Why are Ron Paul supporters so angry?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

WHY ARE RON PAUL'S SUPPORTERS SO ANGRY?


By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

January 29, 2008

When Glenn Beck interviewed Congressman Ron Paul a few weeks ago, he said that he had received death threats from people purporting to be Ron Paul supporters. I have heard other journalists make similar accusations against Congressman Paul's supporters. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether any of this is true or not. And neither does anyone else.

My own experience has been that Congressman Paul's supporters have always demonstrated grace, patience, and courtesy. I have met and worked alongside Ron Paul supporters in at least four states, and I have never personally witnessed any of the anger and bitterness of which they are accused.

Not that Ron Paul's supporters do not have reason to be angry. They most certainly do. In fact, all of us should be angry.

Ron Paul's supporters have been subjected to the most overt and outlandish brand of humiliation and censorship ever seen in modern politics. The cable news Republican Presidential debates have been jokes. For every one question (and usually a stupid, irrelevant question at that) asked of Dr. Paul, the other participants will get three or four. Maybe more. Even though Ron Paul has received more money, more votes, and more delegates than Rudy Giuliani, the press continues to ignore Mr. Paul while showering Giuliani with coverage.

In addition, Ron Paul's own party continues to treat him and his supporters as second-class citizens--or perhaps even as aliens from a different planet. They are subjected to insults of every type. Not to mention enduring every conceivable method to censure or remove Dr. Paul from the political process. He has been denied access to platforms, excluded from debates, removed from GOP Presidential lists, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I say again: if anyone has a right to be angry, it is Ron Paul supporters. But perhaps the greater question is, Why are not all of us angry? No, I do not mean in a cruel or unkind way, but where is our outrage for what the ruling elite are doing to our country?

We should all be angry at the way politicians lie to us, deceive us, and manipulate us. We should all be angry at the way both major parties have completely ignored and trampled constitutional government.

Are we so gullible that we cannot see when a politician says one thing to one group of people and a totally opposite thing to another group of people? Are we so naïve that we cannot tell when a politician changes his beliefs simply in order to garner votes?

Come on folks, let's get real: do you really expect John McCain to abandon his efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? Do you really expect Mitt Romney to be a champion for the unborn? Do you really expect Mike Huckabee to suddenly be the champion for limited government spending? Do you really expect Rudy Giuliani to keep his pants zipped?

Have the American people become so numbed to truth and reality that we cannot distinguish the genuine from the phony--even when it stands right in front of us? Perhaps so. However, if the American people had any of the character and resolve of our forebears, we would be steaming mad about what our political and business leaders have done to our country.

Yes, we should be angry at the way our government has repeatedly lied to us about the economy, about sending our jobs and manufacturing industries overseas, about Iraq, and about EVERYTHING! Yes, dear friends, they lie to us about everything. It has gotten to the point that, frankly, I believe NOTHING the government tells us. They have proven themselves to be totally disingenuous and downright duplicitous. And, frankly, I'm angry about it.

In addition, I can even understand whatever anger and exasperation Ron Paul's supporters feel regarding my fellow evangelical believers. Today's Christians--and especially our pastors--have become little more than toadies for the establishment elite. They apparently have never read our U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. They are seemingly oblivious to our great American history and heritage. They seem to lack the most elementary understanding of even the most basic American principles.

For example, it makes absolutely no sense that Christian pastors would embrace the sudden pro-life candidacy of Mitt Romney and reject the proven, twenty-year pro-life record of Ron Paul. It makes no sense that evangelical Christians would embrace the pro-illegal amnesty, pro-McCain/Feingold, pro-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-gun control John McCain and reject the proven, twenty-year no-amnesty, pro-freedom, anti-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-Second Amendment record of Ron Paul. It makes absolutely no sense that Christians would fall for Mr. Big Government himself, Mike Huckabee, and reject the champion of limited government, Ron Paul.




Beyond that, how is it that pastors and evangelicals cannot see through the GOP's complicity in helping to establish a Luciferian New World Order? How can they be so blind and dumb regarding the global machinations of the Council on Foreign Relations? How can they not understand and reject the philosophy emanating from the Trilateral Commission and Bilderburgers?

Ask the average pastor and Christian about the CFR, the Trilateralists, or the Bilderburgers and they just stare into space. They are absolutely clueless. Ask them about the burgeoning NAFTA superhighway, North American Union, or Amero and they look stupefied. Again, they are absolutely clueless. And, yes, I am angry about it. I am saddened and angered at the lack of knowledge, perception, and discernment demonstrated by my Christian brethren.

