The Ron Paul Conspiracy

| April 27, 2008

When I went to the Ron Paul rally on the 15th, I heard a lot of conspiracy talk, believe it or not. But the most curious was the guy whom I overheard talking to new acquaintances about how he is a delegate to the Republican convention and how he’s going to cast his vote for Ron Paul regardless of how he’s pledged. I just shook it off as kooky talk – just a smidgen of what I’d heard the whole day.

When I got back and posted my videos on YouTube for the blog, I had like a hundred hits on them before I even got the post finished here. The first comment, YouTube hid as spam, but out of curiosity, I opened it and it read;

fantastic!! BECOME A DELEGATE OR RON PAUL WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

You can sign up to be a delegate on
R O N P A U L 2 0 0 8 . C O M

****look for the BECOME A RON PAUL DELEGATE sign up box on the top right of the homepage where Ron Paul’s face is****

YOU can help change the course of this nation for the better! YOU can be a hero!

He still has a VERY good chance of getting the nomination in a brokered convention! This is how Lincoln won!

PLEASE! We need you!

I thought it was a little odd, but shrugged it off. Moments later, another spam comment, by another author, hit my YouTube page underneath that one;

previous message was marked as spam but it is NOT

BECOME A DELEGATE OR RON PAUL WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT!

You can sign up to be a delegate on
R O N P A U L 2 0 0 8 . C O M

**look for the BECOME A RON PAUL DELEGATE sign up box on the top right of the homepage where Ron Paul’s face is**

YOU can help change the course of this nation for the better! YOU can be a hero!

He still has a VERY good chance of getting the nomination in a brokered convention! This is how Lincoln won!

PLEASE! We need you!

A week later, another message hit – this time I marked it as spam;

Get Ron Paul Nominated by:
Become a delegate (of Other candidates),
then vote for Ron Paul in the convention!
Because Ron Paul delegates are being restricted to vote!
That is how we by pass this type of bias and illegal filtering!
Read ronpaulchat(.)net/drpaulwillwin(.)html
Please help to Spread this message.

I didn’t think anything more of it – it all sounds like the ravings of a group of deranged people. but then this afternoon, perusing my usual blog fare, I ran across this from Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy;

I saw this at Digg (where else?) last week, but ignored it after burying it. It seems, though, that Paultards are quite serious about hijacking the Republican Convention. If you don’t want to see the “plan” at the Paultards’ blogs, read it here. Snip:

*The Strategy:*

The strategy therefore must be to get as many Ron Paul delegates selected to represent their states at the National Convention.

That means our delegates need to stay low-key.

Resolutions are a dead giveaway, especially when they are fought over things like opposition to the war, or abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, all signature issues of Ron Paul.

So, the best plan is to shut up, move along, do what you have to do to get selected, sign the pledge to “support” McCain (it doesn’t say you promise not to abstain!) and just get in short of outright lying, of course.

One of Beth’s links go to The Political Divide which has much more information than I want to read on this conspiracy;

As far away as a year ago, I began hearing rumors that the poor showing in the polls, and at the ballot box was going to force the hand of the Ron Paul camp to try and seize control of the National Convention by flooding it with Ron Paul supporters, much in the same way they flooded every single web poll, or IM poll during the debates. Not satisfied with Democracy in action, the Rontards would instead take matters into their own hands. The plan would be to take over the Precinct meetings to elect the Delegates for the Senatorial Conventions and in turn affect the Delegate selection all the way up to the National Convention. For this type of “Rube Goldberg machine” to actually happen, every single domino would have to fall the right way.

While I don’t think it is plausible, there will be some serious repercussions if were to actually it happen.

The only reason I even bring this up, is because I’m tired of all of this political maneuvering – especially when it’s to undermine the voters’ choice. Hillary wants to subvert her own party with the super-delegates vote, Al Gore is still whining that he was cheated out of the presidency in 2000, as soon as he lost in the Supreme Court, Democrats were lining up at the media’s mike to announce that the Electoral process was antiquated and in need of revision (and we were treated to the same whiners again in 2004).

I remember a time when America started paying attention to elections a only few months before the polls and then forgot about it as soon as they pulled the lever. But this poisonous, monotonous two-year campaign cycle, which is about personalities these days more than issues, is killing America. People wonder why voters are tuning out – and this is precisely the reason.

The cry baby whiners who become so emotionally invested in their candidates, who are frighteningly more like protagonists in a real long, boring movie than actual people, and when the movie doesn’t turn out like it should (like the incessant whining after The Sopranos ended) the rest of us have to suffer through the endless conspiracy theories about voting machines, phantom cops roadblocking polling stations and antiquated constitutions.

Just stop acting like you’re all so damn smart because the rest of us (the majority – remember us?) really don’t think you are smart at all – just pompous, arrogant blowhards who relish the sound of your own voices like a baby who enjoys the smell of his own farts.

Look, if you goofballs want to have a Revolution, go ahead and start it so we can put you all out of your misery. But, for Chris’sakes quit talking about it.

UPDATE: A hat tip to concretebob for pointing me to Michele Malkin who reports “the [Nevada] state GOP convention was suspended last night after McCain supporters failed to quell a revolt by Ron Paul’s people”

Category: Politics, Ron Paul

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jen says:

    Deranged? What’s deranged is the quaqmire in Iraq, what is deranged is fed reserve ripping off and owning the American people. Deranged is those who support the conditon of todays socitey, foreign policy and deranged is those who vote purely on media propaganda from talking heads from monoplized communications in the US..Deranged is those who want to see chaos no matter where chaos happens to be..or else create it.
    Ron Paul people unite through the message of Liberty, prosperity and PEACE.
    There is a better way. Ron Paul makes sense and is for the people, by the people. He stands for the American principles. One man in Washington who can be trusted to say what he means and does what he says for the betterment of our country and YOU, man kind!

    Jonn wrote: That’s fine, jen, you can feel anyway you want. You can belittle me, call me names, throw eggs at my house, anything you want to do, but stop trying to subvert the two-hundred year system because you think you know what’s best for America. Stop having childish little hissy fits because the majority of Americans don’t see things your way. And stop calling the majority of Americans who do the heavy lifting in this country sheeple. I’m convinced that Ron Paul has done so poorly this year, not because of his politics, but because he attracted the most infantile, underhanded, disingenuous people in the country to his campaign. Spamming polls and spamming blogs is not the best way to convince people you’re not deranged.

  2. concretebob says:

    I found this over at Michelle’s place. Posted a link to yours in the comments section, and figured I’ do the same here.
    Michelle’s blog on the Nevada RNC and the Paulistas.

  3. Ray says:

    Jen,

    All I can say is THANK GOD there are people like you who can lead my sorry dumb butt through life. I always depended on Rush to tell me everything I should believe, but now I see the light and know that only Ron Paul is the One True Savior. God knows I’m too ignorant and brainless to actually form an original opinion. Your condescending ways have made me face my inadequacies and now I know that I have sinned by not worshiping at the Church of Paul. Please give me the address of your future cult compound so I may send my virgin daughters to be enlightened by the likes of you and St Ron.(The preceding was satire… for all of you Paulistas who may have wet themselves in excitement of another convert.)

    Get over yourselves. We aren’t as stupid as you wish we were, and you’re not half as smart as you think you are.

  4. Scrapiron says:

    Ron Paul, a clone of the crazy ‘Little Hitler’ in Iran, and much more dangerous to the U.S. Anyone without the brains to know he’ll never be president should be sent to Gitmo for their own protection. Definetly too insane to be on the street. Stupidity and Insanity is not a good mix. Usually you have one or the other, with Paul and his supporters you have both.

  5. Scrapiron says:

    Maybe Paul is the next Jim Jones. Drink your poison koolaide or I’ll shoot you.

  6. jen says:

    Sorry that you felt belittled even tho’ I had no personal attact directed to you personally.

    Jonn wrote: That’s not what I said. I said you “CAN belittle me”, not that you did. Please try to keep up. I also said you can egg my house…I went outside and sure enough, you hadn’t egged my house either.

  7. EddieWillers says:

    Jen is right, but it will take more time for Ron Paul’s message to sink in…regardless of education level.

    To John and the other anti-Paul people: can you refute Jen’s claims? Specifically, how is the federal reserve NOT ripping us off? And, more importantly, what solution(s) has your candidate offered to help ease the suffering we’re feeling at the hands of reckless inflation?

    The Iraq and our “War on Terror” strategies speak for themselves. Why anyone would mindlessly accept a rudderless policy of “winning the war” is beyond me. For the record, none of the remaining “mainstream” candidates will end the war, a fact that should please the pro-war crowd.

    The major reason people don’t support Ron Paul is because he’s against ALL overseas occupation by the United States military. I can’t think of a more pro-American policy than bringing our troops home to defend OUR borders, and history is rife with examples of how mercantilistic policies have failed. Even cynical supporters of our unconstitutional invasion of Iraq (those who admit we are there for oil, for example) have to face the fact that the policy has failed miserably (price of oil has tripled since Iraq invasion).

    Are Paul supporters smarter? Of course not. But please, if you are going to refute claims made by us, back it up with something more than a slogan or name calling.

    As for the GOP gridlock in Nevada, that’s democracy in action. Paul supporters aren’t breaking any rules, and McCain isn’t the GOP nominee. He didn’t even win Nevada for chrissakes!

    Jonn wrote: I have no interest in refuting anyone’s claims.

    RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT NO MATTER HOW OFTEN HIS MINIONS BADGER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. I hope the caps help you deal with reality. Whether McCain won the primary in Nevada or not, it doesn’t improve the potential for Paul to be our President for a crowd of Paulians to throw a temper tantrum. McCain may only be a marginal improvement over the alternative, but he’s an improvement nonetheless.

    I’ve already made it clear that there’s little I find to disagree with Paul, but his main problem is that he’s attracted a bunch of pseudo-intellectual blow hards to support him. Every time I point that out, another pseudo-intellectual blow hard shows up to prove my point.

  8. EddieWillers says:

    Ah yes, the ad hominem…the mating call of the anti-intellectual.

    No, the CAPS don’t help me to deal with reality. It only underscores the reality of the majority of today’s “Conservatives” as being nothing more than a conformists. Need I remind you that the lesser of two evils is still evil? Such mindless logic is EXACTLY how we arrived in our present political quagmire, and why we will continue to rationalize foolish votes while our liberties are steadily eroded by bigger government (Democrat or Republican).

    I’d gladly take a bunch of “pseudo-intellectual blowhards” over conformists any day, if for no other reason than these same “blowhards” have brought to the forefront major issues that heretofore have been neglected in political campaigns. When was the last time you heard the subject of monetary policy, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc. debated? Absent Paul’s successful campaign these issues would have never been raised.

    Again, McCain has won nothing. He’s not the GOP candidate. If the nomination is sewn up, why have a convention? You’d think that true believers in the democratic election process would admire Paul’s fervent supporters in advancing their candidate’s chances of winning…that we experience the opposite should serve as a bellwether of how far we have drifted from our Republican principles.


    Jonn wrote:
    Look, after over a year of tolerating you folks good-naturedly, I’m just sick of the weasely way you think you can circumvent the system in favor of the minority. You misspoke when you wrote “…would admire Paul’s fervent supporters….” That should be “…Paul’s fevered supporters”. Just because all of your spamming internet polls and harrassing hardworking bloggers finally came down to your candidate getting less than 2% of the POPULAR vote in the primaries, that doesn’t give you the right to throw temper tantrums.

    I’d rather be called a conformist than call Obama my president – because that’s the best you can hope for.

    And this is MY blog, if I want to call you a pseudo-intellectual blowhard, I have that right. You have the right to go elsewhere and cry your crocodile tears. Certainly a fine Libertarian like yourself can understand the rights of ownership? But somehow I feel your inherent blowhardedness isn’t quite slaked yet

  9. EddieWillers says:

    I completely understand the ownership issue, and please understand I’m being sincere when I tell you that I appreciate your willingness to read/respond to my comments. I’ve been banned from sites before for asking questions and/or presenting pro-Ron Paul positions, and I respect the administrator’s right to do so without complaint.

