List of analysts and celebrities in support of Ron Paul grows
Robert Novak is a recent addition to the growing list of analysts and celebrities who support a Ron Paul presidency. Among those who like Ron Paul’s message of freedom as well as a unique alternative to a Republican field chock full of pro-war candidates:
MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson wants Ron Paul to give Freedom Tutorials on his show
Daily Show’s Jon Stewart respects Ron Paul’s consistency and integrity
Colbert Report’s Stephen Colbert
Singer Barry Manilow recently donated money to Ron Paul’s campaign
On MSNBC’s Tucker
We saw these FEC reports, including those from your campaign, and were amazed to learn that Barry Manilow has given to your campaign.
Do you know Barry Manilow?”
Paul responded: “No, I do not. I was very pleased to find that out.”
Asked if he was a fan of Manilow’s music, Paul said: “I really like it now, I will tell you that.”
Bill Maher
Andrew Napolitano
Mark Cuban
Michael Badnarik
Chuck Baldwin
Aaron Russo
Barry Goldwater, Jr.
Steve Kubby
The Economist has also noted Ron Paul’s growing popularity.
Others who have commented positively on Ron Paul’s candidacy are:
Andrew Sullivan
Pat Buchanan
As an interesting note, libertarian John Stossel believes Ron Paul is not entertaining enough to win votes, but FOX News correspondents and Duncan Hunter seem to believe he is very entertaining.
And just for fun, a few notable historical figures who would most likely endorse Ron Paul:
Lord Acton (1834-1902)
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
John T. Flynn (1882-1964)
F.A. Harper (1905-1973)
Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992)
Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
Patrick Henry (1736-1799)
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Rose Wilder Lane (1886-1968)
Lao Tzu (600 BC?)
Robert LeFevre (1911–1986)
John Locke (1632-1704)
George Mason (1725-1792)
H.L. Mencken (1880–1956)
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)
Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945)
Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943)
James Otis (1725-1783)
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Lane Isabel Paterson (1886-1960)
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Leonard Read (1898-1983)
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
Modern-day academics and relatively obscure but notable supporters were not included.
Google also treated Ron Paul like a legend during his visit to Google Headquarters and asked him more questions than any other presidential candidate who has been interviewed there before.
Sources: Historical figures adapted from Advocates for Self-Government. For a more complete continually updated list of endorsements see Wikipedia.
Share This
Comment by Hope | August 1st, 2007
Ron Paul has a good chance of winning. The old media is just too slow to realize what is happening.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” - Gandhi.
Join the Revolution — Restore the Republic — Save the Constitution!
Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget
He never voted for the Iraq War
He voted against the Patriot Act
He voted against regulating the Internet
Ron Paul is the only candidate not owned by special interest, big business, banks, military-industrial-complex, etc. Fight the system and vote Ron Paul. And tell everyone you know. Time to set ourselves free.
Ron Paul is 1st on YouTube, Meetup, MySpace, Technorati, Alexa, Google, etc.
Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey.
Dr. Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel and veterans above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were doing about the same in the ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage in their elections. ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage only measure name recognition. Over the next six months Ron Paul will gain name recognition. Most people who learn about Ron Paul become major supporters.
70% of Americans want us out of Iraq and want change.
Ron Paul is only republican candidate against the war.
Ron Paul only needs about 30% vote from republicans sick of the war and abuse of powers to win in republican primaries.
Dr. Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.
Smaller Government = More Freedom
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams
We are making history — Vote Ron Paul!
Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more…
Comment by Mildred Eselin | August 1st, 2007
I will register as Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul.
(From a former Republican currently registered as independent)
Comment by Joe Davidson | August 1st, 2007
I don’t think Ron Paul is unknown anymore. I think this high-profile endorsement can shine the spotlight on him.
Comment by Favela Cranshaw | August 2nd, 2007
You must be kidding. Ayn Rand would have no use for Ron Paul. And you should quit slinging it.
Comment by eaglescout | August 2nd, 2007
Do you think Ayn Rand would endorse any other 2008 candidate over Ron Paul? While objectivism is not libertarianism, libertarianism is influenced by objectivism. I admit I am not currently familiar with all of Rand’s works, but concepts such as non-initiation of force, private property, etc… are commonalities between the two ideologies. Because you are the expert on Ayn Rand, and I am not, if you explain in more detail why Ayn Rand “would have no use for Ron Paul”, I could be persuaded to strike her name from the list of hypothetical endorsements and refrain from doing so in the future.
