JB Williams doesn't like Ron Paul

[ENDelt260]

Not that I know who JB Williams is... but, I was interested to see what discussion this would generate here. I did notice that the... paper? blog? that Mr. Williams writes for is headed by our own Michael Michigan (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=91). Who, apparently, hasn't posted in almost two years.


Debating Ron Paul
By JB Williams
Aug 29, 2007

Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.

Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?

***

On the Issues - Not strong on life: Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) - Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) - Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Not strong on traditional Marriage: Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

***

Not strong on crime and punishment: Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007) - Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000) - Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) - Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Not strong on fighting the drug problem: Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007) - Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) - Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) - Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options: Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001) - Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001) - Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998) - Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

***

Not strong on national security and sovereignty: Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005) - Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005) - Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007) - Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007) - Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007) - Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) - Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency: Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) - Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006) - Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) - Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

***

Not strong on Second Amendment Rights: Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Not strong in the war on terror: We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007) - We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007) - Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007) - Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007) - When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007) - Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007) - Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007) - Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) - Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) - Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) - Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

***

I can keep going,

And he does... (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272615728.shtml)

[Taco John]

The guy invalidates his opinion in the first two sentances:

"Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate."


This guy has absolutely no evidence that anyone has hacked anything. That's because there is none. Several of the sites who have been "hacked" have tried to identify the "threat" and have come up with "nothing" except a lot of enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters who want to register their preference.

Of course, he'll find out how wrong he is when he looks at his own traffic logs for the site and sees the spike now that he's written about Ron Paul.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, if Paul supporters could do that then why hasn't that happened for all the other candidates?

According to those who run those online polls sites they claim there has been no evidence of hacking.

I think Paul just has a bigger net following with more enthusiastic supporters more inclined to participate.

[Taco John]

Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?



Because apparently his supporters know that the term "conservative" actually has meaning outside of the socialist aspect of conservativism that he's referring to. Ron Paul is NOT a conservative socialist, like JB Williams apparently is. He's a conservative CONSTITUTIONALIST. There's a big difference. Educating people who think that they're "conservatives," when they're really conservative socialists (Ie. on the right-leaning side of a leftist spectrum) is not an easy task.

Most Republicans are conservative socialists (otherwise known as "social conservatives," it's the same difference). Ron Paul is not that.

[BucEyedPea]

Conservative socialist is a synonym for a Neo-Conservative when ya' think about it. C'est le mot de l'annee pour moi :)

[Taco John]

I couldn't help myself... I wrote him a note:


You write:
Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?


Response:

It's simple. Ron Paul is not a conservative socialist. He's a conservative constitutionalist. Ron Paul rejects socialism, including conservative socialism, and defers to his roots as a conservative constitutionalist.

Being a "conservative" has to mean something on a political spectrum. Most Republicans today are conservative socialists (ie. they're on the right-leaning side of the modern socialist environment - take a look around... America is a socialist nation). Ron Paul is not a conservative socialist (or the preferred, softened term "social conservative"). He is a conservative constitutionalist - otherwise known as a Libertarian. Socialism is on the left end of the spectrum (where we are now), and Libertarianism is on the right side of the spectrum (where our founders started this nation). The two are diametrically opposed to eachother. You cannot be a Liberty-loving socialist, because in order to achieve socialist ideal, you must take away Liberty.

So to give an example on how a constitutional conservative handles issues:

-Same Sex Marraige: Ron Paul rejected a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. He was not in favor of taking away Liberty. Ron Paul's position is that the Constitution is designed to limit the freedoms of the government, not the people. The Libertarian perspective is that this is a state matter, not a federal one.

One last thing... I challenge you to look at your traffic logs now that you've written about Ron Paul and maintain your tin-foil hat theory that Ron Paul's supporters are "expert hackers" who know how to bust into online polls and artificially inflate the numbers. Don't you think that's a silly thing to say at this point in the game with all the support Ron Paul has around the Internet through YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and all of the online buzz measuring tools. Apparently genuine conservativism isn't the only thing you're out of touch on.

[CRONUS]

...
Most Republicans are conservative socialists (otherwise known as "social conservatives," it's the same difference). Ron Paul is not that.

TJ I take issue with that generalization. I think that the hard right base of the Republican party is not socialist in the least, it is also not Constitutionalist. I don't think it fits either label.

[Mr. Kotter]

The guy invalidates his opinion in the first two sentances:

"Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate."


This guy has absolutely no evidence that anyone has hacked anything. That's because there is none. Several of the sites who have been "hacked" have tried to identify the "threat" and have come up with "nothing" except a lot of enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters who want to register their preference.

Of course, he'll find out how wrong he is when he looks at his own traffic logs for the site and sees the spike now that he's written about Ron Paul.

Perhaps, but....

