rather, they object to war because it is typically engaged in by Governments. You can hear a little of this in Ron Paul's delusional call for the Government to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Al Qaeda. Their theory is that if war were waged only for profit, it would be done much better, and more efficiently, which would lead to less death and misery. Personally, I see no reason to believe this crap.
.
.

.
.
.
On to some helpful links that support Lew Rockwell as the author

More mainstream libertarians think that Rockwell and Rothbard tag-teamed the newsletters.

Even the Daily Paul thinks it was Rockwell.

Here is Steve Horwitz, a longtime libertarian explaining the situation, how he knows about it, and why it is embarassing for libertarians.

I'm well read on the issue of the newsletters and RP's seedy connections generally. Yeah, the only legitimate way to interpret these events is that the newsletters and other fundraisers were being written for quite a while with the explicit aim of appealing to bigots. It's not likely that Ron Paul had no knowledge of what was going on. If he didn't then he's not competent to run a newsletter, let alone a country. If he did then he's a contemptible human being unfit for high office.

Thankfully, he is soon to retire.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


I don't listen to talk radio.

If there's no guitars, bass and drum involved, I don't tend to listen.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


What you're talking about minor and very unimportant today. What is most important is our country is bankrupt, and Ron Paul is the only candidate wanting to cut spending.

Romney is already comfortably in the #1 spot at this point...I'm as optimistic as the next guy but its pretty much over for Paul now.

If you ask me I never thought it was going to go anywhere but I did hope at least the message would get heard by more individuals while we still had the chance...its not going to be allowed for someone to actually shake the script up on the greatest reality show right now, better off stick with Romney right now and maybe in 2016 or sooner we will need to be making some "bigger" decisions with some better Republican candidates in the field by that time.

reply to post by baalbuster


Mr Sheep, Ron Paul my not have much chance of winning, but Romney has less that half as much chance.

reply to post by baalbuster


Just can't see myself doing that. Tell me something sweet about Rmoney. That (R) after his name is not compelling enough to throw him my support. I'm a social libertarian above all and no one other than Paul is on that. At least Obama, for the most part, has kept the federal government out of the states' medical mj matters. Republicans tend to make that a priority to meddle with.

I'm with Paul until the fat lady sings in November. I'll write him in on my expat absentee ballot if that's my last option.

reply to post by baalbuster


What kind of shill talk is this? Only someone trying to steer public opinion in political threads away from Ron Paul would write such drivel. Ron Paul will win...unless the GOP wants four more years of Obama, which you and your two week membership sound quite comfortable with.

It is our duty to take time to vote for the right person, no matter how fantasy minded it is. Ron Paul is that person. It sounds to me what you are hoping for is to stop people from voting Ron Paul. If the system is so "rigged", why even push Romney as you so handsomely do?

Vote Ron Paul and vote often!

Originally posted by Monts

Originally posted by mileysubet
I have a question as a RP supporter. If RP does not get the GOP nomination or isn't on the ballot, can I still write him in, and will it be as effective as if he was on the ballot in the first place. Please forgive my ignorance, but it has been 8 years since I have last voted and am not sure of the rules.

I believe it's actually illegal to write-in names on a ballot (well at least it is here in Canada)

Regardless, I think most voting in the US is electronic now so it wouldn't matter anyways

if voting is electronic , cant we just get anonymous to let Ron paul take the win !

Originally posted by Monts

By now, it is clear that the Maine caucuses were a complete mess.

Evidence is mounting that Mitt Romney's 194-vote victory over Ron Paul was prematurely announced, if not totally wrong. Washington County canceled their caucus on Saturday on account of three inches of snow (hardly a blizzard by Maine standards), and other towns that scheduled their caucuses for this week have been left out of the vote count. Now, it looks like caucuses that did take place before Feb. 11 have also been left out of final tally.

As the full extent of the chaos unfolds, sources close to the Paul campaign tell Business Insider that it is looking increasingly like Romney's team might have a hand in denying Paul votes, noting that Romney has some admirably ruthless operatives on his side and a powerful incentive to avoid a fifth caucus loss this month.

www.businessinsider.com...


Interesting article from Buisness Insider.

I can't see the coming months as being anything but a lose-lose situation for the anti-Paul GOP establishment- people who support Ron Paul never change their mind, his numbers are growing, and without doubt the blatant voter fraud that is now clearly evident is going to nothing but create rage among voters and rally his supporters.

If Paul isn't the nominee, I think it's pretty much fair to say Obama will win.

