Congressman Ron Paul’s Liberty PAC is having a banner year! So far this election season, the organization, a separate PAC from the the Super PACs supporting his presidential campaign, has raised $1.3 million, far more than the $186,000 it took in during the 2010 races and definitely more than the $304,000 or so from when Paul last ran for president in 2008. But unlike his Republican rivals, all of whom have their own PACs, Paul’s team isn’t being very generous when it comes to dispensing that pot of political cash.
Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC, for example, has given out $253,000 to 125 House candidates and $91,500 to 25 Senate candidates, obviously with the hope that the lawmakers will help his own White House ambitions. In contrast, the bulk of Liberty PAC’s spending has gone toward travel ($285,870, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.) It has only given out $15,000 for House candidates and $5,000 to a senator, his son, Rand Paul.
The candidate receiving the most money from Liberty PAC, it turns out, is Ron Paul himself. Records show that Liberty PAC has given Paul $20,000 for his presidential campaign. Romney’s leadership PAC has given the former Massachusetts $0. Same with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich’s respective groups, America’s Foundation and American Solutions.
Of course, Paul could use all the financial help he can get: super PACs working on his behalf have raised only $4,149,294 and spent almost the same: 3,537,839. By comparison, Mitt Romney-backing super PACs have spent about $45 million. Maybe it’s time for PayPal founder Peter Thiel to give a bit more to the pro-Paul Super PAC Endorse Liberty. Thiel has already given at least $2.6 million.
The sad thing is that all of the pro-Paul spending is that it will be a complete waste. No, I’m not talking about whether or not Paul can win the presidency — he cannot — but since 2008 it looked as if the Libertarian politics he has for so long championed were finally impacting the Republican Party. The Tea Party mushroomed almost overnight into a national movement and it appeared Paul’s political leanings were becoming the GOP’s raison d’être. But now social issues are again in the limelight, and the Republican Party has gone even further to the right than one thought possible. Small government and personal freedoms, though still important to voters and lauded by all the candidates, are again being trumped by old school culture wars, effectively pushing Paul off the stage, and his money down the drain.
March 06, 2012 at 11:10 am, Ron Paul heads for Super Tuesday delegate haul in fertile Idaho – The Guardian | iyfr.com - fast news hub for all said:
[...] hometown of Moscow, Idaho, …Does It Matter That Ron Paul Hasn't Won A State?Daily BeastThe biggest donation from Ron Paul's Liberty PAC is to Ron Paul 2012Death and TaxesRepublicans to vote on presidential preferenceAnchorage Daily NewsHouston Chronicle [...]
March 06, 2012 at 6:05 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Well, you are correct. But I hear the sounds of trolling Paulbots approaching. Also, do you ever get the idea that Teabagger didn't know that they were so correctly comparing themselves to having your face sexually assaulted by balls and Ron Paul's people don't realize that they are correctly comparing themselves to robots, programmed to behave a certain way, without ability to think for themselves?
March 06, 2012 at 6:52 pm, Dustin Inderman said:
Well, Laura….I see that you have your urban dictionary handy. I guess I always thought Teabagger was a reference to the Boston Tea Party, and our founder's underlying qualms regarding taxation without representation. Here I've been using the wrong metaphor! And speaking of being programmed…..I MUST VOTE RON PAUL (in robot voice). If I didn't know any better, I would think you were insulting my ability to think on my own…..Naahhh.
March 06, 2012 at 10:39 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Dustin Inderman
I'm pretty sure when you are comparing yourself to a robot by using the term Paulbot (which his supporters do) they are making the analogy themselves. I was merely pointing out the irony. I'm happy to point out the flaws of any Messiah, political or religious for you. I'll be happy to mock the Libertarian, Republican, Democratic or Tea party and their leaders to anyone who blindly supports them.
March 06, 2012 at 11:45 pm, Cory Smith said:
boy, you sure are smart. please do tell me how stupid i am, and make sure you make as many sexual references as possible please. they help me understand things better.
it's funny how when "trolling paulbots" appear they seem to in some way or another shed light on some issue, have thought about it, researched it, and presented it…while "laura chandler-genius" appears and spews a bunch of nonsense about teabagging.
