You Know You're A Paulbot When...

[ProSense]

You Know You're A Paulbot When...

by Mets102

You write something along the lines of:

Ron Paul is great in his opposition to the wars and his desire to cut military spending and his opposition to the military-industrial complex. He was right about Afghanistan. He was right about Iraq. We shouldn't be launching these imperialistic wars just because we can and we feel like it. He's right that it's wrong to do so. He's right that we can't afford to do. And, oh yeah, I know he sucks on everything else.

Or you write something like:

Yeah, Ron Paul wants to pull us out of the UN, but he also wants to get us out of NATO, which has no purpose now that the Cold War is over. He also opposed both Afghanistan and Iraq from the outset and wouldn't have let the British pull us into World War II. If our foreign policy followed his outlook, we, and the world, would be a much better place for it. And, yes, I know, he's really bad about women's rights, civll rights, and pretty much anything else.

While those quotes are purely fictitious, they do represent the ideas espoused by some on the left. We all know that there is an infestation of Paulbots at this site. Denise Oliver Velez had a great, and funny, diary about it last Friday. Unfortunately, it's not just limited to this site and the pseudonymous people here. We also see it from prominent names, such as Glenn Greenwald, which this diary, and several comments therein, documents.

Despite what some people say, when one makes comments along the lines of those written above, that is a defense of, and advocacy for, Ron Paul. Writing 95 words of praise, followed by 5 words of damnation is exactly that. Opening with a few words criticizing him, and closing with a few words criticizing him, but having the middle, and bulk of the comment or piece, being absolutely effusive about Ron Paul is nothing more than a defense of, and advocacy for, Ron Paul. It is easy enough to see through the faint, and insubstantial, words of damnation and get to the heart of the comment.

I know this has been said time and again, both by myself and others, but one should not be praising Ron Paul under any circumstances. He may come to some of the same end goals as us in certain areas of foreign policy, but he comes to them for exactly the wrong reasons. In addition, that ignores how truly horrific he is when it comes to every other issue under the sun. He wants to criminalize abortion. He has no problem with states criminalizing conduct between consenting adults. He has no problem with states criminalizing drugs. And that is just the start of it. As has been repeatedly said, his issue is about states' rights and lessening federal power.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/08/1052760/-You-Know-Youre-A-Paulbot-When

Ron Paul Touts Endorsement From Pastor Who Railed Against ‘Sodomites’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002183905

New Batch Of Ron Paul Newsletters Out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002179317

Ron Paul's Vision For a Free Society Based on Liberty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002176020

Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002177891

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[cpwm17]

2. When...

You write numerous OP's about Ron Paul.

[ProSense]

3. Or

"You write numerous OP's about Ron Paul."

...when you're in opposite world.

[cpwm17]

7. My point is you are too concerned with Ron Paul

Many of his libertarian ideas obviously suck, and I know of no DU member that supports his nomination for the presidency. Some people here may appreciate that he is expressing an anti-war message like no one else, but no liberal can support his right-winged libertarian views.

Ron Paul is a straw man, and you are fabricating support for Ron Paul that just doesn't exist on DU.

[ProSense]

8. Hmmm?

Many of his libertarian ideas obviously suck, and I know of no DU member that supports his nomination for the presidency. Some people here may appreciate that he is expressing an anti-war message like no one else, but no liberal can support his right-winged libertarian views.

Ron Paul is a straw man, and you are fabricating support for Ron Paul that just doesn't exist on DU.

The OP is a Daily Kos diary that doesn't mention DU.

As for the point about "anti-war message"

[FarLeftFist]

4. Jeez, then FOX news must LOVE Obama!

[ProSense]

5. LOL! n/t

[SidDithers]

35. Well said...

Sid

[ellisonz]

6. Eff Ron Paul n/t

[JDPriestly]

9. You know you are a fanatic when you cannot bear that someone else can understand that an

otherwise abominable politician can have some excellent ideas. Let's paraphrase what you have said just a bit:

Ron Paul is great in his opposition to the wars and his desire to cut military spending and his opposition to the military-industrial complex.

