Look. If Professor Boing-Boing manages to win the Iowa caucuses it proves only this. Caucuses are stupid. But didn’t we already know that?
Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses. …
Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party.
“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach,
No doubt about it. Professor Boing-Boing has loyal followers and they are organized, which in a caucus is a good thing. But the caucus process is no way to choose anything. Although they look like they might be fun if you and the boys got loaded at the local roadhouse before hand.
The fact that caucuses serve to give candidates like Pat Robertson and Professor Boing-Boing their moment in the sun only proves the point. I like caucuses less than Israel should like Prof. B-B, if that were possible.
December 20, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Man Patrick, you are just begging for a comment box brewhaha. Out before the, err, Professor Boing-Boing bots get in. Have fun.
December 20, 2011 at 4:24 pm
C'mon…Ron Paul is the most conservative and most Christian of the candidates.
December 20, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Patrick,
How fruitful is labeling professor Boing-Boing supporters "bots"? It's like calling Catholics "cannibals" or something…
I've followed you for years, and not only I am extremely disappointed by the tack you take, I also fear for your immortal soul. Why risk it over calling your brother "Raca" over some fleeting, flawed political process. 'Tis a crying shame, really.
December 20, 2011 at 4:35 pm
In 2008, Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade, who later became a pro-life activist) endorsed Ron Paul, in part because he re-introduced and co-sponsored an act that would declare that life begins at conception.
December 20, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Can you call yourself pro-life if you are ok with Israel getting nuked because we looked the other way on Iran?
December 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Aristotle,
Not sure what you mean? Calling my brother "Raca"?
My post is about caucuses but with a little elbow to the ribs of Ron Paul ('cause I think he crazy). Why would that jeopardize my soul?
December 20, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Considering that our drone warfare policies have led to the deaths of many innocent civilians in the Middle East (including teenagers), and our own executive branch has decided to abandon the rule of law and use extrajudicial assassinations, I do not think it is very pro-life for us to be pursuing a policy of warfare in the Middle East. Israel has its own nukes.
December 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I am really offended by your complete disrespect for Ron Paul. He, unlike ALL the others, has a consistant and conservative history. While no candidate is perfect, he is far better than the rest. If memory serves correctly, your blog has rejected Newt, Romney and others. The best choice for any real change in DC is Ron Paul. Do your homework.
December 20, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Hey Pat,
This is the first time I've ever posted on your blog. You guys run one of the best blogs, not just on the planet, but in the entire universe. As long as we agree that Pope Benedict is awesome…we're cool.
I became interested in Paul's campaign after I grew to respect Tom Woods (who wrote, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization). After listening to his ideas in other books I became a Paul supporter. So I don't know if I can post videos on here, but this one addresses the position that he holds on Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zkhnSCKz6U&feature=player_embedded
Its worth a watch, and I think Paul is worth giving a second look to. God bless you guys, I appreciate what ya'll do.
December 20, 2011 at 7:00 pm
You may want to have another look at the Just War theory. I find it interesting how you can crawl up one side and down the other of Nancy Peloci (rightly so) on her stance on Abortion, but then blissfully ignore Rick Santorum's stance on preventative wars of aggression.
The Church is neither right nor left, but the center around which all sides are drawn.
December 20, 2011 at 7:29 pm
A good article for anyone to read who is supporting Ron Paul (R.Pluto)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?page=1
December 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm
So you're still supporting Santorum over Paul? The same Santorum who is pro-torture, pro foreign expansionary war, and who last week voted along with most of the rest of congress (except Ron Paul) to remove what was left of your right not to be detained indefinitely by the army? Yeah, good choice.
December 20, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Mr. McClarey,
We meet again. Weekly Standard is known as a neo-conservative establishment magazine. Certainly there have to be other credible sources not happy with the rise of Dr. Paul.
I hope you do not call me racist and anti-Semite (or ban me as you did from American Catholic) for laughing at the link you posted above.
I can understand if some legitimate people had serious concerns over some views held by Dr. Paul, but it seems that those who would like to do a hatchet job on him (not you Mr. Archbold)have other agendas, and one of them is not really seeking the truth.
