AP Tars Tea Party Movement as 'Grandfathered' By Ron Paul

-By Warner Todd Huston

In a story by Jay Root for the Associated Press, the news wire service tries to tar the entire Tea Party movement with guilt by association claiming that it was somehow fathered or “grandfathered” by Texas Representative Ron Paul, the cranky uncle of the GOP. The fact is Ron Paul had nothing at all to do with the Tea Party movement. The claim that he did is a calumny, one that the AP hopes will discredit the Tea Party movement.

In the Story, the AP claims that Ron Paul is “both a spiritual father and actual father in the tea party movement.” It mentions that his son, Rand, is a “tea party darling” (that one is true, at least) and claims that since Paul had a 2007 event he called a “‘Tea Party Fundraiser’ aboard a shrimp boat near Galveston,” that must make him the father of the Tea Party movement.

Then AP finds some Paulbot to claim that, to him, “Ron Paul is the tea party.” Well, that settles it, huh? Because a Paulienut says it’s so, why it must be. At least that is what the AP wants its readers to believe.

Problem is, Ron Paul has precisely nothing to do with the Tea Party movement. His folks are a distinctly separate group from the general population of the Tea Party movement. Sure some Paulies attend Tea Party events, but they are not integral to that movement and never have been. Paulinuts are for Ron Paul and that is it. They don’t support anything or anyone outside Paul as a general rule. The actual progenitors of the movement rarely mention Ron Paul. You can read about any of the books on the Tea Party movement and you’ll find Ron Paul barely mentioned if at all. Few if any actual Tea Party organizers will say that Ron Paul was their influence.

Do some of Ron Paul’s ideas on fiscal responsibility coincide with the goals of many Tea Party organizations? Sure they do. Were the Tea Partier’s focus on these economic issues gleaned or spurred by Ron Paul. Hardly.

Ron Paul evokes a lot of loyalty in his disciples. But it is usually a single-minded loyalty verging on a mindless sort of hero-worship. Paulbots rarely venture into the world of politics if that journey takes them away from their Svengali-like leader.

As one who was there with various members of the early Tea Party movement, I can attest that Ron Paul was not a factor in its early days. As one who has attended CPAC and a dozen other events sponsored by groups like Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, Americans for Tax Relief, and other NGO-type conservative organizations, as one that has attended some of the local Tea Party events I can tell you that Ron Paul serves as the butt of jokes, not the “grandfather” of their work.

So, why is the AP trying to push the meme that Ron Paul created the Tea Party movement, or was at the least instrumental therein? Because Ron Paul is viewed by most people as a crank and if the AP can drape such an albatross around the necks of the Tea Party movement, well that will help the left discredit the movement that helped bring a Republican revolution to Washington the likes of which hasn’t been seen in over 60 years.

Ultimately, that is the AP’s goal. The wire service wishes to torpedo any legitimacy the Tea Partiers have gained and what better way to do it than get people to imagine that a guy with out-there views is a Tea Party progenitor? Paul is a man that wouldn’t have killed our worst enemy, a guy that is unbothered by the idea of legalizing all drugs, a guy that thinks that prostitution is a great idea, a guy whose past included close association with all sorts of unsavory racists, if he is part of the Tea Party movement then that movement must be an off-the-wall, wacky gathering. It’s all guilt by association that AP practices.

The fact is Ron Paul had nothing whatever to do with the Tea Party movement. Period.

(H/T Texas Fred)

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Sorry bro.
    What you were part of was the corruption of the tea party. Not the creation.

    The story of the beginning of the ron paul movement and the creation of the tea party:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcIkoOwp7s

  • In reply to yeaNo:

    Spoken like a true Paulnut. Why is it, do you think, that moRon Paul never gets more than 1% of the vote? I'll help you with that. It's because he is a NUT! So are his true believers.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Yeah I guess when hitler got 44% of the vote in 1933 it was because he was just a cool guy. Getting 1% must mean your a nut.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    If one can get through all the personal attacks, there are a couple interesting points here.

    I'm not a "Paultard", and don't plan on supporting him other than agreeing with his intellectual honesty and general libertarian views.