How about instead?

I agree with Ron Paul in his opposition to the wars and his desire to cut military spending and his opposition to the military-industrial complex.

Can you seriously say you disagree with Ron Paul on those points?

He was right about Afghanistan.

Well, now I disagree on that one. We did need to go into Afghanistan. But I would not call someone a Ron Paulbot just because they disagree with me and agree with Ron Paul on that point. Takes more than that.

He was right about Iraq. We shouldn't be launching these imperialistic wars just because we can and we feel like it. He's right that it's wrong to do so. He's right that we can't afford to do. And, oh yeah, I know he sucks on everything else.

Now, seriously, does anyone disagree with Ron Paul on Iraq? Does anyone think we should launch imperialistic wars just because we a can and we feel like it. What Democrat seriously disagrees with that statement? Obama obviously agreed with it. He spoke out against the Iraq War and actually pulled our troops out recently.

Can't accuse someone of being a Ron Paulbot because they agree with that statement.

As for the second statement,

Yeah, Ron Paul wants to pull us out of the UN, but he also wants to get us out of NATO, which has no purpose now that the Cold War is over. He also opposed both Afghanistan and Iraq from the outset and wouldn't have let the British pull us into World War II. If our foreign policy followed his outlook, we, and the world, would be a much better place for it. And, yes, I know, he's really bad about women's rights, civll rights, and pretty much anything else.

I think you will find few Americans who agree with that although I personally would have us reduce the number of troops we have in Germany and Italy. That is because I lived in Germany and believe based on my experience that we really don't need as many there as we have.

A Ron Paulbot would not post the statements that you have suggested.

Nice attempt to discourage independent thought on DU, but no. A Ron Paulbot would oppose Social Security, women's rights, integration, Medicare, public education, regulation of business, protection of the environment and just about anything else that Democrats support.

[ProSense]

11. Hmmm?

"He was right about Afghanistan."

When he voted for it?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/100277632

[Robb]

17. ...

[MinervaX]

20. Damn!

Air ball. I thought Obama could play hoops.

[JDPriestly]

36. I would have voted for going into Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda really was there.

I think the Iraq War was probably a violation of international law.

[Hugabear]

53. Al Qaeda was in lots of other countries - and still is

Yet we only invaded Afghanistan...

[JDPriestly]

69. Because Pakistan is next door. It has Muslim fanaticism, nuclear weapons, was

proliferating nuclear technology and hiding Bin Laden. It wasn't like a lot of other countries. It was unique.

[Hugabear]

73. By that logic, we should be getting ready to invade TURKEY

Because Iran is next door, has Muslim fanaticism, working on nuclear weapons (allegedly), and working with terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

[JDPriestly]

95. We do not need to invade Turkey. We are already there and have been for a long time.

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. S-w-i-s-h!

[MFrohike]

10. Something I wish

I wish people could separate Ron Paul from some of the issues he's raised. That doesn't mean actually listening to his side of it because he's simply wrong or lying quite often. It just means that I wish issues like the drug war, massively military expansion, crazy-ass right-wing economics, and the stupid fiction of states' rights would be debated openly and freely among everyone. They're important issues and need to be discussed, but they're too important to discuss in the context of Ron Paul.

[Fumesucker]

14. It's precisely because Paul raises those issues that some refuse to separate him from the issues..

Paul wouldn't be a blip on the campaign radar screen if it weren't for the issues where he differs from the rest of the Republicans and most of the Democrats as well.

[MFrohike]

51. He's an obsession

It really is sad.

[woo me with science]

12. The faux freakout over Ron Paul.

Why the repetitive posts like this? Here's why:

The faux freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

[ProSense]

13. Actually

The faux freakout over Ron Paul.

Why do we keep getting posts like this? Here's why:

The faux freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

...calling out a racist running for the Republican nomination isn't a "faux freakout" and it's strange that you ask: "Why do we keep getting posts like this?"