CONSIDER ME CONVERTED TO WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IN!!!!!
March 07, 2012 at 12:04 am, Marco Feola said:
Laura Chandler ACTUALLY I PREFER PAULITICIAN HAHAHA GET IT PAUL-A-TICIAN LOL you see the play on words right hahaha meaning im for PAUL and his politics of freedom, national sovereignty, fiscal responisibility, ending the corporatist federal reserve system, and talking to our neighbors and trading instead of blowing their little babies up into tiny little pieces from miles away!
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness thats the PAUL-I-TICIANS WAY
PAUL OR NONE AT ALL BABY YEA!!
March 07, 2012 at 12:26 am, Marco Feola said:
Cory Smith hahahahahahahahahahahahah
March 07, 2012 at 4:07 am, Alex Langhart said:
Laura Chandler Actually Laura, I don't see anywhere that you have pointed out flaws of the "political messiah." You've only pointed out how fervent his supporters are. Then you made a poor generalization that they support him blindly, without thinking for themselves. I first heard of Ron Paul from Wikipedia when I was researching the candidates and immediately became a supporter because of his history and common-sense views. Not because anyone told me to, and not because I saw other people doing it. So I'm one example that discredits your generalization, and I'm sure there are many more out there.
March 07, 2012 at 6:19 am, Laura Chandler said:
Alex Langhart I said I would be happy to do so, if he was interested not that I had done so. And as you said, you instantly became a supporter of him after reading one Wikipedia article on him, and haven't reconsidered since, I'll bet. That sounds like a well researched Ron Paul Supporter indeed. I stand humbly corrected.
March 07, 2012 at 8:37 pm, Jonathon Koontz said:
Laura Chandler I've spent 8 months researching all the candidates and I can tell you that Dr. Paul is the right choice and all others are lesser of the two evils. I can almost bet that your a supporter of the green party huh?
March 07, 2012 at 8:41 pm, John Morris said:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community…"
@Laura Chandler: "You don't want discussion and debate. I predicted you would troll aka, attacking me personally or the author, without addressing the facts…"
@Laura Chandler: "But I hear the sounds of trolling Paulbots approaching. Also, do you ever get the idea that Teabagger didn't know that they were so correctly comparing themselves to having your face sexually assaulted by balls and Ron Paul's people don't realize that they are correctly comparing themselves to robots, programmed to behave a certain way, without ability to think for themselves?"
Um… who's the troll?
March 07, 2012 at 11:25 pm, Laura Chandler said:
John Morris I assume you think it inflammatory? Do you feel Posting, oohhh I don't know "Ron Paul 2012" in every thread, political or not, is MORE or LESS inflammatory.
Now listen boys. This is the internet. The humorless are regularly offended. They find everything not in line with their own beliefs to be offensive, never funny. My point syill holds true by the way. The Tea Party followers did deem themselves "Teabaggers" and the Ron Paul supporters did deem themselves "Paulbots." All I did was point out this awesomeness and laugh. If you are personally offended, you should re-examine if you are of the humorless nature. I mean look at all this tit for tatting happening. I mean, it officially more than 24 hours. Haven't you something more important to do? What is your ultimate goal, here? Conversion? That would require the carrot, not the stick. No one says, wow that guy was snide as hell. MAN he sold me on his beliefs!Is it to "pwnd" me? If so, that's a bit childish, but it IS the internet so, hey maybe. To "correct" me? You haven't. You have taken issue with the delivery, but not the accuracy. So….you want a last word to clarify, or are you over the little zinger some girl you will never meet made on the internet?
March 08, 2012 at 5:33 am, Alex Langhart said:
Laura Chandler:
Yeah, but we're right and you're wrong. Also, you've posted more in this thread than anyone else. Don't you have anything better to do?