I believe with all my heart that if the pastors and Christian people of America would come off their high horse and start supporting the principles of liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government, not only would there be a rebirth of freedom in America, there would be a spiritual revival as well.

As it is, freedom-loving people cannot see past the ignorance, elitism, and partisan phoniness of modern Christians in order that they might see Christ. The Scripture plainly says, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (II Corinthians 3:17)



When America's Colonial preachers and Christian people fought for liberty and independence, God gave us two Great Awakenings. I believe another Great Revival would come to America, if our Christians and pastors would stand on their hind legs and once again fight for liberty and independence. And, yes, I am also angry that they will not do that either.

[mat1583]

one big, whoppin' AMEN!

-washboard

[Valpo]

Legitimate article, and kudos to you guys, I see Paul staying in until Super Tuesday and if that is the case he would have outlasted Rudy.

I think we have a serious problem in this country as far as blurring political lines goes. The Republican Party and the Conservative Party are not the same thing. For anyone to insinuate in order for one to be a true Republican they have to be 100% Conservative is very misleading. This is the problem I have always had with critics of McCain, they say he isn't completely Conservative so he isn't a true Republican and that is not true. The Republican Party has been a place where many conservatives have found comfort, and certainly many Republicans are conservative, but the Conservative Party and the Republican Party are two different things. The Conservative Party is more along the lines of the Libertarian Party, they are essentially the same thing. The Republican Party is about smaller government, in comparison to Democratic, Liberal, Socialist parties, but it is not small to the extent that the Conservative or Libertarian Parties want. If you are of the belief that the government should be miniscule and almost non existent kudos for you. But the Republican Party was never about having the absolute smallest possible government, and somehow that has been lost in all of this. I am a proud Republican, and admire the gusto of Paul and his supporters, although disagreeing with them on key issues. But I don't think Paul is a true Republican, I would have to say he is what he is a full fledged conservative and/or libertarian.

I just felt like it was important to make that distinction.

[middletree]

It makes no sense that evangelical Christians would embrace the pro-illegal amnesty, pro-McCain/Feingold, pro-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-gun control John McCain and reject the proven, twenty-year no-amnesty, pro-freedom, anti-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-Second Amendment record of Ron Paul.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate this!
I hate when people tie Christianity to issues which have no clear relation to Christianity. Jesus rejected it when he walked the earth, and we Christians need to reject talk like this, as well.

I have news for Mr Baldwin, and for anyone who agrees with the above-quoted paragraph: Being a Christian is about believing in a Savior named Jesus, and choosing to follow Him all the days of your life. Period. The pinhead who wrote what I have quoted here apparently thinks that there is a correlation between following Christ and being pro-gun, or against No Child Left Behind, or the other issues listed there. This type of thinking among Christians absolutely drives me bananas. More important, it saddens me, because people who think like this don't even understand the basics of a relationship with Christ, and they are missing out.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Legitimate article, and kudos to you guys, I see Paul staying in until Super Tuesday and if that is the case he would have outlasted Rudy.

I think we have a serious problem in this country as far as blurring political lines goes. The Republican Party and the Conservative Party are not the same thing. For anyone to insinuate in order for one to be a true Republican they have to be 100% Conservative is very misleading. This is the problem I have always had with critics of McCain, they say he isn't completely Conservative so he isn't a true Republican and that is not true. The Republican Party has been a place where many conservatives have found comfort, and certainly many Republicans are conservative, but the Conservative Party and the Republican Party are two different things. The Conservative Party is more along the lines of the Libertarian Party, they are essentially the same thing. The Republican Party is about smaller government, in comparison to Democratic, Liberal, Socialist parties, but it is not small to the extent that the Conservative or Libertarian Parties want. If you are of the belief that the government should be miniscule and almost non existent kudos for you. But the Republican Party was never about having the absolute smallest possible government, and somehow that has been lost in all of this. I am a proud Republican, and admire the gusto of Paul and his supporters, although disagreeing with them on key issues. But I don't think Paul is a true Republican, I would have to say he is what he is a full fledged conservative and/or libertarian.

I just felt like it was important to make that distinction.

Hmmm. I never thought about it that way, but it would make sense, since the democratic party was at one point, labeled conservatives. I'll have to look into this!