[cpwm17]

15. No, you're calling out people that oppose our racist wars and drug policies

Issues that you don't seem to care about.

[ProSense]

19. What

"No, you're calling out people that oppose our racist wars and drug policies"

...utter bullshit! Where the hell did I call out anyone opposed to "racist wars and drug policies"?

Ron Paul is a fraud.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

Accept that!

[Arkana]

23. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

However, I wouldn't use said broken clock as a timepiece or promote doing so to others.

Ron Paul is a godawful racist and a lunatic who happens to hold a couple of positions that people here agree with. Doesn't make him worth promoting, or discussing.

[cpwm17]

31. The poster that keeps writing about Ron Paul is the one that keeps bringing him up

Last edited Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

She has a purpose for doing this. Ron Paul is a straw man to use against the anti-war crowd. She doesn't care about wars so she has to discredit the issue by repeatedly starting OP's about Ron Paul. Don't fall for her act.

[ProSense]

32. That

"She has a purpose for doing this. Ron Paul is a straw man to use against the anti-war crowd. She doesn't care about wars so she has to discredit the issue by repeatedly starting OP's about Ron Paul. Don't fall for her act."

...makes no fucking sense. You're so intent on halting criticism of Paul that you can't see that people object to all his views. Read the OP again.

[Kaleko]

71. That's exactly right.

And blatantly obvious to anyone with a few functioning neurons left to spark an insight.

Thank you for spelling it out once again for the befuddled.

[stevenleser]

89. See my post #87 below. You have created a straw man. nt

[cpwm17]

94. Negative

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Ron Paul's the straw man. She's going out of her way to connect the liberals on this site, particularly the anti-war liberals (I consider all liberals anti-war or they're not liberals), to Ron Paul. If anyone states the obvious and says that Ron Paul is correct in his anti-war position, she labels them Paulbots. That should be an insult to anyone's intelligence.

After, in her mind, she connects the liberals on this site to Ron Paul, she is then free to proclaim what a horrible racist Ron Paul is and how dare anyone here support Ron Paul.

[JackRiddler]

93. If racism is your concern, why don't you have 98 posts about Newt?

Especially since he's putting out the rhetoric heavily right now in person. Plus he's got 20 years not of newsletters but of books, some of them recent and in print.

Where are your threads about Santorum and his "blah" people, or about the unbroken history of Republican appeals to racists as their voter base since the 1968 "Southern Strategy"?

Explain to us what makes Romney a better candidate for minorities than Paul, that will be a hoot.

The reasons Paul stands out from the Republican background and raises your ire have nothing to do with his being exceptional as a racist in this field. It's because Obama and the Democratic leadership have not deviated from Bush policy on war, surveillance, rights violations in the name of fighting "terrorism," etc.

[ProSense]

21. WTF?

Ron Paul is a racist Republican asshole.

[MinervaX]

18. ...

"Ron Paul Touts Endorsement From Pastor Who Railed Against ‘Sodomites’ "

Obama had a bigot speak at his inauguration.

[FarLeftFist]

25. THIS IS A CLEAR defense of Ron Paul. Instead of addressing the issue you swipe at Obama with BS.

HERE IS YOUR PRIME EXAMPLE DU.

[MinervaX]

30. I don't support Ron Paul

Your McCarthyism is showing however.

[FarLeftFist]

34. So who was the bigot you were referring to?

[MinervaX]

38. Uh, that would be Rick Warren

Didn't you watch the inauguration?

[FarLeftFist]

41. Why are we discussing Rick Warren in a thread about Ron Paul?

[MinervaX]

42. Why not?

[FarLeftFist]

44. I'm asking you why you chose to bring up Rick Warren, seems a bit...off-topic.

But more importantly why you feel the need to defend a Ron Paul backlash with your own "look Obama is just as bad", as if somehow it all justifies Paul's lunatic ravings on race and gender.