March 08, 2012 at 6:42 am, Laura Chandler said:
Alex Langhart People keep posting directly to me. I suppose I consider it common courtesy to reply when someone directs a remark or a question my way, but not everyone is raised that way. I have many better things to do, thank you for asking. Ah, I see. You are right and I am wrong. So As I said above, you feel then you are here to correct me. What was I wrong about? Feel free to not answer. As I said, I am busy, I simply think it is rude to ignore someone.
March 08, 2012 at 7:10 am, Kurt Masciovecchio said:
Laura Chandler Why all the Ron Paul Bashing? Im not looking for trolling or humor, just real arguments as to why Paul is not the best candidate right now. The man stands for values and policies (and decades of a track record to prove it) that will restore the greatest political experiment in human history to its glory days.
March 08, 2012 at 7:20 am, Laura Chandler said:
Kurt Masciovecchio I didn't bash Ron Paul. Just his bots. No one has noticed this yet. I find that really REALLY funny. It's proving my point. No one even waits for real criticism. They sense there MAY be some and instantly troll, name call and accuse. I am aware of Mr Paul's values and what his issues on positions are. I find them to be a variety of excellent points to bone chilling terror that he'd get elected anything at all. So, you know, your typical wealthy white politician. You talk about him the way most of his fans do. Like he's the American Moses. (I'm trademarking that. Don't put it on a t-shirt before me!)
March 08, 2012 at 7:32 am, Kurt Masciovecchio said:
Laura Chandler I understand. But I also think that calling his supporter PaulBots is a little ridiculous/derogatory? maybe. I think people get so fired up especially regarding Paul because his supporters that really understand his policies realize, "holy crap this man GETS IT, and he really can save this country." so Im not comparing him to moses or any other biblical character, but I would argue that right now, our country is on a downward spiral, people that disagree really need to open their eyes and look around at all the signs. I think Paul inspires a lot of people. Ive studied American Heritage, the role of Government (Constituion, Declaration of Indepedance, Jefferson, Coolidge, Locke etc), I understand the ideas behind the Austrian School of economics, and my dad taught me one thing well "you cant spend more than you make" and if every american has to live like that, why shouldnt our government? Because of this I believe that "paulbots" come off as ridiculous for their passion, and understanding of the truth behind this downfall of western civilization.
March 08, 2012 at 7:41 am, Laura Chandler said:
Kurt Masciovecchio They call themselves Paulbots.I had never heard the word until my Uber Ron Paul loving friend said it. About himself. And I disagree that he "gets it" because much of what he says doesn't seem to be "getting it" at all. I think that there are just many different points of view and many people willing to try something new. But I think that your honest response has proved my point: Ron Paul is not merely a candidate to his fans, he is someone who is going to save them. From the downfall of civilization. There is no middle ground, no reason, no objectivity when you there.
Hell,let's say you are correct. You are all correct and the man shits sunshine. You still aren't OBJECTIVE, and that's why like to take the piss out of Paulbots. People with no objectivity going about calling other people blind sheep? It's the blind leading the baaaa-lind.
March 09, 2012 at 2:27 pm, Brendan Valencia said:
Laura Chandler I see no viable points in your last comment. Just because I see Ron Paul as a candidate that can change our society for the better makes me less objective? The reason I have that point of view is because I was on the other side so long!
You are trolling. Multiple people called you out on it, and I am going to as well. You make no valid points, and your responses are petty as well as intentionally inflammatory.
March 09, 2012 at 7:13 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Brendan Valencia And again I say, what am I saying that is trolling? I notice the people calling me out are the people most guilty of my observation. So I ask YOU, do you think Ron Paul is a political candidate, or is he someone who will save America? Do back his plans for America, if elected 100%? And please, tell me where I am being petty. I play this game with my child too. She will accuse me of yelling and I'll remind her that I am not yelling, just saying things she does not enjoy hearing. CHeers, Brendan.
March 12, 2012 at 7:39 pm, Cory Smith said:
Laura Chandler the first time i ever heard teabagger was in a negative sense on the news-not something used for self description. the same can be said for the term paulbot-used in 07-08 to make fun of paul supporters. we've then taken it and made it endearing-like what was done with the "N" word (on a MUCH smaller, less offensive scale!)