Comment by Richard | August 2nd, 2007
Lao Tzu would totally have voted for Ron Paul, given the chance.
Comment by Richard | August 2nd, 2007
I can say that with full confidence that because I read and follow the Tao Te Ching, and I vote for Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul will do, accept no substitutes!
Comment by Hope | August 2nd, 2007
Here are Ron Paul historical analogies:
Ron Paul is the classic Philosopher King as described in Plato’s Republic.
Ron Paul is the intelligent thoughtful Claudius after the insane evil Caligula and Tiberius.
Ron Paul is the principled Thomas Jefferson repealing and eliminating the abusive and unconstitutional Sedition Acts.
Ron Paul is the peaceful, patient, persistent Gandhi.
Ron Paul is the insightful Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.
Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.
Comment by Godwhacker | August 2nd, 2007
I’m a bit of a Rand expert myself, and although she has some philosophical differences with Paul, I imagine that she would be horrified by the rest of the field. I think you can comfortably keep her name on the list.
Comment by FreeLuna | August 3rd, 2007
I consider myself a Rand expert, so I have to weigh in.
I think she would endorse him in this race for the same reasons - and with the same reservations - as she endorsed Goldwater. She had absolutely no use for libertarians (small or big ‘L’), but he’s running as a Republican this time. I think that is what would make him provisionally acceptable even if only as an expedient.
For all his sincerity he really is extremely weak on foreign policy. I doubt that would be the big issue for her, though. I think she’d be much more concerned over his position on abortion. Why? Because that’s the plank of his platform where what he says he believes personally contradicts what he says he would do as President. It’s a symptom of a more fundamental philosophical break, and the exact kind of thing Rand would home in on to get to the essence of where a person *really* stands, philosophically.
If she didn’t like Ron Paul, I’m confident she would abstain altogether.
Pingback by Peter Schiff endorses Ron Paul « disinter | August 4th, 2007
[…] endorsements here and here. Posted by disinter Filed in Presidential Candidates, 2008 Convention, Ron Paul, […]
Comment by libhomo | August 4th, 2007
Robert Novak committed treason when he revealed Valerie Plame’s identity, revealing an undercover CIA operation monitoring WMDs in the process.
Why would anyone want an endorsement from a traitor like Novak?
Comment by BoruJudasDedrich | August 9th, 2007
Please. I love Ayn Rand’s literature, but Rand, herself, was an avid self-promoter. I don’t think she supported anyone else ever. She ’shrugged’ her religion, her country, her health, her relationships, everyone and everything…she shrugged everything except her career.
What was the *intention* of her work? To help people help themselves…or to become an authority figure…to have followers…not just to have people agree with her. She, like L Ron (yes, I said L Ron), wrote for the *intention* of creating a cult following.
How do I know? ALL SELF-ABSORBED CULT-LEADER WANNABES HATE HOMOSEXUALS. THEY REJECT ANYTHING THEY AREN’T SURE THEY CAN CONTROL. The last thing an alpha dog wants is to feel or look weird due to some sexual advance. Rand sure could slam any man that went after her, but not women. In fact, when you see Rand interact with women, you can almost see her seething in hatred of them. Her life and writings both indicate she probaby had a penis-envy complex. Yeah, Rand shoved a couple gays in her pocket, but she kept them in the closet…under control.
I love her works and grew a lot because of them, but her life’s ambition was horrid.
Comment by BoruJudasDedrich | August 9th, 2007
Who would like to see Pat Buchanan as RP’s VP?
Comment by spacemonkey | August 13th, 2007
I think having a human running for VP with RP would give the ticket a nice balance.
Of course I’m speaking third party. He’s got no chance of winning the Republican party nomination.
But keep dreaming boys and girls.
Comment by Nancy | August 16th, 2007
I do not agree with alll Ron Paul statements. And likely I do not like all of his supporters. REST ASSURED THEY WOULDN’T like me. All of this is a large part of freedom.
Sticking with the facts in regard to our country. We are broke , our children our killed everyday in the middle east for someone else’s greedy purpose and we teach , encourage and reward foreign vistitors to break our laws right here at home.
Please refer to a 1993 National Geographic water resources map. Our neighbors to the south our well endowed with resources. There is no reason for them to be here rather than at home helping their own families. Keeping them here is no more than a criminal conspiracy on the part of our corrupt government.