I discredit Senator Santorum for credible reasons, which I can state were unequivocally his actions or words.
I discredit Newt Gingrich for the same reasons, and I discredit Governor Romney for the same reasons.
I could see myself supporting Bachmann, in the absence of Dr. Paul, but not any of the other candidates. I will not be voting for any other candidates based on a Thomistic understanding (not mine, but of a number of scholars–all of whom are traditional Catholic in union with Rome) of their positions which are skewed in other garner Christian support.
In a nutshell, not understanding history (since Dr. Paul has to keep reminding us that Iran was the victim of a CIA coup in 1953) could lead to dangerous and unchristian ideas.
You can throw stones all you want–they won't damage the fortified walls of the character of Dr. Paul.
However, when you raise questions, be prepared to defend them or you will end up losing the argument.
In closing, take a look at the link you attached and get to work on actually presenting a case laden with facts and historical proof that a good Catholic cannot vote for Dr. Paul.
I'll give you a tip. The Mossad created Hamas. On the floor of the house, Ron Paul said it, and I don't recall an uproar against it from the media. They would rather avoid it all together, because they know it to be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et7qhnt-xeg
For your information, respected thinkers like Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano. These distinguished men are all featured on youtube.
We who support Dr. Paul are not robots, but we are all former neo-conservatives who decided one day to stop taking the pills we had been told to take.
Phil O.
leoxiii@me.com
December 20, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Oh..and one more point. I do not see any other Republicans up in arms on the NDAA bill that was passed with the language calling for the indefinite detention of American Citizens that are deemed a threat to national security. No due process. That is, no lawyer, no courts. You could literally be pulled off the street and disappear into a black hole–worse than Guantanamo Bay, and the police and the other feds cannot be prosecuted because they would have been acting under the law.
Only Ron Paul has said this law is unconstitutional and very dangerous.
Senator Santorum probably supports it because it means as President, he would have powers even our Kings and Queens didn't have.
And Why does Senator Santorum endorse 'enhanced interrogation technique"? If we can rightfully rebuke pro-choicers for the term "blob of tissues" then we should call out the establishment as torturers. Semantics has no place in matter that undermine the dignity of human beings–even terrorist.
An honest question would be:
If you knew a mother was about to give birth to a baby who would undeniably commit heinous crimes involving terrorism or murder in the womb i.e. become an abortionist, and cause the death of millions of women, children and men, should this baby be killed in the womb because of evidence of what he or she will turn into? No!
We do not fully understand freewill and even a movie like Minority Report will not help us to. With freewill, we as human beings are always given a chance to act–to change our minds in response to God's Love.
No matter how we look at it, torture is wrong no matter if the form is tickling, loud music, sleeplessness, water boarding, pulling out fingernails or shocking.
The subject is always greater than the object. What intimidates me (as the subject) into giving any information, against my will is torture, no matter what form it takes (the object).
Phil O.
leoxiii@me.com
December 20, 2011 at 9:02 pm
"We meet again. Weekly Standard is known as a neo-conservative establishment magazine."
Nice way to dodge the necessity of responding to the facts in the article Phil. Typical of most Ron Paul supporters.
"I hope you do not call me racist and anti-Semite (or ban me as you did from American Catholic) for laughing at the link you posted above."
The applicable term Phil would be close-minded. For those curious as to why I banned Phil from The American Catholic, here is the link to the thread in which it happened.
http://the-american-catholic.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=+ron+paul&comment_status=all&pagegen_timestamp=2011-12-20+20%3A53%3A19&_total=0&_per_page=20&_page=1&paged=1&_ajax_fetch_list_nonce=c210cb1783&action=-1&comment_type&action2=-1
"but it seems that those who would like to do a hatchet job on him"
The truth is never a hatchet job Phil.
"could lead to dangerous and unchristian ideas."
Yeah, Phil like Ron Paul's idea that the Civil War could have been avoided by Lincoln giving compensated emancipation to the slave holders, an idea that Lincoln proposed throughout his career and that the slave holders rejected. Paul's ignorance in regard to history is a wonder to behold:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-civil-war/
"they won't damage the fortified walls of the character of Dr. Paul."
