Ron Paul "The Runaway Campaign"

is to focus on the ulta-minority of his supporters and focus in on them - you know, the kooks. Every Politician attracts some, and yet he, Ron Paul, gets singled out for it.

I've been to Ron Paul events. 9/11 truthers and others make up a small amount. Instead, I met business people, construction works - electrician, carpenter, and a few others, a couple doctors, a lawyer, and more than a few students supporting the good doctor.

These people were not outside the norm in any area EXCEPT concern for where the country is headed.

Most of your Iraq points are simply too absurd to debate. I will only counter the WMD claim as it is the first point with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction#United_States_politics

I also liked this video of a Judge supporting Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxTsgPTig0

Since I see the below logic popping up over and over, I wanted to address this last bit:

Ron Paul:
"-No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution."

Author:
"This is a lame argument of semantics. The Congress voted overwhelmingly (twice) to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Whether or not the legislation used the word "declare" is irrelevant to any thinking human. They Congress clearly "declared" war when they authorized the President to Invade Iraq. If they didn't vote on going to war - what does Ron Paul claim he voted against?"

The resolution basically said President Bush may or may not go to war against Iraq, as he saw fit. Can you imagine the resolution against any country like that? A declaration of War is just that, it declares war against a country -- it does not have wishy washy language that lets the president do whatever he sees fit.

Would you ever have imagined a Declaration of War against Japan after Pearl Harbor being optional? That the President can fight or not fight as he felt like it? It wouldn't have been a declaration of war then because it DID NOT DECLARE WAR! It just authorized whatever force the President felt like using.

Ron Paul suggested a Declaration of War against Iraq in 2002 (he intended on voting against his own bill):
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

Now, in your logic, why would his fellows refute this clear Declaration of War? What did they, in effect, vote against?

You've sullied the great "St. Paul"!

Prepare to be "Paulbotted"!

Of course this is just another Townhall hit piece on the "only man who can save the universe".

/sarcasm off.

That is pretty much what I've been saying forever. I have no idea whether Ron Paul would be a good candidate. I can't get past his nutty Paulbots. You should have brought up the subtle to overt anti-semitism too. References to neocon zionists, President Rosenfeld, Israeli cabal controlling our government and so on. If a candidate can't bring discipline to his own campaign, one must assume that it is in fact his message or that he is a willing tool for someone else.

TO LENO OR NOT TO LENO
EVEN SHAKESPEARE WOULDN’T ASK SUCH A DUMB QUESTION

BY LISA RICHARDS
September 10, 2007

Apparently Senator Fred Thompson has upset America and the state of New Hampshire more than MacDonald’s going non-trans fat. Instead of showing up for the Durham, New Hampshire Republican Debate on September 5, 2007, Thompson committed a faux pas worse than wearing white after Labor Day; he appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno to announce his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States: “I’m running for President of the United States” the Senator told a happy crowd.


And suddenly, without warning, pigs flew and hell froze over; New Hampshire was ready to make Fred Thompson live without freedom and die.


As if anyone should care where the man announced his candidacy; but apparently New Hampshire was snubbed to the greatest of insult. The fact anyone would ignore a state full of old 60’s Birkenstock-wearing, tie-dye T-shirt wearing hippies whose vote counts more than anyone else in America was more than anyone who spent the entire 1960’s high on LSD could bare. And debate moderators Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and Wendell Goller considered the topic of Fred Thompson’s absence more important than the catching Osama bin Laden...

For the rest of the column visit my site.

copyright 2007 Lisa Richards
http://www.lisa-richards.com
E-Mail: http://www.lisa-richards@lisa-richards.com

To begin with, you base your initial opposition to Paul on a guilt-by-association fallacy, one that seems to be common among knee-jerk anti-Paulites. Then you proceed to suggest that, despite his vote against the war and general opposition to intervention, his followers have hijacked him and made him a shill for the anti-war left. It seems that Ron Paul's stance is a bit too principled for you to understand. You know, Constitutional authority, opposition to aggressive war, respect for life -- those types of things. All that matters to you is, Paul has deviated from the party line and now he needs to go down.

You then purport to refute all of Paul's positions on the war. And how do you do so? By running through the same administration propaganda that was used in 2003. Brilliant!

It's simply preposterous to continue claiming any type of pre-Iraq War link between Saddam and al-Qaida. Furthermore, what leads you to believe that invading a sovereign nation, toppling its government, and occupying the country will not lead to new enemies? In what kind of Orwellian world is this type of aggressive violence met with gratitude?

Furthermore, every call by politicians for "national service" is a call for a draft. Paul never said that Bush was calling for it, but perhaps you were blinded in your disdain for the man.

Regards,
An ex-neocon