I think a lot of what is said against Ron Paul can also be everything that you just rallied against those whom support Paul for. The base of what Paul calls for is no where near "wingnut" since it's a call for adherence to the Constitution. It's also a call to pay attention to the government, look at what it's doing, control it and servo the system like we were supposed to. Again, not a "wingnut" position. Personal responsibility, constrained government, diligence in watching and controlling the government; I don't think these fall at all into the "wingnut" realm.
Yes, at the very foundations of his ideas and proposed legislation is his belief of what the constitution means and the desire to follow it. No one is saying he's a wingnut for wanting to follow the constitution. The only ones sayign that is YOU and a few others. Its much more likely in regards to HOW he wants to go about that.
This is kind of like saying one can not criticize Obama's policies as "left wing" because they're founded in a belief of "hope and change" and I mean, "hope and change" aren't a "left wing thing" and therefore anyone that is going to complain about Obama must be complaining about "hope and change".
I'm sorry, but the cries of "the constitution" have became so devoid of meaning and became just a bunch of empty rhetoric, rarely backed up with substance by anyone that comments on it, that its akin to saying "Hope and Change".
One can believe they must have a clean, safe, healthy lifestyle. There's nothing "wingnut" about those base beliefs. Those are perfectly reasonable base beliefs.
If that person wraps himself in bubble wrap whenever he goes out, will only eat freshly grown produce he himself grows with all natural chemicals and animals he himself makes, refuses to use any product that he doesn't personally make, and keeps all electricity out of his house because he thinks the electronic radition is going to give him cancer suddenly, despite the fact that his base belief if "reasonable", he could very easily be called a Wingnut. If someone called him that should we go after them for obviously not believing in living a clean, safe, healthy lifestyle?
The problem is that there are some people who are very radical and support Paul. Those people run their mouths somewhat.
Actually, I don't think the issue is there are some very radical people that support Paul. There's radicals in every political movement.
However, when you combine the following the fact that the Paul Movement was, one, relatively small compared to the size of the 2 major political parties, and two, heavily focused on the internet you then have the issue. When you have a small movement, those extremely loud minority voices sound SOOOOO much louder. When you're dealing a lot with internet communication, one thread or headline doesn't really seem all that much more important/less important than others save for by post count.
So what did this get you? Unlike in the Republican party or the Democrat party, due to the small total number of people you have a higher likelihood that the first person you meet or one of the first you meet is one of these radical people. Especially when you sign onto internet message boards and sites and find a number of the threads either being about some kind of conspiracy (The jews, the fed, CFR, 9/11) or being derailed into a conversation about them.
It wasn't that they had radicals. All movements had radicals. It was the fact that the radicals were far more prevelant and in the forefront than they were in other movements.
Paul himself isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, he merely said we should investigate and make sure the Congress was reporting things fairly. There can be some problems with some people, but for the most part I wouldn't say that comes from Paul's side.
I agree. I've actually argued against people that talk about Paul actually being a conspiracy theorist in regards to 9/11 and try to have a conversation with them and show them his actual words, not just from a few minute sound bites but from a variety of sources that better shows his stance while also trying to explain what he was meaning in that one debate.
However, I can't actually blame those people for believing it at first. Why? Because the things Paul says are never nuanced, they're never explained fully, so its very very simple for anyone that doesn't know a lot about him to take them the wrong way. Add this to the fact that if you get online searching for websites to talk to people about Paul during the election you would have forums awash with similar talk. All of that created an atmosphere that falsely implied he was one of the trufers. Having a reasonable conversation with someone and showing them facts helps to fix this perception, calling them sheeple and shouting them down as people that hate the constitution or are too blinded by the "republocrats" or some other form of condensation rather than conversation doesn't.
You rally against smug elitism while engaging in it, but I think some of that is just being thrown back. Paul talks about blowback and accountability for our actions, about thinking about what we're doing and consider the repercussions and he's labeled a "wingnut". He thinks America is to blame! You talk as if the retarded behavior comes only from people on Paul's side, the hypocrisy is not lost. Do you hold your standards to others?