I’m a lifelong female Democrat. I am changing parties to vote for Ron Paul. I hope that’s okay with you ……………
Ron Paul on the issues. He was asked on TV ” Would you stop a woman from crossing a state line to have an abortion and he said no. Read between the lines.
Would he stop an illegimate business from opening a phony business with a fishy out of state post of box from sending money across statelines ? Probably so. Would Mitt Romney ? Likely not. As a matter of fact , you might ask him where the money went. Your state may want some of the proceeds.
That’s as much as I’ll trouble myself, you don’t have a clue as to what I mean.
This advertisment says ” Is Jon Stewart fair ?” I wouldn’t have a clue. DON”T KNOW.
Good luck and every legal voter is allowed to vote as they please. That’s fair.
Comment by Nikos Leverenz | August 18th, 2007
I don’t think that H.L. Mencken, who found it his duty as a journalist/critic not to find truck with any politician, would endorse Ron Paul — but he would almost surely compliment him (through a veil of heated criticism regarding the current political system sanctioned by the booboisie).
Pingback by Ron Paul Revolution: mainstream support grows… « Lila Rajiva: The Mind-Body Politic | August 20th, 2007
[…] Paul Revolution: mainstream support grows… The Spin Factor has a piece about the growing support for Ron Paul — Bob Novack among others. The list of […]
Pingback by Lila Rajiva: The Mind-Body Politic » Ron Paul Revolution: mainstream support grows… | August 20th, 2007
[…] Spin Factor has a piece about the growing support for Ron Paul — Bob Novack among others. The list of […]
Pingback by Ron Paul Revolution: mainstream support grows… : Lila Rajiva: The Mind-Body Politic | August 20th, 2007
[…] Spin Factor has a piece about the growing support for Ron Paul — Bob Novack among others. The list of […]
Comment by Joe Spenner | August 28th, 2007
After seeing the way Ron Paul was “orphaned” out of the Iowa
trial election, I have started making the following large signs:
RON PAUL
Comment by Joe Spenner | August 28th, 2007
AFTER SEEING THE RIP-OFF WAY RON PAUL, WAS “ORPHAND” OUT OF THE IOWA TRIAL VOTE GIMMICK, I HAVE STARTED MAKING SIGNS THAT SAY:
“RON PAUL, THE BEST OF ALL.”
THE MORE, THE BIGGER, THE MORE COLORFUL, EVERYWHERE!
RON PAUL
THE BEST OF ALL
FINALLY A REAL CONSTITUTIONAL STATESMAN!
Joe Spenner
Comment by verta | November 5th, 2007
People can NOT keep brushing the social security issue aside - it is downright ignorant. You will have thousands of homeless disabled and elderly if you ‘do away’ with it. Do you all think you will be young and strong forever? Are you honestly that short sighted? (I’m only 31 years old and NOT on govt assistance btw.)
People with family and friends who are in dire need of their disability need to speak up LOUDLY and OFTEN on the Ron Paul websites! You should be very afraid, this old man hasn’t a clue about disabled people, despite being a doctor! There are only so many positions for wal-mart door greeter for disabled people, those genuinely in need of SS/disability can’t do much else. And it COULD be any of us, anytime. Please take a step back and think about this even if it doesn’t impact you immediately.
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO WORK WILL NOT HAVE ANY MONEY. What then? He is opposed to state-assisted suicide… which would be the only way to avoid becoming homeless, for MANY of these people. No matter how young you are now, one day you, too WILL be elderly and in need of a social security program to take care of you. Pensions are weaker than ever before, and non-existant in many places today that they used to be commonplace. Please THINK.
Comment by paul | November 5th, 2007
Any friend of Barry Manilow is a friend of mine!!!!
Comment by mnakou | November 12th, 2007
I cant understand why anyone wouldnt vote for Ron Paul. Too many people decide to vote for who they think will win, rather than who they would like to win. It amazes me that people would be anti-Paul when I hear, constantly, the same people always whining about taxes and big government that abuses our freedoms. People who complain that they should be able to build what they want on their property without government telling them they cant- amonng SO many other issues that ALL of the other candidates stand for. Why is it that everyone is so brainwashed into thinking that we do not deserve the type of government that Ron Paul wishes for us to have. Granted, Paul may NOT be able to deliver on ALL of his promises, but it can get the ball rolling in the right direction. If for no other reason, people should vote for Ron Paul to send the government a message that is even more powerful than the polls. We can tell the polls what we want, but our votes never reflect what we say we want- lets do something for once and vote with our wishes, not with our belief in who WILL win. We arent placing bets on a team, we are electing a leader we can be proud of!