    I think it's interesting you spend a lot of "ink" trying to make Paul and his supporters look bad while you are doing a lot of name-calling and scare-quoting " " established facts. Why would you refer to him as "Doctor" Paul, when he is in fact, you know, a medical doctor? I might understand if you were one of those people who look down on education and don't want to call a PhD academic a "doctor." But are you that anti-intellect that you need to call a flight surgeon and obstetrician a "doctor"? Seriously? Whatever your policy disagreements with Ron Paul, the fact is he is intelligent, well-educated, a doctor, and a veteran. The guy serve in the military, Congress, and had a real career in medicine/business.

    As far as the Tea Party goes- what are you claiming the point of the Tea Party is? Is it about economics or something else? If it's about economics, supporting Paul would make a lot of sense. If it is about something else, like war-mongering or bigotry, obviously not. I am not saying it is about any of those things or something other than economics- though it appears you are. The fact is, one can't really being a serious fiscal conservative, while supporting a blank check for military adventurism and corporate welfare. it's just not consistent.

    It appears to me there might be 2 factions of "Tea parties"- one that is single-issue focused on economic policy, arising from the out of control spending that reached a tipping point during the Bush administration. This one is more of a grassroots outsider movement. The other ( that perhaps you claim membership in- please correct me if my interpretation is wrong) is more of a hodge-podge collection of anti-domestic spending combined with some war-mongering, Birtherism ( a little, just like Paul supporters have a very small "nut" contigent), anti-Obama, social conservative partisan Republican, business-as-usual, movement. So what is the principle of this broader Tea Party movement, other than supporting war and social conservatism ( which seem way more important than fiscal policy)?

    And why are you OK with Rand Paul being associated with the "tea Party" and not his biological and intellectual forefather?

    I'd also say, depending on the audience ( and it's a significant one), it probably hurts Paul more to be associated with the "Tea Party" than it does to be associated with him. An association with Paul is an association with principled limited government, ostensibly the whole point of the tea Party movement.

  • In reply to Thanks4Honesty:

    Paul will never get more than 1% of the vote in a national election. Period.

    His social policies are absurd and his foreign policy ideas are not only crazy, but dangerous.

    His total isolationism is not only un-American (we've ALWAYS involved ourselves in the world), but would open us up for attack. His claim that we should never have killed bin Ladden was shockingly appalling.

    His long history of being a racist and cavorting with racists as his close associates should also be a deal breaker for any clear thinking American.

    As a friend of mine says, Paul isn't the fiscal champion he or his followers claim. In addition to being one of the biggest pork sponsors -- he has a long history of earmarking -- he also isn't the fiscal purest he claims to be.

    For example, he voted for Pelosi's tax hike bill back in December. (the so called extension of the tax cuts that actually would have raised the taxes on top income earners.) He speaks loudly about an independent audit of the Fed but then sabotages it by writing a book calling for the End of the Fed- thus eliminating all pretense of independence in the audit.

    When the audit finally comes up for a vote, he votes against it because it doesn't guarantee ending the Fed no matter the outcome of the audit. He has been the chairman of the finance committee and he hasn't done a thing for any of the issues he claims to stand for.

    I usually say, Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.

    It is a fact that some of Paul's basic ideas coincide with the Tea Party. But he had nothing at all to do with creating it. After all, there are many others whose ideas echo or follow closely along with the Tea Party movement (Palin, Limbaugh, Bachman, Pence, etc.) but they also had nothing to do with creating the Tea Party.

    The Tea Party was a grassroots movement. It was NOT created by one person, most especially Rom Paul.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Thank you for a thoughtful response. I disagree with some of your views, but I understand some of your points now.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    The U.S. has, in fact, engaged in isolationist policy throughout it's history, most recently between WWI and WW2.

    Here's a quote you might like from George Washington himself...

    "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

    I'm pretty sure George Washington was American. One of the silliest things I consistently see in some political arguments is one group or another defining what it is and isn't American.

    You may make an argument that isolationism is inappropriate in today's climate, but to say it is "un-American" is simply inaccurate.

  • In reply to walrus:

    You prove that knowing a tiny bit of history does not make you informed. Like you, many think G. Washington was saying we should stay out of foreign affairs. But even if he was, so what? HIS own administration and those of his contemporaries were ALL involved to the hilt in Europe's affairs.

    Further, a fairer reading of his address would prove that Washington meant that we shouldn't get too involved in foreign affairs until our military was strong enough to support our foreign policy decisions (then it was too weak to do so).