[Valpo]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate this!
I hate when people tie Christianity to issues which have no clear relation to Christianity. Jesus rejected it when he walked the earth, and we Christians need to reject talk like this, as well.

I have news for Mr Baldwin, and for anyone who agrees with the above-quoted paragraph: Being a Christian is about believing in a Savior named Jesus, and choosing to follow Him all the days of your life. Period. The pinhead who wrote what I have quoted here apparently thinks that there is a correlation between following Christ and being pro-gun, or against No Child Left Behind, or the other issues listed there. This type of thinking among Christians absolutely drives me bananas. More important, it saddens me, because people who think like this don't even understand the basics of a relationship with Christ, and they are missing out.


Although not nearly as fired up as you are, haha, I'd have to agree. Somehow shutting people out of countries is Christian? Or having the right to own and bear a weapon is Christian, when Jesus said to turn the other cheek? The Second Amendment is certainly American, but has little to do if anything with being a Christian.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate this!
I hate when people tie Christianity to issues which have no clear relation to Christianity. Jesus rejected it when he walked the earth, and we Christians need to reject talk like this, as well.

I have news for Mr Baldwin, and for anyone who agrees with the above-quoted paragraph: Being a Christian is about believing in a Savior named Jesus, and choosing to follow Him all the days of your life. Period. The pinhead who wrote what I have quoted here apparently thinks that there is a correlation between following Christ and being pro-gun, or against No Child Left Behind, or the other issues listed there. This type of thinking among Christians absolutely drives me bananas. More important, it saddens me, because people who think like this don't even understand the basics of a relationship with Christ, and they are missing out.

I think he's referring to how these, being the reasons that the Republicans have a majority of the Christian vote, are now ignored by the same people. I disagree with Baldwin on some things, but he's not the kind who thinks that the party is run by divine intervention.

[middletree]

I disagree with Baldwin on some things, but he's not the kind who thinks that the party is run by divine intervention.

Well, that's not the way he has worded it. You'd think a professional journalist or writer would know that carefully-chosen words are the tools of his profession.

The way I read that paragraph, he thinks that the Christian position on No Child Left Behind, or the amnesty bill for illegal aliens, or any gun control law is to be against, in all three cases. If he did mean that, he's wrong. Biblical Christianity does not take a position on such things. And if he didn't mean that, he's a terrible communicator. Either way, I'm unimpressed with Mr Baldwin.

[middletree]

Although not nearly as fired up as you are, haha,
Yeah, I really was when I wrote that, too. I mean, I pretend to be frustrated when people over-use the word "awesome" or whatever. It's all in good fun. But this time, I really got emotional as I typed.

I have grown up surrounded by people who really think that God is a Republican. I didn't notice this for the longest time, despite that I went through a liberal phase when I was in my early 20's. But as time went on, I became very conservative, so I fit in with my brethren very well.

But then, one day, my eyes were opened. No, I don't mean I turned to the Left, politically. I was at a prayer meeting which lasted 5 days. Anyone who attended could grab the like and lead the church members in prayer. One well-meaning elderly lady took her turn: she asked God to turn the heart of the Republican Senator from Vermont, who had just defected his party, thus giving the majority to the Democrats, back to God. She prayed it in such a way that there was no doubt that she equated political conservatism with biblical truth. They were one and the same to her, and since then, I have observed that she is not alone in thinking this. Not even close.

[VerbumReale]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate this!
I hate when people tie Christianity to issues which have no clear relation to Christianity. Jesus rejected it when he walked the earth, and we Christians need to reject talk like this, as well.

I have news for Mr Baldwin, and for anyone who agrees with the above-quoted paragraph: Being a Christian is about believing in a Savior named Jesus, and choosing to follow Him all the days of your life. Period. The pinhead who wrote what I have quoted here apparently thinks that there is a correlation between following Christ and being pro-gun, or against No Child Left Behind, or the other issues listed there. This type of thinking among Christians absolutely drives me bananas. More important, it saddens me, because people who think like this don't even understand the basics of a relationship with Christ, and they are missing out.

Indeed the attempted melding of the two kingdoms continues.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Well, that's not the way he has worded it. You'd think a professional journalist or writer would know that carefully-chosen words are the tools of his profession.

The way I read that paragraph, he thinks that the Christian position on No Child Left Behind, or the amnesty bill for illegal aliens, or any gun control law is to be against, in all three cases. If he did mean that, he's wrong. Biblical Christianity does not take a position on such things. And if he didn't mean that, he's a terrible communicator. Either way, I'm unimpressed with Mr Baldwin.

