... I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them. After all, Paul will not be in the race all that much longer, and we need those voters to stay in the GOP when Paul disappears. There are worse impulses than libertarianism.Seems like there's a big fact question here. Are they "cryptoliberals" — and therefore trolls — or not?
२४ ऑक्टोबर, २००७
"You can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul."
Redstate cracks down on Ron Paul supporters. Captain Ed doesn't like it:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
The main problem I have seen with the rabid Paul supporters is that they favor a world with less rules on behavior, yet they act as obnoxiously as possible. This gives the definite impression that if they had the world that they claim to want, they would be beyond annoying.
"Have less rules, so everyone can act like us-- but even more so!" Feh.
In light of this behavior, do we need a Republo-Fascist Awareness Week? :)
(And before I get attacked, let me just say that no, I am not one of those "all right-wingers are fascists" trolls)
Not trolls-- spammers.
I don't think Paul supporters are cryptoliberals because they seem to show up in places that liberals would overlook. I'm thinking in particular of NASCAR events. While other fans carry signs supporting their favorite driver, the Ron Paul people are there -- advantageously positioned in front of TV cameras -- with their Ron Paul signs.
But a person can still be a troll without being a cryptoliberal, right?
Well ... these writers are finding it convenient to write in a language I simply don't understand. The best I can guess is one site won't shill for Paul or allow it to be posted and the other, well..I find the responsive to be unreadable.
Talk about English as a second language. There must be a blogish being taught somewhere and I missed the announcement.
As to the former, I am certain there are literally millions of cross over demon-democrats trying to push Paul on the ballot. That makes so much sense.
A lot of libertarians are nothing but pacifists. That's the full extent of their politics.
Jack ... does not know jack about libertarians.
The answer is simple. Ron Paul is the first candidate we libertarians have had to be excited about in a LONG time. His chances are small, and most libertarians know that. But he actually has enthusiastic supporters who are working to spread his (libertarian) message. He's the first candidate in a long time many of us could vote FOR.
Even if he fails, as he likely will, supporters view his candidacy as an opportunity to spread information about libertarian ideas.
There are definitely some libertarians and conservatives drawn to Ron Paul.
I say, engage with the Paul supporters until they start talking about "9/11 Truth". That's the sign that one has hit a certain point & it's best to disengage.
The Republican party is a big tent. It is just that the tent is full up since they let the big government folks (see NCLB and Medicare Part D) in, not to mention the social liberals. Accordingly there is no room left for a limited government guy like Paul.
I have voted for Ron Paul when he ran for President as a libertarian. Washington state, my permanent home, has quite an active, although small libertarian party and had managed to field candidates in most statewide races. As RDKraus said, any one on the political left supporting Paul I suspect is supporting him based on libertarian foreign policy ideas (and perhaps a few others with respect to decriminalizing many proscribed private behaviors). They clearly dont understand orthodox libertarianism.
Ron Paul was my Congressman even before Tom De Lay had his own district (before the 1980 census redistricting). One would have to live in Texas for a while to understand his supporters. Texas is not a conservative state as that term is currently understood. It is a populist state with a strong libertarian streak. Ron Paul actually fits the mold well, other than his principled opposition to the war in Iraq.
The best illustration I can think of is that it is ok to drive a car and drink beer on most public beaches in Texas. On a visit to Nantasket Beach in Massachusetts long ago, the town police were out patrolling, guns at their sides, checking everyone's cooler for prohibited alcohol. They'll bust you for throwing a ball or taking a float in the water, too. AS liberal as Mass. is, its public safety policies are nearer to Stalinist than libertarian.
Would Ron Paul ever get elected to Congress from Massachusetts? Probably not.
Ron Paul's chances are small? More like non-existant. But, if it makes people happy, I'm all for people being happy. Can he have an impact? Only if he runs as a third party candidate and siphons off enough votes here and there to throw the election to the Democrats. (Just as another Nader run could throw the election to the GOP, although I think Nader's time is past.)
There's no there, there to be engaged with or kept in the tent with Paul supporters. They're either from the hard pacificist Left or they are big 'L' Libertarians - of the blue skinned and druid candidates.
I agree with many of Paul's ideas and goals, but like many small 'l' libertarians I'll have nothing to do with the party. His supporters are spamming and hacking every poll that they can, and then pulling a Monty Python "help they're oppressing me".
