NationStates Jolt Archive

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-mouse-that-roared-why-ron-paul-won-the-election/
So we are not talking about winning in the convential sense of taking states...but rather of sparking a revolution of ideas, in a similar way that Barry Goldwater did when he jumpstarted the idea of Conservatism.

First, before the article....let's talk about Doug Wead.

"Doug Wead is a presidential historian, philanthropist and public speaker. He was Special Assistant to former U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and is the author of thirty books, including the New York Times best-seller All the Presidents’ Children: Triumph and Tragedy in the Lives of the First Families. He has authored a sequel which examines the childhoods of U.S. Presidents, The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Wead

Then a quick look at Goldwater:

At the time of Goldwater's presidential candidacy, the Republican Party was split between its conservatives (with their base in the West and Midwest) and liberals (strongest in the Northeast). He alarmed even some of his fellow partisans with his brand of staunch fiscal conservatism and militant anti-Communism. He was viewed by many traditional Republicans as being too far on the right wing of the Republican spectrum to appeal to the mainstream majority necessary to win a national election.

Goldwater boldly (and famously) declared in his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

The Goldwater campaign spotlighted Ronald Reagan, who gave a stirring, nationally televised speech, "A Time for Choosing," in support of Goldwater.[5] The speech prompted Reagan to seek the California Governorship in 1966 and jump-started his political career.

Although Goldwater was not as important in the American conservative movement as Ronald Reagan after 1965, from the late 1950s to 1964 he redefined and shaped the movement. Arizona Senator John McCain summed up Goldwater's legacy thus: "He transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan.” The columnist George Will remarked after the 1980 Presidential election that “it took 16 years to count the votes [of the 1964 election], and Goldwater won.”

By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed, which he believed were an integral part of true conservativism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.

As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would "fight them every step of the way".[16] Goldwater also disagreed with the Reagan administration on certain aspects of foreign policy (e.g. he opposed the decision to mine Nicaraguan harbors). Notwithstanding his prior differences with Dwight Eisenhower, Goldwater in a 1986 interview rated him the best of the seven Presidents with whom he had worked.

When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”[20] He also said, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have."[21]

In 1996 he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?” In that same year, with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana against the will of social conservatives.[22]


Now, let's take a look at the article. Let's NOT make this a flame war with "Ron Paul sucks, Ron Paul rocks"...but rather....about what this credible source is saying about Ron Paul bringing in a new voice to the politics that coudl very well jumpstart a revolutionary movement, in the same way that Goldwater's Reagan did.

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election

Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.


Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.


He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.

But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.


Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.


And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.


John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”


And the answer will be Ron Paul.

Discuss...WITHOUT trolling. Any anti or pro Ron Paul trolling that abstructs the debate will be reported to the mods....

Discuss...WITHOUT trolling. Any anti or pro Ron Paul trolling that abstructs the debate will be reported to the mods....
Then I will have to declare this thread flame baiting.

Based on the fact that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination now or in the future, which would be a requirement for the OP being relevant due to the invocation of Goldwater who actually won the nomination, the entire OP is pro-Ron Paul drivel and thus there is no debate to be had. You can't debate something that can't happen - Ron Paul winning the nomination. Ron Paul did not win the election, the nomination, nor does he even have a chance at running as an independent. Ron Paul's agenda and words have had no impact on the Republican party (hence why he is getting nowhere compared to Goldwater getting the nomination). They have only gone on to inspire and bring out loonies from no specific party.

Maybe you should stop trolling with pro-Ron Paul bullshit.

Discuss...WITHOUT trolling. Any anti or pro Ron Paul trolling that abstructs the debate will be reported to the mods....
The problem with the article is that it asserts that people listened to Ron Paul when he "shouted" "They have no clothes!" All I've seen so far indicates otherwise.

The relationship between conservatism and liberty that Goldwater is so found of talking about did not exist before Goldwater. He redefined conservatism to suit his own tastes, ignoring the fact that conservatism has always been a highly statist, ultra nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-liberty social philosophy. Where do you think the phrase "God, King, and Country" came from?
And the problem with comparing Paul to Goldwater is PEOPLE LISTENED TO GOLDWATER. He won the fucking nomination. No one is listening to Paul thus what he says is irrelevant and will be forgotten.

The relationship between conservatism and liberty that Goldwater is so found of talking about did not exist before Goldwater. He redefined conservatism to suit his own tastes, ignoring the fact that conservatism has always been a highly statist, ultra nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-liberty social philosophy. Where do you think the phrase "God, King, and Country" came from?

