Glenn Beck just isn't buying it

[Demosthenes]

The way to leave a forum is to simply not show up and if you change your mind, you're always welcome back.

[JamesVincent]

Her "selling point" was how polling shows that military men and women support Paul more than any other candidates combined. I haven't seen that poll but I suspect what she was talking about was the one about they give Paul more money than any other candidate combined and as I recall that has been debunked.

Military people do donate more to Paul than the other candidates.

http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.co ... -donations

1405 donations does not equate "overwhelming" support, especially since the article stated it includes civilian personnel and dependents/ families. I know you just linked the article, but like I said I have yet to run across any of my military friends that I talk to regularly that support Ron Paul. Or their families. And very few outside of the military for that matter.

[JamesVincent]

Today's press release from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign:

I'm not sure what a State Representative endorsing a candidate has to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat. Yes I know he's a tax denier, but it's still the case of a state representative endorsing a candidate.
Its the case of a known whackjob endorsing a presidential candidate. Tax protestor/ tax denier aside the man stole lumber from state owned lands without a care and then refused to pay damages and somehow managed to get away with it. So on top of being a TP, hes a thief.

On a related note, what the f*ck does the amount of money military personnel contribute to candidates have to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat?
I dont think it had anything to do with it really, just happened to be in the same article.

You guys are indeed confirming my fears that this bulletin will cause terrorism will be linked with Ron Paul. That is what exactly what you are doing. You call call sovruns terrorists and then link Ron Paul with sovruns.
Ron Paul linked himself with sov'runs multiple, multiple times and you refuse to see it and accept it so you blame us for pointing that out. He runs on a platform that runs along side their ideals in areas but he has actively sought them out and met them and been in their movement. Nothing you say or complain about can change that. Deal with it. You dont like it, ask him to stop fraternizing with sov'runs. Not all the Libertarian ideals mingle with sov'run ideals so if theres a problem point that out, stop dwelling on whats the same and keep yourself out of the sov'run mess.

Sorry, I am out of here. You have gone too far. I cannot find an "delete account" button, so admins, remove me from this forum.
We didnt go anywhere but point out the fact that as Wes pointed out, Paul laid in the bed.

Paul, as was pointed out in another thread, has and is, attracting and immersing himself in fringe groups including sov'runs and TP/ TDs. You cannot blame anyone but him for any association with those groups, either by name only or by him actively meeting and greeting with them. You yourself have admitted that he was going too far with some of the groups he's meeting with. Hes got a lecture planned with the same group as Becraft for petes sake. What else do you want, him to have a laminated card from the Montana Freeman before you admit he got himself and all of you into this mess?

[webhick]

Today's press release from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign:

I'm not sure what a State Representative endorsing a candidate has to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat. Yes I know he's a tax denier, but it's still the case of a state representative endorsing a candidate.
Its the case of a known whackjob endorsing a presidential candidate. Tax protestor/ tax denier aside the man stole lumber from state owned lands without a care and then refused to pay damages and somehow managed to get away with it. So on top of being a TP, hes a thief.

Actually, I think the point is not that a nutball endorsed a candidate: it's that the candidate's campaign proudly made an official announcement about it, which implies that they approve of the nutball. If they didn't approve, they should have either said nothing at all or denounced the endorsement.

Of course, this is the Idaho branch and not the national one. Not sure if that makes a huge difference. I've never been involved in a political campaign* so I'm unclear as to how much control Paul has over the state branches.

*webhick 2012!

[Pottapaug1938]

Today's press release from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign:

I'm not sure what a State Representative endorsing a candidate has to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat. Yes I know he's a tax denier, but it's still the case of a state representative endorsing a candidate.
Its the case of a known whackjob endorsing a presidential candidate. Tax protestor/ tax denier aside the man stole lumber from state owned lands without a care and then refused to pay damages and somehow managed to get away with it. So on top of being a TP, hes a thief.[/quote][/quote]
Actually, I think the point is not that a nutball endorsed a candidate: it's that the candidate's campaign proudly made an official announcement about it, which implies that they approve of the nutball. If they didn't approve, they should have either said nothing at all or denounced the endorsement.

Of course, this is the Idaho branch and not the national one. Not sure if that makes a huge difference. I've never been involved in a political campaign* so I'm unclear as to how much control Paul has over the state branches.

*webhick 2012![/quote]

Well, then, the solution is simple: Paul can issue a statement disavowing the nutball's support. Otherwise, to quote the famous maxim quoted by Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons": silence gives consent. If Paul does not speak out against the nutball, he is tacitly accepting his support, and must bear the consequences thereof.

[webhick]

Well, then, the solution is simple: Paul can issue a statement disavowing the nutball's support. Otherwise, to quote the famous maxim quoted by Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons": silence gives consent. If Paul does not speak out against the nutball, he is tacitly accepting his support, and must bear the consequences thereof.

I don't think it's feasible to disavow each nutball as they throw their support behind him. I mean, if he misses one then all of a sudden he's "agreeing" with their philosophies. But, I do think it's perfectly reasonable for him to counter-act his Idaho Campaign's announcement by stating he doesn't endorse this supporter's views.

