RSSTalking Points Change But Truth Remains
J.J. Jackson* | August 22, 2007
Well, it was probably predictable. The talking points used by Ron Paul supporters (i.e. Paulbots, Paulites, etc.) have changed in the past week.You can always tell when marching orders are given by the sudden shift in language that is being used by mass numbers of people. I remember when I used to listen to Limbaugh and he would run montages of 10 or 15 different media types using exactly the same descriptive terms for a given situation. The same thing is happening now.Prior to Mr. Paul’s propensity for unconstitutional spending becoming widely known, the talking points were that Mr. Paul was the only “true Constitutionalist” running for President and that anyone who supported the Constitution had to support Mr. Paul based on that. Now that his status as a “true” believer in the Constitution has been utterly shattered, the new line in almost every email sent to me by a rabid, foaming at the mouth Paulbot is that Mr. Paul is still the man because he is the “most” Constitutionalist of all the candidates.Of course I predicted they would stand by him in my article The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters) even though he was not what he or they claimed he was. See, it doesn’t matter … Ron Paul is “the one”. He could go on live television and shoot a puppy in the head and the Paulbots would still worship at his feet.
Apparently trying to defend his use of the Constitution as toilet paper simply wasn’t flying. So now they are now trying to convince conservatives and libertarians that the liberaltarian ways of Ron Paul are best because they are “more” Constitutional than other candidates. Call me skeptical of that. I don’t see how anyone can say that Mr. Paul is “more” Constitutional than other candidates when he has violated Article I, Section 8 the same as they have. Sure he might have done it for different pet programs that spend money on shrimp and trolleys rather than Social Security and Medicare, but it is still a violation of Constitution. This is like saying that a man who robs a 7-11 for $50 is less guilty of theft than a man who holds up the bank and takes $1,000,000.
A duck is a duck whether it quacks once or twice; whether it quacks quietly or loudly. And I reiterate that NO true libertarian would defend Ron Paul’s actions and those that are simply are showing their own fatal flaws.
It puts me in mind of the old George Carlin bit about preheating the oven:
“That’s another complaint of mine, too much use of this prefix pre…. It’s all over the language now. pre this, pre that….. place the turkey in a preheated oven…. it’s ridiculous… there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated…. preheated is a meaningless ****ing term!”
Maybe Ron Paul is a “pre-Constitutionalist”? Existing in a state of both believing in the Constitution while not believing in it?
Much like the oven, there are only two states in which you can exist with regards to the Constitution; for it or against it. There is no “mostly”. Yes, you CAN disagree with parts of it, but you still have to abide by it. It’s the law of the land so deal with it. And if you want to spend money on studying shrimp then use the amendment process to make such idiotic spending constitutional. Otherwise you are just a hack like any other politician would be who espoused the same beliefs while acting contradictory.
I think that what frosts my buns most about Ron Paul and his Paulbots. You KNOW the other candidates are going to promote the continuation of socialism to some degree or another. But Ron Paul claims to be actually for returning to a constitutionally bounded America … while at the same time rubbing his ass with the very document he claims to hold dear. He’s just another do as I say not as I do politician wearing the facade of a savior and sporting a holy than thou attitude that he can’t back up.
His mouth, as they say, is writing checks his body can’t cash and he is getting beaten up for it rightly so.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
Comments
36 Responses to “Talking Points Change But Truth Remains”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
Idiot. You may want to check on how he voted on the referenced bills before you post again. (Hint: he voted NO, and he put in a DECLARED earmark on the chance that if it passes then he may as well get something for his constituents out of it. It doesnt change the fact that he voted it down anyway)
I love how lazy bloggers believe they can get away with posting made up commentary with ZERO fact checking. Not gonna fly in these modern and informed times.
Guess its back to trying to dig up different dirt on Dr. Paul since this feeble attempt blew up on you. Now we all get to laugh at you!!!! LMAO Thanks!!