The impression I got when I first read it was that he was pointing out the irony. Such as "You evangelicals, who constantly worded your opinions on such issues are now not caring about them!". But I can also see why one would read it the other way as well. If his intentions were to point out that those issues are at the core of Christianity, then he does indeed need to get his head out into the sunlight.

But the article still makes sense. We keep falling for the same crap every election. Every campaign promises change, every candidate says what their audience wants to hear and so far, it's done nothing for both parties. None of them have performed to their promises, yet we keep thinking "this time's different". Some of us are just fed up. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y)

[in hiding]

She prayed it in such a way that there was no doubt that she equated political conservatism with biblical truth. They were one and the same to her, and since then, I have observed that she is not alone in thinking this. Not even close.

I think the religious right / moral majority (The group is credited with delivering two-thirds of the white, evangelical Christian vote to Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential election.[7] from wiki) and politicians have a lot to do with that. You had falwell and robertson and the others pretty much saying christians have to vote republican. Religion is a great tool to use to influence people (both good and bad)

[middletree]

Yes, I am aware of where it came from. Christians should know better, but we are our own worst enemy sometimes.

[in hiding]

Yes, I am aware of where it came from. Christians should know better, but we are our own worst enemy sometimes.

agreed...i wasn't trying to educate you on that issue, just comment on it.

[clemsontigers23]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate this!
I hate when people tie Christianity to issues which have no clear relation to Christianity. Jesus rejected it when he walked the earth, and we Christians need to reject talk like this, as well.

I have news for Mr Baldwin, and for anyone who agrees with the above-quoted paragraph: Being a Christian is about believing in a Savior named Jesus, and choosing to follow Him all the days of your life. Period. The pinhead who wrote what I have quoted here apparently thinks that there is a correlation between following Christ and being pro-gun, or against No Child Left Behind, or the other issues listed there. This type of thinking among Christians absolutely drives me bananas. More important, it saddens me, because people who think like this don't even understand the basics of a relationship with Christ, and they are missing out.

I had the same thoughts as you did. He generalized Christians as being fools for voting for anyone other than Ron Paul. That's one thing that I've noticed about some of the Ron Paul supporters. They act like they're the only ones who are right and refuse to listen to other viewpoints because they're candidate is the only one who can "save America." I like Ron Paul the candidate, but his supporters have brought down his campaign in some ways. act like everyone else has been deceived and they're the only ones who know the "truth." They treat Ron Paul like he's the American messiah and if anyone questions him they deserve to die! Hence the death threats. A lot of them are 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists. The ones on here are fine, for the most part, but it's people like Mr. Baldwin who turn people against Ron Paul supporters.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

What initially brought the evangelical vote to the Republicans?

[mat1583]

I had the same thoughts as you did. He generalized Christians as being fools for voting for anyone other than Ron Paul.

Both of our views are going to be a bit biased, so we're both going to see it different ways. I agree that his opinion was definitely passionate. His choice of words was probably not the best way to convey the point of the article, which is that Americans (not just Christians) often seem somewhat hypocritical when it comes to supporting Liberty and Freedom. They also sometimes seem either completely ignorant about Constitutional issues or blind to how much of our Constitutional rights have been eroded.


That's one thing that I've noticed about some of the Ron Paul supporters. They act like they're the only ones who are right and refuse to listen to other viewpoints because they're candidate is the only one who can "save America."

The problem with this statement is that you're assuming that Ron Paul supporters have only had one viewpoint all their lives. The fact is that many Americans have become fed up with the way our country has been run. They are tired of candidates who promise so much but never back it up when it office. They are sick of hearing promises for lower taxes which are never fulfilled. RP has delivered on those promises for over 20 years. He has a record to prove it. If we refuse to listen to other viewpoints, it's because we've already heard them a hundred times before. We've been force fed these views for years. When we finally have a candidate that is different, we are excited to embrace his platform and cast aside all that other garbage.



I like Ron Paul the candidate, but his supporters have brought down his campaign in some ways. act like everyone else has been deceived and they're the only ones who know the "truth."