[MinervaX]

45. I'm not defending Ron Paul

[FarLeftFist]

46. I guess just bashing the President by any means necessary is just a hobby then.

I just don't get the point of your post. Help me understand you.

[MinervaX]

47. I can't criticize the President of the United States?

Wow. Like I said, McCarthyism.

[FarLeftFist]

48. I think this is actually reverse McCarthyism, as you seem to be the paranoid one.

So far you have attacked the President off-topic, then mentioned Rick Warren AND McCarthyism in the same post. No need to get paranoid, just wondering why.

Edit: I have no authority here so feel free to criticize the President all you want, I was just wondering WHY it seemed necessary in a thread about Ron Paul.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. You're the one who didn't even understand that she was talking about Rick Warren

Seems awfully odd that you're asking the interrogatories when you're not even up on simple factual occurrences.

[FarLeftFist]

58. Huh? Who was talking about Rick Warren? The sodomites reference was from Reverend Voddie Baucham.

[JackRiddler]

91. There's one! Shoot between the eyes! Kill the zombies!

[ProSense]

33. Hmmm?

"Ron Paul Touts Endorsement From Pastor Who Railed Against ‘Sodomites’ "

Obama had a bigot speak at his inauguration.

This is from the article linked to in the OP:

In one of his sermons, “The Sin Of Sodom On Display in America,” available online, Baucham slammed the White House for inviting Eugene Robison, a gay Episcopalian bishop, to deliver an invocation before his inauguration.

Direct link: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/ron-paul-touts-endorsement-from-pastor-who-railed-against-sodomites.php

[chrisa]

22. You can also find good ideas among the other Republicans,

but the fact remains that overall, their ideas are pretty bad (just like Paul).

[LanternWaste]

24. I've often found that far more often than not...

I've often found that far more often than not, when we devote our time to tearing down Person (non-grata) A, it's because we have so very little material to build up Person B with.

However, I realize we will all of us righteously rationalize the denigration of people who think other than we ourselves may, and justify spending our time arguing against political cartoon characters who have little to no impact.

[ProSense]

26. Actually

I've often found that far more often than not, when we devote our time to tearing down Person (non-grata) A, it's because we have so very little material to build up Person B with.

However, I realize we will all of us righteously rationalize the denigration of people who think other than we ourselves may, and justify spending our time arguing against political cartoon characters who have little to no impact.

..."tearing down" racist, anti-gay, anti-women, corporate tools for holding those views is what "we" do.

On those issues, Ron Paul offers a wealth of "material."

In fact, his propaganda makes him stand out among the other Republicans.

[redqueen]

39. "tearing down racist, anti-gay, anti-women, corporate tools for holding those views is what 'we' do"

THIS!

If we want to discuss and promote good ideas, address the IDEAS, not the racist, anti-gay, anti-women corporate tools!

How ******* hard is that to comprehend?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I don't feel any need to deny that Ron Paul is right about some things.

I am capable of thinking really quite complicated thoughts, like "this person is wrong about some things, and right about others" - I don't have to divide people up into "people who are right" and "people who are wrong".

In the case of Ron Paul, I think he is right about drug liberalisation, and wrong about most other things. Since I quite like e.g. the US economy continuing to exist, I will not be advocating voting for him.

I *will* be advocating backing him in the Republican primaries as strongly as we can, though - I think he's by some margin the least electable of their candidates, and would probably be only marginally more catastrophic a president if by some miracle he got in.

[ProSense]

28. Well,

"In the case of Ron Paul, I think he is right about drug liberalisation, and wrong about most other things. Since I quite like e.g. the US economy continuing to exist, I will not be advocating voting for him."

...I simply don't believe Paul's propaganda. He has twice touted the views of an anti-gay person who mentioned or espoused the death penalty for gays. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002183905

I don't buy his propaganda on the war on drugs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

For all I know, he would have no problem with a death penalty for drug offenses (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002180204) given his support for "mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152)

"I *will* be advocating backing him in the Republican primaries as strongly as we can, though - I think he's by some margin the least electable of their candidates, and would probably be only marginally more catastrophic a president if by some miracle he got in."