The only “idiot” here thus far is you shrugged for you blind support of your chosen candidate even after he was shown as a hack who is willing to break the Constitution and take money not allowed when it serves his own political power.
I guess being a Paulbot means never having to deal with reality or read the Constitution eh?
I guess seeing as how the attempt to defend his actions have fallen flat there is nothing to do but claim that even though he wanted the money he voted against it … even though he knows Congress and his liberal buddies will cover his ass and approve them and give him the money right?
Paulbots are the moonbats of the right. And they aren’t even that far to the right! They talk a good game, but can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar and show themselves as the “idiots” they are.
I am SOOOOOOO glad that I am no longer a Ron Paul supporter and I thank God for the good sense to have changed my mind about him.
People like shrugged reinforce that decision as a good one every day.
Another intellilectually dishonest post. There is a clear difference between earmarks and pork. Ron Paul did not add PORk to the bill. The pork had been added without his vote. He simply added a earmark to make sure that people in his district were represented, isn’t that what a representative is suppose to do? He voted agaist the bill.
This is just another hit piece from Americas haters.
When you can’t deal with the facts, spin! That’s the moto of the Paulites!
Flo on August 22, 2007 7:59 am
“Another intellilectually dishonest post. There is a clear difference between earmarks and pork. Ron Paul did not add PORk to the bill. The pork had been added without his vote. He simply added a earmark to make sure that people in his district were represented,”
Now who is being intellectually dishonest here? Why it’s FLO! Notice how she doesn’t mention that the acquisition of this money he requested falls outside of the powers to spend in Article I of the Constitution.
But, like has been said before Paulites are by their very nature “dishonest”.
I know what makes the Paulites go bonkers every time Mr. Jackson posts about their golden child. It’s the fact that he is factually based and consistent in his defense of the Constitution and his denouncement of anyone that violates it. He is a true libertarian unlike them and their boy.
I must have missed the Constitutional exemption in Article I that says that Ron Paul (and apparently only Ron Paul) can acquire money for spending outside of A1 of the Constitution that the Paulites are apparently seeing in their defense of their candidate as just another tax and spend liberal in conservative clothing. One of you Paulites want to show it to me?
then prove me wrong. Show me where he voted for the Bill itself.
Ron Paul is 100% for transparency in bills, including earmarks; 100% against self-serving earmarks; 100% for Congress “reading” bills in their entirety. The fact that he also has earmarks attached to his name should be accepted only after noting that his earmarks for his district divert already appropriated $$ from horrendous channels and point them in positive directions. Also, local governance and maintenance of infrastructures locally will only come about after major changes are made in the entire system and that is going to take some time.
I was triggered as many of you have been by the article in a Texas paper trying to make Ron Paul sound like a hypocrite for earmarks attached to his name. For the most part they have to do with buses in cities desperately needing them in order to improve mass transit, helping residents and reducing pollution; health care and providing nurses in critical areas, highway improvements (non-super highway funding.) Often a Ron Paul “earmark” has greater implications than the “mere” name of it. A few of the earmarks that caught my attention were:
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
The short answer…YES. http://www.jarbobayoutimes.com/fish...
And, I won’t provide the links but chemicals and antibiotics in imported shrimp, particularly from China and others involved in aqua-farming as opposed to wild are of great concern. Look it up and I am sure you won’t want imported shrimp. The FDA is supposed to check…but they are too busy checking dog food, I guess. This alone should be reason enough to protect “wild” shrimping and ensure that at least those of us in the US of A can have good shrimp caught off the gulf if we want it.
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
“Marketing” is a bit of a misnomer here. This in a nutshell has to do not just with shrimp, but with providing huge subsidies to importers of food products resulting in (1) inferior and perhaps unhealthy imports and (2) absolutely “killing” domestic industries…like we have the American farmer. It should be a “case study” for not subsidizing imports at the expense of American industries:
Here is what Ron Paul had to say:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/pre...
and also:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/docum...
