Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Ron Paul’s new following
Ron Paul has picked up an unlikely endorsement … one which he’d probably do well to distance himself from.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: election-2008, election_season, presidential-election, presidential-politics, presidential-race, Ron-Paul
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top41 Comments to “Ron Paul’s new following”
Sounds like Paul will take contributions from wherever he can get them. No surprises here.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – And the other candidates would refuse?
Some of the other candidates would also be more likely to accept more than $$$ contributions from the place.
Have you even given Paul a fair consideration, Jeff?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I’ve looked into Paul’s record extensively at the encouragement of fellow blogger Frank. However much I like his libertarian streak and his Constitutional stands, his views on the War on Terror, IMO, would put our nation at too much risk if he were to occupy the White House.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, the reason I stated in post 1 that this particular candidate “would take contributions from anywhere” is because a spokesman for his campaign (Jeff Greenspan) said it was an appropriate donation.
Other candidates (though not all) have returned contributions when they came from questionable sources, and if Paul is a principled man (which I suppose he probably is) he would distance himself from this brothel owner as well.
Report comment to moderator
Accepting donations from other corporate groups is considered acceptable despite turning the Congress into a house of ill repute. Perhaps these particular donations make the connection to whoring too close to home for some.
(I assume since Congress is full of public figures the above slander is acceptable)
Report comment to moderator
All kinds of questionable characters make campaign contributions. Why would a campaign contribution from a brothel owner be any worse or better than a campaign contribution from Blackwater or Jack Daniels Distillery?
Ron Paul is a Libertarian, so he would properly view prostitution as a matter for the states to regulate. Since this guy is involved in a legal business that is regulated by the state, I don’t see it as any big deal.
Now I’m sure the conservative Christians will “tut-tut” about it, and certainly the other campaigns are going to make an issue of it. But that’s American politics for ya.
Also, I’m sure the owner of the Bunny Ranch is looking for some publicity out of it, which he is getting. Isn’t capitalism great? What he needs to do is convince the Republicans to have their national convention in Nevada. His business would boom if that happened.
Report comment to moderator
I assume since Congress is full of public figures the above slander is acceptable
Yes, but not from a Canadian.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Anlir, certain illegal activities of a similar nature boomed when the Democrats had their national convention in Atlanta back in 1988. Anybody remember the Rob Lowe video? Perhaps someone should have reminded folks to “lock up the wives and children” (emphasis on the latter).
Report comment to moderator
Seems like a nice fit for Paul’s Libertarian platform. At least he is consistent. I don’t see it as any worse than Giuliani pairing up with gambling boss and casino owner Sheldon Adelson to be flown around to campaign stops on Adelson’s private jet. Of course Paul’s mistake is that sex (hand over mouth with shocked eyes) is a big concern for social conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paulvolution!
Report comment to moderator
Looking back over the last couple of years, it has been the Republicans who have been caught with their pants down (literally). If prostitution were legal in DC, the Republicans would be able to caucus at the Bunny Ranch East.
Report comment to moderator
There goes Anlir once again, inspiring us all with his moderate reasonings meant to unite everyone around this joyous holiday season.
Report comment to moderator
now thats trolling
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, what do you have against Christmas?
Anlir–so true!!
Report comment to moderator
Why does this come as a surprise?
Ron Paul believes everything should be legal, why would he care about this particular ‘business’ ? ………. Moonlite BunnyRanch
His supporters must be delirious!
Report comment to moderator
“Sounds like Paul will take contributions from wherever he can get them. No surprises here.”
That’s just plain petty, Outkast. Even if he did except money, it would be from an individual, not the brothel as a corporate entity because corporate contributions are prohibited. You’re just trying to poison the well…guilty by association. Here’s two words for you if you’d be consistent with your accusation: Abu Ghraib. Can’t exactly distance Bush from something that already happened, can you?
Kristin, you act like the guy wants to be his running mate or something. The new article is nothing more than the repeated attempts by the media to dismiss Ron Paul and his ideas and present some “sensational” news. The brothel owner hadn’t even made a contribution yet.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, angry as usual I see. Nice strawman by the way.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – I remembered your reasons for not caring for Paul after I asked you that question, but thanks for your reply. I have to agree with Anlir’s first paragraph in # 6, however.
Re # 12 – Now that was a ZING! Careful!
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf
I laughed writing the entire post. No ’strawman’ available on this one. It’s so Ron Paul, he wants everything to be legal, drugs too, so what would you expect?
Report comment to moderator
I am no Ron Paul supporter, but to say he wants to “everything to be legal, drugs too” is beyond ridiculous. What he says is that it should be left to the states to decide/enforce. There’s nothing in the US Constitution about the matter.