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson


They treat Ron Paul like he's the American messiah and if anyone questions him they deserve to die! Hence the death threats. A lot of them are 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists. The ones on here are fine, for the most part, but it's people like Mr. Baldwin who turn people against Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul is not a messiah. This campaign isn't even about him. It is about the message of Freedom that Americans want to hear. It's the message of Liberty that resounds through the heart of his supporters. Even if he does not become the next president, at least more people have been exposed to the real ideas of freedom and liberty in this nation that our founding fathers once knew. Anyone who gives death threats is not a supporter of either one, which is what leads me to believe that the death threats aren't being sent by RP supporters, but an attempt by other candidates' supporters to smear our own image - which in some cases has unfortunately worked.

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

Both of our views are going to be a bit biased, so we're both going to see it different ways. I agree that his opinion was definitely passionate. His choice of words was probably not the best way to convey the point of the article, which is that Americans (not just Christians) often seem somewhat hypocritical when it comes to supporting Liberty and Freedom. They also sometimes seem either completely ignorant about Constitutional issues or blind to how much of our Constitutional rights have been eroded.


The problem with this statement is that you're assuming that Ron Paul supporters have only had one viewpoint all their lives. The fact is that many Americans have become fed up with the way our country has been run. They are tired of candidates who promise so much but never back it up when it office. They are sick of hearing promises for lower taxes which are never fulfilled. RP has delivered on those promises for over 20 years. He has a record to prove it. If we refuse to listen to other viewpoints, it's because we've already heard them a hundred times before. We've been force fed these views for years. When we finally have a candidate that is different, we are excited to embrace his platform and cast aside all that other garbage.



"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson


Ron Paul is not a messiah. This campaign isn't even about him. It is about the message of Freedom that Americans want to hear. It's the message of Liberty that resounds through the heart of his supporters. Even if he does not become the next president, at least more people have been exposed to the real ideas of freedom and liberty in this nation that our founding fathers once knew. Anyone who gives death threats is not a supporter of either one, which is what leads me to believe that the death threats aren't being sent by RP supporters, but an attempt by other candidates' supporters to smear our own image - which in some cases has unfortunately worked.

-washboard

I know, I agree with you, but my point was there are some pretty extreme Ron Paul supporters who taint the image of his campaign with some of the things they say and do. About the "one viewpoint" thing...a lot of his supporters are youth who are experiencing voting for the first time. I know there are some who are simply fed up, but there are others who embrace him just because he's the underdog and he's different.

[Valpo]

To be fair, I have never gotten the impression from Washboard or Weasel, or inHiding that they are "angry Paul" supporters. And from the video I saw on Breitbart TV online the other night those protesting outside a coffee shop where chelsea clinton was campaigning for her mother did not seem angry either. I think what you have here though is that this is mainly an underground movement. And a significant (not most, not majority but significant enough) number of his supporters are so called 9/11 Truthers. And conspiracy theorists generally come off as angry individuals whether they are or not. Also, the media does not cover Paul nearly as much as any other candidate so that angers supporters as well. Although, compared to other "outside" candidates in past elections I think he has received a lot of attention. Just that he was never considered a serious contender. So a definite amount of frustration comes into play here.

[bvc]

Although not nearly as fired up as you are, haha, I'd have to agree. Somehow shutting people out of countries is Christian? Or having the right to own and bear a weapon is Christian, when Jesus said to turn the other cheek? The Second Amendment is certainly American, but has little to do if anything with being a Christian.While I agree the Second Amendment should not be labeled Christian.....
-Jesus said buy a sword if you don't have one
-turn the other cheek is in the context of persecution for His name and preaching the gospel
-God hates the shedding of innocent blood and requires blood for payment as He requires life for a lost innocent life -for those under the law. Those not under His law are under mans law. If it says life for life, so be it, we must obey and vice versa. There's nothing in the NT that says otherwise, when read in context.

off topic, but turn the other cheek cannot be applied to the second amendment. The second amendment is american not christian, remember?
the separation works both ways....

[clemsontigers23]

Most law-abiding people use guns for HUNTING, which is a means of not only providing for yourself but also population control. You wouldn't want deer to overpopulate, trust me. Having a gun in your house to defend yourself is important. If you couldn't have a gun, how would you protect your family from some of the sick people who want to hurt them?

[Valpo]

While I agree the Second Amendment should not be labeled Christian.....
-Jesus said buy a sword if you don't have one
-turn the other cheek is in the context of persecution for His name and preaching the gospel

off topic, but turn the other cheek cannot be applied to the second amendment. The second amendment is american not christian, remember?
the separation works both ways....