    But even that aside, he based it on OUR interests and therein lies the rub. Just when IS involving ourselves in foreign affairs our interests? That is what the argument is always about. When it is in our interests and when it isn't.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    You can qualify the statement anyway you like, but the fact remains that he did advocate some degree of isolationism, regardless of how his administration felt. It is also true that, throughout it's history, the U.S. has had long periods where they have followed some form of isolationist policy.

    No one is saying they're a total isolationist, nor that we should be -- not even Ron Paul, who has said that he would go to war if it were declared by Congress. To qualify it by saying "it depends" is to distort the concept beyond any real meaning. It always depends on the situation and our interests -- in that sense we are all "isolationists". People just have different opinions on what those interests are.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Subject: FW: It's a shame that this is true ... not only in the US but Canada too.......
    Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:49:06 -0400

    You may have seen this one before - but it's worth a repeat!

    This is a very different train of thought from Michael Richards, better knowns as Kramer on tv's Seinfeld.

    Be Proud To Be White..

    I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is......

    Michael Richards makes his point...and whether we like it or not, he is telliing the truth.

    Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.
    This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act.
    He makes some very interesting points...
    Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this?
    There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

    And then there are just Americans.. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
    You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... And that's OK...
    But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist
    You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you.....
    So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

    You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.
    You have Black History Month.
    You have Cesar Chavez Day.
    You have Yom Hashoah.
    You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
    You have the NAACP.
    You have BET....

    If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.
    If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
    If we had White History Month, we'd be racists..
    If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
    We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
    Wonder who pays for that??

    A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.
    If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
    There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..
    Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.
    In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
    If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

    You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.
    But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
    You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us.
    But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
    I am proud...... But you call me a racist.

    Why is it that only whites can be racists??

    There is nothing improper about this e-mail...
    Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.
    I sadly don't think many will.

    That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country.
    We won't stand up for ourselves!
    BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!

    It's not a crime YET.... But getting very close!
    It is estimated that ONLY 5% of those reaching this point in this e-mail, will pass it on.

    I DID!!

    Look up Benjamin Freeman, a dossier warning America after world war 2. Ask yourself why this worm is a loser blogger, jumping on every comment like he has nothing better to do. HE DOESN'T! And then, ask yourself, when you have to decide between food, gasoline, the mortgage, or electricity, what is wrong with our country? Who is grabbing all the money? FOLLOW THE MONEY. And then ask, if Obama is a "Muslim" then why does he surround himself 80% of his advisors, who make up a demographic in america of only 2 1/2% of the poulation? Same with all the recent POTUS' and if it was a group of, say, Koreans making up 4/5ths of the top level cabinet positions, wouldn't that be all over the news, or at least the blogs? This Chicago scum is just a patsy and a traitor. Time to give them all a fair trial, and then when convicted, EXECUTE their sentences appropriately.

  • In reply to PaulSheley:

    I'm sure Michael Richards didn't say any of that stuff ( other than the stuff he said that made the news). Anyone who believes that is an idiot. Anyone who believes the point of the fake forwarded email is also an idiot. There is so much wrong and repugnant about it, I can't think of any semi-mainstream politician or political group that would support it.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    "Grandmothered" is more like it. But AP captured the senile, soiled undergarment sentiment of the tea party movement perfectly.

  • In reply to MySportsComplex:

    Spoken like a true anti-American, europhile. Thanks for stopping bye Pierre.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    "Paul will never get more than 1% of the vote in a national election. Period."

    And yet CNN polls already proove your theory--- dead wrong-

    A person informed would already know that Paul would do better than any other GOP candidate against Obama --

    Are you so sure--- that you would place a wager onthat 1% claim???
    I would take that bet - and give you ODDS---

    But you wouldn't put money where your mouth is---
    That would require integrity and absolutely 100 % belief in your own opinion -

    Something tells me that you are not naive enough to believe in yourself that much--
    Hence the need to have a sounding wall for your opinions--

    Good luck in your endeavors to see if your own excrement sticks to the wall-

  • In reply to Thanks4Honesty:

    I created an account just to post this. Just goes to show you the power of an idea, that's motivating all these people to shout to the heavens and defend this man as if he were their own blood. As Ron Paul says, "truth, is simple." READ ABOUT THE MAN FOR GOD'S SAKE. OPEN YOUR MINDS AND STOP WATCHING 4 HOURS A DAY OF TV (http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html), AND THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

    After reading the utter smear trash over at the LA Times (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/05/ron-paul-who-cares-that-hes-seeking-the-republican-nomination.html?cid=6a00d8341c7de353ef0154324a8dad970c), I noticed that amongst 150+ comments at the moment, only literally 2-3 comments were opposed to Ron Paul, and they were all the same trash as this author: "You guys luv Ron Paul lolz!!! Ron Paultards, omg. Why don't you like, get a brain and think 4 urself? Or just go on a date with him LOL!"