March 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Cory Smith Yeah, comparing that to the N word is just….NO. Not at ALL the same. Not the same ballpark, not the same sport, but I get what you are saying. And again, tea party supporters called themselves tea baggers in those first days. It was only AFTER the realization of the connotation that they stopped and then started asking others not to call them that. And I've found nothing to indicate that Ron Paul supporters did not call themselves Paul bots first, but nevertheless they do so now. I just think it's funny.
March 12, 2012 at 10:22 pm, Brendan Valencia said:
Laura Chandler No I don't, I disagree with his abortion and his foreign policy, do I think he is necessary for America to finally begin progress to evolving past our current 2 party totalitarian government, yes. Do I think America is declining across the spectrum due to past government entities and fat cats that influence them, yes, do I think you are part of the problem, yes. You choose to be part of the problem rather than the solution.
March 12, 2012 at 10:36 pm, Cory Smith said:
Laura Chandler of course it's "just…no" but what other example can i give? it's the same rhetoric, and african americans aren't the first to do so and weren't the last. paulbots began as a pejorative. i remember. i was called one on many occasions
March 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm, Cory Smith said:
and even though RP started the tea party (in boston, dec 2007…again i was there…), and the rest of the clones took the title, he and his supporters have not really identified with the mainstream tea party.
March 13, 2012 at 12:25 am, Laura Chandler said:
Brendan Valencia In what way am I part of the problem? I'm amused that you would make an accusation without an explanation. Because I don't support a candidate who is antiwomens freedom of choice, anti- civil rights, and pro-deregulation of business? Do you really believe your candidate does not have detriments to freedom and has only positive changes in store for every American and America's future? It is your choice to believe so, of course, but I feel it's naive. The difference of course is that I don't accuse people who support Ron Paul of hating America ,or ruining America or any other number of outlandish things. That's what is nice about staying in a logical reasonable place about all candidates and parties. I can see the truth because no one holds my devotion.
March 13, 2012 at 2:35 pm, Cory Smith said:
Laura Chandler to think a ron paul presidency would seek to outlaw abortion or hurt civil rights (the only candidate supporting ending the blatantly racist drug war) is in itself naive.
March 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm, Brendan Valencia said:
Laura Chandler you are part of the problem because are on a seek and destroy mission for Paul fans, you hunt them down to troll them. You did it on Indecision Forever, preaching the exact same message, yet while trolling paul fans, you got a huge variety of answers and explanations from people who thought you were just misguided. So that is why you are part of the problem, like I said earlier, you actively search for paul bots to spout your rhetoric at them and troll, while claiming they only know one message and that it is rhetoric, when in reality we have given you ample answers in different forms, until your persistent attempts to troll make people frustrated and give up.
March 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Cory Smith Ron Paul would give the states the right to vote on abortion, yes? So Ron Paul believes that the state has the right to limit my health care and that the people of the state have the right to tell me what sort of birth control I allowed to take or if I can have an abortion. That isn't freedom. Not even close.
And yes, Ron Paul would like to end the Civil ights Act. It *IS* right on his own website, so maybe you don't know your candidates positions? He would also like to end the Dept of Human Services, which is the dept that rescues abused children.
March 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Brendan Valencia I am not trolling his fans honey. You are trolling me. I don't actively search for (and see folks? SEE?) paulbots AS YOU CALL YOURSELVES. I have not said anything inaccurate, although truth is often inflammatory. I've not even been rude to anyone, at worst amused. Seek and Destroy? My shrugging disapproval is POWERFUL. I suppose I had no idea that my responses filled with jokes and respectful language were so effective at making people see their candidate as a fallible human being with both good and terrible ideas! You inspire me Brendan, to continue this good work of measured dialogue and light teasing. It's clearly really really effective. Thanks for the inspiration.
Listen man, go ahead and vote for Ron Paul, no one is stopping you. I'm not voting for the guy, and when people ask me why I tell them. This all started because I found the term Paulbot funny in it's connotation coupled with the fact that any article that examine unpopular truths of Ron Paul is attacked by his fans. They don't debate the facts, they make accusations. Pretty much exactly what happened here.