I disagree to an extent. The rounded up two swords and Jesus said that was enough. Two swords enough to take on the Roman Empire? I don't think so. Jesus was being slightly sarcastic. Plus He freaked out on Peter when he did use the sword. "Those who live by the sword..." Pretty sure we've all heard that one.

Yet I do agree with your assessment on Romans 13, but I think that is in different context than the passage specifically in Luke at the Last Supper. Where Jesus had seen that the disciples took him too literally and told them two was enough. He was being extreme to warn them of the perilous times that lay ahead. Up until then they had relied on hospitality and clearly persecution lay ahead. Remember too the sword is also not to be taken too literally, Paul appealed to Caesar as the one who bears the sword.

[Valpo]

Most law-abiding people use guns for HUNTING, which is a means of not only providing for yourself but also population control. You wouldn't want deer to overpopulate, trust me. Having a gun in your house to defend yourself is important. If you couldn't have a gun, how would you protect your family from some of the sick people who want to hurt them?

That's fine, but that's not Christian is the point we are all trying to make.

Personally I'm a sort of a lib on guns. I think any law abiding person with a clean background and record can have a gun if they want. But a guy like that kid from Virginia Tech last year should have never been able to buy a gun. He had a mental illness. And clearly no background check was done. Then again I do live in NY. But I would never overturn the 2nd Amendment. Not like I have any power to anyway.

[mat1583]

Most law-abiding people use guns for HUNTING, which is a means of not only providing for yourself but also population control. You wouldn't want deer to overpopulate, trust me. Having a gun in your house to defend yourself is important. If you couldn't have a gun, how would you protect your family from some of the sick people who want to hurt them?

Speaking of... have you seen the SR-9 yet? It looks pretty sweet. Not sure if you're into guns, but I thought I'd mention it since it wasn't completely random. :)

-washboard

[in hiding]

Also, the media does not cover Paul nearly as much as any other candidate so that angers supporters as well. Although, compared to other "outside" candidates in past elections I think he has received a lot of attention. Just that he was never considered a serious contender. So a definite amount of frustration comes into play here.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement. The frustration comes in when most channels mention everyone and go into detail about the candidates but when it comes to RP they sometimes just say, "Ron Paul was there too". (read this link from CNN re: the debate last night http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/gop.debate/index.html ). It's the presumed attitude of the MSM (cnn, fox, msnbc etc...) that frustrates a lot of people. They're supposed to be presenting the news not manipulating it. Granted the 2 they cover the most (romney and mccain) are the 2 in the lead by a longshot but it's really been that way for a while. So I can understand why they get the most time it just seems like the media has their darlings (which I'm sure they do) and it seems they ignore the others for some reason (lack of popularity, don't like the message...who knows).

[in hiding]

What initially brought the evangelical vote to the Republicans?

initially? the moral majority.

[Valpo]

initially? the moral majority.

mainly had to do with abortion and homosexuality....more so abortion though. And in the 80s as now Democrats are more about abortion rights than Republicans are.

[in hiding]

mainly had to do with abortion and homosexuality....more so abortion though. And in the 80s as now Democrats are more about abortion rights than Republicans are.

you're absolutely right. And the agency (?) that really moved that to the forefront was the moral majority. They got some high profile christians to push the agenda and swing the support to the republicans (rather to the issues specifically, but it was def to the republicans a majority of the time) b/c if they had a PAC and could deliver mass votes to help one of the parties win; they instantly became relevent and had influence in washington. That was my initial thought way back when Pat Robertson endorsed Guiliani... he was trying to get himself relevent again by supporting a "winner".

[cheewiee]

mainly had to do with abortion and homosexuality....more so abortion though. And in the 80s as now Democrats are more about abortion rights than Republicans are.

The Moral Majority was not only about Abortion and Homosexuality... The Moral Majority was founded in the 70's Primarly as a response to the SCOTUS secularization of America through court rulings. I mean in 1962 when Prayer was removed from Schools, that came as a result of 30 years of Liberal presidents (with the exception for Ike's 8 but Ike was a moderate).

That's when Christian Conservatives started to wake up and realize that they needed to be engaged in the public discourse. Then in the 70's with Roe V. Wade that's when the church was shocked into being the political force it became in the 80's and 90's.

The problem, is in 2000, the Moral Majority, and the Christian right hitched their wagon to the neo con side of th republican party.

