January 31, 2008
SFist Photo: Those Ron Paul People are Everywhere
Two energetic RP supporters confront a sea of cars on busy Van Ness in San Francisco
It seems that anytime a crowd gathers in San Francisco, Ron Paul advocates are there to promote their man for the Presidency. Generally they're polite but feisty, kind of like Lee Harvey Oswald during his Fair Play for Cuba phase. Good for them. If only they could get their blimp flying again, that would be something.
| 
Advertisement: SFist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
"Never before has one man motivated so many to end up with votes by so few"
Being a paulista is confirmation of paranoid schizophrenic disorder at best, at worst, it's just silly, naive selfishness.
no that's not me if anyone was wondering
;)
>> Being a paulista is confirmation of paranoid schizophrenic disorder at best, at worst, it's just silly, naive selfishness.
He used to be from 22, Tom DeLay's old district, which gives you an idea that, compared to his peers, he's not necessarily the kookiest of a kooky bunch.
His new district is 14, the Gulf coast up and down from Galveston. Demographic, courtesy of the Austin Lounge Lizards:
"When I sniff that glue it takes me back
To them good old days in Anahuac.
With my momma real drunk and my head in a paper bag
We'd watch the Newlywed Game."
http://www.house.gov/paul/district.shtml
Can someone (anyone?) explain why Ron Paul is so vilified in the press and on blogs like this one?
I'm not about to vote for the dude, but I've never seen so much negative press levied against a minor candidate before. Nearly every article I've encountered makes a concerted effort to paint his supporters as kooks, almost consistently without any actual discussion of his viewpoints. (The one exception being the racist email newsletters he claims were written by someone else.)
I think the bible thumpers campaigning for Huckabee are way more nuts than the Ron Paul folks (and much less friendly!), but have yet to see them being described as such in the news.
wilfink, because even with the Southern Baptists in charge, the worst that could happen is SF secedes from the US by mutual consent, United Arab Emirates Style. Pretty cool, and I vote for Willie Brown as Emir of San Francisco and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Emir of LA.
On the other hand, in Ron Paul's Libertarian utopia, the clan with he most guns wins. If "the greatest government is the one that governs least" as Steven Colbert points out, then Afghanistan, Darfur, and Iraq are what we can look forward to.
I am still getting 500 errors, gosh diddly darn it!
His supporters have elicited a what-the-fuck reaction from me because I personally know a few of them. They are, for the most part, intelligent, reasonable and sane people.
But they've compartmentalized their support of Ron Paul for a few issues on which he talks and makes absolute sense, while overshadowing many of his negative statements. To boil it down to a sentence, their support seems something like this:
"I know he's anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti- a bunch of other things that I'm for, but, like, he totally promised that if we gave him all this presidential power he'd only use it for good and not evil."
It doesn't compute. These are people that should know better.
The Jesus Junkies for Huckabee, on the other hand, well sure they're kooks. But they're not really acting out of character.
Let's say "overlooking" where I wrote "overshadowing" kthx.
While he gets points around here for being pro legal pot, and anti war/patriot act, he won't get much traction, because he is for a limited government, which is about as opposite as you can get to the prevailing winds around here.
Here's the League of Pissed Off Voter's take on Ron Paul:
What We Like - He's the only Republican candidate opposed to the war and the "PATRIOT" Act. He opposes the death penalty on the federal level, but supports it at the state level. He calls for less corporate interference in federal government. Supports the decriminalization of drugs. Opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Bush's despicable record has left some of us so scarred that we don't know if we should trust the federal government anymore, and we're wondering if we should shift more power to the state and local levels. Whether or not we agree with him, Ron Paul has made us think about what the balance of power should be between federal, state, and local governments.
What We Don't Like - He calls himself a hardcore libertarian, but he’s anti-choice and opposes federal protections of gay rights. You can't have it both ways, pal. He believes in "free market" solutions for health care & the environment. We think government controls are needed to ensure a "fair market." He has a sketchy racist past. He would withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, and the International Criminal Court. He’d eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, FEMA, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. He'd make participation in Social Security optional. He's skeptical of climate change and opposes public financing.