    Moreover, I like your site and visit it often…even if I disagree with the majority of the views expressed. It does me no good to read pro-Ron Paul articles all day because it does nothing to help me understand the viewpoints of others. To that end, I appreciate your site.

    Hate to tell you, but there’s not much difference between Obama, Clinton, and McCain. How many can you name? None will end the war (a plus for you, I assume), both believe in expanding the government’s reach into your life without restraint, etc. Basically, what it boils down to is a choice between nationalized health care and reckless warmongering or reckless warmongering and runaway inflation. Both candidates are big government shills, and it’d be foolish to categorize them as anything but.

    Sure, Paul supporters have spammed polls and bloggers, but so what? Do you take those polls seriously? I’d ban half the idiots I read responding to RP sites, too (weellllll, maybe). Point is, why not engage the brain a little and step outside of our comfort zone once in a while?

    Jonn wrote: Funny, but I’d like to see the war end yesterday. Successfully for all concerned. To call any veteran “pro-war” is intellectually vacant. Is that “reckless warmongering”? If it is, we’ll never have anything to discuss.

  10. EddieWillers says:

    My argument is not just for the end of the “War on Terror” but for the end of all ridiculous “wars” in which the government is presently engaged. Take your pick: War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc. All have failed, and failed miserably.

    Bring the troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from every remote corner of the world. Why do we continue to occupy other countries? It’s pointless, and we’re going bankrupt doing it. Mercantilism doesn’t work, but free trade and non-binding relationships do. Vietnam is the textbook example: what we failed to achieve in over 20 years of war we achieved in short order through trade and diplomacy.

    The reckless warmongering I was referring to was the adherence to the idea that we need to station troops all across the globe, that we need to threaten Iran at every turn, and that somehow we can enforce democracy and freedom through the barrel of a gun. I don’t know about you, but to classify any of the remaining “mainstream” candidates as anything other than reckless warmongers (using that definition) would be foolish.

    Jonn wrote: See? we have nothing to discuss because your child-like innocence in regards to our national security negates a rational discussion.

    Using Vietnam as an example of not using war as an instrument of diplomacy is ridiculous. Vietnam punched themselves out. As allies of the Soviet Union, and not trusted by the Chinese Maoists, where else did they have to turn when the wall came down and the Soviet Union fell apart? How many Vietnamese died and were driven out since 1975? How many Laotians suffered when Vietnam invaded them before the Chinese stepped in? It’s certainly naive of you think that we can just sit back and let the world punch itself into exhaustion. How many will die in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Israel, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, North Korea, etc…while we sit safely inside our borders passing around the same dollar bill?

    Somehow, Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next county.

  11. jozzf says:

    John,

    EddieWillers brings up a lot of good points, and you (for the most part) just continue the ad hominem attacks. You don’t really have anything to back up your pro-McCain position besides the tiresome “the lesser of two evils” and “Ron Paul just can’t win!” (why, because that’s what the media tells you?), which are both not good enough reasons for me. If you have really “made it clear that there’s little I find to disagree with Paul”, then what does it matter to you what his supporters are like? VOTE for him. Thanks.

  12. Ray says:

    Jozzf,

    Eddie deludes himself with the misconception that we live in a society that has no ties to the rest of the world. “We should bring all our troops home.” Really? Ask the French how well a static defense works against a mobile enemy. How would you have us respond to direct threats to the United States? With a magic “transporter beam” that would move troops when we finally decided we were in danger? You can’t move troops, armor and a logistics train halfway around the world with fairy dust. How different would our world be now if we had taken your attitude during WWII? The whole European continent would be speaking German now and I’m guessing Hawaii would be speaking Japanese. The Korean and Vietnam wars as well as the rest of the “Cold War” hot spots were attempts by the Soviets to dominate the world, and eventually us as well. Had we just sat back and watched, the USSR would still be a Superpower, and a good number of people who are now alive and free would be under their yoke.