    I hope this author's avatar is not his real picture, because a guy of his age writing as he does

  • In reply to ronpaulistheman:

    Gosh, you created an account just for this? You really DID waste our time.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    *takes a dump and throws it at the silly neo-con*

  • In reply to willyjones7:

    Idiot. You know NOTHING about me. I'd also wager you haven't a clue what a "neocon" even is. Take a hike, creep.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Please explain in completely and in it's entirety the Iseas that are Nutty!!!

    If you take the time to read up on the principled explanations, rather than listening to the drive by MSM media blurbs that take the Ideas out of context-- you would be enlightened,

    Until you are willing to educate yourself with actual knowledge--- that isnt spoonfed, or spun for your dramatic appetite for all that is contravercial or scandalous ---

    You will continue to sound idiotic and undereducated-

    Right now- I know high schoolers that see "what is what" more clearer than you-

    Now that's pitiful-

  • In reply to Xtrdouglas:

    I love to explain to you what Iseas are nutty. Now, tell us all what an Iseas is.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I can tell you what is Nutty

    It's your blind unquestioning support in welfare and warfare.

    Listening to a Neo-Con (socialist) like you is so sad ... you cheer lower taxes then say nothing when we devalue our currency.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    It's not 2007

    Everyone and their brother and sister can tell you the atmosphere towards Ron Paul is strong and gets stronger every day.

    You need to update your Comments with 2011 talking points

    NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA on this handing of OBL is patriotic ... Keep peddling that statist swine.

    RON PAUL SAID HE WAS IN PAKISTAN ON THE HOUSE FLOOR IN 2003 When the neo-cons wanted Oil in IRAQ

  • In reply to yeaNo:

    I'm not sure where you were in 2007, Mr. Huston, but "out of touch" may fit the bill both then and now. I suppose you don't remember (although, it can be found on YouTube) the Ron Paul crowd pushing fiscal responsibility and monetary policy discipline back during the 2008 Republican primary debates and folks like yourself marginalizing and mocking the message. We held rallys the likes of which you hadn't seen since the 1960's. Once the stock market crash took hold in October 2008, you were likely gleefully riding the coattails of the John McCain campaign as he cast his vote for the TARP bailouts. Then, Obama was elected and all of a sudden, the message of fiscal responsibility became convenient. No one but you disputes the origins of the Tea Party movement. Those of us who really WERE there at the beginning know all-too-well that it is folks like you who jumped on the bandwagon and hijacked our movement. You distort it with your weak, over-extended foreign policy ideas from the post-Wilson era, your attacks on freedom and limited government rooting back to Lincoln, and your inflationary, Keynesian economics made permanent by Hoover and FDR. But if your neo-conservative pick for President wins, it will be US who keep the revolution alive, while you will acquiesce to more government largess as it occurs under a "Republican" administration - just as you did from 2001-2009.

    You cite that the AP (which I agree, is generally very liberally bias) is correct in calling Rand Paul a Tea Party darling. I would agree. And I would also point out that he was there with US from the beginning and recounts the founding days of the current movement (which you, Palin, Gingrich, Beck and others have sought to capitalize off of) in his book, The Tea Party Goes To Washington:

    "Today, whether they like it or not, our government and it's loyalists know there's something big happening at the grassroots of American politics. I first began to sense this when I attended what many consider to be the first modern Tea Party event held on the anniversary of the original, where on December 16, 2007, over a thousand people crammed into the historic Faneuil Hall in Boston for an event in support of my father's 2008 presidential campaign. It took place during one of the worst blizzards the city had experienced in quite some time. The event featured an array of constitutional scholars and limited government advocates, and we shocked the establishment on that date by helping Ron Paul set an all-time record for online fundraising by collecting over $6 million in one day. Something was definitely brewing. At that time, the same political establishment that now keeps the Tea Party at arm's length had about the same tolerance for my dad and his growing movement. Ron Paul's political platform of balancing budgets, eliminating debt and championing constitutional government simply didn't fit into a presidential campaign in which the eventual nominees of both parties - both U.S. Senators - had spent their careers exploding budgets, expanding debt and governing outside the Constitution...As the keynote speaker at the grassroots event held in support of my father's campaign three years ago - dubbed the "second Boston Tea Party" - I told the audience something that remains just as true now for today's larger movement: 'I'd like to welcome you, the sons and daughters of liberty, to the revolution. They say the British scoffed at the American rabble and laughed at the Americans, their imperfect uniforms, their imperfect tactics. They laughed at retreat after retreat of the American army. They laughed right up until Yorktown. Today, you are the American rabble and that struggle - the disillusioned, the cynical, the bereaved, bereaved at the loss of liberty. The establishment in their high rise penthouse laughs at you, they laugh at us...But you know what? They're not laughing today.'
    From the protest rumblings of my father's presidential campaign to the grassroots backlash against amnesty and bailouts, the different coalitions within the Tea Party came together to put their best foot forward on Tax Day, April 15, 2009, holding massive rallies nationwide that the establishment still predictably scorned but could no longer ignore. Many more events followed in the weeks and months afterward, and now, two years later, the Tea Party is not only still in full force but has proved itself an enduring movement with the potential to change American politics forever and for the better. Despite accusations to the contrary, the Tea Party is organized from the bottom up, decentralized and independent. No matter how much the establishment would love to control and manipulate this movement, its political narrative is dictated by the grass roots, not the other way around...The movement had certainly grown beyond just Ron Paul adherents...The Tea Party sprang in each state de novo. It wasn't created by a network. It wasn't created by a billionaire. It came from the people. It has no single leader, is often adamantly against leadership and threatens the power structure of both political parties. It threatens the prerequisites and privileges of the establishment and, therefore, many on both sides of the aisle think it must be destroyed. That the Tea Party has so many enemies in the establishment media and government should tell its members they're doing something right."

    And one of those enemies, Mr. Huston, is you. And one of those enemies, Mr. Huston, is you. Your foreign policy is weak. Your economics are oppressive. I recommend you read Dr. Rand Paul's book. Then read all of Dr. Ron Paul's books.

  • In reply to CowBoye13:

    You are boring us with your run on sentences and blather, sir. Further, it is clear you didn't actually read the piece. I spent not one second "mocking" the cause of fiscal responsibility.

    Like most Paulienuts you are so upset at any criticism of "Doctor" Paul, that you cannot see the forest for the trees. I pity extremists like you. You are no different than the Islamofascists, hardcore liberals, or any other such zealot.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    And yet your the one resorting to name calling just like a 5th grader--

    How absolutely civil and knoble of you---

    To think that we have to persuade people away from your slanted ideas of journalism that no longer requires fact checking--- just to suit poisoning others to your own agenda or pitiful way of thinking-

    "If I get other to parrot my opinion,,, then that makes me a pundit!!!"

    Investigative reporter you are not---

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Funny, when I read your comment "You are no different than the Islamofascists, hardcore liberals, or any other such zealot" I could not help but think the same of you.

    Offer some real justification for your views instead of espousing them like a religion. Nothing bugs me more than faux opinion leaders who can't justify themselves.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Does it matter?

    You admit yourlf that Ron Paul's ideas promote ideas of fiscal conservatism....and you would have to agree that there are very few other politicians who genuinely respect the Tea Parties position on this anyway.

    Why not make an issue based coalition with the Ron Paul folks and stop calling them names? You might actually get something done.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Because morons like you keep voting for Statist candidates

    You are a dying breed --

    Welfare and Warfare do not make our nation great but until you stop voting for theses turds and support Ron Paul you will get 4 more Obama!

  • In reply to CowBoye13:

    You have no argument of substance. Your blog kind of sucks, too. It's no wonder you don't want comments displayed below the related story, as you cannot form a cohesive or credible argument when confronted with facts.

  • In reply to CowBoye13:

    Get a clue, moRon supporter. Your comments ALL appeared. I don't argue in comments sections. My point is IN the article. Nothing more need be said. I Do invite you to take a hike and not come back, though.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Looks like somebody is a little sensitive when you challenge his opinion. Instead of commenting with anything of substance, Mr Huston resorts to name calling, attempted intimidation, and telling those who disagree with him to "take a hike". I guess it would be easier to defend your position if you didn't have anyone to argue with. Here's a tip... If you're not going to argue your position in the comments section, don't make any comment at all. Taking the approach of attempting to demean the people who actually took the time to read this ill-researched hit-piece makes you look like an even bigger moron.... And that's saying something.

  • In reply to KungFu4U:

    Oh, boo hoo. Did somebody hurt your widdle feewings?

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I want the name of the Constitutionalist who kicked your A$$ growing up. He deserves a complement to see you crying for the state after all these years

    Stop begging to McCain and Pelosi on your knees and take care of yourself

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Oh crap--- this is a Blog isn't it?

    That 10 minutes I'll never get back--/

  • In reply to CowBoye13:

    I have no idea how someone gave you a job in journalism. Allow me to dismantle your idiocy.

    1) Constant referals to a political candidates supporters as 'Paulbots etc' is the behaviour of a teenager. Its a pyschological ploy to create an association in peoples minds with 'Ron Paul' and 'craziness'. The reason children often call other people names is because they are intimidated by them, and the reason adults use this form of smearing is because they are uncomfortable engaging with any actual political philosophy on issues. Its pathetic.

    2) 'Problem is, Ron Paul has precisely nothing to do with the Tea Party movement.'

    The tea party is fundamentally about reducing the size and scope of government. Ron Paul is fundamentally about the exact same thing. Ergo, you are incapable of making reasoned conclusions.

    3) 'Paulinuts are for Ron Paul and that is it'.

    False. I support Ron Paul because I am generally speaking a libertarian. I support the fundamental principle of liberty, RP just happens to be the closest thing to my political views. I would likely vote for Johnson as well. I guarantee I know more RP supporters than you and most feel the same way as me. Feel free to adjust your opinion now you have some contradictory evidence to your claims, or do what most Republicans do and simply ignore evidence which does not support your existing beliefs.

    3)'As one who has attended CPAC and a dozen other events sponsored by groups like Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, Americans for Tax Relief, and other NGO-type conservative organizations, as one that has attended some of the local Tea Party events I can tell you that Ron Paul serves as the butt of jokes'

    Ahh CPAC, always a fun event. Im curious because I have a bad memory, who was it who won the most recent CPAC straw poll? Im sure you and your uneducated friends do laugh at his ideas, because you have literally zero capacity to comprehend them and laughter is the cowards way out of discussion.

    4) 'a guy that is unbothered by the idea of legalizing all drugs'

    Read up on a period of time in US history when we had prohibition. How did that work out. Well? Did it work well??? No. It created criminals out of decent people that wanted to enjoy themselves by taking a drug called alcohol. Why, in your retarded world view, do you think that making drugs illegal makes any sense what so ever? Firstly, the war on drugs has been a failure. Billions spent, criminals made out of people who are HARMING NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES, and drug use has not declined AT ALL. Take a look at what happened when Portugal decriminalised all drugs. Yes, even Heroin. Your ilk predicted the worst, the reality has been a significant drop in both usage and crime. All you need do is fucking google it.

    Also, take a look at the British medical journals study by the former head of UK drug policy Professor David Nutt. It ranks drugs on a scale of harm and dependency. Guess what, pot, esctasy and many other drugs came out significantly less harmful than alcohol. So presumably you support banning alcohol now too? This thing called science is ever so helpful sometimes. Take ya two mins to google it.

    5) 'a guy that thinks that prostitution is a great idea'

    Flagrant lie. He is a christian who hates the idea personally but realises that if someone wants to sell sex then it has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH STUPID MEN LIKE YOU. Seriously, look at Germany as to how prostitution works there. Legal, clean, safe, girls are treated as human beings not as 'evil whores', and they are all safer as a result. Its not your job to be a moral policemen for other people who are not harming you. They are your beliefs, so stick to them yourself and let others have theirs.

    6) So lets hear a response. I'm looking forward to it.

  • In reply to CowBoye13:

    It's very telling of the author's character and integrity how he engages in such vitriol and ad hominem attacks toward Ron Paul. To spell it out clearly for the author - you have no character or integrity sir and you are a very dishonest commentator that deserves the government that is impovrishing you and robbing you of your liberty.

  • In reply to yeaNo:

    Why don't comments appear below this story?

Leave a comment