Joel, this is one of your best pieces and actually makes a great deal of sense.

However, it's most delicious for the supreme irony that you can see that Paul is a 'false change agent' while not realizing that your 'truther' beliefs and support for an 'Article V Convention' fall into exactly the same category.

Dave

Wait and see. With the spread money becomes an issue quick and Ron Paul has enough of it to get his message out on Feb 5th and before....VOTE RON PAUL!

It's really a vote for you and your rights, forget what these media control freaks are saying and look for yourself.

Live Free or Die.

So you're criticizing Ron Paul for all of the things he hasn't done now? Things that no other candidate has done either. This doesn't make any sense. You're criticizing him for being the staunchest defender of the constitution in the presidential race today (I would say the only defender of the constitution) and claiming that he should be doing more? He may have some perfectly logical reasons for not supporting an "Article V Convention" as he has logical reasons for not wishing to run as an independent.

In my opinion, Ron Paul has done a hell of a lot more towards defending the constitution than any other candidate or bureaucrat in Washington or blog critic. "Demonology" - how on Earth do you apply that term to Ron Paul?

For a change it would be nice to see a journalist or blogger actually take the time to discuss Ron Paul's positions in an intelligent and informed manner. You speak about "reason and kindness" well it would be nice to see a little of that from the media when it mentions Ron Paul (on the rare occasion that it does). You're surprised that Ron Paul supporters become frustrated and angered when they can see their candidate being unfairly treated by the media.

You talk about revolution but you don't want to hurt anybody's feelings in the process? Well I'm afraid that is unavoidable, sweetheart.

I thought the PaulBots were in a catatonic state over his weak performance in the primaries thus far, but apparently they're still out there. Expect a bumpy ride, Joel.

Dave

Joel, you criticize Ron Paul for not calling an Article V convention himself, yet you're supporting someone else who not only has also not called an Article V convention, but who has no regard for the rest of the Constitution either? I'm not following your logic. Also, you criticize him for not spending more time talking about making elections open for third parties, yet you've ignored his attempts in Congress for ballot access reform. Sure, it's not his number one talking point while he tries to win the nomination for the Republican Party, but do you honestly think he wouldn't fight for it once in office?

You say Ron Paul only talks about change...how many other candidates are even *talking* about our atrocious national debt? How many are even *talking* about significantly cutting spending by eliminating expensive and harmful government departments and agencies? How many are even *talking* about ending our empire around the world and withdrawing from the 130 countries we currently occupy?

You say Ron Paul doesn't talk about details. Please, point me to a candidate who can talk about details in a 30 second commercial or the 90 seconds they are given to speak in a debate. Unlike others, Ron Paul actually spends his time talking about the actual issues we face as a country, rather than offering the commonplace masturbatory political spin we're used to, like, "Americans...are a very resilient and hardworking people." Paul gives more details than anyone else, and unlike the others, his actually have a basis in fact.

Your characterization of Ron Paul's foreign policy as "isolationist" is a severe misconception at best and a deliberate distortion at worst. An *isolationist* foreign policy involves closing borders to people and trade and running an insulated country as if the rest of the world does not exist, North Korea style. Ron Paul's *non-interventionist* foreign policy involves treating other nations as equals, freely trading with them, and engaging them in diplomacy, but refraining from stepping on their toes by meddling in their internal affairs or occupying their lands with our military. An *interventionist* foreign policy involves treating other nations like subordinates, spreading our agenda throughout the world using coercion or military might. In essence, the self-centered arrogance of an interventionist foreign policy makes it much closer to isolationism than non-interventionism.

So, who do you propose is a better agent for change than Ron Paul? Let's see...

John Edwards, the real thing? Are you kidding me? One day, he's a greedy lawyer making millions off of ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The next day, he's kowtowing to special interests in the Senate. The next day, he's railing against the evils of special interests, despite almost all of his campaign money coming from special interests? The guy is a fraud, through and through. He has no intention of making life any better for the American people, and he has no intention of limiting the size or scope of our ever-more-tyrannical federal government.

Bloomberg? Bloomberg supports the fascist government excesses of the PATRIOT Act. He supports our endless "War on Terror." He has no understanding that gun rights are the sole guardian of all other rights...unless he actually does, and he disdains gun rights for that precise reason? When it comes down to it, he combines the worst of the neocons with the worst of the Democrats - big brother policies hand-in-hand with gun-grabbing. To continue, he also supports corporate welfare...and if you haven't noticed, corporate welfare is responsible for drastically curbing competition, which artificially reduces the size of the economy and number (and quality) of available jobs. Since the number of people *needing* jobs remains constant, the resulting supply/demand ratio becomes skewed in favor of corporations, which is exactly what gives them the power to exploit consumers and workers. Plus, he wants a federal ID database consisting of every American's DNA and fingerprints...and even still, that's just the tip of the iceberg on Bloomberg! Yes, he can be praised for advocating a balanced budget, but that's about his only positive point (and his idea of a balanced budget is still a lot more overweight than Ron Paul's anyway). No, Bloomberg will not save us. Like other establishment politicians, he has no interest whatsoever in restoring Constitutional government or liberty. To suggest otherwise belies an obscene degree of denial.

