0 votes

Great ANTI - Paul Article... They are gettin afraid and calling us dangerous

I just read the best ANTI Paul article yet... In it they talk about dailypaul encouraging AMERICANS to switch party's... and they call this dangerous and ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL??? Ok...

Read it and smile with me... KNOWING we are WINNING>. and that is EXACTLY WHY article like this come out... and IMHO.. this article should make the AVG.. American sick and disgusted with the writer!!

http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911

Let me know what ya'll think!!




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I wrote this in response to the author:

Dear Sir,
In response to the article you wrote located at
http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911 I would like to say the
following regarding why you think the Ron Paul campaign is dangerous.
The founding fathers were against the creation and adherence to
political parties (calling them faction). They are in fact an
abrogation of Democracy. They have a polarizing effect and make the
candidate nomination process *LESS* Democratic. I find it offensive
that in Louisiana as an independent I can not vote for either party in
the primary. How Democratic is that? I *HAVE* to change parties just
to vote! I should not have to change parties to vote for a candidate
that I feel represents me. That is what is all boils down to,
right...finding someone that represents you? Our two parties
tradition is a farce. I know people who vote entirely along party
lines even though they don't know one iota about the people they are
voting for. I suppose they get what they deserve. Better that there
are NO parties and that in order to vote for someone you should
actually have to do some research on them. I registered as an
independent when it was apparent that the Republican party of old had
abandoned me and no longer espoused the ideals of less government
interference that grew up to cherish. We are now faced with more
bureaucratizes than ever before, all of which feel that they have to
make rules to protect me and the rest of society despite who gets
trampled upon (can we say rules without representation?). I don't
think Ron Paul is dangerous, I think he is doing what the founders
envisioned. He is attracting adherents who are doing whatever they
have to do to elect the candidate that represents them. To you, I
would question why you hate the American ideals of freedom in the
electoral process...why do you want to make rules about who can vote
for whom? We are one country, one people, not Republicans and
Democrats...lets start acting like it!

Whatever

Destroying this guy's article is too easy to be fun. The only tiny bit I'll take the slightest pleasure in pointing out is that the author spends so much time lamenting Ron's broad-based cross-party support but then fails to note that in addition to "taking away votes from real Republicans" Ron is also "taking away votes from Democrats"!

I vote the next money bomb is dedicated to this guy!

Bad source, I say

Why is this writer using donderoooooo as a source? It's all really an opinion piece. E Dondero has himself gone a bit nuts, and maybe it's because he truly did buy what the fear-mongeres are peddling. Fear drives his words and actions, I think. Of course, I'm only an armchair psychologist.

Serious or Satire???

I couldn't tell if the article was satire of if the author was serious about what he was writing...

Either way, I had a good laugh.

Only the acceptance of the truth can defeat systemic evil.
-----
http://www.statenullification.com

WHY

Is Eric Dondero going around bad mouthing Dr. Paul? What was the falling out about? I would like to hear something from the Paul campaign about this.

When in doubt, it's about 9/11

From what I read, Eric thought Ron Paul should have been more 'respectful' of the 9/11 victims' families by supporting an unprovoked war with Iraq. Eric thought Ron Paul was more concerned about how the feds were going to use 9/11 to give us mega-bloated-beefedup-beligerant-hypercentralized-authoritarian government. And btw, Eric is running against Ron Paul for his Congressional seat. As others have noted, he gets laughed at and quickly dismissed on other forums.

If need be

Are we allowed to contribute to Dr. Pauls congressional campaign if we are not Texas residents?

yes

and yes
Realtor for Ron Paul

Realtor for Ron Paul

What an odd fallacy

The fallacy of the article is that Ron Paul is a "leftist" because he is against the war, but there is nothing "left" or "right" about war. Left and right are the result of the combination of your social and economic policies. War may effect both those things, so if anything being for war is leftist economically speaking.

J.B. "Oswald" Williams

"Society would be much less liable to panics and other delusions, and POLITICAL life, especially, would be a totally different thing, if even a majority of the arguments, that scattered broadcast over the world, were correct! But it is all the other way, I fear. For ONE workable Pair of Premisses (I mean a Pair that lead to a logical Conclusion) that you meet with in reading your newspaper or magazine, you will probably find FIVE that lead to no Conclusion at all: and, even when the Premisses ARE workable, for ONE instance, where the writer draws a correct Conclusion, there are probably TEN where he draws an incorrect one.