And the problem with comparing Paul to Goldwater is PEOPLE LISTENED TO GOLDWATER. He won the fucking nomination. No one is listening to Paul thus what he says is irrelevant and will be forgotten.

Indeed. I don't know how Paul tricked a small legion of Internetites that he was some kind of "libertarian messiah", because he quite frankly is neither a libertarian nor anyone's savior.

I don't know how Paul tricked a small legion of Internetites that he was some kind of "libertarian messiah"

free kool-aid?

"We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles."

this represent a break with the noble traditions of conservatism?

Now, let's take a look at the article. Let's NOT make this a flame war with "Ron Paul sucks, Ron Paul rocks"...but rather....about what this credible source is saying about Ron Paul

...

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election



Discuss...WITHOUT trolling. Any anti or pro Ron Paul trolling that abstructs the debate will be reported to the mods....
[/quote]

So you make a thread on an article that is about Ron Paul, and want to discuss the article's content, but you don't want any discussion on Ron Paul and will in fact report said discussion?

Next up, I'm going to make a 2008 elections thread, but I don't want to hear anyone mention the presidential candidates for the 2008 elections! In fact I'll report it to the mods!

Except Goldwater got 883 delegates, and Paul has 14 in a convention twice the size.

You people are really desperate, aren't you?

So let me get this straight. Ron Paul "won", except for the fact that he really didn't win at all, but we're ignoring that because this kind of "win" isn't the kind of victory where you actually win anything, but rather is a win because he stirred up ideas, except for the fact that his sound defeat was an indication that the US public as a whole rejected his particular brand of crazy whole heartedly.

So he won, except that he lost, but it's a kind of win that you get by losing, except that he didn't, but he will, because people will 20 years from now talk about how successful he was, except that he lost.

Thread fails.

-snip-
With all due respect, this sounds like yet another shining tribute to the fact that Doublethink is still very much alive in US Republicanism, whether it considers itself "progressive" or otherwise.

'course, the same is true of the Democrats, but this isn't about them, is it?

So let me get this straight. Ron Paul "won", except for the fact that he really didn't win at all, but we're ignoring that because this kind of "win" isn't the kind of victory where you actually win anything, but rather is a win because he stirred up ideas, except for the fact that his sound defeat was an indication that the US public as a whole rejected his particular brand of crazy whole heartedly.

So he won, except that he lost, but it's a kind of win that you get by losing, except that he didn't, but he will, because people will 20 years from now talk about how successful he was, except that he lost.

Well, in short:

Ron Paul lost a moral victory.

Well, in short:

Ron Paul lost a moral victory.

aaaaaaand

/thread

16 delegates? Sounds like more of a squeak from over here.

By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed, which he believed were an integral part of true conservativism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.

As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would "fight them every step of the way".[16] Goldwater also disagreed with the Reagan administration on certain aspects of foreign policy (e.g. he opposed the decision to mine Nicaraguan harbors). Notwithstanding his prior differences with Dwight Eisenhower, Goldwater in a 1986 interview rated him the best of the seven Presidents with whom he had worked.
When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

These all sound really great. And, if Ron Paul had been or had been trying to bring up anything like this, I think he would have been really good for the Republican party.

Unfortunately, he hasn't been. He supports this kind of infrintement upon rights. He just (usually) moves it to the state level instead.

He supports state authority to decide who you sleep with, how you do it, and what medical attention you can seek. He supports state authority to refuse equal legal treatment to homosexuals. He supports "Don't ask, don't tell."

I don't know much about Goldwater, but the idea of libertarianism on personal issues is definitely a good thing. It's really a shame that the Republican party has gone in the exact opposite direction. Even Ron Paul, the supposed "libertarian" candidate, is not a social libertarian.

First of all...many of these responses are exactly the kind trolling comments I expected. Obviously Ron Paul will be brought up as he is part of the OP, but I was looking for more of a debate about his bringing up a different point of view that could lead to a revolution of the Republican Party...like Goldwater did. What I did NOT want...was the "Ron Paul is racist...Ron Paul offers kool aid...Ron Paul is a loon" type commnets that typically flood Ron Paul debates by the left.

You people are really desperate, aren't you?
You people? Hmm...Please, kindly explain how Mr. Wead is "you people"
He is a credible source on matters such as this...thus, when he says something like this, it holds weight, regardless of if "YOU PEOPLE" (see how easy that is) like it or not.
Doug Wead is a presidential historian, philanthropist and public speaker. He was Special Assistant to former U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and is the author of thirty books, including the New York Times best-seller All the Presidents’ Children: Triumph and Tragedy in the Lives of the First Families. He has authored a sequel which examines the childhoods of U.S. Presidents, The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders.

