Ron Paul just committed political suicide...
- Thread starter Manedwolf
- Start date
applesanity
New member
Recap:
Whatever it is the Browns are doing, whether you agree with them or otherwise, they did threaten to kill cops, and they did accuse the court system of being rigged by Masons. For the love of your diety of choice, don't compare them to the Minutemen. See, the Minutemen were a locally, town-organized militia. A town-organized militia != one loony couple, hated by their town.
Ron Paul did an interview with a website called roguegovernment.com - a website who claims to be exposing THE NEW WORLD ORDER. That's right - the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM of Masons, Trilaterals, Illuminati, MJ-12's, CFR's, etc. Pass the tin foil.
Strke #1: Presidential hopefuls should never do interviews with fringe organizations. You don't look mainstream. Also, if you really do the math, it means that you can't score an interview with a mainstream outlet because you're simply just not as ____________ as the other candidates.
Yes, yes, I know that sooner or later, someone's gonna point out that MLK, Jr. plagiarized over half of his doctoral thesis while at Boston College, that he was an avowed Marxist and Soviet sympathizer, that he had a thing for white prostitutes. And that Ghandi love giving enemas to girls, that he supremely hated black people, and was a full blown sex fiend. So there, I've beaten you to it. But it doesn't matter. The public image of these two men is highly elevated; of non-violent men seeking non-violent means to end unjust stuff, ultimately being assasinated for their noble causes.
I saw the video. Hell, I'm the one who posted the link to the original source.
"They're standing up for the law"
"Federal reserve notes aren't legal tender"
"People who fight the tax system are heroic"
"...called them the true patriots"
"it's risky business and I compare them to people like Ghandi who's willing to speak out, and uh, who try to bring about change in a peaceful manner...MLK faught laws that were unfair and unjust but he suffered too."
Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.
Strike #2: Don't donate money to Ron Paul. Money is illegal.
Strike #3: He called the Browns (previously established that they're loony) heroic. He may have been attempting to call tax protestors in general "heroic," but he was talking in the context of the Browns. Does that mean that if I refuse to pay my taxes and threaten to kill cops, that RP will call me heroic too?
Strike #4: He called them patriots. Come on. Whether they are, you just don't do that if you want to be president. You want to stay palpable and accessible (i.e. electable) to the American public. You do not want to look like a fringe loony.
Strike #5: He compared them to - elevated them to the same ranks as - Ghandi. Someone here needs a history lesson. Note the incongruity. The Browns are not bringing about change in a peaceful manner. Therefore, threatening to kill cops is considered "peaceful" in the eyes of Ron Paul.
"But AppleSanity, Bush slips up so often, you can fill up a phone book."
(red herrings) True, but they're all grammatical faux pas. Saying that the queen was around in 1776, or calling Nigeria a continent makes you look dumb. But actively, purposefully, and articulately telling a fringe website your fringe opinions makes you look, well, like you're on the fringe.
"But Applesanity, your so-called 'fringe' is just your opinion. What if it's right?"
It doesn't matter. You cannot win the presidency unless you're mainstream. Ralph Nader lost. Ross Perot Lost. Kucinich... who's Kucinich again? You do not want to put yourself in the same boat as the Browns if you're trying to win over the American electorate.
"Then that just means RP is sticking to his guns, so to speak."
Or rather, RP is one very honest and frank man, and a dumb politician.
"Applesanity, why are you so worked up over this issue? Aren't you in favor of Fred Thompson anyway? If you've always claimed that RP was unelectable in the first place, why do you care now?"
Because like it or not, people on gun forums become representative of gun owners for Internet readers. Let's not try to look like a bunch of trigger-happy, racist, redneck yokel gun nuts, just itching for an excuse to double tap Hillary in the forehead. The other day, one TFL poster actually typed, "Well that's 2 less thugs off the street" or something to that effect, regarding a self-defensive shooting. Come on. How can we ever be mainstream (you want gun rights and gun culture to be mainstream, yes?), if some are actually going to defend RP regarding this mess? Sure, you can give RP a pass this time around, and vote for him eventually - that's your thing, if you think his merits still outweigh. But you can't back him up for praising the Browns.
Whatever it is the Browns are doing, whether you agree with them or otherwise, they did threaten to kill cops, and they did accuse the court system of being rigged by Masons. For the love of your diety of choice, don't compare them to the Minutemen. See, the Minutemen were a locally, town-organized militia. A town-organized militia != one loony couple, hated by their town.
Ron Paul did an interview with a website called roguegovernment.com - a website who claims to be exposing THE NEW WORLD ORDER. That's right - the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM of Masons, Trilaterals, Illuminati, MJ-12's, CFR's, etc. Pass the tin foil.
Strke #1: Presidential hopefuls should never do interviews with fringe organizations. You don't look mainstream. Also, if you really do the math, it means that you can't score an interview with a mainstream outlet because you're simply just not as ____________ as the other candidates.