The same character that causes him to submit earmarks for pork for his district, or the same character that causes him to lie about not knowing what is in his newsletters that he made a million bucks on in 1993 alone?
December 20, 2011 at 9:39 pm
The New Republic and Weekly Standard hand in hand. 'Taint that cute!
See? See how these Trotskyites love one another?
All are welcomed, all are welcomed, all are wel-wel-welcomed in the collective…!
JOB
December 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm
"However, when you raise questions, be prepared to defend them or you will end up losing the argument."
Sound advice Phil.
"In closing, take a look at the link you attached and get to work on actually presenting a case laden with facts and historical proof that a good Catholic cannot vote for Dr. Paul."
Sure Phil. Ron Paul is a racist and an anti-semite as established by his newsletters. When confronted with what was in his newsletters he made the incredible claim that he did not know what is in his newsletters. Considering the fact that he was making millions on his newsletters, I think we can safely assume this was a lie.
"The Mossad created Hamas."
Actually no Phil. Hamas started out as a peaceful charity in Gaza. It became militant in 1987. Israel has been fighting against Hamas since 1989.
"For your information, respected thinkers like Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano."
In regard to Thomas Sowell, I do not believe he is supporting Ron Paul. You probably have him confused with another black economist Walter Williams. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist and polite anti-semite. Paul Craig Roberts is a crazy anti-semite. Thomas Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano both view Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant. That these gentlemen support Ron Paul is no surprise.
December 20, 2011 at 10:40 pm
"Oh..and one more point. I do not see any other Republicans up in arms on the NDAA bill that was passed with the language calling for the indefinite detention of American Citizens that are deemed a threat to national security."
Perhaps because it doesn't Phil:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/new-ndaa-loopholes
"And Why does Senator Santorum endorse 'enhanced interrogation technique"? If we can rightfully rebuke pro-choicers for the term "blob of tissues" then we should call out the establishment as torturers."
Comparing abortion and torture Phil is obscene. Do you seriously equate in your moral calculus the waterboarding of a handful of terrorists with the abortion of a million unborn children a year? Of course Ron Paul, although personally opposed to abortion, also opposes a constitutional amendment to ban it, and, at most, would leave it up to the States, assuming he could ever get the Supreme Court to reverse Roe.
December 20, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Paul opposed killing of bin Laden.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324907.php
Paul calls Wiileaker Bradley Manning a "hero."
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324905.php
Oh, and Paul is kind of a truther.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/20/yes-virginia-ron-paul-is-a-911-truther-and-a-coddler-of-racists/
Yeah, why would anyone consider this guy to be a kook?
December 21, 2011 at 1:18 am
Wow, McClaren, you have a smear for anyone who happens to support Ron Paul, don't you? You sure love your mass murdering for Isrul, I'll give you that!
***
"Prof. Boing Boing"?? What's up with that? Are you referring to Dr Ron Paul? Medical doctor and 12 term congressman? Receives more donations from active military than any other GOP candidate? Declines to participate in the obscene congressional pension plan? Plans on working for the average American wage if elected? Not involved in "lobbying" and getting loot from the same outfits he rants about like Gingrich? The ONLY candidate against attacking and occupying third world countries that did nothing to us? The only candidate not selling out the American people to the Rockefeller-Rothschild New World Order?
There is some SERIOUSLY poor judgment on this blog. Bradley Manning leaked video of civilians being murdered, yes that is heroic. There is nothing racist in Ron Pauls newsletters, although there is some politically incorrect comments about how rioting blacks stopped rioting when the welfare checks were distributed. How "racist" to notice that. Bin Laden deserved trial just like anyone. Sorry that I don't have absolute faith in the goodness of government agents to tell the truth…but then I'm not a state worshipper.
And now for more name calling and smears….because none of you can refute the righteousness or Ron Pauls positions. Your positions require murder, theft, lies and oppression. Ron Pauls doesn't. No names or smears can change that.
And blather on about how "pro-life" you are, what a joke!