    People who hide behind walls and ignore the wolf will eventually become dinner. Ron Paul deludes himself that “diplomacy and free trade will win out” when the other side has no intention of negotiating in good faith. His ignorance of the existence of real evil in the world scares the crap out of me. Fortunately enough Republicans realize his limitations and have declined to vote for him. In a general election he would be like a piñata on Cinco de Mayo. Ron Paul is a dead horse that you can beat all you want, but he will NEVER be POTUS.

  13. John says:

    Paultards,

    Saying that Ron Paul cannot win is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply a mathematical fact. Ron Paul has not won a single state and John McCain is the GOP nominee. Get it?

    It is also a fact that many Ron Paul supporters have staged many various spamming and phishing events on the Internet that pretty much piss everyone off. I almost get the feeling you don’t really want Ron Paul to win as much as you want to argue with people until they agree you’re right. Seriously, move out of your parent’s basement, get real jobs and grow up.

  14. EddieWillers says:

    I suppose if I subscribed to the “might makes right” school of foreign policy my views would appear childish and uninformed. My point is that our foreign policy–regardless of the political affiliation of the president–has been one of murderous intervention, and it has failed miserably to achieve its desired results. Why continue to pursue a fruitless foreign policy that has only succeeded in usurping American freedoms and making us less safe?

    The idea that we saved lives in Vietnam by killing millions of civilians (a practice not unfamiliar to your heralded candidate, I might add) is Orwellian beyond belief. Seriously, if the Chinese, Russians, French, etc. want to fight over Vietnam, so be it. It’s none of our business, and we’re going broke trying to fight those battles.

    The likelihood of a Red Dawn-like Soviet invasion of the United States is/was about as likely as the Soviets taking over Mars. If you’re still unconvinced, consider two things: one, the Soviets utter failure to overrun Afghanistan, a country with not even a fraction of the military prowess of the United States; and two, the fact that the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad. Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.

    But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute.

    Ray, my argument is that we should engage in commerce with the rest of the world and set a positive example. Instead, our present policy has us bombing them when we disagree with them, and subsidizing them when they adhere to our demands. Either way, under the present system, our citizens lose. We lose tax money when we subsidize foreign governments, and what we lose in war need not be mentioned.

    Further, Ray, while your knowledge of WWII certainly would have earned you an “A” in any government-funded public school, it is wildly off the mark. I suggest reading authors that are critical of FDR, Churchill, etc. in the run-up to the war. You have history exactly wrong. The information is out there, you just have to find it and have the courage to confront your convictions. Feel free to insert the obligatory conspiracy theorist label if you want, but if you blindly subscribe to the idea that we’d all be speaking German or Russian if it were not for benevolent US military intervention and fail to balance your research, then you are the fool, not me.

    John, my point is that it is none of our business if other countries want to bomb each other into submission. If we deem such actions are a threat to the United States, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and come home. No nation building, no prolonged presence. It doesn’t work! We haven’t declared war since WWII, and we haven’t won a war since WWII. If you want to continue to invade countries at the behest of the President or to enforce UN resolutions, then I expect you to be at the front of the line volunteering to serve. If you, your family, friends, etc. are so intent on dying for the freedom of the Sudanese, Vietnamese, Tibetans, Venezuelans, etc. there’s nothing stopping you from going…even if the US fails to declare war. Become a mercenary, but don’t drag the rest of the country (via taxes and inflation) into your personal conflict.

    Ultimately, I find it comical that libertarians are labeled as childish, unemployed basement dwellers when in reality the self-admitted conformists (see John’s comments above) are the ones mindlessly toeing the party line despite obvious disagreements with McCain. Silly me, I thought patriotism was more closely linked to dissent than conformity.

    Finally, John McCain is NOT the nominee. He hasn’t won anything. The democratic process involved in determining the nominee includes electing delegates to the national convention. While I don’t dismiss Paul’s poor showing in the primaries, I offer a similar question to McCain supporters: if there is such strong support for McCain, where are all his supporters when electing delegates? In other words, where are the McCain supporters WHEN IT MATTERS?