In 1979, Mr. Wead joined entertainer Pat Boone and Dan O’Neil in co-founding Mercy Corps. In 1991, Mr. Wead contributed to a Mercy Corps economic recovery program in the newly formed Republic of Kazakhstan. [1]

In the 1980’s, Mr. Wead organized the National Charity Awards. [2] Ten First Ladies and Presidents have served as honorary chairmen of this prestigious event including Lady Bird Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, George H. W. and Barbara Bush and George W. and Laura Bush.

From 1984 to 2000, Mr. Wead served as an on and off adviser to both George H. W. Bush (the father) and George W. Bush (the son). In 1988, with Mr. Weads support, George H. W. Bush was able to rally the religious right in support of the later president. The Bush polled 81% of the 1988 evangelical vote.

In 1992, Mr. Wead was the Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in Arizona's 6th Congressional District. Despite having lived in Arizona for just a couple years, Mr. Wead defied expectations and won the Republican nomination after championing a tax limitation initiative and airing a television commercial featuring praise by former President Ronald Reagan for Mr. Wead's humanitarian efforts. However, the general election campaign did not go well for Mr. Wead. Former U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater endorsed his Democratic opponent, Karan English, and Fall 1992 was a difficult time in general for Republicans politically. Mr. Wead’s old boss, George H. W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton and Wead was defeated by English.

Mr. Wead also was an active behind-the-scenes player in campaign 2000, receiving some credit for George W.'s victory in the Iowa straw polls of 1999.[3] Time magazine called Mr. Wead an insider in the Bush family orbit and “the man who coined the phrase Compassionate Conservative.[4]

In February 2005, after an article in the New York Times, Mr. Wead acknowledged that he had secretly tape recorded conversations with President George W. Bush. Wead contended that he began tape recording these conversations in 1998, in order to create a record of Bush, then Governor of Texas, as a historical figure and that it was his intention that they never see the light of day. Only a few minutes of the nine hours of conversations were made public, in them Bush is heard discussing potential 2000 presidential foes such as John McCain and Steve Forbes, and hints that he had smoked marijuana, but would not admit to it for fear of becoming a bad role model for children.

Less than a week after the existence of the tapes became known, Wead spurned million dollar offers, announcing that he considered his personal friendship with Bush "more important than history." He said he would have the tapes turned over to the President. He expressed regret at having made the tapes, saying he was "certainly wrong to tape the president without his permission." [5]

Mr. Wead is also an Independent Business Owner in partnership with Quixtar and Network TwentyOne.[6] He is also corporate speaker. In 1995 he helped reopen Canyonville Christian Academy,[7] a private boarding school for teenagers in southern Oregon. For three years, Mr. Wead personally subsidized the school’s monthly budget. Wead currently serves as its president.

In July, 2005, in a ceremony before 50,000 people at Olympic Stadium in Moscow, Mr. Wead became the first American to be knighted by Russian aristocracy since the fall of communism. He was bestowed the honor because of his philanthropic work.


With all due respect, this sounds like yet another shining tribute to the fact that Doublethink is still very much alive in US Republicanism, whether it considers itself "progressive" or otherwise.

'course, the same is true of the Democrats, but this isn't about them, is it?
Well this isn't about the Democrats, simply because I was talking about a revolution of thought/idealogy in the Republican party...but a seperate thread on the democrats would be interesting if you feel you have a point to make.:)
These all sound really great. And, if Ron Paul had been or had been trying to bring up anything like this, I think he would have been really good for the Republican party.
The point is not about invidiual issues, but about that for the first time in a while, a Republican ran and got a considerable amount of coverage with a totally different idea of what the Republican Party should stand for.... Wead argues that this is what happend with Goldwater and that it produced the Reagan revolution. He also argues that like Goldwater, Paul too will inspire and create a "Reagan" type that will come and change the idea/idealogy of the party.

(For the record, I like Goldwater and his stances MUCH better than Ron Paul's....I just like Ron Paul much better than those others who are running in the 08 race)

The point is about that for the first time in a while, a Republican ran and got a considerable amount of coverage with a totally different idea of what the Republican Party should stand for....

True, I can't think of any other Republican (or Democratic for that matter) who ran on the platform of "Let's completely destroy the economy" :rolleyes:

You people? Hmm...Please, kindly explain how Mr. Wead is "you people"

I was referring to you, and to Ron Paul supporters in general--desperate to avoid admitting the obvious fact that your candidate was destroyed at the polls and had negligible influence on anything substantive.

He is a credible source on matters such as this...thus, when he says something like this, it holds weight, regardless of if "YOU PEOPLE" (see how easy that is) like it or not.