Yes, yes, I know that sooner or later, someone's gonna point out that MLK, Jr. plagiarized over half of his doctoral thesis while at Boston College, that he was an avowed Marxist and Soviet sympathizer, that he had a thing for white prostitutes. And that Ghandi love giving enemas to girls, that he supremely hated black people, and was a full blown sex fiend. So there, I've beaten you to it. But it doesn't matter. The public image of these two men is highly elevated; of non-violent men seeking non-violent means to end unjust stuff, ultimately being assasinated for their noble causes.
I saw the video. Hell, I'm the one who posted the link to the original source.
"They're standing up for the law"
"Federal reserve notes aren't legal tender"
"People who fight the tax system are heroic"
"...called them the true patriots"
"it's risky business and I compare them to people like Ghandi who's willing to speak out, and uh, who try to bring about change in a peaceful manner...MLK faught laws that were unfair and unjust but he suffered too."
Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.
Strike #2: Don't donate money to Ron Paul. Money is illegal.
Strike #3: He called the Browns (previously established that they're loony) heroic. He may have been attempting to call tax protestors in general "heroic," but he was talking in the context of the Browns. Does that mean that if I refuse to pay my taxes and threaten to kill cops, that RP will call me heroic too?
Strike #4: He called them patriots. Come on. Whether they are, you just don't do that if you want to be president. You want to stay palpable and accessible (i.e. electable) to the American public. You do not want to look like a fringe loony.
Strike #5: He compared them to - elevated them to the same ranks as - Ghandi. Someone here needs a history lesson. Note the incongruity. The Browns are not bringing about change in a peaceful manner. Therefore, threatening to kill cops is considered "peaceful" in the eyes of Ron Paul.
"But AppleSanity, Bush slips up so often, you can fill up a phone book."
(red herrings) True, but they're all grammatical faux pas. Saying that the queen was around in 1776, or calling Nigeria a continent makes you look dumb. But actively, purposefully, and articulately telling a fringe website your fringe opinions makes you look, well, like you're on the fringe.
"But Applesanity, your so-called 'fringe' is just your opinion. What if it's right?"
It doesn't matter. You cannot win the presidency unless you're mainstream. Ralph Nader lost. Ross Perot Lost. Kucinich... who's Kucinich again? You do not want to put yourself in the same boat as the Browns if you're trying to win over the American electorate.
"Then that just means RP is sticking to his guns, so to speak."
Or rather, RP is one very honest and frank man, and a dumb politician.
"Applesanity, why are you so worked up over this issue? Aren't you in favor of Fred Thompson anyway? If you've always claimed that RP was unelectable in the first place, why do you care now?"
Because like it or not, people on gun forums become representative of gun owners for Internet readers. Let's not try to look like a bunch of trigger-happy, racist, redneck yokel gun nuts, just itching for an excuse to double tap Hillary in the forehead. The other day, one TFL poster actually typed, "Well that's 2 less thugs off the street" or something to that effect, regarding a self-defensive shooting. Come on. How can we ever be mainstream (you want gun rights and gun culture to be mainstream, yes?), if some are actually going to defend RP regarding this mess? Sure, you can give RP a pass this time around, and vote for him eventually - that's your thing, if you think his merits still outweigh. But you can't back him up for praising the Browns.
Last edited:
Bingo. Perception is reality folks, and I'd venture a guess that 80% of voters just don't really care about politics. As a result they get all their information around election time from 20 second sound bites.
How many treatises Paul has written doesn't matter. What does matter is how people percieve him. His biggest claim to fame thus far is being bitchslapped by Guliani for saying we were responsible for 9/11.
(Now before all you nuts start in about the 9/11 comission report and "blowback" let me stop you here. Because you and I know what Paul meant doesn't matter. What matters is what 80% of voters saw and they saw some kooky old man say we were responsible for 9/11)
So when the Browns are paraded all over the news in steel bracelets or do their best impression of the branch davidians, guess whose picture is going to be slapped up next to them. Thats right, Ron Paul. "Dr Paul, do you still think these people are patriots" is going to be the question, and there is no better an answer to that question than "have you stopped beating your wife."
Bottom line, just because a person wants to defend the constitution doesn't mean they have to fall all over themselves doing it. Discretion is in fact the better part of valor.
(Now before all you nuts start in about the 9/11 comission report and "blowback" let me stop you here. Because you and I know what Paul meant doesn't matter. What matters is what 80% of voters saw and they saw some kooky old man say we were responsible for 9/11)
this is the problem, most people vote image over substance, ad execs sell politicians just like they sell cars
little substance, lotsa sex appeal, and the asleep at the wheel public buys right into it
we are a declining empire
this is the problem, most people vote image over substance, ad execs sell politicians just like they sell cars
little substance, lotsa sex appeal, and the asleep at the wheel public buys right into it
we are a declining empire
applesanity
New member
....and you've missed the point altogether.
