Ron Paul to hold rally during GOPervert convention

[greenbriar]

AUSTIN, Texas - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is planning a daylong rally in Minnesota during the Republican National Convention that could draw attention from the presumed nominee John McCain.

The Texas congressman with a devoted following has tentatively reserved the Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota on Sept. 2, the second day of the GOP convention.

"We plan on having a large rally," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. "We want it to be a celebration of Republican values and what the Republican Party has traditionally stood for."

Benton also said Paul wants to send a message to the GOP "that we need to return to our roots" of limited government and personal responsibility


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_el_pr/ron_paul_convention

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Heh, heh, heh.

[greenbriar]

3. this could be very funny

and I can see McNasty blowing a gasket...

"but it's supposed to be my night"

hehe

[w8liftinglady]

2. go for it Ron!...I hope you pull the few sane repubs to your side

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. No; we want the sane ones. Let Ron take from McCain

the batshit crazy Randian objectivist antitax wackjobs that he seems to attract.

[SergeyDovlatov]

9. Randians would not go. They are rabidly pro-war.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5017

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them is that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran's totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.

...

It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers--and let them go to war to bring the Islamic totalitarians to their knees.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Paul isn't antiwar; he doesn't like the Iraq war because Congress didn't declare it

and because it's costing a lot of money. He isn't a true Randian, but he attracts a lot of them.

[SergeyDovlatov]

13. Dennis and Paul are as anti-war as it gets

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm

There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

--

ocelot: He isn't a true Randian, but he attracts a lot of them.

That may be, but I haven't observed a single Randroid (capmag / ayn rand institute) to say anything positive about Paul since 9/11. Randians went berzerk after that. Though, regular libertarians are sure to adore Paul.

[hokies4ever]

25. Agreed.

Both of them actually share similar foreign policies and view Obama as too hawkish.

[tuckessee]

38. Totally wrong. Paul favors a non-interventionist foreign policy.

He has been clear and consistent on that point.

To assert otherwise is a lie.

[Recursion]

39. In fairness he asked for the declaration of war vote

but was very clear he'd vote against the declaration because Iraq wasn't a threat to the US.

[muntrv]

4. Now THIS is operation chaos.

:evilgrin:

[greenbriar]

6. I know

right

[w8liftinglady]

5. Ron's supporters were great at the repub straw poll..as good as us in throwing the war in their

faces.It will be a good show!

[greenbriar]

14. will be interesting

for sure

[SergeyDovlatov]

8. Ha-ha! I bet security will be lax and some non-paulites stop by and boost the attendance numbers...

Unlike the real republican convention. Which will be locked down as if it is held outside of the green zone in Bagdad.

http://www.stpaul2008.net/predicted-perimeters

I wonder, whether Ron Paul venue inside RNC security perimeter or not?

[Viking12]

16. Nope. Williams Arena is in Minnepolis, approx 6-8 miles away

I guess the Paul supporters raised hell at the MN State GOP convention. Might be quite a few of them at a Paul event during the National GOP Convention.

[PeaceNikki]

10. Like I said in the other thread: He's still batshit crazy.

[Swamp Rat]

11. YAAAAAHOOOOOO!!!!

[Zynx]

15. I hope his racist, goldbug, whacko antics make the Republicans look foolish.

Oh wait...They already look ridiculous to being with.

[greenbriar]

17. but this can't help but fuel the idiocy

will be fun to watch

[hokies4ever]

18. He's not a racist

plus isn't the enemy of our enemy our friend?

[Zynx]

19. No. Mugabe is an enemy of Bush, but is not my friend. You can end up with some

disreputable people as your friends under that philosophy. Ron Paul is a vile and disgusting man with a philosophy 95% incompatible with our party.

[hokies4ever]

20. He's not a vile and disgusting man though

I disagree with domestic policy positions but he is a man of integrity. McCain sold his soul to become the GOP nominee. He flip-flopped on any and every issue that he needed to change on to appease the conservatives enough to win the nomination.

[Lasher]

21. McCain just got a better price.

Paul likes to make a big deal of voting against measures like the one to give Rosa Parks a medal. Here's what he said to justify that vote:

Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way.

It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money.

He voted against spending $30,000 for a medal for this woman who took a brave stand during the civil rights movement. I'm sure that one impressed his pals at Stormfront. But then Doctor No said yes to 50 earmarks for his home district, inluding $8 million for 'Wild American Shrimp Marketing' requested by the Texas Shrimp Association.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html

How can you square these actions by this 'man of integrity'?