[Valpo]

As far as the moral majority and its real political influence is concerned, that came about in the 80s and mainly wrapped around the issue of abortion, was my point.

[cheewiee]

As far as the moral majority and its real political influence is concerned, that came about in the 80s and mainly wrapped around the issue of abortion, was my point.

It wasn't mainly wrapped around abortion. Sure that was a major sticking point but there were alot of others.

When you say it was all about abortion, you marginalize a major political force in the 80's and the 90s to nothing more than a one trick pony. When the movement was part of a larger shift in American Politics back to the right... So far so, that most American Liberals are further right than conservatives across the ocean.

[middletree]

It wasn't mainly wrapped around abortion. Sure that was a major sticking point but there were alot of others.


Yep. I remember it well. Revisionist historians are saying it was about abortion, but that's not the way it was at the time.

[Valpo]

I'd say a major sticking point has a lot to do with abortion, maybe my words "all" were too general.

[bvc]

I disagree to an extent. The rounded up two swords and Jesus said that was enough. Two swords enough to take on the Roman Empire? I don't think so. Jesus was being slightly sarcastic. Plus He freaked out on Peter when he did use the sword. "Those who live by the sword..." Pretty sure we've all heard that one.

Yet I do agree with your assessment on Romans 13, but I think that is in different context than the passage specifically in Luke at the Last Supper. Where Jesus had seen that the disciples took him too literally and told them two was enough. He was being extreme to warn them of the perilous times that lay ahead. Up until then they had relied on hospitality and clearly persecution lay ahead. Remember too the sword is also not to be taken too literally, Paul appealed to Caesar as the one who bears the sword.I agree, except Jesus freaked out because Peter was fighting against persecution which we are specifically not to do. Peter wasn't walking to the market with his catch for the day. That was the main reason I posted. Turn the other cheek is in the context of persecution only. To apply it to all aspects of life is assumption. You can certainly live that way if you choose, but I have a family to provide for and I will make it home and not be stopped by a thug that wants my wallet, or have my home and family invaded and stand their looking like a deer in headlights. Law says that is my right and choice, as well.

[Valpo]

but I have a family to provide for and I will make it home and not be stopped by a thug that wants my wallet, or have my home and family invaded and stand their looking like a deer in headlights. Law says that is my right and choice, as well.

Constitution certainly gives you that right, as a law abiding citizen, no question.

[mat1583]

Constitution certainly gives you that right, as a law abiding citizen, no question.

Actually, the Constitution does not grant any rights to citizens. It limits the powers of the Federal government and outlines specific protections of citizens' rights by the government. Our rights are given to us by natural law and by state law.

-washboard

[Valpo]

Actually, the Constitution does not grant any rights to citizens. It limits the powers of the Federal government and outlines specific protections of citizens' rights by the government. Our rights are given to us by natural law and by state law.

-washboard

Point being, had these amendments not been put in the actual document, good chance we wouldn't have these freedoms.

[mat1583]

Point being, had these amendments not been put in the actual document, good chance we wouldn't have these freedoms.

On the contrary, by putting these amendments in the Constitution it could possibly imply that these are the only rights that are protected. At least this was Alexander Hamilton's fear.

But yes, I understood your point. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people claim that the Constitution gives us rights. There should be a distinction between something that grants right and something that protects rights you have already been granted. Most people I talk to do not make that distinction.

-washboard

[Valpo]

On the contrary, by putting these amendments in the Constitution it could possibly imply that these are the only rights that are protected. At least this was Alexander Hamilton's fear.

But yes, I understood your point. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people claim that the Constitution gives us rights. There should be a distinction between something that grants right and something that protects rights you have already been granted. Most people I talk to do not make that distinction.

-washboard

fair enough, certainly though we would say these rights ought to be enjoyed by all people in the world, and they aren't. And mostly because it is not written into their laws. But I have read Locke... many times... ;)

[clemsontigers23]

Speaking of... have you seen the SR-9 yet? It looks pretty sweet. Not sure if you're into guns, but I thought I'd mention it since it wasn't completely random. :)

-washboard

Yeah, it's a nice gun. There's not a lot of recoil on it either, which is pretty nice when you're shooting a semi-automatic. We have an AK-47, but it's legal as far as I know.

That's fine, but that's not Christian is the point we are all trying to make.