Comment by mcsjr333 | November 24th, 2007
We need more celeb’s to come forward in support of Ron Paul. It would give him more positive T.V. time and would spread the word to new audiences. But it takes courage because the establishment media would probably bash them or call to have them tasered.
Comment by Freddy | November 26th, 2007
mnakou says “It amazes me that people would be anti-Paul when I hear, constantly, the same people always whining about taxes and big government that abuses our freedoms.”
It amazes me that people would be PRO-Paul when I hear, constantly, the same people always whining about big government that abuses our freedoms.
Ron Paul abuses our reproductive freedoms. Ron Paul SAYS he supports leaving abortion rights to the states, but he votes for big government FEDERAL restrictions on abortion. Ron Paul TRAMPLES our rights so he can do the bidding of the religious right.
Ron Paul is a typical flip-flopping politician. Says one thing and does another.
Comment by Arizona Democrat | November 29th, 2007
I just changed my political party to Republican so I can vote for Ron. I don’t see why more people don’t see the honesty that RP brings to the table.
Revolution!
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 1st, 2007
reply to Comment by Freddy | November 26th, 2007 “Ron Paul is a typical flip-flopping politician. Says one thing and does another” I would like to know WHERE that info came from, was it fox news or Giuliani’s campaign strategist? I would like to see some sort of unfiltered info on the subject.
Comment by Freddy | December 1st, 2007
mcsjr333: “I would like to know WHERE that info came from, was it fox news or Giuliani’s campaign strategist? I would like to see some sort of unfiltered info on the subject.”
I know it sounds impossible that Ron Paul could actually have violated libertarian principles and violated his word to vote for big government FEDERAL restrictions on abortion. Bit if I can prove it, will you reject Ron Paul?
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 9th, 2007
With enouph research you can pull up dirt on any human ever to live. If you can prove it, that would still not be enouph to discredit the rest of the message, so no, I would continue to support him. For a politian, he still has a virtually dirt-free record. Compared to the rest of the line up, he sparkles. We also know that one man will never agree 100% with another. If you don’t agree with him on one topic, chances are you will on the next. All-in-all his message of freedom is agreeable, and I’m willing to take the good with the bad. For a little dirt to come up tells me that he is on the radar.
Comment by Freddy | December 9th, 2007
I said: “I know it sounds impossible that Ron Paul could actually have violated libertarian principles and violated his word to vote for big government FEDERAL restrictions on abortion. Bit if I can prove it, will you reject Ron Paul?”
mcsjr333 HAS NO FAITH IN RON PAUL. He is afraid to accept the challenge.
So, mcsjr333, you insist that Ron Paul’s VIOLATIONS OF HIS WORD AND PRINCIPLES could only come from liars like Fox News. But when challenged, you turn tail and run. I am NOT talking about digging up dirt. I am talking about Ron Paul breaking his own clearly spoken word by voting for federal restrictions where he said he would not.
Do you believe that is possible? Would it make you reconsider your support?
Or do you just want to go on with faith-based support for Ron Paul regardless of how much he breaks his word or panders to the religious right or violates his own principles?
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 11th, 2007
WOW! I do absolutely believe that it is possible. So, go ahead and prove it. Then I’ll decide.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 12th, 2007
Aha!!! You can’t believe anyone would be PRO-PAUL because he draws a line in abortion between kiling a cluster of cells and killing a breathing, kicking, 3rd trimester baby. Murder is illegal federaly. As on O.B. doctor he knows the more than most in this department, so I place full faith in him now. I was only partially in favor of him, but after this I’m a typical crazy Ron Paul supporter. Who is your lesser liar? Check out this site http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
mcsjr333
Comment by mother21803 | December 12th, 2007
Looks like mcsjr333 didn’t turn tail and run after all!!!
Ron Paul 2008
Comment by Freddy | December 13th, 2007
mcsjr333 says “I was only partially in favor of him, but after this I’m a typical crazy Ron Paul supporter.”
1) What amount of Ron Paul’s hypocrisy would turn you from your “crazy” support?