How do you explain Paul's less than sterling, but consistent showing, CLEARLY....in the second, if not THIRD, tier....of Republican candidates then???

:shrug:

Seriously. Thompson, for example IS NOT EVEN RUNNING OFFICIALLY....yet, he has out-polled Paul by large margins in every major reputable poll in the last 90 days or so.

What gives? :spock:

[Taco John]

How do you explain Paul's less than sterling, but consistent showing, CLEARLY....in the second, if not THIRD, tier....of Republican candidates then???



Why would I have to explain that in August of 2007? Clinton hadn't even announced at this point before he won. But you should know that. You were one of the ones who jumped on his campaign. Did you do that when he was polling at 1%, or did you wait until after the 60 minutes thing when he went on with Hillary to explain the Jennifer Flowers thing, and his polls suddenly shot through the roof?

[Taco John]

TJ I take issue with that generalization. I think that the hard right base of the Republican party is not socialist in the least, it is also not Constitutionalist. I don't think it fits either label.


It's not that they want to be socialists. It's that they've been tricked into the paradigm, and now that they're here, they want to have their say in the system. America is a socialized nation and both parties use the Federal Government as a tool to get what they want socially. Both sides give lip service to Liberty, but when the rubber meets the road, both sides are willing to trample over Liberty to achieve their social visions of America.

There's no doubt that there are some good Republicans who hold the ideals of Liberty. Just not enough of them to invalidate the generalization. Just look at this whole "right to marriage" fiasco. They're arguing over a cultural term. And to what ends? What does a Republican gain by changing the Constitution to eliminate the option for "Gay Marraige?" They gain a social victory. They would have effectively used government to limit freedom, and shape the government to their social vision. It's otherwise known as fascism, which is the right leaning side of the socialist spectrum. These are the folks who say "let's give up individual liberties in order to obtain state security."

What are Republicans currently in favor of? A strong, centralized government to control the most powerful military in the world, and a national unity that holds the ideal that the state of the nation is of higher importance than individual freedoms and liberty. This is what the front running Republican currently represents, does he not? He's more or less an open fascist. So where is my generalization off base?



/just to be clear, I'm not using terms like "fascist" in a pejorative sense. I'm using the words for what they mean.

[Mr. Kotter]

Why would I have to explain that in August of 2007? Clinton hadn't even announced at this point before he won. But you should know that. You were one of the ones who jumped on his campaign. Did you do that when he was polling at 1%, or did you wait until after the 60 minutes thing when he went on with Hillary to explain the Jennifer Flowers thing, and his polls suddenly shot through the roof?

Apples and oranges.

Equating Clinton to Paul....isn't even worthy of any serious discussion, IMO. :shrug:

Guess we'll see though.

[Cochise]

Clinton represented a mainstream candidate (for the party) and didn't come with any issues that were going to cripple him with >80-90% of the party base.

He also was polling well before the Flowers thing came out. So yeah, you can say that he was polling very low at this point ahead of the election and ended up winning, but it's more accurate to say he had a strong base of support that were put off by his philandering temporarily. Tsongas dropped out before the race was over and the only other person I can even remember in the race was that guy who used to be governor of California. For practical purposes he didn't have any real opposition aside from his zipper.

And even with the weak economy, an incumbent who'd apparently never been in a grocery store, and no real primary opposition, he still wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for Ross Perot.

[Taco John]

Apples and oranges.

Equating Clinton to Paul....isn't even worthy of any serious discussion, IMO. :shrug:

Guess we'll see though.


Equating? Ron Paul has a lot more integrity than Bill Clinton. I'm not equating the men at all. I'm equating their situations. You're trying to make the point that Ron Paul's polling numbers mean something right now, and I'm trying to point out that Bill Clinton didn't even HAVE polling numbers at this point in the game. That's apples and apples.

[Taco John]

He also was polling well before the Flowers thing came out.



Bullshit. He was not. He was a virtual nobody until that 60 minutes spot. And nobody was put off by his philandering at that time. He went on 60 minutes and became a sympathetic figure, and that's when his campaign started to take off.

[Silock]

JB Williams? ****. There goes my vote for Paul.

Who the **** is JB Williams, and why does anyone give a ****?

[Taco John]

Clinton represented a mainstream candidate (for the party) and didn't come with any issues that were going to cripple him with >80-90% of the party base.


You mean like being pro-publically funded abortion (Rudy Giuliani)?

[Pitt Gorilla]

Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?



Because apparently his supporters know that the term "conservative" actually has meaning outside of the socialist aspect of conservativism that he's referring to. Ron Paul is NOT a conservative socialist, like JB Williams apparently is. He's a conservative CONSTITUTIONALIST. There's a big difference. Educating people who think that they're "conservatives," when they're really conservative socialists (Ie. on the right-leaning side of a leftist spectrum) is not an easy task.

