Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Revolution Gaining Momentum? A best-selling book, over a million die-hard voters, plus his best result to date in Idaho this week. Is America finally waking up?by Mike Freeman
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
There are many reasons to be keeping your eyes on Dr. No right now; he almost as if from out of nowhere keeps on pulling off unthinkable feats, for a "small player" (amongst the television selected "top-tier" candidates) at least, especially when John McCain is already effectively being crowned. Besides, anyone who breaks the one-day online fundraising record (without directly organizing it) has to have something to them!
People are thoroughly fed up with the Bush administration and the ever-spiralling decline that they are dragging us through, yet they fail to realize that the corporations who raised some the most funds for the Bush presidential campaigns are likewise funding huge amounts to Obama, Hillary & McCain. They are also directed by the same organization, to which they belong: the shady Council on Foreign Relations (Ron Paul is not a member), Dick Cheney used to be the Director.
The CFR has great sway over the mainstream media of the U.S. Which sure does explain a lot- but makes it even more amazing when Ron Paul does well under either no press or negative press. Things are set to stay this way, and yet things can only get better for him (he is bound to get more delegates supporting him, and the party divide is getting bigger), the more people see how voting for John McCain is basically voting for a 3rd G.W. Bush term, the worst rated president since approval ratings began.
This brings life to Ron Pauls cause: the Revolution, it puts determination in the hearts of the grassroots supporters whos base grows daily, and with them consisting majorly of the youth of this nation, this motivation for liberty will ensure that the Revolution is here to stay. In the Republican party or not...
Ron Paul is proving how much people really want change, and as time draws near to the GOP convention the message is hitting home loud and clear. Many Republicans don't want McCain, a man who has said he would be prepared to stay in Iraq for 100 years, which is a concern to Americans everywhere, regardless of political alignment. The troops have shown who they support the most; with Dr. Paul's biggest collective donors being from the U.S. armed forces. It goes without saying that things are very different for McCain!
Let's be realistic however, the core pulling-power of the GOP really doesn't want to know, they just keep on acting as a child would do, with they're eyes closed, fingers in their ears, singing to themselves "Lalala! Terrorism is all that matters! Lalala! You're just a Libertarian clown! Lalala!" But the rest of America is watching and realizing how there is no actual choice between McCain, Clinton or even Obama. With any of these in the seat we will just continue down the ever darkening road of our last two presidents- into deeper debt, less civil liberties and more messy wars.
The problem is that no matter how good Ron Paul does now it is practically impossible for him to win the Republican nomination. This isn't just bad for Paulites; unless Republicans as a whole revise their views and stances which have been dominated by the Neo-Conservative agenda, then the GOP is doomed to become obsolete and pointless in standing against the Democrats, who already fill the niche of war in the name of globalization, welfare, lobbying & amnesty, increased government spending, United Nations submission and taxation.
It's such a pity that the good doctor doesn't have just a few extra months, or that this trend had started sooner, because at the rate he is gaining in popularity, he could quite easily in my opinion defeat either Obama or Clinton in the general election, because this guy deals in hard facts, not your typical meaningless rhetoric, and votes consistently for freedom. This was reflected well in Idaho, where he recieved more votes than both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
With the spotlight of a one-against-one scenario, Ron Paul has the potential to humiliate and ultimately crush the Democrats. But with McCain as the candidate, the opposite is assured, as the GOP's punishment for abandoning its conservative roots, over more than just this administration.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 79 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Mike Freeman only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Mike Freeman is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
shh spence... go back to faux news 'n watch your rights erode away. :P some people still care about the future of the country u know! and theres more meaning in what he said than in what u said & that makes what u have to say less than meaningless.
Mr. Spence... With all my being I hope this type of article never ends. And you should too. The Ron Paul supporters, me included, seem to be the only people that give a crap about where this country is going. Bankrupt... hated by more countries every day... loosing our liberties... and the list goes on.
All three of the media sweethearts will increase the national debt. All three belong to the CFR. All three have made threats against Iran, further extending our empire, furhter dragging us into bankruptsy.