2) Is there any? Or is your Ron Paul support faith-based rather than fact-based?
3) What if your support of Ron Paul hinges on provable untruths in the statements you posted in support of Ron Paul’s “lesser” lies?
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 13th, 2007
Just who IS your better candidate?
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 13th, 2007
1) SHOW ME.
2) Any info found on Ron Paul comes through research on the web, not fox(whom I never called liars.).
3)Refer to 1.
Comment by Sand | December 13th, 2007
Very good question, mcsjr333. Some of Freddy’s objections are reasonable, but compared to other candidates’ flaws, in my opinion, Freddy is either inconsistent or hypocritical.
Comment by Freddy | December 14th, 2007
Sand flees from answering questions that PROVE HIM WRONG. Then Sand SNEAKS back in for a little character assassination:
Sand: “in my opinion, Freddy is either inconsistent or hypocritical.”
Yes, that is your OPINION Sand, because it certainly is not FACT. If if were factual, you would be able to back it up with facts on the other pages of this Website where I CAUGHT YOU LYING- about things like Obama’s record.
Man up and deal with those facts, or get used to everyone laughing behind your back when you try to sneak back after FLEEING.
Meanwhile, any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.
Comment by Freddy | December 14th, 2007
I asked mcsjr333 1) What amount of Ron Paul’s hypocrisy would turn you from your “crazy” support?
mcsjr333 says “SHOW ME.”
4) mcsjr333, perhaps I did not ask clearly enough for you to give an actual answer. I’ll try again. Is there any level of Ron Paul hypocrisy that can turn you away from supporting him?
5) If yes, what would that hypocrisy look like? Give examples.
6) Regardless of any lies on Fox News, the question here is whether your support for Ron Paul is FAITH-based or FACT-based. Do you agree that if your support for Ron Paul is faith-based, then there is no point in even discussing it with you?
7) If your support of Ron Paul comes form PROVABLE UNTRUTHS, and I can PROVE those untruths from the statements you posted, are you capable of turning against Ron Paul?
Comment by Sand | December 14th, 2007
Actually, refusing to answer your loaded questions and refusing to give your straw men and other fallacies any legitimacy is hardly fleeing. If anybody is lying it you, and I don’t need to use ALL-CAPS to prove it.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 14th, 2007
Thank You Sand
freddy says he’s not talking about digging up dirt.He approaches a blog called “List of analysts and celebrities in support of Ron Paul grows” and digs. Is this the O’bsama way?
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 14th, 2007
SHOW ME is pretty clear. Considering the question.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 14th, 2007
Check these vids out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
http://www.obamatruth.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUdkFMFrkQ
What else does freddy offer besides more Ron Paul website hits. I think we have enough of those. Don’t we?
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 14th, 2007
After this administration’s mess we need a good Ron Paul for a little while.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 15th, 2007
RON PAUL 2008
Comment by Freddy | December 16th, 2007
Sand FLEES the debate and the tiptoes back in, by accusing me of lying. But Sand again FAILS to prove it or even provide a shred of evidence.
1) Why is Sand lying about lying? Is this more psychological projection, like when Sand made a big issue of misspellings and then proceeded to misspell?
Sand accused me of “loaded questions” My questions are loaded with ACTUAL FACTS! Here are just a few of the FACTS that Sand is currently FLEEING:
2) Sand: “Hillary and Obama routinely try to have it both ways. They vote for the war, they claim they want to leave,”
FACTS: Obama did NOT vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. So Obama did NOT vote for the war. Are you misinformed? Or are you playing semantics?
3) Sand “In the end, they have the same foreign policy as George Bush.”
FACTS: Unbelievably wrong. Bush’s policy is staying in Iraq with no end and staying in the middle of the Iraq civil war. Clinton and Obama and Edwards have all pledged to stop patrolling the civil war, bring the troops home, and end Bush’s failed war. How is that the “same”?
4) How does a NON-BINDING resolution give Bush “authorization to wage a war with Iran” as Sand claims?
5) Ron Paul says that Bush violated the Constitution and should be impeached, but then Ron Paul voted to protect Bush from impeachment. What a hypocrite! Why is Ron Paul protecting Bush from an impeachment which would investigate Bush’s manipulation of intelligence?
Comment by Freddy | December 16th, 2007
mcsjr333: “After this administration’s mess we need a good Ron Paul for a little while.”