There are issues where we agree that the states should have more autonomy from the federal government. But on issues like the environment, worker's rights, and health care, we simply don't trust Republican state leadership to take care of their people. Ron Paul raises important issues, but we fundamentally disagree with his solutions. His massive tax cuts would leave the federal government with no way to provide vital services, and Paul offers no guarantees that state and local governments will fill the void. Rich states might be okay. Poor states? Sorry Louisiana and Mississippi. He may be articulate and passionate and angry, but electing this libertarian would devastate the already deteriorating social safety net that protects our most vulnerable citizens!
Corporate Ties - Opposes corporate welfare and influence over government. But he would eviscerate environmental, labor, and consumer regulations of corporations.
Grassroot Ties - Excites young folk who never before felt inspired by a politician. Accepts no corporate donations. Gets 49% of his funds from small donations.
RP has some fervent supporters, as does Barack.
http://sfist.com/2007/11/15/sfist_photo_bar.php
I'm sure the Ron Paul people will find the necessary hydrogen to get up in the air soon.
ron paul is the lyndon larouche of the...what the fuck are we calling them now, the "aughties"?
because that's a stupid fucking name.
Dr. Paul doesn't advocate foisting his personal views on anyone. His position is that the Federal Government should only do what it is allowed to do in the Constitution, and that does NOT include legislating morality. He operates under the principle that the system was set up to concentrate power closer to the people, not closer to someone three thousand miles away.
Do you really want those of us living in the Bible belt to make decisions about Gay Marriage or Environmentalism in California or San Francisco? The converse is true as well, we don't want to be told what MUST be socially acceptable here. I'm sure Alaskans really think that anyone telling them they can't have guns (Polar Bears anyone) needs their heads examined, social issues should be resolved at the most local level possible.
Once you understand that Dr. Paul always legislates based on principles the Constitution and separation of powers it becomes much clearer that he is acting from a very principled perspective. He is not trying to impose his will on the American people, must to the contrary, he is trying to ensure that the Federal Government allows people to solve their issues on a local level, where solution are most easily found and applied.
Thanks for reading,
Chad Underdonk
Kentucky
Ron Paultards=Lyndon Larouche followers of the 21st Century...
See what I'm talking about?
That racist Ron Paul was endorsed by GayWired today.
Ron Paul's newsletter said:
"gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Bernalman,
Those articles were not written by Ron Paul. He has explained this before when he was running for Congress in 1990's. The writers' responsible for those articles of his political report were fired. Those articles from TNR are purely a smear attempt. So please move past the bias and not acted like the media.
Bernalman,
Those articles were not written by Ron Paul. He has explained this before when he was running for Congress in 1990's. The writers' responsible for those articles of his political report were fired. Those articles from TNR are purely a smear attempt. So please move past the bias and not acted like the media.
Paul is the type of person who just strings buzzwords together, but his outlook on the world is incoherent, reactionary, and dangerous. The people who like Paul are the types that identify strongly with movies like V is for Vendetta.
I find his supporters annoying because there are so few of them but they are so loud and in your face. They're in transmit-only mode.
arelius11: except that thats not exactly, what is the word.... true.
the putative author of all those articles, over a ten year period, was llewelyn rockwell, who still cavorts with goldbugs and crypto-fascist militiamen alongside ron paul even today.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
Wow, it is true, you put Ron Pauls name on a website, and it attracts comments from all over.
G R O O V Y ! ! ! !
Wow, it is true, you put Ron Pauls name on a website, and it attracts comments from all over.
G R O O V Y ! ! ! !
>> I'm sure Alaskans really think that anyone telling them they can't have guns (Polar Bears anyone) needs their heads examined
Aahahahahahahahahhaha. You're kidding, right? If you had anything useful to say, you completely obliterated it in half a sentence here.
>> Those articles were not written by Ron Paul. He has explained this before when he was running for Congress in 1990's. The writers' responsible for those articles of his political report were fired. Those articles from TNR are purely a smear attempt.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha. You're kidding, right? Ron Paul has accepted "moral responsibility" (which means little, anyway) for the content of those newsletters. Sure, it's a smear - but it's also TRUE.
If nothing else, I won't be voting for Paul because all the people that are seem to be incapable of reading beyond the word "libertarian".
it would be great if the Ron Paul losers got together with the Lyndon LaRouche losers. I can see it now.....world peace, the end of poverty and free buttons and t-shirts for everyone!