There are problems in polls, thanks to bias and methodologies. But that's important when you're talking about two parties that tend to be within 5-10% of each other. Polling errors don't account for Paul's issues of getting less than 1% in fairly rigourous phone polls and then 35% in loose, non-scientific internet or text polls.
Paul supporters spam/troll EVERY mention of their candidate, as evidenced above. I'm not sure about the specific reasons Red State is claiming as support for their move, but I know why they have to do it.
What really frosts me are people who have tiny minority views and don't accept that. They claim to be a vast majority, and pose horribly thanks to this, but have little effect because they act like buffoons. It worked for the Bolsheviks and it has possibly had uses for some activist groups (NOW, Moral Majority...), but it is insanely dumb when discussing politics as individuals.
It seems to me that the issue in banning the Ron Paul supporters is there massive use of bandwidth to keep repeating the same things over and over and over etc. That and the abusiveness of some of the contents that require moderation, takes up time and resources. I don't blame the webmaster for cutting them off at all. After all it is a privately owned site and there is no "right" to freedom of speech in a private setting.
Annoying, repetitive, abusive, oblivious = any fanatic supporter... just happens to be the Paulites this turn around.
Well, anyone knows that all Republicans think exactly alike, so anyone who is not marching in lockstep must be a troll.
Hail George Bush! Fearless leader!
See this link for some prime examples of Ron Paul supporter e-mails: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27657_We_Got_Mail!&only
That cult would never die till the stars came right again, and the secret priests would take great Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume His rule of earth. The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom. Meanwhile the cult, by appropriate rites, must keep alive the memory of those ancient ways and shadow forth the prophecy of their return.
( H.P. Lovecraft The Call of Cthulhu 1926)
If anything, the left and the right can unite over the shared sense of schadenfreude towards Ron Pal and Pals.
I am a Clintonian Moderate / Democrat who supports what Ron Paul is all about. It isn't just the anti-War policy and reasoning, but part of it has to do with his anti-establishment mentality. He doesn't settle for the status quo, he wants to promote change in areas where others feel comfortable. Complacency can destroy parties and nations, and this country has become so resigned to the fact that corporations and special interests rule America. I don't accept that, I get a lot of flack from liberals that think I "sell out" because I don't bash Republicans, in fact I embrace a lot of what the party stands for. I also get a lot of shit from Republicans that think I'm an "anti-Bush hating radical hippie liberal pacifist". In the end, I simply try to stand up for what I believe is just and fair, not what one party or another tells me is appropriate to think or say. For a lot of people, myself included, Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air. He is a candidate that isn't stuck on catering to the same special interest groups that own America.
I've seen a few people call Ron Paul and libertarians "crazy" or "nutty" or as Simon calls them "Paulistas". The way I see it, when people feel threatened in some sense by other philosophies or ideologies, they become defensive. The easiest way to dispatch the opponent is to simply write them off as nuts. It's like me calling certain Republicans neo-cons, or you calling some anti-War person a 'liberal'. We'll just call Libertarians crazy, because they are all over the place on the political spectrum. Who thinks like that, anyway?
Ron Paul aside, I know people here don't like him... I'll say this: Every true Libertarian I've met in my lifetime, were among the most intelligent people I've ever met. In fact, I'd say their average IQ is higher than liberals and conservatives on average. (Again, I'm not talking about the Internet band-wagon types) Maybe there really is a fine line between genius and insanity, but don't write them off just because you don't or refuse to understand them. I know many Republicans haven't-- because they subscribe to a lot of the same ideas (minus the anti-War sentiment, it seems) and hate liberals just as much as he does! I feel conservatives simply feel they've been uppercut by one of their own or 'back-stabbed' by some guy who dares to think outside the box. The GOP values loyal supporters, all others become irrelevant or insignificant to the party.
Just my opinion, I realize not everyone sees it my way. I just wanted to chime in, because I know I've received some criticism for supporting this guy's cause.
Fred raises an interesting point IMO. When you support a candidate like Paul you perforce have to support a philosophical position. The difficulty with a rigid libertarian (an oxymoron?) is that most Americans are more pragmatic. Which is why movements that require orthodoxy dont make it among a majority of the electorate.
Well, the Ron Paul supporters I personally know in real life aren't liberals -- they're pretty much the same bunch of populist nitwits who voted for Perot. People with a lot of undirected anger and little knowledge of economics or politics.
everyone knows that "the left" is completely intolerant of dissent and ... oh, this is about redstate, the preeminent right wing blog.
never mind.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा