Hammering the Ron Paul heretics

I realize it's a private site and thus they have the RIGHT to ban, but it doesn't say much for their commitment to free speech, does it?

I support Ron Paul, and I agree. I am very conservative. Alan Keyes led me to realize that abortion is wrong. I couldn't find any philosophical way to counter his argument that our Rights come from God. I am an atheist, but his point was made. We are not beholden to other fallible humans when it comes to our Liberty, and this is the basis of the pro-life movement, all of our liberties, and our form of government. There is a reason why the freedom of speech and religion are protected by the FIRST amendment.

Some of the amendments to the Constitution are well known - Ron Paul just wants to remind us of th TENTH amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." The lists of the delagated powers and prohibitions are found in Article 1; Section 8 and Article 1; Section 10, respectively.

I've always voted Republican, and I found a winner of a candidate. I post about Ron Paul out of excitement and a sense of mission to spread the good news - and some Republicans want to put me down. No other candidate's message seems informed by the same respect for the sanctity of law, and consequently no other candidate's message seem informed by the same respect for God's divinity, upon which our rule of law is based.

I have been an Libertarian my whole life and have never voted Libetarian because I didn't want to throw away my vote. But after Mcain went to the center after all the support from the right I decided that I would vote my heart from here on out. I like what RP stands for we need to shrink government and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way so maybe this election more people will stop worrying about the Clintons and Obamas and vote for a person instead of a politician.

They have the wrong color scheme. They should start calling themselves YellowState.

Talk about blowback...Redstate's fascist tendencies are showing. Their policy will draw even MORE people to Ron Paul's website to check him out. And for heaven's sake, what will they talk about at redstate NOW?

they may take our internets, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

From what I've read on the RedState site, the standard operating procedure is to denigrate and insult Ron Paul (personally) and his
supporters. This is done in full view of the Moderation which selectively enforces the site’s forum terms (i.e. terms that prohibit personal attacks) and chooses to ban users for posting arguments they object to (reference: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/2564).

I'm not sure RedState is asserting that Dr. Paul, himself, is a Liberal - at least in their official announcement they complain of "the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans".

Here are some arguments against RedState’s announcement:

1) They are presuming to know the character and political ideology of any new user that supports Paul.

2) The contradiction in the characterization of new Ron Paul supporters: in one paragraph, all new Ron Paul supporters are ridiculed as "zany libertarian" and in the next as a bunch of "liberals pretending to be Republicans" with "idiotic" arguments. So, which is it? Does RedState assert that Libertarians are Liberals? If so, this is a titanic misunderstanding. Are they asserting that any new Dr. Paul supporter must either be a "zany libertarian" or "Liberal"? If so, that's also an absurd contention as well.

3) RedState prevents open debate by immediately characterizing any argument by a new member in support of Ron Paul as being "idiotic".

4) RedState shows their willingness to denigrate the character of new Ron Paul supporters by implying they all think RedState is a front for a "black helicopters". (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopters).

5) RedState predisposes their readers to count absurd or trivial any concern raised over fascism within the context of a GOP policy debate. This is dangerous: any argument that the current GOP leadership is advancing fascism is entirely grounded in fact. One can disagree with the concern and defend the Administration, but one cannot - in the light of reason - dismiss such concerns as unimportant. (Ref: http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/.) (Ref: http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/.)

In summary RedState displays a simple bias against Ron Paul's candidacy and views, seasoned with contempt for the man and his supporters on a personal level. I wouldn't mind the former if RedState would simply state this viewpoint. I find the latter immoral, un-American, and a reliable litmus test for credibility RedState appears to consistently fail.

Addendum:

Having written what I just did, I must say that there is a big part of me that wouldn't mind seeing the GOP crash & burn in '08, betraying conservative principles as they have.

I confess that I haven't read "Red State," and therefore don't really know whether this banning is reasonable or unreasonable. But isn't it possible that their site has been deluged by emails from Paul supporters to the point that it verges on spam?

Libertarians in general have an online presence far out of proportion to their real-world numbers. If the posters in question are behaving like some devotees of the late solipsist Ayn Rand, then banning them may even be a prerequisite to serious conversation. I have no idea whether that's the case, but just saying that a ban on certain topics isn't necessarily anti-intellectual.

And I say this as someone who currently plans to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.

RE: The support for Giuliani

You know times have changed when the best rapper is white, the best golfer is black, and the favorite Republican candidate is a twice-divorced, pro-choice, pro-civil unions, gun-banning, cross-dessing adulterer who turned NYC into one of the foremost “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants.

Ron Paul supporters may be a bit overzealous but these sorts of tactics by redstate (like National Review's many witch hunts, and the exclusionary rhetoric of most GOP establishment mouthpieces) are only going to lengthen the GOP's stint as a minority party. Back in the day the establishment would manipulate religious conservatives, traditionalists, Buchananites and libertarians by telling them the moderate GOP partisan would at least give them a place at the table and a voice in policy debates, which is better than they could ever expect from the Dems. Now it looks like they just say "You guys are weird and we hate you. Please leave."

Good luck cobbling together a majority in support of endless war, deficits, and corporate give-aways, guys.

And as to the comments by redstaters and Edward Morrissey that they welcome a debate with Ron Paul on the issues regarding which they disagree, they can at least console themselves with the knowledge that wisdom is birthed from ignorance. So they're off to a good start. I doubt most frequenters of redstate even know what a fiat currency is.

As I said the second Ron Paul showed up:

1) He's the only Republican who has a chance of winning the general election, as he is the only one that is agreement with 70% of the population that Bush's war is a horrible failure. Him vs. Clinton, for example, would be disastrous for her.

2) He has absolutely no chance of winning the primary, because he actually stands for what the Republicans have always claimed to stand for but have never actually done so. The Republicans letting him in would destroy their free ride by turning their party into what it claims to be, and ruining their governance-free existence.

I'm almost tempted to support him simply to see if I can actually make #2 happen, which would be a much more hilarious ending to the GOP than the one that is currently coming. They'd go out in a massive confusion and their heads would explode as they get exactly the kind of government they want, good and hard, instead of them simply fading into the woodwork for a decade to regroup. It might destroy conservativism forever.

But I don't think this country has time to screw around for four years. We need to do something about health care now, we need to do something about our future oil problems now, we don't need silly libertarians vetoing everything and massive street protests as social security and medicare disappear.

DavidTC, I'd disagree with both of your points. I don't think he's the only Repub who can win the general election, especially if Clinton is the Dem nominee, and if things in Iraq continue to improve.

There is no improvement in Iraq. This last June was a horrible month, and summer always has a dip in violence, so talking about a dip since June is idiotic. (I posted this on the discussion about that, but oddly that comment never seemed to show up. I don't understand the randomly triggering 'moderation' here that seems to disappear comments.) And, as people have pointed out, the numbers are being manipulated. The death toll is still as absurdly high as ever, it's just they aren't being counted as sectarian anymore.

But, anyway, come the election, we will have literally run out of troops a few months before, and will be out of Iraq, or huddled inside our bases, regardless of what anyone does politically. The administration might be denying it, or pretending the Democrats forced it, or they decided to withdraw, but the actual fact is we will be unable to wage as we will have no troops. We might be able to fake our way through next summer dip in violence, but that's it.

The war has an expiration date, and we're not going to win it before then. We are entirely likely to lose it in the most horrible way, by breaking every single soldier we have.

And although I don't think he has much chance of winning the GOP primary, I wouldn't rule it out altogether. If he keeps gaining momentum and other more prominent candidates drop out, it could get mighty interesting.

Well, yes, 'if other more prominent candidates drop out', um, yeah, of course he could win. And if all the Democrats and Republicans dropped out, the Constitutional party might win. I was speculating in the real world where presidential front-runners don't drop out. :)

If you're thinking that a GOP crackup will "destroy conservativism," you've got another think coming. What it will destroy is the sham conservativism of many in the GOP who put party first, principle second (or at least equate the two.) In theory, a GOP implosion could be the best thing that may ever happen for true conservatives.

No, a GOP crackup is what I don't think will destroy it. What is going to happen without Ron Paul is that it's going to splinter into four or five pieces, and then in 2012 or so, some of those groups will form back together. Hopefully the non-lunatic ones. Only if Ron Paul doesn't win.

I.e., you and I completely agree about both Paul and the GOP fakers, and we both agree that sham conservativism is what has destroyed the Republican party, at least in the short term.

Paul, however, will actually implement the policies of small-government conservatives. It's one thing to secretly cut back on social services while claiming otherwise, it's another to be blatant and almost gleeful about it, and cutting off the free cash for businesses while you're at it, which would generate even more hate from the media than Clinton got. If he gets into power, he will totally and utterly destroy the chances of Republicans holding ever office again, as people will discover how harmful actual conservativism is. (You are aware that a majority of Republicans are in favor of paying for poor people's health care even if it costs them more, right?)

So we are in total agreement about everything except that I think the American people, if subjected to four years of real conservativism, would hold their collective noses and run like hell, helped along by the media, who will leap the fence to the Democratic side, as they discover a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who vetos everything. (And I think the GOP agrees, which is why they are so desperately fighting Paul.)

Which, as I said, would be completely and utterly hilariously suicidal to watch, the Republicans finally, after decades of bitching about how they inexplicably keep electing 'fake conservatives', finally electing a real one and managing to drive that stake all the way into their heart, but we simply don't don't have time for it.

David, I'll disagree with you on the war -- the violence is way down, even to the point where the gravediggers are complaining. A correspondent of mine is a fairly high-up military analyst (and also a realist) and confirms this.

Claiming that the war is turning around because of a small lull in violence is a claim that literally could have been made a dozen times. It's just wishful thinking, helped along by the administration that desperately wants their 'Surge' to have produced something. See
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm for troop deaths, a much more unmanipulatable statistic of violence.

And as I said, we're on a deadline no one's talking about, and it's not the 2009 elections. We. Do. Not. Have. Any. More. Troops. It's really next May or April we run out, but we might manage to coast through into summer. So even if our current troop levels are reducing violence, that's almost an entirely moot point, as our current troop levels will last until, I believe, this December, at which point we will have to start bringing some of them home and have no one to replace them with.

Personally, I'm not sure that Paul qualifies as a "real" conservative; he seems to lean too far toward the libertarian side of things to warrant that appellation.

conservative: adj., an attribute notable its ability to disappear immediately after election, so the bad things a Republican politician does doesn't count because 'he's not a real conservative'. Compare Reagan, who wasn't a 'real conservative' by any logical definition, but manages to keep the title because he's the only one that anyone liked.

I do admit, though, that real conservatism would be a hard sell for the current generation of comfort-seeking, irresponsible, entitlement-minded Americans.

Well, at least someone admits it. Although conservatives used to hide their elitism better, and just up and admitting that the American people do not actually like your policies somewhat dangerous. I like the use of 'comfort-seeking' though, I guess that's opposed to the right's 'comfort-having' and 'removing-comfort-of-others'.

The Republicans, for as long as I can remember, have promised the American people a strawberry-clam-bacon pizza called conservatism. (In addition to various other nasty flavors like theocracy and now fascist.)

Of course, no politician has actually offered this pizza, because it tastes horrible. They've had to modify it into 'compassionate conservatism' and whatnot. If they do actually offer it, they are shot down by other Republicans, because it's obviously suicidal to let the public taste that pizza.

Don't jump with joy because Paul is stepping in at a weak point for the Republicans and actually has a chance of providing that pizza. The Republican party requires a certain percentage of middle class people to vote slightly against their own interests. Take away their grandmother's health care, make it too much against their own interests, and you'll have a mutiny on your hands. If you think Bush is unpopular, wait until Paul vetos all of S-CHIP, not just additional funding.

Although hedging your bets about how he's not a 'real conservative' is a good idea, just in case he does win. However, you're not supposed to distance yourself before the election, that, obviously, would result in him being difficult to elect.

Ah, yes, 'The Conservative Mind'. Total abstraction, the last refugee of political philosophies. It doesn't really matter. It lost. You can believe it lost because no one really ever followed it, no one minds if it makes you happy. We've recently misplaced all the communists, so the 'X didn't fail, we never really tried it!' niche is nice and empty.

I was just pointing out that Ron Paul is close to bursting the bubble forever. It's like giving control of a country to Karl Marx...it's going to fall apart, and this time it can't be blamed on Stalin. (Please note I am in no way comparing the effects of conservativism and communism, just that both of them seem fairly dysfunctional in who they actually put in power, and their supporters are constantly having it distance themselves from the people they put in power.)

American people want progressivism, even if they are unaware of what it is. They want health care, they want social security, they want the government to regulate companies so companies don't step on them. You can think that's 'irresponsible' and 'entitlement-minded'. However, it is still true.