[hokies4ever]

24. Ron Paul's political philosophy

is that if the government has charitable money to give away, no matter how just the cause, then it shouldn't have had that money in the first place. In this case he would say that Congress is granted Constitutional authority to earmark the money, not contribute to a charity cause which citizens can do themselves. It's a rather harsh view of the role of government. It's amazing that he's gotten the support that he has. Commonsense would tell you that his anti-pandering tactics will never garner enough support. Even if I don't agree with his political philosophy, at least he has a backbone of integrity. McCain pretty much just polled the Republican Party, found out what they liked, and pretended to believe that way all along. McCain would sell out his family for the right price. I don't mind politicians whose viewpoints I disagree with, but I can't stand politicians who stand for nothing and fall for everything. That's why the Republican Party is going to lose in this election. Their field this year had too many frauds running to lead the party who made flip-flopping look like the norm of the party.

[Zynx]

28. It's a self-centered philosophy that believes that market forces are efficient allocators

of societal welfare.

[Lasher]

31. Hell, he's not even a real libertarian. He's a hypocrite.

Even the famous libertarian Noam Chomsky knows he's Doctor No is goofy:

Reporter: Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of Libertarianism?

Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion, on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

Reporter: Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate, and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Noam Chomsky: No.

http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=74.html

He's always asked for spending for his local district in response to requests. But when spending bills get to the floor he usually votes against them - even the ones that contain his earmarks - to get attention. Then he tries to find someone with a camera who will listen to his bullshit. He says other politicians are controlled by special interests, but then hands a questionable $8 million earmark to his contributors in the shrimp industry, as I noted upthread.

Paul is doing what he criticizes others for doing - just saying what some people want to hear.

[SergeyDovlatov]

37. welfare economics

My understanding that microeconomics theory generally agrees that market provides for most efficient allocation of resources with caveats of certain market failures: externalities, public goods, etc.

There is also a branch of economics that deals specifically in social welfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics

Welfare economics is a branch of economics that uses microeconomic techniques to simultaneously determine allocative efficiency within an economy and the income distribution associated with it. It analyzes social welfare, however measured, in terms of economic activities of the individuals that comprise the theoretical society considered. As such, individuals, with associated economic activities, are the basic units for aggregating to social welfare, whether of a group, a community, or a society, and there is no "social welfare" apart from the "welfare" associated with its individual units. Here, 'welfare' in its most general sense refers to well-being.

[Zynx]

41. That's the Econ 101 interpretation. Get into more advanced economics and you make delineations on

welfare.

For example, while a perfectly competitive market may well provide total economic activity(which can be called welfare) of, say $1 billion, there is nothing about how that is allocated among the market participants. You could have one person with $900 million and 100 million people with $1 in the most extreme circumstance. Ron Paul would not see a need for government intervention in such a circumstance.

Market forces are probably the best at arriving at a high level of total welfare, but certainly not ideal for an equitable distribution of welfare.

[calmblueocean]

33. If Ron Paul had "integrity" he would name the person who wrote all the racist & gaybashing remarks

that he sent out under his name. (I take him at his word that he didn't write them himself, but that of course, is just another level of deceit -- he deceived his paying subscribers and donators by sending out "The Ron Paul Report" with editorials that said they were written by Ron Paul, which he now claims he never wrote.)

Ron Paul knows exactly who wrote those words -- most indicators point to libertarian Lew Rockwell -- but he pretends not to. He should be ashamed.

[Zynx]

27. You can truly believe in some pretty disreputable stuff.

Libertarian philosophy is inherently self-centered and vile.

Edit: And he is a racist. I don't buy for a moment that he had no idea what was being published in his newsletters. Libertarians and racists tend to move in the same circles.

[PeaceNikki]

30. Yes he is

Here's something I send to all of my progressive friends who are suckered into his few seemingly progressive ideas:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

<snip>

If America ever becomes a fascist state, it will be Ron Paul's long-time followers who bring it about. And we -- progressives, miniorities, feminists, gays, "intellectuals," and Jews like Maher and Stewart -- with be the first ones to feel their genocidal rage. We cannot overlook his long association with far-right extremists just because he agrees with us that the war is wrong and pot should be legal. If Bush has taught us anything, it's that we need to hold ourselves and our candidates to much higher standards than that. What we choose to overlook now, we will live to regret later.

He's against affirmitive action. Against amnesty. Against stem cell research. Wants to end funding for organizations that promote abortion. Rated 0% by NARAL. Voted for Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. Voted to BAN GAY ADOPTIONS. Wants to end preferential treatment by race in college admissions. Voted NO on increasing minimum wage. And he's all about pushing regressive taxes.