Report comment to moderator
Drugs AND chicks? I’ve been underestimating Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 20
Legalize industrial hemp
Paul believes in the legalization of industrial hemp. Paul supported HR 3037 to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana. This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States. He favors the legalization of marijuana.
Source:
Jan 22, 2007
Report comment to moderator
Anlir 20
Ron Paul
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.
Drug Demand Reduction Act: Vote on an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing.
Reference: Amendment by Taylor, D-MS; bill by Portman, R-OH.; Bill HR 4550 ; vote number 1998-443 on Sep 16, 1998
Report comment to moderator
Again, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. If someone can show him where “industrial hemp” and “drug testing” are in the US Constitution, I’m sure he’d be glad to reconsider his votes.
Report comment to moderator
I would side with Paul on both those examples. I’m more libertarian than some of the neo-cons here might think.
Report comment to moderator
HamachiTwo, you must be tickled pink with all Ron Paul stands for, and his followers.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Industrial hemp is very useful. What problem do you have with hemp and states controlling the usage and production of same?
Some interesting info related to hemp:
“The aerospace and aviation industries are also attracted to natural fibers due to the reduced toxicity [compared to] synthetic substances when they burn. It has been claimed that many people have died in what would have been survivable crashes, except for the fumes inhaled from toxic substances burning.”
“the durable natural fiber from the stalks can be used for textiles, clothing, canvas, rope, cordage, for archival grade paper, & composite fibers replacing heavier toxic fibers (e.g. fiberglass), and building materials made with recycled plastic and fiber.”
“Textiles, Rope & Cordage:
The strength, absorbency and comfort of hemp fiber is unmatched by any other natural fiber.”
“During the processing of hemp, a large quantity of waste material is produced. It was recognized rather early that this material could be used as a feedstock for papermaking.”
“Hemp hurds also serve as a renewable source of raw material for the production of plastics, and are much cleaner and more environmentally attractive than petroleum”
“Hemp oil is mostly valued for its high content of polyunsaturated fatty acids.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I like him, and some of what he says makes sense, but I’m not yet pink enough to vote GOP in ‘08. If he is the GOP guy, I will give him a fair inspection at that time.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent points, Wiglaf. It’s not smokable. Well, it is, but would be about as psychoactive as toilet paper.
The main argument I hear from authoritarians is that it would be too easy to plant a real pot plant in a field of hemp because they look so similar.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul isn’t going anywhere near the Oval Office. Discussing this is just a joke, don’t you know that? LOL
Report comment to moderator
#11: Ah, yes, there are a couple Repubs who’ve gotten into trouble for certain “indiscretions.” But, if I recall, some Dems have gotten themselves into trouble (not always for the same sort of thing, of course) over the last few years as well. The difference? The Dems tend to stay in office, the Repubs are forced out. Hmmm.
But, of course, we were talking about national conventions, and no one can really match the lunacy of the Dems there. Don’t even get me started on the 1968 Convention.
Report comment to moderator
A big difference, I agree TJ -
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
I’m trying really hard to think of a Dem that’s gotten into a sexual “indiscretion” of late. Other than Bubba Clinton, I can’t recall any right off.
If you’re talking about corruption in general, then yeah, there have been some Dems in trouble. But it still pales in comparison to the Repubs over the last 6 years. The general public sensed in 2006 that the Repubs had become as corrupt at the Dems they kicked out previously. So they put the Dems back in charge.
The idea that Dems get a free pass while Repubs are booted is more myth than reality. It sounds good coming from Rush and Bill-O. But really, most folk recognize it as political carping of the first order. Fact is, if a guy (or gal) becomes too corrupt, the voters will boot them eventually. Or karma gets them at some point.
If we gotta go back nearly 40 years to find “lunacy”, let’s talk about it. The Repubs picked Nixon, who turned out to be one of our most, if not the most, corrupt Presidents we’ve ever had. That is the real “lunacy”.
Report comment to moderator
TJ. Victoria. Seems this page is still active
http://craig.senate.gov/
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, Ted Kennedy is still in office, Barney Frank is still in office, William Jefferson is still in office. John Murtha is still in office (remember ABSCAM). Beyond that, I’m not sure. Is Gary Condit still in office (9/11 certainly helped him out)?
Does the corruption cut both ways? Of course. But quite a few of those guys keep getting voted in, it seems.
Report comment to moderator
As far as Nixon goes, certainly he was corrupt. So was his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. It was Johnson’s VP that the Dems put against Nixon (perhaps a stronger candidate would have relieved us all of the Nixon presidency). And it might have been such things as the mass rioting and a plot to contaminate the Chicago water supply that also contributed to the failed Dem effort to secure the White House in 1968. It seems most Americans had enough of that kind of lunacy.
