Are Ron Paul supporters the most obnoxious people ever on the internet?

Question

I think they are worse than SPAM e-mail. They like Ron Paul...ok, we get it already.

Answer 1

Yes, and his name reminds me of that transvestite Rupaul.

Answer 2

Yes, we like Ron Paul, but he has a 25% rating of people of who actually know who he is. It's not that no one else likes him, it's that 75% of America has no clue who he is. When people do find out about him, they often like his stances, or even wholeheartedly support him. Look at Romney, who is "top tier". He only has a 40% recognition rating. You know that Ron Paul could do better - if the media did it's job, and the fact that he has some money now to help himself get known.

I can see why you would be annoyed by some who actually have passion for a politician. I was once like you, thinking that there was no one really qualified for the job, or any different than the other schlubs that are running. As long as you can see that our country faces some major problems, that will affect our generation as well as future... you too will scramble to find change.

That change might be Obama for you, or Huckabee for another, but it's definitely not Hillary or Giuliani. Those two are there only because mass media put them there Those two are like trying to buy the same thing that everyone else is wearing, so you fit in. It feels comfortable to just fit in and not think of better options. They are mentioned 90 times a day, and the others are probably less than once an hour or even day. So who's spamming? Supporters that actually are a much broader scope of the population, or the news and talk radio, who have an agenda?

You know what is obnoxious? Is people that have multiple accounts on YA, and post a question, that they answer themselves, or post twice in the same area, with the same message, and high-five each other. Not saying it's you, I've called a couple people out on it. I usually get blocked, but at least I know, and let others know. It's usually Romney or Clinton supporters, or supporters of illegal aliens in America.

Sorry if we come off as obnoxious, but try and step into our shoes for a bit. Especially sage, who's been thoughtfully replied to, with Paul information and rebuttals before, but can only look down at the thumbs down he seems to get.

Answer 3

Perhaps some are obnoxious, but perhaps there is good reason for our enthusiasm.

We are excited to have a candidate who actually answers questions directly, who seems to understand the concept of individual freedom, and who has demonstrated the integrity to vote based on correct principles instead of compromise.

I think the enthusiasm also comes from the ability to have our voice heard through the internet instead of having it squelched through more traditional media.

Answer 4

I think we have a voice... and some just won't listen. It's perfectly okay to have a voice. Maybe, if you just listen to it, you will realize that there is something wrong with the policy in the country at the moment.

The enthusiasm is growing and I don't think it will stop growing unti the elections are well over.

By the way, get off of Yahoo answers and do something else if you're so fed up with it!

Answer 5

It's possible that some are.. but you shouldn't generalize.. I've been an avid Paul/Biden supporter for awhile, but in no way do I try to force my opinion on anyone else. I understand the point that you are trying to make.. and I agree, I wish more Paul supporters would stick to addressing the issues.. At this point the best I can offer you is to apologize for their behavior… For the most part, I try to remain civil towards people, but it's a bit difficult, when people have already labeled you or your candidate "crazy." If I disagree with a candidate's stances, I don't resort to name calling or insulting their supporters. I respect your opinion, as long as you can extend me the same courtesy.


EDIT: SageandScholar, Why do you make the assumption that we rely solely on sound bites? I believe Paul supporters have already clarified every one of your claims..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar1qGiZZS1br8xQyunzpk37ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071028220606AAt5uoE&show=7#profile-info-fc2690aeec9db9853d4d4beee2b603b7aa


I hope you respond this time..


Edit: SageandScholar, I didn't just randomly pick this out, because you didn't respond... This is your last answer that I posted a response to, that's why.. Second you dismiss anything I say as "cheap points" I may disagree with you, but I don't just brush of your input.. In fact, I have done my research on your very claim, and have found that it is arguable, especially considering that one of the links you provided in another question, STATED that it is a quasi-governmental/quasi-private banking system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

And what about this case:
"LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency
within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed."


To address your current comments:

The list of nominees are chosen from a list provided to the president by the Federal Reserve. You said "It's range and scope is determined by congress and it is answerable to congress and audited by the GAO." Audited in what way? What answers does it give to Congress? Can you elaborate? The Fed makes money directly "because of federal legal tender laws and it's own policies such as the reserve ratio that it sets for itself, or the interest rates that it sets for itself, whereas other contractors actually have to perform a service and generally have to bid for the opportunity to provide that service." You said " To return to gold is a recipe for disaster. We have been forced to drop such a system every time we have had any sort of shock to the economy." Before 1913, we had used a flat currency a few times before war, there were little shocks, not many.. South African mining companies? see link: http://www.gold.org/value/markets/su...roduction.html What effect can they have on our currency? little to none.. I'd like to add a point that someone brought up earlier.. Paul is for creating a competing currency backed by gold. "He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent inflation, but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[79] He supports parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets, competing on a level playing field with the Federal Reserve fiat dollar." -wiki

On a side note, I have already told you several times, that I do appreciate that you have obviously looked into him somewhat, I just wish you wouldn’t hold onto misconceptions.. I hope you take my clarifications into consideration this time, instead of just dismissing them as "cheap points" thanks for your time

Answer 6

Ron Paul is getting a lot of support from internet users because of his excellent views on critical issues.

VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.

Answer 7

Not any worse that the main stream media cramming their chosen few down our throats everytime I turn them on.

At least Ron Paul is someone worth voting for.

Hell, you can't go anywhere on the net without seeing one of those other POS...talk about spam.

Answer 8

My problem with Ron Paul supporters is their attitude. Although I tentatively support Edwards, I can understand the factors that would drive a person to support Clinton, Obama, Richardson, or even Huckabee, Giuliani, Tancredo, or McCain. And I respect that they have looked at the facts and made an informed decision based on their own personal values.

The problem with RP supporters is that they, to a man, seem to believe that anyone who does not support Ron Paul is a fascist. It's one thing to think that you are right, it's another thing to think that you are the ONLY people who are right.

Answer 9

If you're candidate was being shut out by the mainstrem media maybe you would take every forum possible to talk about him.

70-80% of the people in this country have the same opinion of big government that he does. (So we are trying to inform them)

Except if you're from New York or California, the pseudo-intellectual states.

Answer 10

Yes, for the most part.

The whole revolution thing, I know people that are buying Kevlar, and weapons becasue they believe if RonPaul does not win there will be a revolution!

Answer 11

Hi C C-I can see why you say that. I would not have agreed a few months ago, but it is getting really tiresome. When he first declared I know little about him and the postings here were informative. Now all we get is : "vote for Ron Paul." Like that's going to be a reality? He won't get the nomination, so if the posters here are such big supporters of Ron Paul they should be leaving their homes and volunteering in the early primary states. I'm serious about that, too. Some of the candidates have volunteers from their home states working Iowa as we speak. I live in a late primary state so it won 't matter, but where are the thoughtful postings telling me exactly why I should support a candidate who cannot and will not win? Where's a list of his position on all the issues? Why is he a Republican instead of following his conscience and running as a libertarian or independent, which is what he truly espouses? Anyway--yeah, you're right, it's getting really tedious.