  15. As I posted in February at pwconservative.net, Ron Paul supporters are attempting to take over the VA Gop, They overwhelm conventions in areas with few republicans (Alexandria,Arlington) and nominate only their delegate’s,
    Chris Kachouroff attempted this unsuccessfully,
    Amit Singh is case in point, he’s running as an anti-war “Ron Paul” republican against jim moran.

  16. Ray says:

    Wow Eddie,

    “You have history exactly wrong”

    I guess I never knew the extent of my own ignorance. Just which part of WWII did I get backwards? The parts where Hitler steamrolled over a good chunk of Europe, bombed London and killed a shitload of people in gas chambers? Or the part where the Japanese kicked our ass all over the Pacific for the first year and a half and brutalized a huge chunk of Asia? I know about the screw ups that led to the war… War is almost always caused by SOMEBODY’s screw up. But what are you going to do when it starts? Being unprepared and underdeployed cost the United States quite a beating in the opening of WWII. (and again in Korea). You talk a good game Ed, but how many times have YOU deployed and seen just how complicated it is to move thousands of men and machines to where they need to be, and, oh yeah… be able to fight when they get there? If we subscibed to your utopian plan, the United States would not have intervened in WWII. What exactly do you think would have happened then? Hitler, satisfied with his winnings would just go back and make little Arians with Eva? If there were no US bases around the world, exactly how would you suggest the Military be physically able to fight? Oh… that’s right, we don’t really need to fight wars. We can just smile and trade with people and the world will be a happy peaceful place, full of people singing the Coke “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” song. What you fail to realize is that there are “bad people” out there, who, for whatever reason, want power and want what other people have and like hurting people to get it. They do nasty things like kill millions of Jews and gas the Kurds. Of course you are right… they would never come here and do those things if we took your suggestions, because we would be happy friendly traders who have no deployed military and we pose no threat. Why… I’m sure once they started bombing our cities, we could just “whip up” a military strong enough to kick their asses, but just back accross our own border… (mustn’t go to other countries and be mean.)

    Fight the wars and get out… no need to stay. Yeah… that would have worked after WWII. I’m sure the Soviet troops would have just sat back with half of Europe and been happy. Korea? Oh yeah they were happy with half (for a while). Japan? Well… they didn’t get into Japan did they? I wonder why? What mysterious power kept the Soviet Union at bay during the last part of the 20th Century? What magic entity held them from taking over pretty much everything? You think it’s impossible to invade and keep a country because of Afganastan? “Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.”
    Riiiiight…Ask Poland, Romania, and East Germany just how easy it was to throw out the Soviets. Ask the Cubans in Miami about how easy it’s been to get rid of Castro. Ask the Mexicans how well they’re doing getting back Texas. Ask the Native Americans how easy it’s been to kick out the roundeyes. Ask Gaul how easy it was to keep the Romans out. You accuse me of ignorance and simply display your own.

    You preach how many mistakes we made, fighting wars and deploying overseas. You say “the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad.” If our military were a occupation force as it is described by the media, Baghdad would be a smoking hole in the ground. No problem. My old boat could have done that, and every other major city in Iraq with one missile. Then, just back up the oil tankers and fill ‘er up. Cheap gas for everyone. The fact that we aren’t invaders come to plunder a country limits our reactions.

    Do I think we haven’t made mistakes? Of course not. Only the perfection of hindsight can see all sides of an issue. But history is history. Can’t change what’s happened. The world is as it is. Pulling our head into our shell will just make it certain that we get our asses blown off by someone who wants something. Some of your solutions would work… but most of them are based on the false assumption that everyone WANTS to get along. Ask the muggers, rapists, home invaders, and murderers how much they care if you get hurt while they get what they want. “But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute” Really? Wow… how many years as a globetrotting superman do you have? You sit in your parents basement spouting shit like a Christmas goose. I’ve seen the evil men can do. Some Boogymen DO exist asshole.