I really don't care how many books he's written, how many Republican politicians he's worked with, or how close a friend he is to President Bush.

Comparing a candidate who received a small fraction of the votes in the primaries with a candidate who managed to secure the nomination of a major party is absurd. While the word "landslide" could be reasonably used to describe both defeats, the scale is not comparable.

First of all...many of these responses are exactly the kind trolling comments I expected.
So you were flame baiting?

Obviously Ron Paul will be brought up as he is part of the OP, but I was looking for more of a debate about his bringing up a different point of view that could lead to a revolution of the Republican Party...like Goldwater did.
As I pointed out in the first reply, that debate can't and won't happen because Ron Paul is not Barry Goldwater. Ron Paul is a nutso attracting more nutsos and is getting nowhere within the party, ie he can't change it. Goldwater actually drew attention and support.

You people? Hmm...Please, kindly explain how Mr. Wead is "you people"
He is a credible source on matters such as this...thus, when he says something like this, it holds weight, regardless of if "YOU PEOPLE" (see how easy that is) like it or not.
If he thinks Ron Paul is going to "change the face of the Republican party," I'm going to dismiss anything he says out of hand as pure idiocy.

The point is not about invidiual issues, but about that for the first time in a while, a Republican ran and got a considerable amount of coverage with a totally different idea of what the Republican Party should stand for

which republican is that? all that happened in this race was that the 3 major and one minor faction of the republican party were crystalized into individual candidates. ridiculous conspiracy theory peddling lunacy has always been a part of the conservative coalition.

.... Wead argues that this is what happend with Goldwater and that it produced the Reagan revolution. He also argues that like Goldwater, Paul too will inspire and create a "Reagan" type that will come and change the idea/idealogy of the party.

but since paul was utterly and embarrassingly crushed within the republican party, as opposed to goldwater's domination of it, why would anyone not full of delicious kool-aid think there is any similarity at all?

Also, Ron Paul is a clown.

I guess he has LG's vote, then. :p

Was I the only one who came into this thread thinking it was about The Mouse That Roared (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/)? The world needs more Peter Sellers.

Also, Ron Paul is a clown.

I guess he has LG's vote, then. :p

Well, he's not a very funny clown.

Well, he's not a very funny clown.

True.

Well, he's not a very funny clown.

He's a terrible clown. His fan club makes me laugh though. :P

He's a terrible clown. His fan club makes me laugh though. :P

*pies LG*

He's a terrible clown. His fan club makes me laugh though. :P

http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/cinema/2636/pic-coll1/it-clown.jpg

*nods*

The problem with the article is that it asserts that people listened to Ron Paul when he "shouted" "They have no clothes!" All I've seen so far indicates otherwise.

Yep. In fact the little shouting there was concerning Ron Paul was actually aimed towards him and his clothes, and their allegedly white, capey, pointed-hoody nature. Apart from that, nada......

No, Ron Paul will not determine the future of Republican politics because no Republicans listened to him, unless they fell into the trap believing that he actually was a libertarian (which hes not), were racists and/or bigots (just like him), or were just people jumping on what they thought was a bandwagon.

He didnt bring up ideas, because no one cared what he had to say. The American public resoundingly rejected his anti-federalist, isolationist, racist, authoritarian, moralist, and poor economic policies. The only thing Ron Paul did achieve was 16 delegets, great comic relief in debates, and he showed me that the Republican party can at times be rational.

I also like how the linked article said that John McCain would be a trivia question about who lost the presidency to the first woman or black candidate. I detect an undertone of racism/sexism there, as if the writer believes that having a woman or black president would be a bad thing. This also brings the writer of the article more in line with Ron Paul.

I answered your question. If you dont like my answer (which you wont) go ahead and report me to the mods. And stop flame baiting and posting Pro-Ron Paul BS. The election is over basically. Ron Paul is now irrelevent. Feel free to bring him back up when he does something worth discussing, because his horridly failed candidacy does not warrent all the talk he's getting.

The point is not about invidiual issues, but about that for the first time in a while, a Republican ran and got a considerable amount of coverage with a totally different idea of what the Republican Party should stand for....

Totally different from what, though? Certainly totally different from the current prevailing opinion, but it isn't as if Ron Paul brought up anything new.

Wead argues that this is what happend with Goldwater and that it produced the Reagan revolution. He also argues that like Goldwater, Paul too will inspire and create a "Reagan" type that will come and change the idea/idealogy of the party.

Based on what you've posted of Goldwater's ideas, it would appear to me that the Reagan revolution had little to do with them.