Personally I'm a sort of a lib on guns. I think any law abiding person with a clean background and record can have a gun if they want. But a guy like that kid from Virginia Tech last year should have never been able to buy a gun. He had a mental illness. And clearly no background check was done. Then again I do live in NY. But I would never overturn the 2nd Amendment. Not like I have any power to anyway.

What's not Christian about it? Christ said eating and hunting was allowed, and while the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder" most scholars agree that doesn't include self-defense. That means don't go looking for a fight, but if someone breaks into your home, any man who wouldn't go get his gun and be willing to shoot that person to protect their family is not a man, in my opinion.

[mat1583]

Yeah, it's a nice gun. There's not a lot of recoil on it either, which is pretty nice when you're shooting a semi-automatic. We have an AK-47, but it's legal as far as I know.
oops, I mean the Ruger SR9. It's their brand new striker-fired pistol.

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

oops, I mean the Ruger SR9. It's their brand new striker-fired pistol.

-washboard

Oh. I'm not big on guns, but we have quite a few of them so I know a little bit about them. The Ruger SR9 will definitely be popular with the cops. The manual safety will appeal to cops because it's pretty handy when somebody tries to take the gun from you. I've heard the trigger's a little rough and if you dry-fire the gun it can make the trigger even harder to pull, but that's the only complaints I've heard so far. It's not the best gun for target shooting because of the trigger, but it's almost perfect as a fighting gun.

[mat1583]

Oh. I'm not big on guns, but we have quite a few of them so I know a little bit about them. The Ruger SR9 will definitely be popular with the cops. The manual safety will appeal to cops because it's pretty handy when somebody tries to take the gun from you. I've heard the trigger's a little rough and if you dry-fire the gun it can make the trigger even harder to pull, but that's the only complaints I've heard so far. It's not the best gun for target shooting because of the trigger, but it's almost perfect as a fighting gun.

I'm considering it for personal protection. I've been looking for a decent pistol for a while now.

-washboard

[mat1583]

Now back on topic...

What makes Ron Paul supporters so angry?

Go to the front pages of www.cnn.com and www.foxnews.com

How many candidates are left in the primaries? 6. 2 Democrats, 4 Republicans.

How many republican candidates do cnn and fox show? Only three. Guess who is excluded?

Faux news can't even report correctly how many delegates Ron Paul has.

I don't care if they don't think he has a chance. It just makes me sick how much they've excluded him throughout this whole process. I'm almost completely convinced that the media controls the election. We're supposed to be living in a free country, yet the media is blacking out the candidate that supports our freedom and liberty more than any other candidate!

-washboard

[middletree]

I don't care if they don't think he has a chance. It just makes me sick how much they've excluded him throughout this whole process. I'm almost completely convinced that the media controls the election.
I agree with you here. I've seen it several times in previous elections. In fact, Alan Keyes raised a big fuss about it back in '92. This is why we all end up with "establishment" candidates.

[in hiding]

I agree with you here. I've seen it several times in previous elections. In fact, Alan Keyes raised a big fuss about it back in '92. This is why we all end up with "establishment" candidates.

http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

[mat1583]

http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

WOW! Talking about upsetting.

Ron Paul (R)

Main Newsmaker: 0
Significant Presence: 0.2
Total Percent of Campaign Stories: 0.2

Compare to

Rudy Giuliani (R)

Main Newsmaker: 7.1
Significant Presence: 6.6
Total Percent of Campaign Stories: 13.7

Paul beat Ghouliani in the early primaries and in fund raising, yet Paul has hardly had any media coverage at all compared to Ghouliani.

-washboard

[Evanescence]

Why are RP supporters angry?

NAU

[Jason]

Why are RP supporters angry?

NAU

Northern Arizona University? ;)

[mat1583]

Here's a great video from Neil Cavuto about Ron Paul's incredible fund raising abilities and the possible reasons why it's not translating into more votes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDfPaUux1Kc

Hint: Since the MSM can't really place him in the conservative or liberal group, they make him out to be the crazy uncle even though his ideas are very sound and reasonable. Go figure.

-washboard

[mat1583]

Ron Paul missing from ballots in Rockland County, NY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Qb3ZfyztE

Apparently it's not the only occasion either.

-washboard

[Evanescence]

Make no mistake, the system fears RP because he's honest and wants to change the corrupt system. The CFR and other Washington elitist groups are VERY influential in the process...and RP is a danger to their ideaology. They WILL make him out to be the crazy uncle....and all the uneducated, dumb hinge heads will agree...electing a borderline Fascist, Globalist Pres.