Since Ron Paul voted WITH the Republican party line 3/4ths of the time, BUSH’S MESS is 3/4ths RON PAUL’S MESS!
LOL!
————
Any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.
Comment by Sand | December 16th, 2007
Freddy is the master of fallacious arguments. Nice non-sequitur Freddy.
Comment by Freddy | December 16th, 2007
Sand howls at the moon over his powerlessness to point out “fallacious arguments.”
Sand: “Nice non-sequitur Freddy.”
Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
mcsjr333 said “After this administration’s mess we need a good Ron Paul for a little while.”
I pointed out that Republican Ron Paul voted WITH the Republican party line 3/4ths of the time. Therefore BUSH’S MESS is 3/4ths RON PAUL’S MESS!
That conclusion DIRECTLY FOLLOWS from mcsjr333’s premise. So how is that a non sequitur, Sand?
Or will this be another time Sand FLEES the debate because he is WRONG but lacks the courage to admit it?
————
Any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.
Comment by Freddy | December 16th, 2007
If mcsjr333 has an actual point to make about Obama, he has FAILED to actually express it.
9) mcsjr333, what points about Obama do you find convincing on the links to these various “dirt digging” Web sites?
mcsjr333 “What else does freddy offer besides more Ron Paul website hits.”
I offer FACTS that mcsjr333 FLEES from.
I offer questions that mcsjr333 FEARS to answer, like this:
10) Is there any level of Ron Paul hypocrisy that can turn you away from supporting him?
11) If yes, what would that hypocrisy look like? Give examples.
Comment by Sand | December 16th, 2007
I know what it means Freddy. Your post
//
mcsjr333: “After this administration’s mess we need a good Ron Paul for a little while.”
Since Ron Paul voted WITH the Republican party line 3/4ths of the time, BUSH’S MESS is 3/4ths RON PAUL’S MESS!
//
Does not follow for many reasons, some involving formal logic.
Comment by Freddy | December 17th, 2007
Sand: “Does not follow for many reasons, some involving formal logic.”
Ha ha ha! Formal logic! OK, what about “formal logic” says it “does not follow?”
It follows PERFECTLY that Republican Ron Paul is ALSO responsible for the mess left by Bush and the Republicans, since Republican Ron Paul’s voting record shows that he voted with the Republicans a whopping 3/4ths of the time?
If Sand FAILS to say HOW it “does not follow,” the Sand LOSES. Again.
“Formal logic.” ROTFL.
————
Any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.
Comment by Sand | December 17th, 2007
First of all, math. You associate Ron Paul voting with Bush 3/4ths of the time (a dubious claim) with a share in 3/4ths of the mess. First assumption is that Bush made a mess in at least 3/4ths of his decisions. That’s probably inaccurate, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Second assumption is that even if Ron Paul did vote with Bush 3/4ths of the time that Ron Paul voted for the specific 3/4ths that made a mess. That’s non-sequitur because it’s guilt by association, and because mathematically speaking it is possible (and likely) that Ron Paul voted for a different 3/4ths, which would result in Ron Paul voting for 1/2 of the mess instead of 3/4ths. But this is all based on your dubious assumption that Ron Paul voted with Bush 3/4ths of the time. Now, if you consider that Ron Paul voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, and against big government (the few issues related to Bush’s mess), then Ron Paul’s share in Bush’s mess comes to zero.
Don’t forget correlation does not equal causation. And last but not least, Ron Paul opposes everything the Bush administration did wrong, and did so from the beginning. So stating that Bush’s mess is 3/4ths Ron Paul’s mess is not only disingenuous, but contradictory.
In other words you are dead wrong. Sorry to embarrass you so thoroughly, but such stupidity should not go unnoticed.
Comment by Sand | December 17th, 2007
Last but not least, Ron Paul votes against most everything, meaning that any of Bush’s mess (which occurred mostly through new action) had nothing to do with Ron Paul. But please, if you have any specifics you are willing to offer as evidence, for example a one-to-one mapping of Ron Paul voting with Bush, and furthermore a one-to-one mapping of aforementioned voting causing a mess, and furthermore that this constitutes 75% of Ron Paul’s voting during Bush’s administration, then you might be credible. But I’m not holding my breath.
Ron Paul is less authoritarian than any other Republican or Democrat. This is a good thing. I recommend you look up libertarianism.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 17th, 2007
Check out this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430799/posts
Obama wants to rewrite the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T.