And an interesting article on the “shrimp” issue concludes with:
“The shrimp fracas also was ironic in that it reversed the usual roles in international trade disputes: American shrimpers were cast as the Luddites resisting technological advancement in order to preserve a traditional way of life, while Vietnamese and Chinese aquaculturists represented globalized technological progress. Naturally, the motley anti-globalization delinquents who turn out in such tiresome numbers at every international economic event had nothing to say about this particular dispute, even though it should have plucked their environmentalist heartstrings as well, since aquaculture is a highly polluting industry. Evidently, their brains could not grasp the possibility that Americans might occasionally be the victims of globalization, rather than always its rapacious beneficiaries. Withering shrimping communities, all along the southern coastline of America, could have told them otherwise.”
Here is the article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southe...
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
Check out the health risks of vanadium in certain mining industries and in fertilizer. Check out the high levels found in some areas of Texas. Think about the greater meaning…to agriculture, informing the public about toxins and their impact on our health. Do you think this kind of information will come from the EPA or the Department of Agriculture?
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
I would hazard a guess that the good Doctor has encountered many cases of asthma and pharma-dependent victims. If you know anyone
particularly children whose lives have been altered by mass-marketed inhalers and massive doses of cortisone you know how sad it is. There are non-invasive treatments and just training in personally managing your asthma can bring about amazing results. Read up on the huge increase in asthma due to the pollutants in the air and allergies due to toxins and chemicals in the food. I imagine unnecessary medical trauma saddens Dr. Paul.
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
I wish somebody had repaired that bridge in Minnesota. The corps of engineers has evaluated this causeway and it is UNSAFE. It is also the access to Galveston Island and much of the surrounding economy is dependent upon it. Senator Hutchinson just got money appropriated not to “repair” it…but to REPLACE it and the money was tied to HOMELAND SECURITY. Perhaps her earmark was to ensure it is replaced in a manner more conducive to the goals of the North American Highway.
Ron Paul also earmarked for maintenance the port of Texas City.
This port was in dire need of maintenance and if you read up on how that city was just about blown away by a tragedy that occurred in 1947, those folks deserve a safe and well-maintained port.
I won’t go on, but a brief look at the list of earmarks brings only applause from me. No bridges to nowhere…no land improvements in an area that backs up to his home to improve his property value…no paybacks for contributions. Just an honest Representative trying to see that his district gets their “fair share” until the time when States can take care of States…communities take care of communities. I see much needed infrastructure appropriations; I see concern about health issues; I see concern about the economy in his district. I see an honest Politician/Statesman.
It should be noted that although these were Ron Paul “earmarks” the appropriation bills they were attached to were probably so ‘pork of a different kind laden’ by the time they went to market or to vote that he couldn’t even vote for them. Would take more research to find out.
SHAME on “The Houston Chronicle” and the neocons who prompted this article and SHAME on the uninformed blogger who spread it on the net.
again, you and others of your uninformed ilk are way out of your league. Ad Hominem attacks only work on the uneducated. They wont work when trying to debate the Dr. Paul supporters. Back to the drawing board because you just lost. lmao!!
I checked Art … not there. And just to educate the average Paulbot who has never read the Constitution here is Article I, Section 8.
Article I Section. 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The elusive “Ron Paul exemption” is still to be found.
Aritmus Gordon on August 22, 2007 8:09 am:
“I know what makes the Paulites go bonkers every time Mr. Jackson posts about their golden child. It’s the fact that he is factually based and consistent in his defense of the Constitution and his denouncement of anyone that violates it. He is a true libertarian unlike them and their boy.”
Truer words have not been spoken. I am always impressed by Jeff’s consistency and his tenacity at poking false libertarians like Ron Paul and his Paulbots with a stick (historical facts, actual quotes, etc.) to prod them into continue to show their true colors for all to gaze upon.