Yes, some of it is blowback. Its something I've done for a while now with the hardcore Paul followers and a point I actually made back during the election. They'd prattle on about the whole "blowback" thing while completely and routinely thinking I'm an idiot and absolutely wrong when I pointed out that THEIR actions, THEIR words, THEIR mentallity towards other people is what's causing at least some, if not a lot, of the distaste, dislike, hatred, and misinformation about Paul to be spread and/or continue and not just the media. The irony of it was thick watching them go on and on about blowback for 9/11 all the while going "woe is me" about how horrible it is the media was the only thing holding them back and if not for that Paul would of course sweep the country in a landslide.
Again, you keep wanting to say why he's called a wingnut? Based on what? Not anything on this thread. Again, you ASSUMED something and immedietely started belittling a poster, implying they think the constitution and presonal responsability is extreme. Redress said nothing about 9/11 trufers, or blow back, or following the constitution. You didn't even attempt to find out what they found potentially "wingnut" about Paul, you instead just immedietely went into "belittle the inferior sheeple" mode.
Elitist jerks are not limited to Ron Paul's side. We'll see if you actually apply that equally or if it's just something you'll disparage those whom support Paul for.
Nope, its not, its just seemed...at least in my experience online since the start of the primaries....to be far, FAR more concentrated in Ron Paul camp of supporters then it is in the two main parties. That's not saying there aren't those types represented in them, but it doesn't feel like its the over all majority of who you interact with out of those. To me, it has been for those that support Ron Paul. As I said, its the Ron Paul followers iteration of hyper partisanship. Its a few different words, a little bit more intelligent thought, and a more holier than thou than simply beligerant attitude, but its generally the same thing. So are you seriously, seriously, telling me you think I don't call such out when its done on the other sides as well? Cause I'll have a good :rofl if that's the case.
This is not saying there aren't reasonable, rational, Ron Paul fans that you can actually have a real conversation with about Paul, what they like about him, what you dislike about him, what you'd both maybe like that he did different, that his strengths are, that his faults are, all without thinking that if someone disagree's with him or thinks his views are extreme that they must instantly hate the constitution. Vauge is a prime example of one of these, who I had a number of talks with during the campaign season.
It's well entrenched in the very people calling Paul and his supporters "wingnuts" as well. There are people who are rabidly against Paul supporters and engage in elitism and asshatery for (sound familiar?).
Um, not really, since it sounds like you're ignorantly attempting to relate that to me while I actually AM a Ron Paul supporter and don't think he's a "wing nut".
I'm not going to cry when they get their own crap thrown back at them.
Fine, don't cry. Just don't bitch when you get the blowback you so rightly deserve when you make idiotic assumptions or when you get all upset that people don't know the real Paul's message, because so many of his followers are more concerned with being douchy to prove their point of how much smarter and politicall inclined they are rather than actually talking to people to educate them.
I'm not even dealing with the rest of your crying pitty party of "woe is me we get treated so horribly now, wah wah wah" like this is some kind of new thing happening. This was dating back to early, early, early on in the campaign. The majority of Ron Paul fans that I've ran into haven't changed their attitude. Its not suddenly came about because they've been ridiculed or insulted, or because Paul's been marginalized. This exact same attitude, this same aura of superiority, this same "if you don't like paul you hate the constitution and obviously are an idiot" mentality was there from freaking day one when he first was started to be brought up on this forum. Don't give me this bull**** attempt of making it out like this is some kind of "blowback" from the Paul crowd due to months and months of ridicule for their beliefs or negative reaction to their attitude, because for that to be true I would've had to not been here at the start of the primaries watching the exact same smarmy type of posts and arguments being made.
Ron Paul has some great ideas, and some bad ones. He's got a great foundation for what he believes in, but is horrible presenting it in the current political climate in this country. However, when given a chance to actually fully explain his views and the nuances of it he's got a very compelling and appealing platform. Its just too bad for him that if you don't see it or agree with it within the first 5 minutes of hearing about the man online you're going to be immedietely be accosted by a drove of his fans for being an idiot, being sheeple, hating the constitution, or thinking its "extreme" or "wingnut" to want a responsable government rather then them actually taking after the guy they worship so and actually attempting to explain the nuance and educate, enlighten, and encourage those that disagree with him or, more likely, are misinformed with him rather than simply acting like they're a greek philosopher and you're corky.
