I, for one, welcome our new Supercrazy overlords...

wow, it's like some sort of superconducting paul-worldnut condensate.

Does Floor Humping Guy concur?

FlashHarry: wow, it's like some sort of superconducting paul-worldnut condensate.

luckily it's highly unstable and short lived.

Isn't Super Crazy a Mexican pro wrestler?

Yeah...I think it's just this one woman. WND will probably endorse Fred.

Placing bets as to how soon Schrodinger shows up to spam the same crap day after day.

FTFA: Because the Beltway characters believe they are at the center of the universe, they imagine that: 1) The Paul Revolution revolves around them and their "ideas," and 2) In the unlikely event the Revolution was started without them, it has to be insignificant.

1) It doesn't.
2) It is.

Obi-ron Paul-obi
Widely respected for his stubborn belief that the whole universe should be run just like his neighborhood on the backwater planet Tatooine, Obi-ron spends a lot of time wistfully remembering the Old Republic. He practices a peculiar interpretation of The Force, in which reducing government to only local control and returning to the gold standard is the answer. Obi-ron reluctantly returned the contributions of the Tusken Raiders and Jawas, whose politics of ethnic slaughter and droid slave trade he justifies as "states rights". While his anti-Empire foreign policy excites the Rebel Alliance, it's pretty much a Jedi mind trick. He's still a crazy old guy living in the desert.

Link (new window)

Wow, this is so relevent.

GAWD DONT YOU KNOW RON PAUL IS CRAZY.

Hes so crazy! I mean, the gold standard! Just because its in the constitution doesnt mean its not crazy! And hes racist! And pro slavery!

-snrk-

It really just makes you look silly =)

Lunatic Crossing: Isn't Super Crazy a Mexican pro wrestler?

I was wondering if anyone else would see the headline and think the same thing. Thanks.

Anyone save that link to show that Ron Paul supports the constitution and everyone else is a communist who hates the bill of rights? (although the jury's still out quartering soldiers in your house).

what_now: Anyone save that link to show that Ron Paul supports the constitution and everyone else is a communist who hates the bill of rights? (although the jury's still out quartering soldiers in your house).

You mean this link?

/Still on the main Politics page if you scroll down a bit.

Crazy white chick with a Boer name fleeing South Africa supporting closet racist American politician. Whodathunkit?

I didn't check the site very hard so I'm not clear if this is just this WND columnist's endorsement or the endorsement of WND itself, better things to do with my time, but either way it really shows just how fringe WND and Ron Paul both are.

The Constitution can be amended.
It should not be ignored.

Ron Paul for President.

Y HALO THAR.

Ron Paul is so crazy that he said the Iraq war would be a strategic and financial failure back in 2002. So crazy that he said the Fed would create economic bubbles by artificially lowering the interest rate to stimulate the post 9/11 economy. So crazy that he claims our intervention in the middle east has exacerbated terrorism instead of quelling it. So crazy that our country is going bankrupt. What a farking loon!

Unfortunately he was also crazy enough to allow people to write things in his newsletter without reading them. That makes me sad.

Funny, I thought the WorldNetDaily endorsed Huckabee, since Chuck Norris writes columns for them and all...

I don't think Ron Paul is crazy. Going by last week's 'which candidate matches your views' survey, we agree about half the time, which puts him well above all other Republicans.

g026r: You mean this link?

That's the funniest goddamned thing I've seen all day.

libertarianminded: When did the Constitution of the United States of America get to be crazyville?

Lighten up, Francis. Nobody's saying that Paul's strict and rather unique interpretation of the US Constitution is what makes him 'special', but his view that his POV and his alone is the only possible POV, that all other POV's illustrate a lack of reason or judgment or patriotism; that's what gets him the whinging loon label.

Ex Parte Gilligan: Lighten up, Francis. Nobody's saying that Paul's strict and rather unique interpretation of the US Constitution is what makes him 'special', but his view that his POV and his alone is the only possible POV, that all other POV's illustrate a lack of reason or judgment or patriotism; that's what gets him the whinging loon label.

So what you're saying is that, like the Bible, the Constitution has many interpretations and none of them are right or wrong?

And I don't believe I've ever heard him call someone out on their lack of patriotism. Reason, sure; but never on their patriotism.

MFL

I wanna know why Chuck Norris has to wear an all-access pass. Who would question Chuck?

McManus_brothers: MFL

I wanna know why Chuck Norris has to wear an all-access pass. Who would question Chuck?

I think it functions as more of a warning

McManus_brothers I wanna know why Chuck Norris has to wear an all-access pass. Who would question Chuck?

He was just holding Huckabee's pass for him while he let him speak.

Round 2...FIGHT

mpv81: Unfortunately he was also crazy enough to allow people to write things in his newsletter without reading them. That makes me sad.

For ten years?

Was he being crazy when he wouldn't say who wrote them?

Is it crazy that he has not distanced himself from the person who wrote them?

Nobody is stupid or blind enough not to see what their name is being used ofr. He either supports the ideas in that newsletter, or thought they were ok to spread since it got him votes. If this wasn't the case why is he not calling out the person who misused his name?

If Ron Paul is the crazy one, then sign me up.

liam76: For ten years?