Most Republicans are conservative socialists (otherwise known as "social conservatives," it's the same difference). Ron Paul is not that.I don't think he's going to get too far trying to paint Paul as anything but conservative. It makes it seem that the author hasn't really grappled with the term.

[patteeu]

You mean like being pro-publically funded abortion (Rudy Giuliani)?

If Ron Paul's foreign policy position was similar to Giuliani's abortion position, i.e. I don't agree but I won't do anything to change it, I'd vote for him. Of course, it doesn't make as much sense that a President could avoid getting involved in war policy as it does that one would not really have a role in abortion, but that would be a better analogy, IMO.

[HonestChieffan]

Who makes up these titles? neo constructionistsocial gadfyist....what garbage

[Mr. Kotter]

Bullshit. He was not. He was a virtual nobody until that 60 minutes spot. And nobody was put off by his philandering at that time. He went on 60 minutes and became a sympathetic figure, and that's when his campaign started to take off.

You're wrong; the 60 minutes spot was an attempt to stop the bleeding....he had been doing well in polling long BEFORE the Flowers thing broke, and had slipped as a result of the story.

It's the incident which tabbed him as the "Comeback Kid."

[BucEyedPea]

It's the incident which tabbed him as the "Comeback Kid."
And promised Hillary a good shot at becoming president to buy her cooperation and silence. Or at least that was speculated by the right.

[Taco John]

If Ron Paul's foreign policy position was similar to Giuliani's abortion position, i.e. I don't agree but I won't do anything to change it, I'd vote for him. Of course, it doesn't make as much sense that a President could avoid getting involved in war policy as it does that one would not really have a role in abortion, but that would be a better analogy, IMO.



That's all fine and good, but Ron Paul is trying to appeal to the majority of American's, not the delusional few who want to invest America's future in defeat, and taxing the next couple of generations to prop up Muslim "democracies."

[Taco John]

You're wrong; the 60 minutes spot was an attempt to stop the bleeding....he had been doing well in polling long BEFORE the Flowers thing broke, and had slipped as a result of the story.

It's the incident which tabbed him as the "Comeback Kid."



By the way, you never answered the question... Did you jump on Clinton's campaign before or after the Gennifer Flowers story came to light?

[patteeu]

That's all fine and good, but Ron Paul is trying to appeal to the majority of American's, not the delusional few who want to invest America's future in defeat, and taxing the next couple of generations to prop up Muslim "democracies."

:)

[Mr. Kotter]

By the way, you never answered the question... Did you jump on Clinton's campaign before or after the Gennifer Flowers story came to light?

The Flowers incident preceded the New Hampshire primary.

I was one of the charter members of Clinton's bandwagon. I joined the campaign, officially, in early November of 1991...just a couple of weeks after his "official" announcement.

[Mr. Kotter]

By the way, you never answered the question... Did you jump on Clinton's campaign before or after the Gennifer Flowers story came to light?

BTW...I'll take that as your admission you were wrong. Again. ;)

[Adam]

Thanks for the coverage, JB. I would love nothing more than to see passionate debate from neo-cons on the candidacy of Ron Paul. All Dr. Paul lacks is name recognition, and every article written will help that, at least a little.

[BucEyedPea]

All Dr. Paul lacks is name recognition, and every article written will help that, at least a little.
The msm blackout on him doesn't help him get any...not too mention a party leadership who will do everything to keep that way. I love how the msm shapes public opinion, tell the people what they want us to hear, and then poll us. LOL! They do it on issues too.

Wonder where he'd be polling if this wasn't the case?

Maybe one day the net will free us when enough people are online.

[Adam]

And the msm blackout on him doesn't help him get any...not too mention party leadership who will do everything to keep that way. I love how the msm shapes public opinion, tell the people what you want them to hear, and then poll them. LOL! They do it on issues to.

I'm interested to see if there is a boost once college students go back to school next week. The campus support could be huge for publicizing Ron Paul's candidacy.

I don't think the MSM is really enforcing a blackout. I think they are clueless just like most people. They see the polls, they figure it's just a few people, so why bother. We gotta change the poll numbers first. Nobody complains about a Duncan Hunter "blackout".

[BucEyedPea]

I don't think the MSM is really enforcing a blackout. I think they are clueless just like most people. They see the polls, they figure it's just a few people, so why bother. We gotta change the poll numbers first. Nobody complains about a Duncan Hunter "blackout".
I think that's true to a certain extent. I wouldn't say it's true of Fox, they are blatently pushing Rudolph!