It’s called doing his job. Yes he puts in those earmarks. Yes he then votes against those bills/earmarks. You say it is unconstitutional of him to put in those earmarks? Well he sees it as wrong to take the money to begin with; so Ron Paul serves his constituents interests by GETTING THEIR OWN MONEY back.
You can use this as a hit piece all you want; I see it as Ron Paul smartly playing the game: Standing up FOR the constitution by voting against the bills, but also standing up for his constituents by hedging THEIR bets since the rest of his fellow congressmen feel free to crap all over the american people.
The interesting part is this serves to combat the spin that he is an idealogue that has no hope of winning. Is your real problem with him that he is working to fix the system from within the system? Get on board the Revolution, it is your last, best hope.
Good to see the Paul brigade is out continually searching for anyone that dares to disagree with their candidates dubious claims! No wonder “Ron Paul” gets searched so much. They must sit there hitting “search” over and over again looking to find posts like this that they cannot refute but have to respond to!
Tim on August 22, 2007 8:38 am:
“It’s called doing his job. Yes he puts in those earmarks. Yes he then votes against those bills/earmarks. You say it is unconstitutional of him to put in those earmarks? Well he sees it as wrong to take the money to begin with; so Ron Paul serves his constituents interests by GETTING THEIR OWN MONEY back.”
Ah, another “He believes in the Constitution while breaking the Constitution” argument. I’ve never heard so much twisting in the wind from Paul supporters trying to continue they myth of their man as a true Constitutionalist.
Who was it that say when you’re losing the game change the rules? Was it one of Ron Paul’s supporters?
Looks like there are still some rats going down with the U.S.S. Ron Paul. Damn liberals who think they are libertarians. Disgusting.
Good heads-up! I’ve noticed the same thing!
The Congress spends money by passing legislation. Period.
This means that if you vote against the spending legislation, every other element of the parliamentary process that occurs before that vote is irrelevant to the question of responsibility for the spending.
By inserting earmarks into legislation and then voting against the spending legislation, Paul is basically creating a poison pill to punish the rest of the Congress for voting FOR the spending legislation. You may question the propriety of doing so, but that’s merely a question of tactics and not essentials. As long as Paul votes against the spending bills in question, the spending isn’t his, and arguing otherwise is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
“Even though he knows Congress and his liberal buddies will cover his ass and approve them and give him the money right?”
This is true, but the moral responsibility for that lies will the Congresspersons who vote to approve. Period.
I don’t know what demented [probably fundie] moral universe you occupy, but in mine all persons are responsible for their own acts, and ONLY their own acts.
That means that the persons responsible for passing a spending are…[drumroll...wait for it...] the persons who voted for the spending bill. And no others.
Paul’s actions in the earmark process could probably be called spiteful, but they are still morally blameless. There are times when spite is the appropriate course of action.
“Even though he knows Congress and his liberal buddies will cover his ass and approve them and give him the money right?”
This is true, but the moral responsibility for that lies will the Congresspersons who vote to approve. Period.
I don’t know what demented [probably fundie] moral universe you occupy, but in mine all persons are responsible for their own acts, and ONLY their own acts.
That means that the persons responsible for passing spending are…[drumroll...wait for it...] the persons who voted for the spending bill. And no others.
Paul’s actions in the earmark process could probably be called spiteful, but they are still morally blameless. There are times when spite is the appropriate course of action.
Fluffy on August 22, 2007 9:46 am:
“By inserting earmarks into legislation and then voting against the spending legislation, Paul is basically creating a poison pill to punish the rest of the Congress for voting FOR the spending legislation. You may question the propriety of doing so, but that’s merely a question of tactics and not essentials. As long as Paul votes against the spending bills in question, the spending isn’t his, and arguing otherwise is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.”