In the first case, you may say "the PREMISSES are fallacious": in the second, "the CONCLUSION is fallacious."
(The Game of Logic by Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson)

Let's see.

Premise 1: "I am becoming the most unpopular man in America among Ron Paul supporters"
Premise 2: "Truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth."
Fallacious Conclusion: Ron Paul supporters are at odds with truth.
Lacking premise: J.B. Williams personifies truth.

Premise 1: "Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known Internet giant Google"
Premise 2: "Al Gore is on the board of directors"
Fallacious Conclusion: Ron Paul is a progressive activist
Lacking premise: All directors on the board are progressives.

And in the real world Ron Paul disagrees with Al Gore on about every issue, including climate change.

Most of the time he simply contradicts himself.
"Ron Paul is no threat to anyone or anything"
"He threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process"
"His campaign has become dangerous."

"The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits... Of course, we can’t entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are."
Ok, so it's 99% liberals... no, wait:
"He will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal."

"There’s really no need to write another word about Ron Paul."
And then he goes on to write over 100 words about Ron Paul.

I think he is just confused. This man has more holes in his logic than a gruyere, he sure is fast becoming the most popular joke among Ron Paul supporters.

J.B. "Oswald" Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prankster

"OK Shaggy, you and Scoob check out the cave, me and the girls will stay here in the cabin"
~ Fred

My email I sent

It pains me to read the lies you spout. I am a republican and have been for a while now. I support Ron Paul. Paul has been a republican for a long time now. What Paul isnt is Neo-Conservative. I think that is where you are getting a little confused. Pauls ideas closely resemble those of Ronald Regan. And further more Regan endorsed Paul. But you probably dont see Regan as a Republican either? So, do your homework before you spout lies to the public. It makes you look ignorant on the subjects. Oh by the way Dr. Pauls campaign had nothing to do with the Nov.5 fundraiding effort, it was grassroots driven. Thats probably a little hard for you to swallow huh?

I went to opensecret.org

And 81% of Paul's contributions are coming from males.
Ouch.
Considering Hillary has 55% male donors.
Jesus H.

____________________________

The Sums of Liberty are Brewing rEVOLution

____________________________

The Sums of Liberty are Brewing rEVOLution

I've always wondered...

Just what kind of 'man' would support Hillary? Arrgh not one I'd want to meet for sure.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Arrgh

My husband supports Hillary. I know, "Arrgh!" He's nostalgic for the 20th century, pre-Dubya days, and convinced Hillary can revive them. I hope he's disappointed, not by Hillary's performance in office, but by Ron Paul being elected as the next POTUS!

I noticed this as well.

I noticed this as well. Surprisingly, the candidate with the largest percentage of female donors was Kucinich, with Obama and Clinton following closely. I'm not sure what the Paul campaign could do to attract female donors, but I know he won't change the message -- which is irrefutably correct -- just to pander to a particular demographic.

Apparently women like Paul's message of freedom and liberty much less than Kucinich/Obama/Clinton's message of a cradle-to-grave nanny-state. I find this sad, but there's really nothing to be done about it other than try to get the message across more clearly to women.

===Signature===

"Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." --George Washington

the big red herring

I've noticed there are a lot of women out there turned off by his pro-life stance. I'm pro-choice myself, but one of the things I admire about Ron Paul is his honesty, and I would hate for him to support anything he doesn't really believe in. Also, I see abortion as a "red herring" issue that pales in importance to the challenges really facing this nation, and I wish all of my pro-choice sisters could see it that way, too. Oh well, it's not my place to tell others what to think.

Women may be uninformed

Let's face it. Most of you heard about Ron Paul on the internet or via someone who heard about him on the internet. I heard about him from my son who heard it on the internet. I am a woman and I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul. Any woman I know who studies about him does, too.
But women who surf the internet (I don't want to generalize) are looking for more of a social experience than an educational one. Is that true? Let me know if I am totally off. So, they are not going to get caught up in a lot of controversial issues the way men might. So how do you reach this group?
The Kucinich thing is a mystery to me, though. Why do you think he is more popular with women? Are women more prochoice? I certainly hope not. That would be sad.

Healthnuttie for Ron Paul

Healthnut4freedom

The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22

militants

Actually, women are more likely to be pro-life than men, but pro-choice women are more likely to be really militant about it than men. Many of them view laws restricting abortion as men telling women what to do.

I surf the internet mainly for education, but I've been told time and time again I'm not an example of a typical woman, so I don't know how to respond to that...