  17. EddieWillers says:

    Ray,

    I appreciate your passion, but I don’t think have refuted my argument. To re-state it, I asked you whether or not you’ve balanced your research with scholarship that is critical of United States foreign policy, from WWI to our present nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on your response, I’m forced to assume the answer is a (resounding) no. Further, you don’t know me–I could be a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps or Cindy Sheehan’s sister, and in either case that knowledge would be irrelevant to our discussion. Let’s focus on the material and not the person, OK?

    I don’t dispute what happened during WWII when it comes to Germany, Japan, and Italy. However, it is impossible to understand *why* people like Hitler and Stalin come to power without discussing the direct involvement of the United States in fomenting European (and Asian) conflict. Do your research. And please spare me the “We were saving the Jews!” argument because that is an exercise in futility. We didn’t fight WWII to liberate the Jews any more than we invaded Iraq to liberate Iraqis.

    Moreover, the idea of Soviet Russia invading us during the cold war or anytime thereafter remains as laughable as it is absurd. Ray, how many countries can you name that were conquered by the Soviet Union? I’m not talking about occupation or border disputes amongst her ethnic people, but outright conquest. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with zero. That we were able to win the Cold War (against an enemy with an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) without firing a shot should tell you something about the power of diplomacy and talking with foreign leaders during tense periods. Instead, today, we have taken the opposite approach: we get uptight over the *possibility* that a country like Iran (who has signed the NNPT, something our “staunch” ally Israel has steadfastly refused to do) is enriching uranium…and may have the capability to build a bomb within a few years. Please clarify for me how I’m being ignorant in my desire to adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy?

    Declaring illegal war is becoming easier and easier, and the bulk of our population is mindlessly conforming to the whims of an irresponsible government that is drunk on its own power. We started out declaring sovereign nations enemies of the United States, now we’ve resorted to declaring war on non-entities like drugs, poverty, Islamofascism (a hilarious term if ever there was one), and, presently, terror. Where will it end? Our citizens lose every time, through taxation, through inflation, through injury and death, and through the erosion of our sacred liberties. It goes without saying that wars are not fought to conquer, to police, and to bring things back into balance…wars are fought to keep the citizen population under the thumb of an oppressive government.

    A while ago John mentioned “Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next country” and accused Ron Paul supporters of being unemployed basement dwellers. You have done much the same, Ray, and I think what both of you are trying to establish by saying that is to label me an isolationist. I’m forced to ask, though: who’s more of an isolationist? Me, who advocates diplomacy, trade, and commerce with all nations (and entangling alliances with none); or you two, who advocate (I’m inferring here, so please correct me if I’m wrong) no interaction with countries like Iran, global military presence overseas, and a continuation of interventionist foreign policy (which has failed miserably)? Between the two arguments, if I had to choose who was unemployed, isolated, and uninformed, I’d choose the group who refused to engage in diplomacy with other countries…but that’s just me.

    I’m not pacifist, either, and I acknowledge that evil does exist in this world. Like other Ron Paul supporters, I believe in a strong national defense, but also believe our defense does not extend to cover hundreds of overseas bases. We can’t afford it, and we are less safe for following that path. If the United States determines there is a threat to her well-being as a nation, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and then come home. This idea that we can fight wars at the behest of the President or to enforce UN regulations not only undermines the sovereignty of the United States (ironic when you consider we fight these wars supposedly to protect our sovereignty), but grossly violates the Constitution as well.

    Further, I have absolutely no problem if you, John, your friends, families, etc. want to sign up and fight for the liberation of Iraqis, Venezuelans, Tibetans, Indians, Sudanese, or any other global hotspot that you deem threatens your sovereignty. By all means, become a mercenary and fight/kill/maim until your heart’s content. There’s nothing stopping you. But what right do you have to interfere with my ability to make a living? You may not see these undeclared wars as preventing Americans from enjoying their lives (you may even subscribe to the propaganda that these wars preserve our freedom) but the evidence surrounding you is impossible to ignore. Inflation, high taxes, erosion of civil liberties, etc. are a reality…and a direct consequence of our failed interventionist foreign policy and reckless government expansion. None of the remaining candidates (save for Ron Paul) will change that reality, either.