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, then, the solution is simple: Paul can issue a statement disavowing the nutball's support. Otherwise, to quote the famous maxim quoted by Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons": silence gives consent. If Paul does not speak out against the nutball, he is tacitly accepting his support, and must bear the consequences thereof.

I don't think it's feasible to disavow each nutball as they throw their support behind him. I mean, if he misses one then all of a sudden he's "agreeing" with their philosophies. But, I do think it's perfectly reasonable for him to counter-act his Idaho Campaign's announcement by stating he doesn't endorse this supporter's views.

If he's running any kind of a campaign, he is either in touch with his local affiliates or has people under him who are. It's true that he can't disavow each and every nutball; but when his Idaho campaign puts the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the guy, action is needed up at the top.

[Demosthenes]

Politicians pander. That's how they secure votes. Republicans pander to the religious right, which costs them libertarian-leaning and independent voters, and Libertarians pander to sovereign citizen, tax protester, and racist zealots, which costs them mainstream voters.

Paulbots are thin-skinned and naive. Paul has promised that he's the anti-politician and they have believed him when, in reality, he's just playing the same political game as all the other idiots running for office. Instead of shrugging and agreeing that pandering to zealots sucks, Paulbots twist themselves into pretzels trying to make such a characterization magically untrue.

[ashlynne39]

Her "selling point" was how polling shows that military men and women support Paul more than any other candidates combined. I haven't seen that poll but I suspect what she was talking about was the one about they give Paul more money than any other candidate combined and as I recall that has been debunked.

Military people do donate more to Paul than the other candidates.

http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.co ... -donations

Now I remember why I laughed off this info - because it doesn't add anything significant to the conversation. Yes Paul gets the most donations. He got donations from 1405 people in the military. According to the bureau of labor statistics there are 2.4 million active and 1 million reserve military so I guess if the Paul folks want to make a big deal out of 1405 donations from this group of people more power to them.

[notorial dissent]

The problem is that Paul is a pandering media/attention whore, and has never, as near as I can tell, ever been concerned with where his support was coming from as long as the money came too. If he disavowed the nutjobs, then the contributions, such as they are would quickly dry up.

As has been pointed out, it is not that the "bulletin will cause terrorism will be linked with Ron Paul", the problem is that he has linked himself to the groups that are espousing that, either directly or tacitly by not publicly distancing himself from them from the start, he seeks them out, and encourages them either directly or by ignoring what they espouse, so he has gotten there all on his own.

Quite frankly, I think he saw the Libertarian party coming and quite gleefully took them for a ride in his bright shiny cadillac of hooey, just like he has done with the fringe groups he plays to. Paul may parrot some of the pet beliefs of the Libertarian party, but if they expect he will follow through they'll have about the same luck the GOP did with him.

If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate then Paul isn't what they are looking for. He is a joke politically, a very bad joke, and he is an ongoing embarrassment otherwise.

If the Libertarian party doesn't want to be smacked with the same brush Paul is applying to himself, then they had best distance themselves from him, and his "friends" as quickly as they can and hope the damage hasn't been too severe. The adage about dogs and fleas applies here.

[JamesVincent]

gleefully took them for a ride in his bright shiny cadillac of hooey

I likes that quote.

[wserra]

If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate

That's a sizeable "if". Remember Aaron Russo? Michael Badnarik? I seem to recall that they almost nominated the former moron for President, and did nominate the latter moron.

[notorial dissent]

Well, I did say IF, not when.

The Libertarian Party has become the party of unintentional comedy for the most part, wanting so very hard to be taken seriously, and then doing what you just pointed out. The fact that they have climbed in bed, or maybe it is the mud wallow, with Paul just shows that they plan on continuing the behavior.

I am about as apolitical as you can get, but I quite frankly take the Socialist Worker's Party in my state more seriously than I do any of the Libertarian candidates.

[Demosthenes]

If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate

That's a sizeable "if". Remember Aaron Russo? Michael Badnarik? I seem to recall that they almost nominated the former moron for President, and did nominate the latter moron.

Harry Browne was a serious candidate.

He even wrote a nasty email to Larken Rose telling him to stop pushing scams.

[JamesVincent]

If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate

That's a sizeable "if". Remember Aaron Russo? Michael Badnarik? I seem to recall that they almost nominated the former moron for President, and did nominate the latter moron.

Harry Browne was a serious candidate.

He even wrote a nasty email to Larken Rose telling him to stop pushing scams.

How well did that work?

[Number Six]

There are a few grown-ups in the LP who oppose the rip-off artists. But most of the leaders are abysmally uninformative when it comes to the law. I think it was Rumpole who said that everyone in jail is a libertarian, they all believe they were unlucky, scapegoated, victims of circumstance, etc.. If the politicians actually educated their schwarmers, instead of behaving like rock stars, they might actually build a viable political movement. As we say in the 12 steps, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the libertarian leaders do not feel remorse as citizens actually put into practice some of the legal swill that is preached by them, and end up losing substantial wealth and/or freedom.

[notorial dissent]

Harry Browne was a serious candidate.

He even wrote a nasty email to Larken Rose telling him to stop pushing scams.

Well good for him, And he made ever so much of an impression.... in both cases.