That Bullshit from your mouth smells so bad and is so deep it is amazing that you can even function while standing in it. Face the facts. Ron Paul IS NOT a Constitutionalist. He IS NOT a libertarian. He IS however a fraud with a bunch of lemming followers who will defend him to the end and drink the Kool Aid as long as he is serving it.
And another FACT is that Ron Paul supporters who come here and defend Paul while attacking Jeff for reporting on the truth are the worst of all the Paul lemmings, Paulites, Paulbots, etc.
Fluffy is locked and loaded with the Paulbot talking points!
Fluffy on August 22, 2007 9:52 am:
“I don’t know what demented [probably fundie] moral universe you occupy, but in mine all persons are responsible for their own acts, and ONLY their own acts.”
So you agree then that Ron Paul IS responsible for requesting Congress violate the Constitution because he requested that they do it! Do you Paulbots even think before you write this crap? Or does it just spew forth from your mouths on reflex?
shrugged on August 22, 2007 8:12 am:
“again, you and others of your uninformed ilk are way out of your league. Ad Hominem attacks only work on the uneducated. They wont work when trying to debate the Dr. Paul supporters. Back to the drawing board because you just lost. lmao!!”
This coming from a person that opened his first post with an “Ad hominem” attack”
Let’s quote!
“Idiot.”
FYI: Ad hominem is defined at: “marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”
Welcome to the banned list troll and read the “Rules” next time.
“So you agree then that Ron Paul IS responsible for requesting Congress violate the Constitution because he requested that they do it!”
That request has no role in actualizing the spending.
The mechanism by which Congress creates spending is by passing legislation. No statement or act taken before, and no statement or act taken after, the appropriations vote has any relevance to the question of final responsibility. If the appropriations bills in question had failed to pass, the spending wouldn’t exist.
I know that the spin from people like Fluffy is mind numbing but I will sum it up for you.
It is OK to request someone violate the law. It is HONORABLE to try to stop them from violating the law. But it is also OK to benefit from them violating the law when you are unable to stop them.
You Paulbots are jokes.
Fluffy say it with me:
“We are the Paul >>> you will be assimilated >>> resistance is futile >>>”
Your spin is, like LP said nothing but a bullshit attempt to justify criminality (violating the Constitution) on the part of Ron Paul. I left the collective. You can too. All you have to do is stop being a prick.
I am hoping that you will enjoy hearing from a Ron Paul supporter planted firmly in reality as opposed to those that have previously posted and which I have read diligently.
I am appalled that Mr. Paul would do this. I have written him and gotten the same boilerplate responses he has given in the past and that some others have given here. They are still unacceptable however.
Mr. Paul violated the trust of people like me who have supported him and what is even worse is he has tried to have the cake and eat it too with his tortured explanations for how justification for funding for shrimp is found in the Constitution.
That being said, I still support him at this time because he is probably most likely to veto unconstitutional spending bills if he were President. Although if they favored his constituents I am not so sure he would have the cajoles to do it.
Until I see exactly who either the Libertarian or Constitution Parties put out there I will support Paul but I will wind up voting for the lesser of two evils most likely on Election day. Even if that lesser of two evils is a Ron Paul that has lied to me.
Show us how he voted on this bill.
Show us how he voted on Iraq, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind.
Show us how he voted to get Osama Bin Laden who is still at large.
Show us how we are wrong to support this man.
Hey Spud for brains, why you changing the topic away from the fact that he violated the Constitution? Have you decided to concede that point?
Let’s address these pathetic talking points:
“Show us how he voted on this bill.”
He voted against it yet benefits from the unconstitutional spending he spiked it with.
“Show us how he voted on Iraq, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind.”
What does Iraq have to do with anything? Congress declared war and justly on a foreign power that had threatened the US and her allies and violated a ceasefire agreement. Patriot Act and no child left behind? Ok, so if he is FOR the constitution sometimes but against it other times that is ok? Are you serious?
“Show us how he voted to get Osama Bin Laden who is still at large.”
