Yes, it’s great to see the younglings excited over liberty.  I just hope they don’t become jaundiced from having unreasonable expectations.

Yes, I can see why hop-heads and kiddie porn fans would get excited about the prospects of a Ron Paul presidency.  Almost as giddy as the Iranian mullahs.

He’s answered the charges – several different ways.  In the ’9os, he claimed you had to read the whole article, not just the offensive sentences, to get it “in context.”  He directed inquirers about his political beliefs to “read the newsletter I write” regularly.

Now, although it was his own operation and he made a six-figure income from them for years, he claims he not only didn’t write the articles, but had never even read them.  Really?  Even after he had been called out on them years ago, he didn’t read them?

Believe what you wish.

And Paul’s positions on federal regulation of the internet, pornography, the ages of contract and sexual consent, all add up to a green light for child pornography, which any LEO or prosecutor will tell you cannot be tracked and prosecuted successfully by the states.

  Good grief , Your a drama queen. 

Cheap Chinese kidneys, statins & c#i#a#l#i#s…he could hang on long enough.

A critic once sescribed Harlan Ellison as a writer young folks reead on their way to discovering serious writers. I suspect the cartoony Ron Paul is the same for young voters
.

Increasing the level of scoffing isn’t going to help solve the question of why these people are so enthusiastic (not all of them are “insane, Stormfront booger eaters” — it does no good to label them all as such).  I believe it is one of the clues to how conservatism takes back the goodwill of the American public, and how the GOP leads that movement.  People have noticed this and pointed it out on many occasions.

But of course, mockery and marginalizing are much easier and require less thought…

A Fox News Cincinnati report that claims a man named James B Powell probably wrote the letters, a conclusion that seems based on an actual journalistic effort.  The national media has no interest in that story, apparently.

Every candidate on the stage, including Cain has been called racist and most have been attacked as anti-semite too.  The fact that Levin is singling out Paul really means he’s at odds with Paul’s foreign policy and isn’t above  avoiding issues, instead using race and religion to divide the party, and therefore setting the stage to lose yet another election while simultaneously holding himself blameless in the debacle.  

Substituting fact with opinion and juevenile name-calling in lieu of substantial debate are traits that the Irving Kristol neoconservatives brought to the party with them, and the party is suffering internally as a result. .  

The Mark Levins of the waves, entertainers by trade,  are afforded  the bully pulpit, never required to defend their assertions.  (If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth, because Mark Levin said so…)
The newsletters aren’t an example of that, because Paul’s name was on them.  However, he wasn’t in Congress, and was running his medical practice, so his contention that he was licensing his name to a group that shared his economic principles is backed up by the timeline. 

But I encourage you to look at Levin’s attacks on Tom Woods, who backs up his historical assertions with documentation.  Despite Woods’ repeated requests for an opportunity to debate their differences one-on-one,  Levin only name calls, essentially saying “I’m right because I said so.” 

I would encourage you to rethink that.  The best thing you can do is to join your local GOP, and bring your friends with you.   

I point you to Adjoran’s comment right above yours and urge you to desist trying to blame Paul’s problems on a man who is probably dead and unable to defend his honor.

There you go again – he’s not dead. 

And that’s just one reason I would never support Ron Paul in or out of the GOP. Paul supporters support Paul, Paul, and nobody but Paul. Why should a traditional GOP supporter support him when he will not only not support them but has made it clear he and his followers will do anything they can to derail any other GOP candidate?

Come on, you have made those generalized remarks without the disclaimer before — and you shouldn’t have.

The nasty pieces of work ARE something that Paul and his supporters need to address; that is a definite.  However, perhaps they would feel more free to address this problem if others wouldn’t resort to lumping them all in the same category and snarking at them at every turn?  I should think encouraging them to do this might glean better results?

Paul’s not my guy, nor do I support the libertarians in every instance, but some of the things he and his supporters hold as their platform make sense and are worthy of consideration and perhaps implementation.  Writing it all off is a mistake on many levels.

…and there you go again

Yes, he needs to do something; his supporters need to do something to distance themselves from these things — it does not help support the good things they do talk about.

Although it would appear that is now a moot point, because by your reaaction to my response it is becoming apparent many would not listen to even the good ideas as they are so fixated on the bad.

Shoving them to the margins it is then; have fun with that mistake.