Read the two 1996 news articles quoted. Paul spoke in the first person as the author of the pieces and defended their content.

Who is Ron Paul a threat to?

Oh and I had “liberty papers” in my favorites thinking you actually knew what you were talking about. Oops, boy was I wrong about that. You ought to actually read what you write, but I suggest you do it in front of the toilet and then flush after you go, because your full of shit.

http://vdare.com/sailer/080113_paul.htm

Not the end all but a bit of balance.

I vote for virtue; I vote for Ron Paul.

Phil Manger wrote:
“However, I am not so naive as to think that this will mollify the Beltway libertarians. In their writings on this controversy, I’ve detected a barely suppressed undercurrent of glee, as if they’re trying to keep from shouting “Aha! Gotcha now!” They say they are concerned about what all this is doing to the reputation of libertarianism — although, it seems to me they’re more concerned about what it’s doing to their own standing in Georgetown — but I think they doth protest too much.”

“If the Beltway libertarians are really concerned about the reputation of libertarianism, let them take a look at what they’re saying about Ron Paul over on the Left. Although they like his antiwar, pro-freedom message, a lot of the bloggers over there don’t care for the fact that he’s a libertarian. You see, they equate libertarianism with the Cato Institute. And to them, Cato is just another D. C. think tank laboring in the service of the corporate elites.”
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1108.html

Despite the fact that our most recent tribal war is a little petty (largely on my part) I will say that I think one of the strengths of libertarians of all types (crazy or not) is our willingness to publicly air our differences over policy as it does help keep us honest. Corruption breeds behind closed doors or where dissent is discouraged after all, as we’ve seen with the GOP over the last decade.

Help yourself…I wasn’t entirely joking about it :)

C. Bowen,

I’d have responded to your post earlier but I was busy testing out the Paulestinian Drinking Game and I passed out after reading through one of Doug’s older articles. By the way, your last comment violated Rule 6: Utterly unintelligible comment = one shot (hard liquor).

And you are a tool.

His primer on the varieties of libertarianism is also useful, if oversimplified.

I smell BS.

Hence the term “Paulestinian” by the way…it’s not meant as a blanket term for all Ron Paul supporters, just the unintelligibly crazy ones.

I like it…here are a few more I thought of.

Rule 2: Every buzzword from the aforementioned Paulestinian dictionary = 1 drink.
Rule 3: Any comments that blatantly misstates Ron Paul policy position = 1 drink.
Rule 4: Any post that claims Ron Paul will, if elected, have ability to single-handedly change government = finish your beer
Rule 5: Any comment that claims Ron Paul possesses actual supernatural or magical powers = must immediately consume all alcoholic beverages in room.

R. Merz,

It’s okay we realize that not all Paul supporters are insane…heck I am one and I’ve defended Paul quite a few times in Doug’s comment threads. But I’ll admit that every once in awhile on a weekend or slow newsday it’s fun to go on a troll hunt :)