Yes, voting to capture someone really captures them doesn’t it? So again we are back to he voted to support the Constitution even though he added unconstitutional spending to the bills and will benefit from the COnstitution being violated. Nice. Good to know where the Paulites stand.
“Show us how we are wrong to support this man.”
You are “wrong” to support him if you claim that your support for him is based on his being a Constitutionalist which he is clearly not. Now, take for example Ann who posted just before you. See how reasonable she is? She admits that he is wrong but still sees him as the best available candidate in her mind.
In my mind (and I dare say the minds of many) he is no better than McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, et al in that he will violate the Constitution when he can benefit from it.
Talking with people who support Paul is like talking to a brick wall. They will always see Mr. Paul as their Messiah even when he is shown not to be.
Here here! I agree!
“[Ron Paul] could go on live television and shoot a puppy in the head and the Paulbots would still worship at his feet.”
Sadly that is exactly how scary his supporters are!
“I don’t see how anyone can say that Mr. Paul is “more” Constitutional than other candidates when he has violated Article I, Section 8 the same as they have. Sure he might have done it for different pet programs that spend money on shrimp and trolleys rather than Social Security and Medicare, but it is still a violation of Constitution.”
Watch out! The “Paulbots” will call you a neo-con fascist for speaking the truth!
Ron Paul supporters have more asterisks clarifying their candidate’s accomplishments than Barry Bonds
The difference between Mr. Jackson and the Ron Paul people who are raving here is what Mr. Jackson has to say actually makes sense.
I’ve loved his truly take no prisoners and pull no punches libertarian take on things since I started reading here regularly last year.
Good to see the Paul collective is still as intellectually vacant as always.
I have found in conversations with Ron Paul supporters that most of them are not very conservative nor libertarian. What they generally tend to be is strictly anti-the Iraq War and very, moderate in their beliefs. I believe that this is exactly why they are generally quick to brush off Ron Paul’s own contradictions because they do not care that much about the other stuff and want to focus on his isoloationist policies.
Mr. Jackson,
I enjoy reading your site and your analysis of Ron Paul. Personally I am a Ron Paul supporter but I do admit you make very valid points with regards to what Ron Paul says he ascribes to and his actual actions.
There really is no defense for his acts if he truly believed what he said.
I just wanted to say this and address some of my fellow Ron Paul fans here. Those of you making excuses for Ron Paul are not going to help Ron Paul actually become what he claims to be. You are enabling him and excusing his acts which violate true libertarian principles.
Yes, Mr. Jackson can certainly be very blunt and he can be pointed but that is what makes him great and why I read him even though I find him very abrasive at times. But some of you here are acting like children. We do not need children in the movement to get Ron Paul elected. We need adults.
I firmly believe that Mr. Jackson wants someone very close to Ron Paul to be elected despite major disagreements over issues such as Iraq based on what I have read here over the years. This man is a true light for libertarians and I am not just saying that to suck up either.
Every argument he makes can be backed up by facts and historical interpretations. Instead of fighting with him we should be working with him because people like him are the true future of the libertarian movement.
If we keep making excuses for libertarians who fail to act like libertarians we will never grow and prosper. I think that if all of us that support Ron Paul would tell him flatly and coldly to stop the spinning and the unconstitutional spending he would be more apt to do so. But as long as we are making excuses for him, his actions will continue and he will continue to make us all look like a bunch of “Kool Aid” drinkers.
Ditto what Alex said. I personally like Ron Paul and favor him over all other candidates at this time. But he is flawed.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out those flaws. I’ve gone back and been reading some of what Mr. Jackson has said just to see if he is being honest and not just picking on Ron Paul. It was refreshing to see that he has been very consistent in his criticism of any candidate that has done or said something that is out there and against American principles.
All those of you that are coming ’round and spouting off with the excuse making are doing is hurting the Paul campaign. This hypersensitivity towards hearing anything bad about Ron Paul has got to stop.