Ron Paul wants to remove it.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 17th, 2007
Sorry, U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 17th, 2007
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 17th, 2007
Here’s one for the Fred:
http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201
No questions.
Comment by Freddy | December 19th, 2007
mcsjr333 FAILS to answer: “Is there any level of Ron Paul hypocrisy that can turn you away from supporting Ron Paul?”
Based on mcsjr333’s pro-Paul spam and lack of any answer, it looks like mcsjr333 is CONFESSING that NO AMOUNT OF HYPOCRISY will turn him away from Rn Paul.
Since mcsjr333’s support of Ron Paul is FAITH-BASED and not fact-based, mcsjr333 has just told us that his comments no longer contain any useful content. He can tell all the untruths he wants. He will never have a shred of credibility.
mcsjr333 “No questions.”
It is not surprising that mcsjr333 would beg and plead for “No questions.”
After all, mcsjr333 has no answers.
Comment by mcsjr333 | December 19th, 2007
Actually, mcsjr333 FAILS to receive the proof of “HIPOCRISY” as requested by his clear response: SHOW ME!!!
I have provided useful info in the links I’ve posted and readily await freddy’s info/sources. I’m sure once he cools off we’ll see something.
Comment by Sand | December 19th, 2007
Freddy, is there anything you aren’t willing to mischaracterize? You use overly negative words like “FAILS” to suggest mcsjr333 could not answer your loaded question.
Then you make an irrelevant non-sequitur conclusion when you claim that mcsjr333 “is CONFESSING that NO AMOUNT OF HYPOCRISY will turn him away from Rn Paul.” When there is hardly any basis for it.
“Since mcsjr333’s support of Ron Paul is FAITH-BASED and not fact-based, mcsjr333 has just told us that his comments no longer contain any useful content.”
Then you use an irrelevant conclusion as a premise to support more irrelevant conclusions.
You do this on nearly every post. I suppose you are just being inflammatory so you can get responses to your loaded questions, but come on, are you interested in furthering debate, or simply attacking other people?
Comment by Freddy | December 20th, 2007
mcsjr333, I offered to demonstrate Ron Paul’s hypocrisy in saying one thing and doing the opposite. All I asked before I provided that proof was to know if there was ANY LEVEL of hypocrisy from Ron Paul that could turn you away from him.
Did mcsjr333 answer? NO!
1) So you have failed to provide any level of hypocrisy that would make you change your mind about supporting Paul. If that is the case, your support is FAITH-BASED and not fact-based, so what’s the point talking to someone who makes a religion out of politics?
mcsjr333: “I have provided useful info in the links”
Uh, no you have not. You have posted Swift-Boat style attacks that are largely substance free. For example:
http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201
2) Your site contains ZERO CONTENT, just inflammatory accusations (”Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator”) to get people to give up their email address. What a joke. What actual content is on that web page?
3) mcsjr333, do you see that the rhetoric of the site you posted is “inflammatory”?
4) And yes, Barak Obama wants to fix what’s wrong with the Patriot Act rather than scrapping the useful portions. So all you have accused Obama of is having a different opinion from Ron Paul. Big deal. Since most Americans do not support scrapping the useful parts of the Patriot Act, how is this any kind of serious criticism of Obama?
5) So mcsjr333 accuses others of being “inflammatory” but provides ZERO evidence of that. mcsjr333’s posts contain fact-free “inflammatory” rhetoric. How is that not hypocritical? Either “inflammatory” rhetoric is fine with you, or its not and you would not post it. Right?
Comment by Freddy | December 20th, 2007
I retract #5 above- it is Sand who is concerned with “inflammatory” rhetoric, not mcsjr333.
Apparently mcsjr333 is fine with “inflammatory” rhetoric. And Sand does not complain about it when mcsjr333 uses “inflammatory” rhetoric.
Is Sand fine with “inflammatory” rhetoric as long as it helps Ron Paul?
Comment by Freddy | December 20th, 2007
Sand, you have ACKNOWLEDGED the profusion of content-free pro-Paul posts that infest the place. Is there any substantial content on the following Web page or not?
http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201
Sand: “You use overly negative words like “FAILS” to suggest mcsjr333 could not answer your loaded question.”