Sir, more and more people are waking up to the fact that Ron Paul DOES have some pretty good ideas about fixing our problems. He has a 30 year voting record to back it up. He has NO special interest money.
Spence... we that care, will continue to reach out to others. We will scrutinize all future candiates, holding them to the highest standard, the US Constitution. So sit back, watch your Fox news, we'll save the country for you.
It would be really nice if I didn't have to look at John McCain ads on this website...and every other website I visit for that matter. His campaign is really saturating the web with marketing, what a lost cause to target RP's internet.
I think GW has effectively lied to all of us about Iran and the war and it's coming back to bite him and the GOP in the ass. This is a commentary from the Olbermann news show. He really let GW have it. lol
Lol. The "do-nothing-and-cheer-from-the-sidelines" posse has come out in force:
"shh spence... go back to faux news 'n watch your rights erode away. :P some people still care about the future of the country u know! and theres more meaning in what he said than in what u said & that makes what u have to say less than meaningless."
Unquantificated opinion. Not to mention I shouldn't even be taking someone who can't spell seriously.
"Mr. Spence... With all my being I hope this type of article never ends. And you should too. The Ron Paul supporters, me included, seem to be the only people that give a crap about where this country is going. Bankrupt... hated by more countries every day... loosing our liberties... and the list goes on...
Spence... we that care, will continue to reach out to others. We will scrutinize all future candiates, holding them to the highest standard, the US Constitution. So sit back, watch your Fox news, we'll save the country for you."
You know, I just would like to point out that it REALLY REALLY REALLY damages your credibility when you use Fox News against me, you retards. This just proves you haven't got an ounce of originality in you. And further on the matter, I've actually donated to Ron Paul's campaign and support his cause.
"That's funny Spence. I was thinking the same thing about that comment of yours. It happens to be the only "crappy, meaningless" thing on this blog.
People don't trust the government. Can you blame them?"
If you mean do I blame them for their stupidity like I blame you guys, then yes. You know, it may have been my mistake to diss his article, as that just sends a message to the Paultards (a different term used to separate sane Paul supporters from the idiotic fringe) that their current solution of sitting on their fat ass and spamming websites about the glory that is Ron Paul works. It's like troll baiting in a way.
What I'm tired of is people like you who have no better purpose to write, just make some ambiguous and indeed pointless rant on the glory that is Ron Paul, to be showered by the support of your peers. If that makes me a statist, Faux-News loving sheep, then so be it.
Because I hate to wake you guys up to the fact that what you're doing isn't effective...actually, no, I don't really mind at all. If you fools actually support Ron Paul, you'd be trying to foster discussions on how we can spread the message of liberty. A) It's not his message, as he's said time and time again and B) Making "GO RON PAUL!" articles on a site that is ALREADY predominately supportive of him does not make a goddamn difference. There, I said it.
But by all means, go ahead. Call me out on it, and continue this diatribe. The day when an article that only has the words RON PAUL in it repeated 500 times gets 50 thumbs is the day we're all screwed.
“…the core pulling-power of the GOP really doesn't want to know, they just keep on acting as a child would do, with they're eyes closed, fingers in their ears, singing to themselves "Lalala!...”
Reads like the same thing that I have posted on Daily Paul few days ago. I glad that I am not the only one who think this way about how the GOP is acting. Thanks Mike for your article, I did enjoy it and strengthen my will to continue in the r3VOLution.
I'm as much a "Paulite" as anyone, but come on ... Spence is right. Look, Mike Freeman pointed it out himself: one reason for Ron Paul's appeal is "because this guy deals in hard facts, not your typical meaningless rhetoric." So where are Mike Freeman's hard facts that Paul's campaign is gaining momentum? Hard facts are not hard to find: check his TV coverage in May vs. January, or his votes in primaries, or the # of delegates he's won to state conventions (at least 1/5), or crowd attendance at his events, or his book sales.