Wouldn't it be a riot if Romney chose Paul as his VP or offered him a position in his cabinet?

Paul has defended Romney on Bain (http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1002149315) and a CNN poll shows he's tied with Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/)

I mean, I find the calls (not by you) to simply ignore Paul very strange.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I would severely worry about that scenario.

I think it might be relatively electable.

If/when Romney wins, I very much hope Paul becomes a loose cannon.

[merkins]

37. On...

[redqueen]

40. Why can't we discuss what? The good ideas or that racist sexist POS?

Everyone's in favor of discussing good ideas.

Promoting that POS's stale propaganda is (duh) not so popular.

Not exactly rocket surgery.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. Many of us have attempted to understand why it is that Paul supporters

must go outside of the Democratic Party to find their anti-war and civil liberties hero when the party already touts MANY of these stalwarts.

This is baffling to me and to others. Why the need to go outside the party in support of a bigotted states' rights advocate?

[GeorgeGist]

49. some on the left

love flamebait.

[ProSense]

50. You're

"some on the left love flamebait."

...not kidding!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184082

Calling out Paul and rejecting any reason to hype him is understandable.

[A Simple Game]

61. Rejecting any reason to hype him? You seem to go

out of your way to hype him. I doubt if anyone on DU has more posts about Ron Paul. You think he is the least electable of the Republicans, then why don't you spend time on the more electable ones?

It seems to me you are promoting Paul with your almost daily posts about him.

[ProSense]

63. Breaking:

"Rejecting any reason to hype him? You seem to go out of your way to hype him. I doubt if anyone on DU has more posts about Ron Paul."

Calling out someone for having dangerous and disgusting views isn't hyping them. That is, unless you think posting about Gingrich's desire for his wife to share him with other women is good PR.

"It seems to me you are promoting Paul with your almost daily posts about him."

Still, I can understand the reverse psychology when it comes to attempts to prevent criticism of Paul.

[A Simple Game]

67. I'm sure you do understand reverse psychology. n/t

[SomethingFishy]

52. "An infestation of "Paulbots"...

Show me.

Show me the "infestation". I don't see it. I see people having an honest discussion and you coming in with your special psychic powers to tell us how everyone really thinks and feels.

In spite of the fact that you seem to think that you make the rules, agreeing with one particular position IS NOT FUCKING ADVOCATING for a candidate. What? I'm supposed to be pro-war because Ron Paul says he is anti-war? Fuck that.

The level of narcissism, arrogance and hubris it takes to tell someone that because they agree with say, legalization, they are "defending and advocating" is astounding to me.

Are you really so self involved that you can't see you are making things WORSE for the Democrats with these kind of "pronouncements"?

I guess not. And maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe you do make the rules. For the sake of the Democrats and this nation I certainly hope not.

[ProSense]

56. Well,

"Show me the 'infestation'. I don't see it."

...how did you expect to "see it" when the OP is a Daily Kos diary?

Also, it's not like DU is immune to that sort of thing. There was an invasion recently.

"In spite of the fact that you seem to think that you make the rules, agreeing with one particular position IS NOT FUCKING ADVOCATING for a candidate. What? I'm supposed to be pro-war because Ron Paul says he is anti-war? Fuck that."

What's for dinner, red herring?

[whatchamacallit]

55. This

[ProSense]

57. No

this:

[Union Scribe]

72. SkreeeeeeeeePaulbotttttttttt!

[sfpcjock]

59. LMAO. can you speak to mine, plz? lol

[DesMoinesDem]

60. You Know The Obama Administration Is Concerned

Democrats and Independents will vote for Paul over Obama when their DU mouthpiece has a new thread everyday attacking him.

[ProSense]

62. So

"You Know The Obama Administration Is Concerned...Democrats and Independents will vote for Paul over Obama when their DU mouthpiece has a new thread everyday attacking him."