Methinks certain people around here are trying to conflate two seperate subjects here because they're trying desperately to propagate a lie. You know who you are. Any statement that says Ron Paul said "insert quote here" in reference to the Browns is a blatant lie. Anything following it is irrelavant.
Ron clearly hadn't heard about this particular case prior to the interview and was talking about people *in general* who resist unconstitutional laws.
Nice try tho'.
Ron clearly hadn't heard about this particular case prior to the interview and was talking about people *in general* who resist unconstitutional laws.
Nice try tho'.
Then he 1) doesn't follow national news and 2) is even more of an idiot for commenting on something he doesn't know about. During a national election to do something like that only demonstrates he doesn't have the savy to win elections.
Secondly your answer is a total cop out since once he was apprised of the specifics of the case he didn't change his position, so yes he is supporting the Browns in as much as they are not paying taxes. In fact he encouraged more people to do it in the interview.
Anyway, instead of threatening to kill law enforcement officers, why can't Mr. Paul's "heros" voluntarily go to court and assert that taxes are unconstitutional? Could it be that.....they are totally looney and know that this argument is a total loser, and that they're going to jail? Methinks so.
Look, I don't dislike Ron Paul. I feel sorry for him. His campaign is a mess, and Hillary's war machine would eat Paul alive (and spit out the chuncks, and then eat them again just for good measure) if Paul were to win the nomination.
LOL. You think that was a doozy, imagine how gentle Hillary would be to him during a debate.
Look, I don't dislike Ron Paul. I feel sorry for him. His campaign is a mess, and Hillary's war machine would eat Paul alive (and spit out the chuncks, and then eat them again just for good measure) if Paul were to win the nomination.
LOL. You think that was a doozy, imagine how gentle Hillary would be to him during a debate.
applesanity
New member
No, not again. I already did. In fact, I actually anticipated your reponse before you responded. See post #42.
No, not again. I already did. In fact, I actually anticipated your reponse before you responded. See post #42
I saw post #42 and I saw nothing concerning my assertation that the american public is asleep at the wheel.
American has only averaged a 54% turnout for congressional elections from 1960 to 1995
Austrailia averages 95%, Austria 92%, Belgium 91%
How can you say Americans are not asleep at the wheel when only 54% of them even bother to pick their leaders?
I saw post #42 and I saw nothing concerning my assertation that the american public is asleep at the wheel.
American has only averaged a 54% turnout for congressional elections from 1960 to 1995
Austrailia averages 95%, Austria 92%, Belgium 91%
How can you say Americans are not asleep at the wheel when only 54% of them even bother to pick their leaders?
applesanity
New member
...and you missed the point... again.
See, when I said,
applesanity said:
I wasn't saying, "no you're wrong." If I wanted to tell you that you were wrong, I would've said so. The truth is, you're right. ***But that's not the point.***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
STAGE2 elaborated on the point (that you're not getting) in post #43.
Come to to think of it, RP did call the American public "zombies" during that interview. Yep - he called us zombies. Do you get it yet?
I get your point, but not all of Bush's dumb statments have been screw ups of grammer.
For example:
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of the site, and this guy is just a garbage man. -- George W Bush, commenting on the website www.gwbush.com, a parody of his campaign website
Does any of this really matter, I still would prefer Paul to any other candidate despite a possibly stupid statement he made. I dont think he or anyone else claimed he could walk on water.
For example:
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of the site, and this guy is just a garbage man. -- George W Bush, commenting on the website www.gwbush.com, a parody of his campaign website
Does any of this really matter, I still would prefer Paul to any other candidate despite a possibly stupid statement he made. I dont think he or anyone else claimed he could walk on water.
Ron or else
I've handed out about a 100 fliers for him every day last week and two people would not take them. That's a 98% acceptance ratio here in Texas. Reach up people, you might surprise yourself.
You can either stand in the light of the truth and take the heat or cower in the darkness of the lies and take what you get.
I've handed out about a 100 fliers for him every day last week and two people would not take them. That's a 98% acceptance ratio here in Texas. Reach up people, you might surprise yourself.
You can either stand in the light of the truth and take the heat or cower in the darkness of the lies and take what you get.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Im usually too polite to say no to pamphleteers. I toss them away as soon as the givers back is turned.
WildeventhosehotonesinvegasAlaska
"Paul didn't bother with them per se, the interviewer asked a broad question using them as an example and Paul answered it."
He could have simply not answered it, or answered the question with a reference to someone more deserving of the attention. There is no requirement that all questions, especially baiting questions about the fringe elements of society, need to be addressed.
John
He could have simply not answered it, or answered the question with a reference to someone more deserving of the attention. There is no requirement that all questions, especially baiting questions about the fringe elements of society, need to be addressed.
John