A lot of facts could be cited, but Mike Freeman just didn't bother to look any of them up. Instead he just recycles two old facts that he already knew - that Paul raised a record amount in a day, and that he gets more Armed Forces donations than anyone else. But those two facts are from December, so neither one is a sign that he's gaining momentum now. The rest is all rah-rah cheeleading - nice for a "true believer" to hear, sure, but just "meaningless rhetoric to anyone else.
Ron Paul does not bullshit; he researches, and knows, the subjects he talks about. I respect him for that, and I'm sure that Mike et al do as well. The best way to show that respect is to follow his example, no?
Spence, I see no facts whatsoever coming from your angle- you're just ranting as though nobody is allowed to mention Dr. Pauls name any more, anyone who does in any kind of positive light you call "stupid", "idiotic", "fools". It's sad how you can call people "do-nothing"s when all you are is a naysayer yourself, achieving less than nothing. Why should anyone listen to you? There's far less substance to what you have to say than to what is contained within the article, which I doubt you've even read in its entirity.
"What I'm tired of is people like you who have no better purpose to write, just make some ambiguous and indeed pointless rant on the glory that is Ron Paul, to be showered by the support of your peers."
You mean you're actually tired with anyone who has anything positive to say, calling it "spam", when you yourself have no better purpose to write other than to have a go at Paulites, in an ambiguous and indeed pointless way. My impression is that you are just the argumentative sort looking for a little attention on a popular article, to make your day a little more interesting.
I still think that even chocolols unquantificated opinion has more logic to it than your unquantificated opinion. You should take a page from it yourself & see how nobody actually cares what you have to say, regardless of how well they can spell.
George- I wouldn't be too harsh about the 'facts-front', and as for putting facts about "his TV coverage in May vs. January", he posted google trends coverage of Ron Paul news stories if you'd checked the links.
"Spence, I see no facts whatsoever coming from your angle- you're just ranting as though nobody is allowed to mention Dr. Pauls name any more, anyone who does in any kind of positive light you call "stupid", "idiotic", "fools"."
That generalization proves my point exactly; thanks for dismissing my case on the merits of this cliche argument: "well, what have you done lately?"
Well, if you had actually done a search on any of my previous posts, you could have actually seen that I don't go brandishing Paul's name like it's God's and his book, A Manifesto, like it's the Holy Bible.
I guess you're right in reducing my argument to a meaningless rant-- that is, if you throw out everything I said about regurgitating meaningless, outdated facts and pointless opinions. That is exactly what you folks are doing, and you don't seem to even care!
I welcome people to post articles on Ron Paul, if they are informative, have new information, and give us a reasonable call to action. What do I see instead? "ZOMG! RON PAUL GETS 25% IN IDAHO! NEXT PREZ RON PAUL!!!!11" No wonder the media treats us the way it does. Now, I'm sure you're about to say "so you think that means nothing" and I would like to answer an affirmative "NO". Quite the contrary- it is one thing to offer an actual primary analysis and another just saying the revolution is growing... we have over a cajillion articles on that subject and not only are they tired and redundant, but they all act is if their own articles are equally important. If this were a forum and we had duplicate posts exactly like this, would you defend them as well? In essence, the content is the same, it's just the format is slightly different. The only thing is in a forum these people are usually condemned. Why should it be any different here? After all, this doesn't incite a new discussion or include any element of originality to his opinion.
Having said that, let's move onto your next point:
"It's sad how you can call people "do-nothing"s when all you are is a naysayer yourself, achieving less than nothing. Why should anyone listen to you? There's far less substance to what you have to say than to what is contained within the article, which I doubt you've even read in its entirity."
Trumpet that all you like. You make one large fallacy yourself here: that “do-nothings” and naysayers are the same thing. If I were to go along with such a fallacious argument, then you might be correct. But that little statement of yours throws so much logic out the window. First, you do nothing to actually uphold the assertion that this article “does something”. This basically concedes the truth right here. Second, you have the audacity to oversimplify my statement to this very level with such unprovable assumptions as whether I've read the entire article or not. Let's just put it this way: had he INTRODUCED one new piece of information or made a compelling case, I would not have responded the way I had. Fair enough? I'm going to guess no, because you've made arrogant and wild assumptions this entire time. What's the problem with another?