Now, if you don't mind, this article is a week old and it's a weak argument. Want to make your final points about Ron Paul? Or perhaps you would like to make your finals points on me? Whatever the case, not to be rude, but I don't really continue to beat this dead and decaying horse. (See how I'm not the one trolling? Exactly.)
March 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm, Cory Smith said:
Laura Chandler there is no chance any state would pass any law regulating birth control in the manner you speak of, and if it did it would be overturned in a snap. the gov't has no business telling you what to do with contraception, nor does it have the right to force the issue onto taxpayers. it's one of many decisions best left to you and your doctor, not politicians. that's paul's stance. look it up.
it's true that Paul would like to reverse Roe v. Wade but that is not the same as outlawing abortion. most states, if not all would carry on as scheduled and anyone wanting abortion could just go to another state. any state outlawing abortion, though, would find it ineffective and dangerous and again the people would eventually speak up. it's easier to enact change on a state level than it is on a federal level, and if you don't like it? move to a state where it's not criminalized. his stance on abortion is not necessarily my favorite stance of his but it's hard to expect different from a man who hand delivered over 4,000 babies, many for free, and many MINORITY children were delivered by him for FREE.
the civil rights act is another story. first of all, did it rid the country of racism? did barack obama depend on affirmative action to be elected president? the CRA is a symbolic measure at its best and a detrimental at its worst (read: new haven firefighters).
are you really so naive to think that if the department handling abused children was abolished, abused children would have no refuge? do you really believe that the feds are the only ones capable of it? y'know, like if you hear your neighbor beating his 4 year old daughter, do you call the police or the dept of human services? in my state we have programs from them that aren't federal. i suspect yours does too.
i haven't been a supporter for 5 years by not understanding the man's views. we just have different definitions of "civil liberties" apparently.
are you voting this year? would you vote for anyone that supports the status quo of endless warfare and monopoly money, or would you vote for the ONLY legitimate candidate in your lifetime who questions it?
now you said you're growing weary of beating the dead horse so i don't expect a response.
March 14, 2012 at 12:06 am, Brendan Valencia said:
Laura Chandler YOU are telling ME what I call myself! I have never, nor have I ever met anyone who calls themselves paulbots! Im sorry that you have one ridiculous self-proclaimed "paulbot" friend, but PLEASE don't assume we all are the same from one person. You claim we don't debate facts, you have brought absolutely zero credible facts into multiple debates across multiple websites, yet you have the audacity to claim we don't represent facts?
My biggest positives I see in Ron Paul are the following,
Gay Rights
Drug Policy
Economic Policy
A step in the right direction for foreign policy
Real Environmental aspects and not fake "Der Her, we're the EPA"
Real reserve for his decisions
Thinks in other peoples shoes, has compassion for the people we bomb and kill
Has realistic outlook on the fact we have been lied to by our government for 60 years and is willing to denounce those ways
Honest man with unwavering morals
Those are also some of the reason people get the image of as you said on another website "Personal Political Messiah" (which is ab-so-lute-ly flame bait). Because he OPPOSES the machine that has actively decieved us, destroyed the environment and the relations of the people around us under a facade that they can create and market. All the while having the ignorant people's support for wars around the world that we do not want. No more war. That is why.
March 06, 2012 at 9:54 pm, Mari Conforti said:
Lara. Must you be so crass?
March 06, 2012 at 10:44 pm, Laura Chandler said:
My dear what would you have me say instead of balls? Testicles? Does that make it less crass? I didn't invent the term, I referenced its pre-existence to the Tea Party folks referring to themselves as Tea Baggers. I'm certain your judgment has little to do with my use of terminology and everything to do with your support for Ron Paul, since your Facebook page seems to exist for the purpose of being a fan of his. If you'd like to address the truth to either one of these groups deeming themselves with these nicknames, go ahead, passive aggression is cowardice.
