Anyone who doesn't spew the same tired old pablum has to be accused of lunacy

I just read a Glenn Greenwald article about Ron Paul.

I don't consider myself a snob by not wanting to click on a TruTV article about him.

Family and friends that are in the military seem to be big fans of RP. Makes me wonder if the returning troops will have any significant change on this nearing election.

The first 'conspiracy' is that the media is ignoring Ron Paul more than any other candidate? Gee, why wouldn't the media spend time on a candidate who won't amount to anything. Also ignored is the fact that he isn't ignored more than all the other candidates - how many fark headlines have been about Huntsman or Gary Johnson?

epoc_tnac: I just read a Glenn Greenwald article about Ron Paul.

I don't consider myself a snob by not wanting to click on a TruTV article about him.

Wow. An actual attempt at reason by a liberal civil rights columnist?

I think I may faint.

FTFA:
1) "Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform - certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party - who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote - Barack Obama - advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil."

2) "It's perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I'm willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America's minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for "espionage," and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America's minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one's choice."

Holy crap. Honesty in a political column. This is too much, I need a drink.

Le French Boo: Family and friends that are in the military seem to be big fans of RP. Makes me wonder if the returning troops will have any significant change on this nearing election

Why do the troops hate America?

Ron Paul is lying to you until he stops running as a Republican. His views are not in line with Republican ideals. Your favorite GOP candidate is under GOP control. Get over it.

In December 2011, the Atlantic confirmed what many Ron Paul supporters have been saying for years: there has been a media blackout on their candidate. "A new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows... that [Paul]... has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9 [of 2011], Paul appeared as the 'primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories.'"

Mad Jim McMad has received even less coverage. Damn Liberal media!

I think you mean Tin Foil Haberdashers, subby.