George Phillies— you seem respectable in many of your other posts and I wish you well in your Libertarian presidential candidacy if it comes to that. But stop trying to attack Ron Paul, because he is obviously a good and honest man and people will not respect you for attacking him.

Just picked up a major endorsement from a Houston media figure today.

I’m also getting pledges for significant financial contributions for the race.

Check out www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

Thanks

Phillies is a good activist, but he’s totally not getting my support or my vote. He’s 1/10th the candidate that Ron Paul is. Ron Paul gets the message out. Phillies is screaming in the wilderness and he’s wrong on the most important issue. I look forward to seeing who the CP puts up… assuming that Dr. Paul doesn’t get the nomination.

Phillies wants to try and be critical of Dr. Paul for his lack of purism. Well, I levy that same charge upon Phillies.

Phillies—-you’re an idiot. A.) Ron Paul is like 100 times the candidate you are. He has 100 times the exposure. He has 100 times the cash. 100 times the name recognition. He Infinitely more experience (compared to 0) than you also. He is our Cincinattus. He speaks Truth when none else dare. Yes, the label beside his name says R. Guess what? I can think of more than a few candidates with L beside their names (or who want the L beside their names) who do not line up with Libertarian thought. Ron Paul is our FIRST real shot. He is the first small-government advocate to run since BARRY GOLDWATER (even though i’m not his BIGGEST fan, he did want smaller government).
B.)Ron Paul supporting a particular Republican over a particular Libertarian means nothing about how much he supports the LP. Perhaps the candidate was a personal friend? Perhaps Paul knew something you didn’t? Obviously he had a reason. He doesn’t “Toe the line” for the party, and he doesn’t promote individuals he disagrees with…so obviously there is a variable you aren’t seeing (I know. Hard to believe…). You are small, to attack such a great man. I hope Kubby (or anyone. Including Root) smushes you at the LP Convention. You’ve shown yourself to be, not a freedom lover, but a partisan hack. Ron Paul can do more to advance the cause of Liberty than anyone else on the National stage right now. And not in a “lesser of two evils” kind of way.
C.)Ron Paul won’t win. Almost all of us admit this. So its a strategical error for you to say something against him. He enjoys Libertarian/Conservative support nationwide. Let’s say he does well in the primaries but doesn’t win. Now you COULD siphon off his votes, by attaining an endorsement. If he got 15% in a Texas primary—you could now gain around 15% of the vote in Texas EASILY. I’ll make sure that never happens. I’m going to personally email Ron Paul’s staff right now to alert him of your opposition. Perhaps you won’t care…but your party will.

An offhanded comment defending the right of a racist group to exist does not make one racist. Attending an event hosted by a racist group shows a severe lack of judgement, though. I defend the right of Nazis to exist, but I wouldn’t want to be within 100 yards of one.

Mr. Benedict, who wears the false colors of being an LNC member, is actually supporting a Republican in the current Presidential race, and has given that candidate $600. He boasts of this on his web site

http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-600-says-ron-paul-presidential.html

Mr. Benedict’s candidate, Ron Paul, sent a letter to a large number of CA voters, some elections ago, urging them to vote for the Republican rather than the Libertarian candidate in the race.

In the Presidential race, Mr. Benedict’s candidate always refers to himself as a “conservative” (See the candidate’s fundraising mailings.) The candidate in question is running on far right-wing issues, such as abandoning the United Nations treaty, revoking Roe vs. Wade, and “This is not immigration! It is an invasion!”

As one of your potential Presidential candidates, I look forward to thrashing whichever Republican gets their nomination, and Mr. Benedict’s candidate gives a real Libertarian plenty of ammunition, such as the erroneous Republican ideas noted above. That goes equally for the Democratic candidate. Mind you, the Republicans who are above 1% in the aggregate polls are even better targets.

George Phillies
http://www.phillies2008.com

May 18th, 2007 at 12:58 am
I would love to see this quote Ron Paul supposedly said…
I believe what he said was, “the LoS should have every right to say what it wants, when it wants, to who is wants”. He is not supportive of the LoS.”

I think that I know the “quote” that is being refered to as there was a controversy about this a few years back. The the “quote” did NOT come from Ron Paul, it was somebody who was working on his campaign.

Kris, Ron Paul did not say this at the Libertarian Party of Texas 2004 or 2006 State Convention at which he was a featured speaker. In fact, at both events he said the Libertarian Party played an important role. In those speaches he did not encourage Libertarians like me to leave the Libertarian Party and join the Republican Party. He was a major motivator for Libertarian Party members.

Where do you get your information?
—Wes Benedict, Executive Director, Libertarian Party of Texas, June 2004 Convention to present

You should join Michelle Malkin in your attempts to slander Ron with the conspiracy 9/11 crowd. Ron, NOONE else, had the audacity to suggest that our foreign policy of constant intervention, intrigue, and involvement in the middle east, not to mention 10 years of bombing and starvation, had something to do with the attackon 9/11.
Rudy, jumping on the grenade before McCain could get both hands on his helmet, called such a suggestion “ABSURD” He still believes “they” hate us because of our freedom and triple cheeseburgers. Great leader he’ll be can’t even handle cause/effect thinking.

You should join Michelle Malkin in your attempts to slander Ron with the conspiracy 9/11 crowd. Ron, NOONE else, had the audacity to suggest that our foreign policy of constant intervention, intrigue, and involvement in the middle east, not to mention 10 years of bombing and starvation, had something to do with the attackon 9/11.

Republicans would be wise to highlight his connections to the LoS – especially guys like Giuliani who have no chance in the south to begin with. Ron Paul’s numbers in these text polls – fueled by Democrats – would drop in an instant, and he would be out of the limelight.

May 17th, 2007 at 11:00 am
My “mental illness” is called support for liberty.”

LOL! I’ll have to come back later and post the links to the radio programs that Eric Donder appeared on with George Phillies and Harry Browne so people can listen to the temper tantrums that he threw. This is certainly evidence of mental illness.

The League of the South, under its founder Dr. Hill, is most emphatically a white- or more properly, “Anglo-Celtic”- supremacist group. Cross-membership between the League and other organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan or the White Citizens’ Committees of the 1960s and 1970s is well-documented. Among its stances is a call for revocation of civil rights for females and non-whites, restoration of laws against miscegenation, and expulsion of all non-white immigrants. Ron Paul has, in the past, openly supported the League’s work to “defend their culture against attack.”

Yes, I was once a secessionist, but I was never a member of any organized secessionist group. The organizations I looked into tended to be flawed- founded by crooks, racist, or anti-republican- and they all shared the same blind spot: they all believed that the federal government would sit still and do nothing in the event of a successful secession movement. My position was, and is, that secession is only possible with the prior consent of the government being seceded from- otherwise it means war.

The thing which finally turned me against secession was the realization that, if Texas for example seceded, it would be people like George Bush and Tom deLay- intolerant, anti-freedom corrupt religious zealots- who would shape the new nation, not freedom-minded people like myself. The result would be a system of laws much, much worse than the status quo.

And finally, if you want a different good reason for Libertarians to shun Ron Paul: in 2000 and 2004, among other years, he spoke before Libertarian crowds and urged them to vote Republican rather than Libertarian, claiming that the Republicans were more effective at defending liberty. That means, indirectly, he asked us to vote for George W. Bush.

Ron Paul was right on the money, in an incoherent way, about the causes of 9/11. He’s wrong as hell about supporting the GOP.