Report comment to moderator
My take on Ronpaul the Hobbit:
I like a lot of what he has to say. There is nothing I’d love to see more than our bloated Federal government cut in half. Where he loses me, is when he says he wants to eliminate the CIA.
If your plan is to bring the military home from Korea, Germany, Japan, the ME, and every where else, then it is dangerously irresponsible to disband the only agency you’d have left capable of giving us a chance at dealing with threats before they become just another unfortunate event that we were unprepared for.
If we want to down-size our presence in the world, I say go ahead.
They don’t appreciate what we do for them anyway.
But after we do, we had better gather more courage (as the uninformed, impatient people that we apparently are) to secure our border, than we’ve mustered in supporting our efforts to keep the battle off our soil. I say this, because when we do retreat from the battle they waged on us, they will bring it to our home. Of course this means we will actually get the pleasure of being reminded on a daily basis of how close the threat will be, because instead of finding and killing them, we will be just fighting to keep the enemy on the other side of “the wall”.(that RP says he’ll build)
Isn’t that a pleasant thought?
A president who doesn’t care that Iran, NK, Venezuela, along with most of SA, would love nothing more than to see us totally annhialated. And with all the nukes and WMDs these guys will be passing around like marijuana at a phish concert, that should make us all feel better.
Boy how I miss those days back in school when we had the nuke-bomb drills in school. Yeah, we should bring that back for the children.
So Ron Paul, If you actually get everything you want in it’s entirety, you had better be sure you can stop the massive influx of terrorists that will infiltrate our society at will.
You”re going to have to get that Brownsville to San Diego wall up pretty quick..not to mention deploying the national guard from now till the end of time, with authority to apprehend, detain, and deport all illegal entries…And, you’ll have to do the same at the Canadian border now.
They have declared jihad. They don’t care if we quit Iraq, and Afghanistan, and go home, or not. They are coming for every infidel nation on this planet. And we are the first (or second) most important on their list. They will come here and attack us again. Why shouldn’t they? There will be no one impeding them from their carrying out their stated goal of killing or converting us.
Fred is the only decent small govt. conservative running, that has a chance, and isn’t suicidal
Report comment to moderator
TJ & Victoria:
I think you have to admit (don’t you?) that the sexual and corruption scandals of the past few years have been disproportionately Republican. Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, and Newt Gingrich all come readily to mind, and I know there are others. And that’s not even counting the “disputed scandals” — like the Midnight Ride of Alberto Gonzales (to pressure a sick man at his bedside) and the outing of Valerie Plame — that for some reason many Republicans try to pass off as not really that bad. With varying degrees of sanity, I might add. I think it was Neil Cavuto (or maybe Glenn Beck, one of those Fox pinheads) who opined that whoever outed Plame should be given a medal because she and her husband were working against the president at a time of war. 8-0
But so what? Does this prove anything about conservative political philosophy? I don’t know. I suspect that there is some correlation between heavy-handed public morality and temptation to sin. Human nature gravitates toward the illicit, so if a politican makes a career out of shrilly decrying homosexuality or pedophilia, he’s planting his forbidden fruit and thereby inviting temptation. That old “when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you” idea applies.
I also think conservatism (in its modern American iteration) values secrecy over transparency, power over prestige, loyalty over honesty. These values contribute to a climate more susceptible to abuse.
Report comment to moderator
Meaner:
Even militarily, your goal is the same as Paul’s (and every American’s): to make this country safe. The question is how to best do that. You’re assuming that military presence and aggressive pre-emptive wars around the globe will accomplish that.
But every intelligence report I have ever heard of disagrees with you. Sure, some say that violence is recently reduced in Iraq, but none (that I am aware of) say that our presence in Iraq makes America more secure. In fact, those intelligence reports say exactly the opposite: our presence in Iraq makes our country less safe.
You must also weigh dangers to our country other than physical attack. Our country can lose its soul. If we become an oppressive nation (define that how you will, I’ll leave out the details to solicit your agreement in principle), what is there to defend anymore?
Report comment to moderator
Distance himself? The financial support send to Ron Paul is in support of his policies–not vice versa. I think it is so interesting that Dr. Paul has for example voted against the giving of an award to Rosa Parks. He was the sole vote in opposition. Why? Because he thought that Congress should not spend money to give out awards. Dr. Paul suggested to the others that if they wanted to give her an award they just chip in some cash and buy it themselves–they all voted to use someone else’s money to give her the award.
Report comment to moderator
The financial knife cuts both ways, JessT, and you know it.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!