“You mean you're actually tired with anyone who has anything positive to say, calling it "spam", when you yourself have no better purpose to write other than to have a go at Paulites, in an ambiguous and indeed pointless way. My impression is that you are just the argumentative sort looking for a little attention on a popular article, to make your day a little more interesting. “
As I said, I'm actually a columnist here. You seemed to have missed that point several times now, as well as the fact that I actually have converted people to Paul's campaign. Yep, I'm doing nothing AND I hate Ron Paul. Sheesh, give me a break. Sure, I inevitably “have a go at Paulites” why? Because I comment more than I write? You could argue that, but at least I write new articles when I have a distinct subject to talk about. You seem predisposed to the notion that this site is owned by Paul supporters for Paul supporters. That's one of the most arrogant things you've insinuated yet! I'm here to advocate a general libertarian view, not merely post Paul bias to make myself popular. And calling me argumentative does nothing but reinforce the misconception I like to hear myself talk, not because I'd rather convince other people to post something of new value. Is that subjective? Hardly.
“I still think that even chocolols unquantificated opinion has more logic to it than your unquantificated opinion. You should take a page from it yourself & see how nobody actually cares what you have to say, regardless of how well they can spell.”
I'm so glad you get to decide this for me. Please. Do me a favor and test that argument yourself- “take a page from it yourself” as you put it. Go onto a liberal blog and post something about the glory of Ron Paul, and then let's see if anyone cares what you have to say. You can't confirm that anyone actually does. If your idea of logic is the same as chocolol's, then I can't take a further word from you seriously anymore. Proof? You only got so far with me because up until you made that statement, I had thought you were somewhat intelligent, but backing up someone that doesn't exert any reasonable effort of their own takes the cake. Would you take a 10 year old's advice on how to fly planes seriously? “Oh, you suck. You didn't land fast enough”...
Yeah... ok. Now that I think about it, you probably would. After all, why cease to surprise me now? You've already gone leaps and bounds to.
P.S. My “unquantificated opinion” actually made a reference to how many redundant posts there were here, before.
lol someones on the defensive! i didnt actually catch one single point in that entire essay. after your first comment i really dont know why i bothered to read your petty tyrade... thought it would be good for a laugh and it was! implying that he would take flying instructions from a 10 year old made me giggle a little... course anyone who has a difference of opinion to u has to be retarded.. and you called him arrogant (twice!)?? after dissecting everything he has to say word by word. its hilarious spence. and bragging about how you convert people with your masterful articles... what, did u write 'why did ron paul lose?' and such?
youre acting as though somebody here has actually said 'ron paul for president', or 'ron pauls going to win!' or 'ron paul is going to solve all of americas problems!' i don't see anything like that. i also havent seen another article summing up pauls complete overall progress leading up to and through this month from a positive stance: idaho is covered for example, that he is actually getting more popular by the day still however late it is.
some news agencies find it important to write articles on how ron paul has family members working for him and other outdated rubbish so why don't you make yourself useful and dissect them if you are so loyal to the revolution.
youre the only one on here whos typed 'NEXT PREZ RON PAUL' are u envious of more popular articles? lol
I don't expect a troll like you to understand "essays" or even "dissections", or to even understand the difference between bragging and refuting. Then again, you probably have never heard of the old maxim: "Never argue with an idiot; they'll beat you with experience" so I'll save myself the trouble of getting into it with you cause you have the mind of a 12-year old.
Calling people names and attacking their mentality/intellect for no reason and with no basis makes you look ugly to everyone Spence, does that not explain why the majority of people on here are against you? Oh yes- and what was your point? From looking at all of your posts, it's clear that what you are trying to say is that only your points are valid and that everybody else who reads this article and has some kind of input is retarded... because you are like some kind of God, with a power-house of a brain, who speaks and comprehends everything to the greatest levels of truth, of which nobody else can fathom, giving you the right to put down anybodies level of thought, as yours is naturally far more vast in scope.
BTW- definition of an internet "troll":
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Ron Paul trolls generally post ridiculous messages which can be copied and pasted dozens of times, such as "Ron Paul!" "rEVOLution!" "Ron Paul FTW" etc.
Another inaccurate attack huh? You're the one baiting other users into an emotional response, using put-downs and insults. Plus you're the one disrupting the on-topic discussion, in an irrelevant way- you haven't actually commented anything of any value to the contents of the original article, but instead have focused your efforts on attacking the intellects of readers, which is dragging the comments of this thread down to your level.
You also seem to be the "idiot" most determined to win the 'argument' (that you made up), however name-calling doesn't count as argument- it's generally known as having a tantrum. I can't be bothered to dissect the vast amount of..trash you're talking here, it's really not worth it when you'll spend a couple of hours contemplating a 'witty' riposte (comprised chiefly of insults, and put-downs), so we'll leave it at this- you have the most time on your hands, the most anti-social persona, and the most negative opinion on here- but of course the most valid, because you're not acting like a child at all...
No reason? No basis? You don't even make an actual rebuttal to the point I'm making. Yes, I use harsh words when I'm frustrated with your sort. Who doesn't? This isn't a political correctness contest, so stop strutting around like it is.
I don't remember saying that only my points are valid in any of my posts EVER. More perversions of the truth from your way. I'm not surprised. Again, you make these arrogant assumptions that outright spit in the face of common sense. But since I advocate a certain level of quality in articles and am not afraid to say so, even going so far as to use logic as my argument, I'm attacked myself as being arrogant. So let's see here:
-Arrogance
-False attacks
-Calling me a troll
Would you like to parrot anything else back to me? This might just be ignorance on your part at best; at worst, anti-intellectualism. Either way, you apparently hate to think.
I didn't start the argument. Go look to who actually baited me in the first place. This might require you think LOGICALLY, something you so far have shown you're unwilling to do. Furthermore, my first post was related to the topic, as the writer clearly had not offered any new content that actually proved his thesis, leading me to wonder if any more of the baseless posts from February would continue. (And they have: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3942.htm).
So you resort to something I already debunked but you had no other grounds to continue your little roast on. You can only measure who a troll is by their actual intent to incite controversy. Another wild assumption. Let's take a flashback:
"...you have the audacity to oversimplify my statement to this very level with such unprovable assumptions as whether I've read the entire article or not."
My intent was merely for people to ask themselves why do posts that have NOTHING to add to the topic garner so much attention and no one has actually thus far addressed this, not even you . You have skimmed over this very point now 3 times and have instead made more elaborate straw-man attacks than my "put-downs" ever did. But I guess, that's all subject to moral relativism isn't it? It is becoming more and more apparent that you are responding simply to garner attention yourself, not because you're actually trying to make a real point or actually debate with me the true merits of posting trivial Ron Paul facts.
So I'll say again: you're the real troll, and swiping my FIN to make yourself appear even more arrogant was a nice touch.
Comment on the actual article & its contents and stop attacking people Spence- you're looking like an idiot- a sad pathetic low-life with nothing better to do.
-Arrogance
-False attacks
-A troll
Yes that sums your input up pretty well, now stop bringing the comments down to your level. I for one am not going to argue with a headstrong child like u, and I've no doubt in my mind that everybody is throroughly fed up with what you have to say. I mean I'm sure you do have a point to make- but scanning 8 paragraphs of hyperbole for a single valid point is the height of tedium.
Arguments aren't won by he who types the most, he who professes to be the smartest, or he who shouts the loudest; one day you might realise this. It'll be the day you grow up- and a great day for the online community in general.
"A man meets with no more respect than he exacts", you should have thought of that before typing your first comment.
Something every american needs to see NOW and every American in the military needs to see twice and share with every one of the troops he can. This is beyond sick and should not go ignored. And for some of you who are "ok" with this (I know ther will be some regardless of its evil) you might want to at least remember this when you are gloating about some candidates low percentages in the primary.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