Yes, I discovered Paul

Yes, I discovered Paul online, through a candidate matchmaking quiz. I was actively seeking political information. I took several other such quizzes and all matched me with Paul, so I dug deeper and found him to be pretty much my ideal candidate.

I don't want to generalize either, but I think you're probably right about many women using the 'net for the social experience. It only makes sense, when you consider the general nature of women as more social than men (ugh, these sweeping generalizations are dangerous, please step over the red herring). As for how to reach them, I guess by using those same social networks. Which is weird to say, considering how well Paul does on Myspace, etc. Hmm...I don't know what to make of that dissociation, especially considering how independent his female supporters seem to be. Were it otherwise, I might be tempted to suggest that the female support was not represented among donors because their husbands were doing the donating. I don't think this is the case among female Paulites.

As for the pro-choice thing, I always assumed women were more pro-choice than men, overall. So that might be part of it, although I don't think it's entirely fair to Dr. Paul. He has made it clear that he sees this as an issue for the states, and the Constitution agrees. If this is in fact a problem among women, I'm not sure how to address it. I have to admit, if I was a woman I would be incredibly leery of anything that smelled even remotely close to threatening my individual rights, and they should feel that way. For me personally, the abortion issue is a libertarian one. The problem is in determining at what point a fetus becomes an individual. Until that point is reached, the mother's individual rights must be protected -- which means they can have an abortion if they so choose. After that point, the mother shouldn't be allowed to harm the unborn child, who is now an individual and who's rights must also be protected. If only we could determine that point....

===Signature===

"Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." --George Washington

Until a couple weeks ago, I

Until a couple weeks ago, I thought Kucinich was a Martin Short character.
Perhaps some women were thinking the same thing.
I know he had my vote until I discovered he was a real person.

____________________________

The Sums of Liberty are Brewing rEVOLution

He needs to get on some

He needs to get on some day-time women shows. He is the G man, I think females may feel comfortable with that fact in mind. This is just from my own families observations.

The View

I've never watched The View, but did see a clip on You Tube in which they were talking about RP. Joy and Rosie were chatting about his foreign policy views, but that idiot blonde, (Elisabeth?), was hearing none of it. She kept cutting in, not listening at all, and spewing on about 'the war on terror'. I got angry just watching her. After that I watched a couple more vids in which she was dissed by the guest; made me feel better...
I'm a 39 yr old divorced woman who supports RP. Most of my friends are male; I seem to identify and get along better with them. (No, I'm not a lesbian.) ;) I can't say for sure why more women aren't supporting RP,altho' my mom is. From what I get from the women I do know, or used to know, is many have this 'take care of everyone' attitude, and the others want to 'get the terrorists.'
Pushing the OB/GYN angle may work, but I think the bleeding hearts are a lost cause, no matter what. Ditto with the neo-cons, altho I think there are fewer female ones.
If RP is on The View, somebody will need to tape Lizzy's mouth so the man will be able to speak. I'm all for rebuttal and speaking one's mind, but wait your turn!

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

Yeah, some people were

Yeah, some people were talking a few days ago about trying to get Dr. Paul on The View. I think it would be great.

===Signature===

"Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." --George Washington

The writer of the article said...

"But [Ron Paul] is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush..."

Actually, I think George Bush and his policies are doing that job quite nicely without any of Ron Paul's help. Sorry, neocons, you don't get to spend like drunken sailors, bog us down in a war with no end, and talk about bombing Iran without suffering the consequences. Namely, the wrath of the voters, who, as hard as it is to believe by the writer of this article, CAN think and VOTE for themselves, thank you very much!!!

Eric

Eric Dunderhead is a judas . And he is not libertarian. I hope nobody listens to him.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

And what of his claim

that he founded the Republican Liberty Caucus? I find that hard to believe.

THE NEW POLITICAL DEFINITIONS:

Liberal: Anti-war statist
Conservative: Pro-war statist
Whacko: Anti-war libertarian
Libertarian: whatever the person talking wants it to mean.

----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul

Do they not realize that

Do they not realize that Eric Dondero is a joke? He's not a libertarian at all. He is a hardcore Giuliani man, who is desperately trying to sell Rudy's brand of statism to the RLC. It's not working. Most branches of the RLC are actually supporting Ron Paul.

Someone using Dondero's name posts over at Reason's Hit and Run regularly, and is regularly laughed at by the libertarians who post on that blog. FWIW.

----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul

what

A DOPE!!!!!!

Remember the Hollywood saying...

There's no such thing as bad publicity.