You’ve been coming out with quotes like this for quite a while now, as if the only people who dislike Ron Paul are those on the left.

Far from the truth.

Indeed, everyone hates Ron Paul.

Wow, Ron Paul managed to unite Democrats and Republicans! He's the uniter!

tl:dr...and what's the joke option?

What I did NOT want...was the “Ron Paul is racist...Ron Paul offers kool aid...Ron Paul is a loon” type commnets that typically flood Ron Paul debates by the left.
You’ve been coming out with quotes like this for quite a while now, as if the only people who dislike Ron Paul are those on the left.

Far from the truth.

free kool-aid?

No, it was the lasagna :p

You’ve been coming out with quotes like this for quite a while now, as if the only people who dislike Ron Paul are those on the left.

Far from the truth.

True dat. My brother is quite the conservative and he hates Ron Paul.

First of all...many of these responses are exactly the kind trolling comments I expected. So if you expected these posts, perhaps you were trollbaiting?
Obviously Ron Paul will be brought up as he is part of the OP, but I was looking for more of a debate about his bringing up a different point of view that could lead to a revolution of the Republican Party...like Goldwater did.Yeah, and most people are pointing out that Ron Paul didn't have the impact Goldwater did, so the idea that it will lead to a revolution such as Goldwater caused is unlikely.

Anyone who puts 'revolutionary' and 'conservatism' in the same sentence automatically fails...

That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.

Last time I checked the Reagan ran up huge deficits, Republicans are the party of Big Business, and they're also the party of "hawks".

Anyone who puts 'revolutionary' and 'conservatism' in the same sentence automatically fails...
Yeah, but the same goes for anyone who would use "role model" to describe "Stalin".

free kool-aid?


There's no such thing as free kool-aid :mad:

There's no such thing as free kool-aid :mad:
Oh, ye of little faith:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/3d.jpg

Oh, ye of little faith:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/3d.jpg

I might need a little more faith (or patience).

Websense is blocking photobucket :(


(It can make viewing these forums an odd experience at times. Well I'll see it when I go home and make a proper response from there :))

Yeah, but the same goes for anyone who would use "role model" to describe "Stalin".

Not sure what your point is, but I defended comrade Stalin's record in that other thread quite vigorously when he was unfairly attacked. I don't honor the man, I honor his practical achievements in building socialism. Funnily enough however, after my well sourced defense of Stalin, all I got in return was petty sniping and snide remarks.

Not sure what your point is, but I defended comrade Stalin's record in that other thread quite vigorously when he was unfairly attacked. I don't honor the man, I honor his practical achievements in building socialism. Funnily enough however, after my well sourced defense of Stalin, all I got in return was petty sniping and snide remarks.I suppose that might be because your definition of "well-sourced" differs from that of the academic world.

Yeah, but the same goes for anyone who would use "role model" to describe "Stalin".

LOL. Agreed. Much more so than revolutionary conservative.

Then I will have to declare this thread flame baiting.

Based on the fact that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination now or in the future, which would be a requirement for the OP being relevant due to the invocation of Goldwater who actually won the nomination, the entire OP is pro-Ron Paul drivel and thus there is no debate to be had. You can't debate something that can't happen - Ron Paul winning the nomination. Ron Paul did not win the election, the nomination, nor does he even have a chance at running as an independent. Ron Paul's agenda and words have had no impact on the Republican party (hence why he is getting nowhere compared to Goldwater getting the nomination). They have only gone on to inspire and bring out loonies from no specific party.

Maybe you should stop trolling with pro-Ron Paul bullshit.

Read before you run your little mouth.

---

to the OP:

I don't think ron paul's "message" got out to quite the extent that goldwater's did. I don't think he got anyone thinking beyond "who is this kook and why won't these assholes shut up about him?"

Ron paul excluded principle from his platform, it is entirely "constitutionalist" voodoo. Conservatism is a platform based on certain principles, which are different from those of the ron paul platform. His message was pacifism, drug legalization, and fantasy-land economics. He's a libertarian, not a conservative.

Get over it. The people have spoken, and they have said, "No thanks."

I sometimes wonder if it's possible to get Huckabee and Ron Paul mixed up - and lo and behold, someone seems to have done just that :)

Did you see that Paul managed to edge Romney for 3rd place in the Virginia primary? That would be more impressive if Romney hadn't quit already.

wouldn't that be a more apt title?

If Ron Paul is still in the race by November, I will vote for him. I want him to pull us out of Iraq, legalize drugs and reform public education.:cool:

I could care lees which party he is in or who else supports or doesn't support him.

Get over it. The people have spoken, and they have said, "No thanks."

What she said!