19) WRONG AGAIN! There you go again with your SPECULATION instead of sticking to facts. I did not “suggest mcsjr333 COULD not answer” the question. Rather he WOULD not answer the question. I have no idea if he is CAPABLE of answering. But it is clear that mcsjr333 CHOSE to not answer. Right?
20) Because mcsjr333 CHOSE not to answer, he won’t say that there is ANY LEVEL OF HYPOCRISY that can turn him away from Ron Paul.
For example, there are plenty of Second Amendment absolutists supporting pro-gun Ron Paul. Many of them would be disgusted with Ron Paul and would stop supporting him if he suddenly changed his solid record on opposing federal gun regulations and shocked them by voting for banning ownership of some kinds of guns.
Do you see that this would answer the question? Yet mcsjr333 failed to say even this much. Right? If mcsjr333 refuses to define any level of hypocrisy at which he would reject Ron Paul, it DIRECTLY FOLLOWS that won’t reject Ron Paul for any level of hypocrisy.
21) And if it DIRECTLY FOLLOWS, so it is NOT a non-sequitur, right?
22) Sand, what conclusions do YOU draw from mcsjr333 CHOOSING NOT TO ANSWER a direct question about whether or not he is even capable of withdrawing support from Ron Paul?
23) Sand: “You do this on nearly every post.”
Prove it. You have yet to prove it even once.
24) Sand: “ I suppose you are just being inflammatory so you can get responses to your loaded questions”
Loaded questions “make a false presupposition” or “assume facts not yet in evidence.” When have I done that? Where have you provided any evidence that I have “assumed facts not yet in evidence?”
25) By FAILING to provide any evidence of “loaded questions,” it is Sand who has “assumed facts not yet in evidence.” Nice. More psychological projection from Sand.
26) Sand: “are you interested in furthering debate or simply attacking other people?”
Now THAT’S a “loaded question.” since Sand has not shown an “attack” on a person. Pointing out FACTUALLY when people fail to answer is NOT the same as attacking people. In fact, it is Sand who attacks people. Notice the “stupidity” attack he hurls at me in post #55 above.
Sand, if pointing out a failure to answer is an “attack” how is “stupidity” not “attacking” another person?
27) If Sand was interested in “furthering debate” would he be HIDING FROM DOZENS of legitimate questions? Questions like:
Ron Paul says that Bush violated the Constitution and should be impeached, but then Ron Paul voted to protect Bush from impeachment. What a hypocrite! Why is Ron Paul protecting Bush from an impeachment which would investigate Bush’s manipulation of intelligence?
Lots of unanswered questions here:
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates
or here
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/
_________
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul on ending the war AND protecting Constitutional reproductive freedoms. And they won’t bend the knee to the Religious Right.
Comment by lyn | December 23rd, 2007
Your reproductive freedoms were acted upon when you decided to have intercourse. You do understand that sex creates babies don’t you? Ron Paul just wants to make the issue a states rights issue. Being religious does not mean that you lack diplomacy. Since you are so resolved that abortion is your “constitutional” right then certainly you don’t feel that the federal government should mandate and regulate your choice. I mean, it is a choice. And as far as either side of the political spectrum, not one of those candidates cares about your freedom of expression and freedom of choice except Ron Paul. And as for the war, you really need to get a clue. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will end this war.
Comment by Maria | January 2nd, 2008
Ron Paul is suggesting that the abortion issue be dealt with on a STATE level NOT Federal level.
Sand and mcsjr333. The one thing you have to grateful about regarding this dialogue with Freddy is that he keeps you on your toes and even more well informed than ever before. Thanks Freddy.
And see if you can sit through this entire documentary .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
_______
The ONLY Republican in the debate better than any other Republican and Democrat IS Dr. Ron Paul - he will not only end the war, but he will preserve freedom and he won’t bend the knee to BIG CORPORATES the way the other Republicans and Democrats do.
Comment by Sand | January 2nd, 2008
I agree, Maria. Freddy does keep me on my toes, but he also asks a lot of irrelevant questions and comes to irrelevant conclusions, or selectively misinterprets my posts.
Comment by Maria | January 2nd, 2008
Hi Sand,
Well you know someone once said to me “People who constantly use profanity in their everyday conversations do this because because their vocabulary is limited.”
And it’s also true that when some folks become hostile and resort to name calling while debating, its only because their “knowledge” is limited.
Have a HAPPY NEW 2008!!! and GO RON GO!!!