It’s hard to believe that starting over with a new crop would result in anything other than an improvement. “None of the above” might do very well this year if on the ballot. That’s how I’d probably vote.

The problem isn’t liberal-leftists. There are plenty of nuts on both the far left and far right. While Paul has a small amount of leftist support for his position on the war, Paul’s campaign is far more a far right phenomenon than either leftist or libertarian.

Regarding the change from the 1990’s my bet is that it isn’t Paul’s positions which have changed as much as the issues which are now prominent. Paul was probably always an isolationist but this wasn’t a major issue when in ran in the 1990’s. If the Iraq war hadn’t occurred and wasn’t now a major issue, Paul would not differ from most Republicans so greatly as he now does. If there was no war, I suspect you would still be working for Ron Paul as you wouldn’t have this major area of disagreement.

You are right that, despite all the noise they make, they are falling flat on their faces. They will probably have some primaries where they get out enough vote to look somewhat impressive, but they will never win the Republican nomination. That’s simply a matter of where the Republican Party is. I’d probably rather have Ron Paul than the other people the Republicans are running, but it simply is not going to happen.

(Terribly ironic, cause when he was running for election to Congress in the 1990s here in south Texas, he was basically a conservative, red, white and blue Bush Republican).

Libertarians are generally polite folks. But with the addition of the leftists into the movement, many Libertarians have adopted harsh leftwing tactics. And that’s what we’re seeing today on the internet, with the white sheets emblazoned with “Ron Paul for President” on our nation’s highways, with the chants of “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul” in the background of Geraldo or MSNBC live broadcasts. This is all straight out of the leftist playbook.

Conservatives and Republicans don’t appreciate such tactics. So, the Paultards with their new Leftist friends, are falling flat on their faces. It’s a GOP primary after all, that Paul needs to win, not the election for school president at Berkely.

“Most are far more concerned about the threat of the religious right than the threat of the Council on Foreign Relations. Abortion rights affects far more individuals than the question of whether we return to the gold standard or abolish the Federal Reserve.”
Good point. Libertarians don’t understand why everybody doesn’t flock to their cause to defend liberty. This answers that quite well.

Also interesting point about Paul voting no on everything. This does make him fairly useless. We need to see how a potential president will balance the needs of government versus the rights of the individual. Just voting no on everything and passing the decision to the state does not answer these questions and does little to show what a Ron Paul government would really be like considering the realities of the present government.

Nice try yourself. Rockwell says nothing there which contradicts the argument I made and he does not support the argument I was criticizing.

“Heck, the LP has only been around since 1971. You’re creating a revisionist storyline here.”

Nonsense. I’m speaking of libertarians, not the Libertarian Party. Libertarians were around well before 1971 with many opposing the formation of the party partially out of fear it would take just the conservative course it has.

“Dodd voted to permanently re-authorize the Patriot Act which negates that justification. ”

We’re talking about two different votes and this does not negate the justification in the first vote. In the second case, right or wrong, it was still a matter of trying to achieve compromises.

“Again you sound like a Paultard in distorting what I wrote. I am referring to a specific argument made in previous posts here regarding earmarks.I doubt Lew Rockwell would agree with that argument so your comment on whether Lew Rockwell is a more credible source regarding libertarianism is bogus.”

Nice Try…Now how about actually reading what Lew has to say on the matter.

What Lew Rockwell wrote about Ron Paul and the Earmarks

The fact that I followed libertarianism in the ’80’s and well before then that does mean I have a perspective on the libertarian movement in terms of seeing how it has changed and become more conservative and less libertarian by the standards of the past. Many of the members of the current Libertarian Party would not have even been considered libertarian back then.

This is nonsense. The Ed Clark wing(low-tax liberalism) bitterly fueded with the Rothbard wing(paleo) 25 years ago. Heck, the LP has only been around since 1971. You’re creating a revisionist storyline here.

While they might have been wrong in doing so, Democrats such as Dodd voted for the Patriot Act as part of a compromise in order to get the sunset provisions enacted, not because they supported its measures.

Dodd voted to permanently re-authorize the Patriot Act which negates that justification.

Keeping track of all the individuals who post comments (and whether or not they are Paul supporters) is hardly the same as a commenter reading the post and responding to what is actually said. What is important is the fallacies in your argument, not whether you are a Paul supporter. Again your analogy and logic is faulty. Such faults are certainly not limited to Paul spammers.

Considering that you have repeated the arguments of Paul supporters, including in comments following other posts, makes it easy to overlook your claim that you are not a Paul supporter in one comment.

A word used in quotes in a post tagged as “Humor and Satire” is not the same as saying a word and it infers nothing about whether I agree with its use.

The act of coming to other’s blogs and claiming they are saying something or believe something other than what they believe is common in the spam from Paul supporters, and is one of the reasons they are considered so annoying and often banned. That is hardly a good idea if the goal is to improve the impression of your candidate (although it often doesn’t seem like Paul supporters even realize that this should be the goal).

Comparing quotation of a word with the crimes tried at Nuremberg is rather extreme, but the frequency of such absurdities from Paul supporters is yet another reason for the low opinion of them in the blogosphere.

Other than in the context of a post such as this, which is partially tongue in cheek in quoting Wonkette and in waging a war, there really isn’t a need for any name.

If we were to have names do we differentiate Paul supporters from the Paul spammers which this post is about. For example, in 2003 when we had similar problems, although not as severe, with Dean supporters, there was often a differentiation between the bulk of Dean supporters (Deaniacs) and the obnoxious ones (Deanies).  Of course one major difference back then was that even Joe Trippi and many Deaniacs recognized the harm that Deanies were causing and tried to dissuade them from continuing their tactics.