Was he being crazy when he wouldn't say who wrote them?

Is it crazy that he has not distanced himself from the person who wrote them?

Nobody is stupid or blind enough not to see what their name is being used ofr. He either supports the ideas in that newsletter, or thought they were ok to spread since it got him votes. If this wasn't the case why is he not calling out the person who misused his name?

He was agreeing with you.

Seems pretty clear at this point that there aren't enough "true conservatives" left to take back the GOP.

mpv81: So what you're saying is that, like the Bible, the Constitution has many interpretations and none of them are right or wrong?

And I don't believe I've ever heard him call someone out on their lack of patriotism. Reason, sure; but never on their patriotism.

I am saying that there are different means of interpreting the source document: the originalist view, the strict construction view, the living document view, etc etc etc. Does or should stare decisis hold sway over any interpretation? I tend to view all as bringing something to the intellectual marketplace, even when I may vociferously disagree with any one specific interpretation. Right and wrong, in that sense, is IMHO in the eye of the beholder; and probably says more about the person arguing the specific point than the actual point they're trying to make.

And Rep. Paul does, IMHO, call other's patriotism into question when he states so loudly that his is the only correct view as his is guided by the only valid interpretation of the US Constitution. I believe that he is, in essence, saying that others care less or just do not care about the document, the founding cornerstone of our Republic; and thus does he call their patriotism into question.

All of which is rather fitting for the man. As I have said before: He does not have the sort of temperament I'd want to see in a President, his skills of negotiation and compromise seem largely non-existent to the point where having a discussion about the issue of the day with the man seems less like one is discussing shades of gray with another human being and more like one is engaged in a Turing test.

mpv81: liam76: The current rumor is that a very trusted person in the libertarian movement was given the job of complete editorial control by Paul and he just didn't worry about it. This person is the scumbag in refusing to reveal the identity of many of the racist remarks. Paul for whatever reason though isn't even revealing the identity of the editor, personally I think he should but thats that. In Paul's unique viewpoint of the world, what happened 20+ years ago really doesn't matter all that much compared to what is going on today.

Split the Vote 2008 Accomplished.

Ex Parte Gilligan: I am saying that there are different means of interpreting the source document: the originalist view, the strict construction view, the living document view, etc etc etc. Does or should stare decisis hold sway over any interpretation? I tend to view all as bringing something to the intellectual marketplace, even when I may vociferously disagree with any one specific interpretation. Right and wrong, in that sense, is IMHO in the eye of the beholder; and probably says more about the person arguing the specific point than the actual point they're trying to make.

I don't know how you could interpret the Constitution to finagle the PATRIOT Act as constitutional.

/unless your mitt romney

sarcastrophe: your

you're

/*facepalm*

sarcastrophe: I don't know how you could interpret the Constitution to finagle the PATRIOT Act as constitutional.

I agree. (new window)

Ron Paul is only half crazy.

Ther rest of the GOPhers are full on crazy.

Especially Huckster, the end times believing whack job who wants to tidy up the ME by driving the Palestinians into the sea in order to make Israel all nice and purty fer when Jebus returns, which will be any time now.

Compared to Huckster, Paul looks like sanity incarnate.

World Nut Daily, on the other hand, is Planet Crazy in the Bizzarro Universe.

/Everyone's crazy but me and thee and quite frankly I worry about thee

I see that WND want to kill off Ron Paul's presidential ambitions completely and utterly.

raistphrk 2008-01-18 12:49:58 PM
Split the Vote 2008 Accomplished.

please explain how the vote can be 'split' between candidates who have no REAL differences.

/"a rose by any other name..." they all suck
//vote anti-incumbent, ALWAYS

mpv81: Ron Paul is so crazy that he said the Iraq war would be a strategic and financial failure back in 2002. So crazy that he said the Fed would create economic bubbles by artificially lowering the interest rate to stimulate the post 9/11 economy. So crazy that he claims our intervention in the middle east has exacerbated terrorism instead of quelling it. So crazy that our country is going bankrupt. What a farking loon!

Unfortunately he was also crazy enough to allow people to write things in his newsletter without reading them. That makes me sad.

Blame Lew Rockwell. That's the almost generally accepted guy who wrote that stuff.

Allegedly it was his idea to pander to the racists... 900k a year that newsletter was bringing in. Not a bad business idea, but not smart to attach Ron's name to it.

That's capitalism for ya. Sometimes you win, sometimes you make a dumb ass mistake that pops up when you're running for President.

Although, I still believe this time period of making some good dough off the gullibility of bigots still pales in comparison of the things the other candidates have done. (sticks and stones, you know).

/huckabee - pardons racists
//erosion of our civil liberties - patriot act
///voting to go to war - just about all the other candidates, save Gravel and Kucinich
////whatever

//that was suppose to be pardons RAPISTS... not racists... der.

Gen. Jack D. Ripper and Ron Paul: Seperated at birth?

This wasn't an endorsement.

It was an editorial about how Paul (a Republican) doesn't fit in with today's Libertarians (Reason and CATO).

And I think it made that point reasonably. CATO has gone NeoCon (and dragged NPR with it) and Reason is more "we have the freedom to enjoy pop culture, governance should be left to the suits." Than about changing the system.