March 06, 2012 at 11:28 pm, Alex Langhart said:
Actually Laura, I don't see anywhere that you have pointed out flaws of the "political messiah." You've only pointed out how fervent his supporters are. Then you made a poor generalization that they support him blindly, without thinking for themselves. I first heard of Ron Paul from Wikipedia when I was researching the candidates and immediately became a supporter because of his history and common-sense views. Not because anyone told me to, and not because I saw other people doing it. So I'm one example that discredits your generalization, and I'm sure there are many more out there.
March 06, 2012 at 11:57 pm, Marco Feola said:
actually I would say that the paul people are the only supporters with their eyes open we actually know what our candidate stands for and what the others stand for two, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE WE KNOW ROMNEY IS NO DIFFERENT FROM OBAMA THEY GET MONEY FROM THE SAME PEOPLE AND WILL REPRESENT THOSE PEOPLE INTEREST(namely big business, big government and the federal reserve, their like a communist fascist mix I like to cal robama) we know santorem is a fascist gay sex act who hates homosexuals and wants to torture and murder all the Muslims while making condoms illegal, and we know that gangrene lives in his own little fairy land with lolly pop trees and the moon made of cheese.
and we know ron paul has a record of standing up for liberty, freedom and sound economic policy, and favors a diplomatic foreign policy, and a constitutional domestic policy where th government lets you live your life with out interference which iswhy our ancestors came here in the first place.
so choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
vote because you have a voice.
VOTE RON PAUL TO KEEP IT THAT WAY!
March 08, 2012 at 2:49 am, Kamin Horvath said:
You Paultards just get more delusional and paranoid by the day.
March 08, 2012 at 3:37 pm, Brendan Valencia said:
Kamin Horvath You puppets get more infuriating in your blind following of CLEARLY identical candidates and interests under the facade of different titles.
March 07, 2012 at 12:25 am, Marco Feola said:
WOW BILL MAHER kind of a Hippocrit huh says ron paul makes the most sense of any one who has ever run for president and the turns around and endorses arguably one of the worst president's in history which is obama (ndaa)makes him(right behind that fascist bush).
March 07, 2012 at 1:44 am, Laura Chandler said:
Did I call that or what? Props Belonsky. I love when you poke the bear.
March 07, 2012 at 4:28 am, Dustin Inderman said:
How in the world did you predict that Paul supporters would comment on an article with him in the subject line??? A Miss Cleo understudy I see. I was expecting something worthy of debate, something enlightening, or maybe even something we could agree on……. Sigh.
March 07, 2012 at 6:16 am, Laura Chandler said:
Dustin Inderman Why on earth would I debate you? About what? The facts of the article? Do you consider them incorrect? The worthiness of your candidate? Please. You don't want discussion and debate. I predicted you would troll aka, attacking me personally or the author, without addressing the facts. And you have. Congratulations!
March 07, 2012 at 4:01 pm, Dustin Inderman said:
That's a very presumptuous statement and slightly hypocritical. I actually would prefer that when someone calls me a robot who can't think on my own, shed some light on why that is. Is it because I agee with Paul that the fed continues to devalue our fiat dollar? Or that I think the ndaa is crap? or that I would prefer less government? I just get tired of reading these degradations of paul supporters and the only thing people can say is his foreign policy won't work. Ok, why won't it work? Running our dollar into the ground with foreign wars isn't exactly working. I just want to hear a thought out reason, not regurgitated from msnbc, unless it's a good one, for why paul is not the best alternative we have. And fyi, I do largely agree with this article.
March 07, 2012 at 8:39 pm, Jonathon Koontz said:
Dustin Inderman You got the whole "Miss Cleo" analogy right! Ecspecially being a fake.