...it's your understanding that Democrats will support a racist, anti-gay, anti-woman, corporate tool Republican candidate?

Another thing, I don't speak for the administration and rather enjoy saying: Fuck Ron Paul!



Still, most Democrats aren't as clueless as you assume.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002183816

[DesMoinesDem]

66. No

I never said I think Democrats support Paul. How can you quote what I wrote and then completely make up something else? Maybe it's just reading comprehension problems on your part, or you just want to create a strawman that you can argue against. What I said was the Obama Administration must be concerned Democrats and Independents will vote for him. This is based on your constant attacks on him. You are Obama propaganda, nothing more. So your constant attacks suggest that you are concerned that Democrats are supporting Paul over Obama, hence your constant attacks. Your posts say a lot more about you than you realize.

[FarLeftFist]

68. Or maybe it's b/c Paul is a racist homophobe and we are outraged that such a person could even

HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.

"You are Obama propaganda, nothing more." Says alot about you too.

[FarLeftFist]

65. What's to be concerned about, he isn't even making it past the primary.

Also, when someone spews such vile racist and homophobic rhetoric it is natural to call out such a person that we should all be embarrassed about even being able to hold a public office. They've fired teachers for less rhetoric than Paul has said.

[madinmaryland]

64. ... if you agree with EVERYTHING that Ron Paul says. Fortunately there are doesn't seem

to be many folks like that on this site.

[Rex]

82. No but some like to hunt for wild gooses.

They have no free time for life.

[Romulox]

74. When you post dozens of OPs about the man, several of which are on the front page now?

[ProSense]

76. .

[Rex]

77. ...you obsess over everything he does

you let him become your only thought...kinda like a Naderbot, but built with less bolts.

[ProSense]

78. Say

you obsess over everything he does

you let him become your only thought...kinda like a Naderbot, but built with less bolts.

...what? Leave Ron Paul alone?

Sirota: Romney = Obama, and Paul is just as right. (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002191081

Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192767

[Rex]

79. you ask questions...

you obsess over a failure...would be my guess to your question. Any other questions?

[ProSense]

80. And

"you obsess over a failure...would be my guess to your question. Any other questions?"

...I take it that calling out Ron Paul bothers you? See, your characterization doesn't have any impact. So what's your problem with calling out Paul?

[Rex]

81. Not at all but you want it to seem that way I

was playing along with your title...your obsessed with a failure...you might be a Paulbot...

Nice try with putting words in my mouth.

EDIT - "You know you are a loser when you obsess over Ron Paul because he too is a loser."

[ProSense]

83. Well

"was playing along with your title...your obsessed with a failure...you might be a Paulbot..."

...I wouldn't call Paul a "failure." He's definitely a lunatic.

[Rex]

85. Oh I would, he is a huge failure

of course that is just my opinion of the man. I consider him like a Joe Lieberman or a Ralph Nader...spectacular failures imo.

"You know your a Paulbot...if you look under your bed for the Feds every night."

[JackRiddler]

84. Okay, you win. I am now for any war that you support.

Because clearly, Ron Paul is wrong even when he's right!

I like how "Mets102" makes up admittedly "fictitious" quotes attributed to "some on the left." It's always best to box with your own shadow, no? Might get your nose bloodied, otherwise.

[Rex]

86. Broken clocks and all that...

[stevenleser]

87. Why do some people like creating straw men so much? Why do you do this?

ProSense never suggested you should support any wars.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

.
.
.

[JackRiddler]

90. Thanks for the comedy post of the thread.

It's even funnier when unintended.

[ProSense]

88. Actually,

"Okay, you win. I am now for any war that you support.

Because clearly, Ron Paul is wrong even when he's right!"

...don't blame your opinions on me. Ron Paul is wrong. He's a propagandist. He voted for the Afghanistan war. He supports private armies and mercenaries (http://upload.democraticunderground.com/100277632)

Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002177891

Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192767

[JackRiddler]

92. When you start several threads a day about Ron Paul?

Oh, wait.