Now, Kucinich...he has many failings in the areas of economics, the size and scope of government, socialist entitlement programs, and in recognizing the importance of gun rights, but...at the very least, you've finally named a good, principled man. I disagree with him on a lot, but he's no establishment shill, that's for sure. I respect him, and really, he's what Democrats are supposed to be (just like Ron Paul is what Republicans are supposed to be). Might I also suggest Mike Gravel as a good, principled man with some similar failings? Unfortunately, neither of them have the support of Democratic voters, and I honestly do consider it a damn shame that so many young people have been fooled by the false promise of "change" by the establishment Democrats.

Joel is a socialist that wants an Article V convention to actually DESTROY the constitution.

He will not support Ron Paul as an agent of change, because Ron Paul would make his dreams of socialism absolutely impossible.

Google his name. I did. Joel has publishing and republishing this article hundreds of times. Joel and his group have approached Ron Paul with their proposal and were soundly rejected.

Google Joel and you will find his socialist group connection, a pamphlet about their socialist plans (their main plan is to infiltrate education to move towards socialism.) They also talk about wanting an Article V convention in order to destroy the constitution.

Joel, why don't you tell people what motive really drives you? Why do you need to be deceptive about WHY you want this?

To be fair, he's not publishing and republishing the same article over and over again. They're distinctly different articles which address several of the same issues. IMO this one is much better than most of them.

Dave

Also, to be fair, it sort of doesn't matter if an Article V convention might destroy the Constitution - with short-sighted idiocy and complacency rampant in America, that's probably true, but - the Constitution requires it nevertheless. That said, it is entirely unfair to put the blame on Paul for not calling for a convention. Considering almost every single piece of legislation Congress passes is unconstitutional, he's had a lot to pick from in terms of setting things straight.

In terms of Joel's apparent socialist views...I really don't understand why socialists feel such a perverse need to target the federal government in the first place. Wouldn't they have an easier time getting entitlement programs put in place at the state level? They'd also be much, much less inefficient at the state level. Heck, in terms of *statewide* socialized higher education, I'd probably even be a supporter, despite my minimalistic view of the federal government's Constitutional authority. Also, statewide programs would be so much more flexible and better for experimenting with new policies (and if any particular program proved to be effective, other states could learn from and compete with it; since people can move if things go to hell, that makes states much more accountable than the federal government). This whole "instate socialist programs for the WHOLE COUNTRY" fever has me questioning the motives of its proponents; after all, the only logical reason to target the federal level first is if you *already know* these programs would be miserable failures (i.e. "Let's implement this program at the least accountable level of government first so citizens will never have the power to stop it!").

query: Paul has raised a bunch of bucks for his run...where is he spending it - ? does his crew intend to actually launch a national campaign - ?

query: when a candidate withdraws from a presidential run what is supposed to become of his/her 'war chest' - ?

The immutable and irresistible forces of nature once again at work.

Joel spreads his Article V manure yet again, and, like so many Pavlovian Insecta, the Ron Paul flies swarm...

Ron Paul is a fake and a fraud! He will soon drop out of the race with the millions of dollars taken from the idiots that support him!

JOM

"query: when a candidate withdraws from a presidential run what is supposed to become of his/her 'war chest' - ?"

Depends on the laws of the state from whence the dinero came, troll.

Some states take it for themselves, some require the candidate return it to donors, others say it goes to party coffers, etc., etc.

query: Paul has raised a bunch of bucks for his run...where is he spending it - ? does his crew intend to actually launch a national campaign - ?

So far most of his campaign seems to be run, paid for and produced by grass roots folks outside of his campaign. One does have to wonder where his $25 mil in donations is going.

query: when a candidate withdraws from a presidential run what is supposed to become of his/her 'war chest' - ?

My understanding was that it could be rolled over into any other campaign undertaken within 2 years, even for a different office, but that may vary state by state.

Dave

interesting...what does that mean for internet bucks I wonder

Wouldn't internet lana also originate from one state or another?

But you raise another interesting question, to wit:

Who's accounting for money raised on the internet? Who audits?

Fake and a fraud my ass. His campaign has already spent over 12 MILLION of the over 20 million raised. The warchest is down to 8 million and needs to be restocked! MLK Day MoneyBomb!

Move Over Rush Limbaugh, it's Ron Paul Radio!

James, I think the Paul ship has already left the dock. Not much point in raising more money for a campaign which has already failed.

Dave