March 07, 2012 at 11:35 pm, Laura Chandler said:
Dustin Inderman Do you not get that Ron Paul supports themselves chose the name? *I* did not call them robots. They call themselves bots. Same with the Tea Party. Mind you, when they realized what they did they put a kibosh on calling themselves Teabaggers and now get upset when someone else does. I wonder if the Paulbots will do the same? Have the realization that they are calling themselves robots and then get bothered when someone else does? Time will tell. In the mean time, I'm waiting for someone to not prove my point about trolling hard any criticizers of Ron Paul. As i said, I will criticize EVERY single other candidate and party with complete equal criticism and humor. But that is the funny thing about Ron Paul supporters. If you ask them: Will electing Ron Paul save America, they will, in almost all cases say yes.
Except you can't really see reason when you think someone is the last hope or a savior. You start to disregard the flaws and the chasm between reality and what they are actually capable of.
Everyone has platform that deserves serious criticism, including Ron Paul. He isn't in some special place, folks, above it all. What's good for the goose is good for the Paul.
March 08, 2012 at 1:24 am, Jonathon Koontz said:
Laura Chandler I got a problem with people who want to stop people from enjoying their freedoms that was bestowed to them by their creator. That includes people who want constant wars, communism, facism, or somebody or idea who wants to go against our constitution. That includes you lady. People like yourself always will come and go but you'll never win. One way or another we'll have our country back to the original constitution. Through Peace or War we'll have our constitution back (Preferrably peace). By the way why don't you do some research about Ron Paul before spewing out your ignorance?
March 08, 2012 at 2:05 am, Laura Chandler said:
Jonathon Koontz Which of my political positions do you disagree with? What did I say about Ron Paul that was incorrect. This will be fun!
March 08, 2012 at 4:35 am, Dustin Inderman said:
Laura Chandler Several good points there. Because I've always seen Paulbots used in a demeaning manner I thought the term originated from the anti Paul folks, but maybe I've been wrong this entire time, and I certainly have never bestowed that title upon myself. You did say they "correctly" call themselves Paulbots though….with the inability to think for themselves. And I tend to think I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I guess I just missed the humor and took exception to that view since I have spent hours upon hours researching these guys, which is sad really because the entire thing seems so controlled. And there may be no convincing you of this but I also think a much larger percentage of Paul supporters are versed in the issues, candidate voting records, etc. than any other candidate's supporters…..it's obvious in most all comment sections on the net, strictly judging by the attempt at evidence based debate.
I still think you have "trolled" as much as anyone here, and your life appears to be just as busy as ours, but I do agree that no one is above criticism, and it is certainly paramount. I would say that most of my friends who are Paul supporters attempt to be realists, as do I, and understand that he can't save America, but I do think they believe that if many of his ideals were implemented, they would certainly help us out of this abysmal sink hole. Now, this will be my last comment because I am done with this thread, so you can have the last word if you want. You said you will criticize any candidate and their party, but to this point it's just been the party. I'm just wondering what your concerns with Paul are at this point….and that question is meant to be completely "snide" free. Peace and hair grease!
March 08, 2012 at 8:14 am, Jonathon Koontz said:
Laura Chandler Your whole demeanor is incorrect. Just the fact you insinuate that just because other people who disagree with Ron Paul could be right is just plain ignorant and stupid. Ron Paul preaches nothing but following the constitution. If he's biased he is only biased towards the constitution. Thus if you or anybody else disagree with Ron Paul and his policies then you disagree with the constitution. If you disagree with the constitution then chances are your my enemy. Because chances are you want mine or others freedoms taken away. I don't deal with tyranny/scumbags very well. Also Doctor Paul has proven time and time again that he doesn't mix his personal and political beliefs together. He may detest people doing drugs but he believes nobody has the right to dictate others on how they should live. If you believe that "Big Brother" should tell us how to live then maybe you should go live in Communist China? How about that for your pathetic smartass humor? I see this current administration taking our rights away every day and the past administrations are just as guilty. These other three corrupt republican candidate scumbags will do as much if not more damage then what President Obama has already done. Every major candidate running for office are corrupt beyond measure except Dr.Ron Paul. Unlike you I take this whole situation very seriously. Mine and my families future is at stake here so either get with the program or get the fuck out of the way.