Even though I'm from Canada, I can't help but cheer on Ron Paul and give his supporters all the support I can, as I feel he is a threat to the establishment that not only rules the US, but most of the western world as well.

edit on 15/2/1212 by Monts because: (no reason given)

www.youtube.com...

OP, I couldn't help but laugh at your title. Yes indeedy, if Paul is taking over the GOP he most certainly IS keeping it a secret. A big one. Nobody seems to know it but you and a few others, the secret is so well kept.

I wonder when he loses this most courageous effort to win the Presidency, if you guys, who are now known as "Ron Paul Cult Followers", will ever accept that he lost because not enough people voted for him?

Outside of ATS, I never even hear anybody speak his name when talking about politics. If I then say "what about Ron Paul?", someone will usually smile and say something to the effect of," yeah he seems like a nice guy, and doesn't he have a huge cult following of college students?"

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Monts

 

The caucus in Maine was and is meaningless. It nets no Delegates. It's just a barometer reading. That's why there is no reason to add the handful of votes that would likely not change the percentage in a meaningful way anyway.

If your interested you should read up on how the Primary process works and how our elections work.

You may want to read up on psychology, or perhaps just pay attention to what's going on in front of your eyes. Whatever flavor of the week that the Republicans or Democrats put in front of the sheeple attracts voters like flies on feces. Every time a candidate wins a poll, every time he wins a vote, every time he gets the most exposure, he gains more support because unfortunately most voters are too stupid or lazy to do the work required to make an informed decision. Much like they believe that Mommy Government knows what's best for them, they believe that Daddy Media is the smartest guy in the room.

If this weren't true then the media would have no problem giving Paul equal air time in the debates, and CNN, FOX, and MSNBC wouldn't have self-righteous smirks on their faces whenever they speak about him. Whether they like it or not, Ron Paul is a serious candidate, and that is just destroying them inside.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


What?

You DO realize that the Civil war was started over other things...slavery WAS NOT what started the Civil War...this is a historical fact that...the lame stream media and historical manipulation has changed what people think but the facts are what they are. Lincoln seized on the Northern distaste for slavery as a means to draw in support of the war effort against the rebellion. Please, for the love of true history...do some research. Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Yes slavery was bad...everyone in the north knew that...but that is not what the civil war was started over...

That being said...

All in all...of the Republican candidates up for nomination...I like RP the best. I voted for him in 08 because I am a Libertarian. I believe in small government and big freedom...but that's just my opinion. I don't agree with everything in RP's platform and many things he touts will never get off the ground...pipe dreams...to say it bluntly. BUT...at least he has stood his ground for years...he has been a beacon of unwavering perspective...his opinions today are basically what they have always been and I respect that and the tenacity it must take to hold that kind of view in a city like DC.

Originally posted by Damrod
...slavery WAS NOT what started the Civil War...this is a historical fact that...the lame stream media and historical manipulation has changed what people think but the facts are what they are. Lincoln seized on the Northern distaste for slavery as a means to draw in support of the war effort against the rebellion. Please, for the love of true history...do some research. Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Yes slavery was bad...everyone in the north knew that...but that is not what the civil war was started over...

I provided evidence in my post that according to every state that bothered to list their the reasons for secession, Slavery was far and away the prominent reason. That proves it right there. According to the southern state governments themselves, It was all about slavery.

This fantasy that you share with Ron Paul that somehow Lincoln seized on Northern anti-slavery sentiment to start the war is silly. Primarily because the war was started by the South! And the secessionists overwhelmingly stated that the war was to preserve and extend slavery into the western territories.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Your ignorance is amazing. Slavery was an issue, not because the north opposed it. The north felt that the 3/5ths rule gave the south an unfair advantage in the government. Abolitionists were a small minority with no say in the government. Lincoln, who was a racist no doubt, didn't carry a single southern state in 1860 so the south was worried that his policies would favor the north because they voted him in office hence the secession which almost everyone(except Lincoln) believed they had a right to do. Also taxation without representation was an issue. The event at Fort Sumter that 'started' the war was made to demonize the south and spread the pro-war propaganda for the north.

When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued it didn't free a single man. The north was so upset by the order because they DID NOT want to fight to free slaves that 10s of thousands deserted the union. The war was about state rights vs the federal government and the federal government won. Slavery was ended but in such a terrible way that we still have a racial divide here in the US. Countries all over the world ended slavery peacefully and with less lasting racial tensions that we have in the US.

The civil war preserved the union but destroyed the Republic. Ron Paul and his supporters want our Republic back.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


You call Dr. Paul a neoCon but almost all my educated African American friends support him much more than Obama. They also realize that the civil war was not a war fought to end slavery.

Sorry to say my friend but you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. There is still hope for you.