    I think our biggest disconnect is that we have different answers to the above question, and I’d love to hear the rationale behind your answer.

    Jonn wrote: No, our biggest “disconnect” is that you won’t accept answers that prove you to be ill-educated and sworn to an intellectually bankrupt ideology. My concentration of study in history and political science was in US foreign policy – but I suppose that isn’t enough education for you. The Ron Paul supporters are real fond at telling everyone how we won’t listen to people, but the truth is that the Paulians are the most ignorant, ill-read and close-minded creatures involved in our political process. Absolutely everything is the fault of some nebulous corporate conspiracy who is fixated on silencing the negligible 2% of voters who support Ron Paul, apparently.

    What did you write in that post that you couldn’t have summarized in a paragraph? My case for calling you a blowhard is made. No one here has the time or inclination to engage in your mental masturbation when you can’t even accept basic math or give the American voter credit for even a tiny bit of thought to the process. Who wants to lay out a case to a snob who pooh-poohs every word? You won’t do any converting here, so please move on.

  18. LT Nixon says:

    Jonn,

    I’ve been trying for months to get a Paultard invasion on my blog and, alas, it has failed. I salute you for accomplishing the feat before I, sir. Although, I have to admit that I am looking into Bob Barr being a decent candidate.

    Jonn wrote: Well, apparently you have to video Ron Paul so that 900,000,000 people view it in the first hour on YouTube, link to your blog from there and then warn about a Ron Paul hissy fit before it happens. It’s just that easy.

  19. Ray says:

    What John said. LOL

  20. Harry Dunn says:

    Ray:
    In response to your quote, “Why… I’m sure once they started bombing our cities, we could just “whip up” a military strong enough to kick their asses, but just back accross [sic] our own border… (mustn’t go to other countries and be mean.,” isn’t that precisely what the people of Iraq are doing right now? The most powerful military in the world conducted a powerful”shock and awe” campaign designed to cripple the defenses of the Iraqi military to ensure our “cake walk” or “slam dunk” victory would be swift, but sadly we are over 5 years now into this occupation. The people of Iraq are banding together to get rid of occupiers, do you honestly think all the people fighting the American’s are terrorists and evil boogeymen? In fact, we are supplying and arming the Sunni’s in Iraq so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out they are using our own weapons against us. What we are currently facing in Iraq is no different from what we faced in Vietnam and what the Soviet Union faced in Afghanistan, keep in mind the Soviet Union was a superpower at the time. The old cliche is true, history repeats itself and it doesn’t look like we have learned anything from our imperialistic past.

    Jonn wrote: Please stick to the facts instead of making up your own. The Iraqi people are indeed banding together to get of the occupier – al Qaeda. Have you even opened a newspaper since 2006?

  21. Harry Dunn says:

    Jonn:
    You are correct, the Iraqi people are banding together to get rid of al Qaeda as well. The fact is, al Qaeda wasn’t a threat to Iraq until the United States arrived in March of 2003. If they did have a presence before 2003 they certainly weren’t on the radar as a terrorist organization nor deemed a threat to Iraq. I have a question regarding al Qaeda, and correct me if I have my facts wrong,didn’t we fund al Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? In fact, we are currently funding the Sunni insurgents to the tune of $800,000 a day to ensure they don’t attack U.S. forces, but you certainly won’t find that information in your main stream media produced newspapers, FOX news, or CNN. I don’t invent facts, your decision to ignore the facts laid out doesn’t mean mine are made up.

    Jonn wrote: al Qeada didn’t even exist during the war against the Soviets, so how could we fund it? al Qaeda wasn’t established until after the first war against Hussein.

    See, here’s the thing, I really don’t care if you want to spend the rest of your life cowering in your basement from the CFR and Federal Reserve – that’s your business, but I’m certainly not going to save you from yourself by hand carrying you through the process I arrived at years ago. If you want to regurgitate the talking points of the Damned, please do it elsewhere. If you can’t even read the 9/11 report for yourself, I’m not going to rewrite it here.