March 08, 2012 at 8:40 am, Laura Chandler said:
Jonathon Koontz Aaaand right into menacing and threatening. Listen, do yourself a favor. Don't be THAT guy on the internet. You don't know me, I'm not your enemy and you aren't going to do shit about shit. Just stop. Communist China? Really? And "if you or anybody else disagree with Ron Paul and his policies then you disagree with the constitution. If you disagree with the constitution then chances are your my enemy." (I think you mean you are or you're. Sorry.) That's just absurd. That is the opposite of believing in individual freedom.
Other people here may have being snippy or accusatory, but you are just being ignorant and acting like a tough. You speak only for yourself. Vote for whomever you want, I don't care. Since I actually believe in freedom, I say go for it. Vote for Ron Paul. I support you. It's your life and your vote.
You needn't get with MY program. You have your own as do I. I'm not going to vote for your guy, and I hope he doesn't win. I think it would have some good, but more bad than good.
And you don't need to get the fuck out of my way, because I'm more than comfortable making my own way giving exactly zero fucks about your way. THAT'S respecting the rights of the individual, kiddo.
And again, what's the motivation for me here as far as your aggression? Vote for your candidate or not vote at all? Yeeeeeah. That's respecting the freedom of the individual.
And I DO talk politics seriously. I just don't take internet threads and armchair pundits seriously. I certainly don't take YOU seriously. You should try not thinking of all your countrymen as enemies. It helps facilitate reasonable discourse.
Honestly, if you thought more of Ron Paul you'd hold your tongue and be less…everything you just were….and try winning people over with charm and facts. Listen, kid. I know you are young and heaving with the passion and testosterone of youth. Learn to disagree with respect and grace and humor now and you'll have less to be ashamed of later.
March 07, 2012 at 3:57 pm, Stephen Schweter said:
Hello
Still will vote for DR.Ron Paul, Although he is not perfect neither is any one of us. I feel heis the most HONEST.And the truth is though to deal with.Are nation is in grave Trouble. He can make a difference with the support of the people.Wake up America before it is too late.
Peace
Stephen Schweter
March 07, 2012 at 5:35 pm, Jackson Baer said:
Republicans just don't get it. Ron Paul is the only one who goes by the Constitution. Less spending, less government, fewer wars. That's where he strays from most Republicans, they love preemptive war and ignoring the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you… unless you think they are dangerous then bomb the crap out of them.
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/
March 07, 2012 at 2:07 pm, Ron Paul said:
[...] following his disappointing Super Tuesday performance, an official confirmed to POLITICO.The biggest donation from Ron Paul's Liberty PAC is to Ron Paul 2012Death and [...]
March 08, 2012 at 5:41 am, The biggest donation from Ron Paul’s Liberty PAC is to Ron Paul 2012 – Death and Taxes | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America said:
[...] The biggest donation from Ron Paul’s Liberty PAC is to Ron Paul 2012 – Death and Taxes Posted in Ron Paul | Tags: banner-year, election, liberty, organization, penning-super, street, super, taxes /* [...]
March 08, 2012 at 3:59 pm, Keith McElhany said:
The money is not a waste. It is a revolution we are keeping alive and growing. And as much as people don't understand it, or bash us, we are just going to stick with our beliefs, with what we think is right. Don't be mad at us for participating in democracy. I feel like we are disrespected for our conviction, for sticking to our beliefs. Although this is what people respect in politicians, and other people. Yet again you can treat us however you want, because you have the right to. Just know that talking down on us will only make us come to his defense. So if you are so tired of us for whatever reason, stop starting wars, because as we all know, therw will be blowback.
March 09, 2012 at 11:51 pm, Sean Bell said:
Ron Paul and his Paulbots have the GOP leadership by their short and curlies and they know it. Paul has been averaging ~10% in the south and low 20%s everywhere else, yet the voting block he represents is the Independent vote that decides all elections. Romney and the GOP are stuck in the position of telling the Paulbots to piss off and kiss them all at the same time, very difficult.
This election the party leadership has had to openly pull the power levers so hard that it has proven impossible to keep it hidden. Time will tell, but I expect this election to be highlighted in the history books.