1) He’s content to let genocide, wars of aggression, and human rights violations occur abroad with nothing more than a “moral statement” from the U.S.

2) Ron Paul wants to end all paper money and revert to a monetary system based on gold, which would make our nation the only government in the world to use the Gold Standard.

3) Ron Paul believes that neither the federal government nor the state government should prohibit prayer in public schools. Does this mean I can paste pictures of Vishnu all along school walls? Should teachers now allow statues of the Buddha outside the school? I wonder how long it takes until Jesus is our new national mascot.

4) Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS and the income tax. Sounds great right? Well, so does free ice cream and new cars for everyone, but that doesn't mean they're realistic ideas. The US. government needs money, and if you abolish the income tax, they're going to take it by other means. Only instead of taking fair amounts from people based on how much they make, the government is going to increase the sales tax. In case you weren't following, this means Ron Paul's plans will benefit the rich. Please don't shoot yourselves in the foot, don't vote for a man who only wants to help the rich. He just wants to greaten the divide between the poor and the rich, which is already overwhelming. By the way, he also wants to eliminate the departments of education, energy, homeland security, and emergency management. We're struggling to bring order to our chaotic nation as it is, don't hinder our efforts by destroying the government. Ron Paul is either an unrealistic crazy idealist or another corrupted politician. Either way, I'm not voting for him, no matter how much his internet supporters spam his name.

[cbc5g]

36. No he isn't

I don't see anything about wanting to commit genocide in there. Nice try though.


I don't like him or his policies because they would hurt America, but genocide? Libertarians aren't genocidal racists. Thats bullshit, you can do better than that.

[hokies4ever]

42. Agreed

It's one thing to disagree with someone's political position, but another to accuse them of desiring genocide.

[PeaceNikki]

43. I never indicated that Libertarians as a rule aren't racists. He, however, is.

The link I posted uses the term "genocidal rage".

[PeaceNikki]

44. Ack, I meant that I meant never indicated that Libertarians as a rule ARE racists

oops

[tom_paine]

22. Corporate & Bushie Media know how to handle this: Paul & his supporters are about to taste what we

have gotten these past eight (and really, 25) years from the so-called "liberal media".

Paul will NOT be allowed to get the Bushie McBushies off message. It will almost be as if their rally never was.

Welcome to OUR world, Paulites. Too late you begin to stir as to the REAL nature of the problem in this country.

[Fleshdancer]

23. Gee. I would hate for non supporters in the area to show up just to make McBush look bad

that would be a horrible thing to do! :D

[hokies4ever]

26. Hehe, I bet a lot of Dems are salivating at putting on a good show there.

[madokie]

29. This gets a rec for thread title alone

I happened to see ron paul on the tv the other day and I must say he is Guano crazy

[Lasher]

32. I just gave it number 5. n/t

[mopinko]

34. ron paul for veep!

i keep worrying that mc same will come up with a really good pick for veep. paul would definitely hold onto a lot of disaffected thugs.

[Lasher]

35. That would probably alienate more potential voters than it would attract.

It appears most Republicans don't like him.

I looked in on the freepers who are reacting to the same topic posted here in the OP. Now I am soiled and need a shower. Anyway here's what some had to say:

Good. At least all the loons will be in one place..............

We need people like Ron Paul in Congress but his head has expanded to the size of Texas. Just go back to Congress RP.

I am reminded of the Court House scene in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken. The DA asks the star witness where his group had their convention. He answers - “On Mars”.

koo koo ,koo koo

Has he picked the planet yet?

Well, that just makes it easier for the weed dealers. They can concentrate on their prime customers.

So all 14 of them can play Dungeons and Dragons and smoke pot while the rest of us move on with the real election?

[SergeyDovlatov]

40. true... RP was labeled as kook / fringe in popular media, so this will only harm Obama.

[elizfeelinggreat]

47. The only people I know

supporting Ron Paul would have supported the republican nominee. :D

Don't believe this will hurt Obama at all.

Go Ron Paul, Go Bob Barr ... the more the merrier!

Why isn't the media covering the republican party's "civil war" ????
(as I heard Chris Matthews describe our primary ... -insert your own nasty adjective to describe matthew's idiocy here I can't make up my mind which insult fits him best right now )

[Lasher]

48. That's right.

I know three Paul supporters and they all voted for Ross Perot when he was on the ticket. One of the three went for George Wallace in 1968 but I don't know if the other two did or not. They all voted for Republican candidates every other time.

[Stingo]

45. News media

should put this thing on primetime.

[SergeyDovlatov]

46. That will happen only if media trully has liberal bias. Don't count on it.