Frank --

lol, I think you're right that the Paulites have taken over the Fred Thompson message board.

I doubt that they put it up in the first place, though, I just don't think many people are interested enough in Thompson to comment on him, so the Paulites took it over as an agitprop gag.

It is sorta funny, I agree, but I'm an RP supporter so I may be biased :)

[A reader says his sane posts about Fred Thompson were removed, which seems to suggest it's run by Ron Paul supporters. Otherwise, there would be more posts on it from non-idiots. -Ed.]

I don't think the issue is that you are biased for being a RP supporter, but rather, that you are INSANE for being a RP supporter.

Francis,
I'm a long time reader of your IMHO blog and must comment that I don't think that the Fred Tomson Forum was created by Ron Paul supporters.
I am an avid Fred Tomson supporter but I must admit that some of the posters there make very good points about Ron Paul's policies...many of which not only mirror those of Fred Tomson but are actually closer to those of our founding fathers.
As I said, I'm NOT a Ron Paul supporter but I think that all serious people should perhaps listen to what his supporters are saying about him.

A Fred Tomson supporter (not a Ron Paul supporter)

Ron Paul supporters are not Glenn Greenwalds. That implies they have socks.

I embody all that is Libritarian, but libritarians are such nutjobs, I can't go near the party with a 50 foot pole.

Ron Paul says some of the dumbest stuff ever on TV. We can all sit down in a semi-circle, eat smores, and swap "Wouldn't it be great if..." stories, but none of them change the fact that Ron Paul probably invented cancer; and Fred Thompson, for some reason, allowed this.

Not that repubs are any better, but you just kinda expect talking points in lieu of thought from Repubs and Dems, so you can shrug it off.

This guy's supporters though... I'll bet they have a John Wayne Gacy bedroom sets.

How's this for a constitutional amendment to bring a little sanity to the voting process: If you can't spell the name of the candidate you support, you cannot vote. That's reasonable, no?

LMAO

I too have long read the blog IMBO and love what FrancisK writes here, as well as his loverly wife, SylviaR and, being not a Ron Paul supporter but a true-blue Fred Tompson supporter, but I have decided that Ron Paul would be better based on the fact that he really believes what Fred Tompson only says.
So take it from a Fred Tompson supporter, and longtime IMBO reader (I even have 3 Nuke Mars T-shirts!) and I say that the only hope for implementing the policies that Fred Tompson advocates (like nuking Mars) is to vote for Ron Paul.

And remember, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although, since he is so god-like and always right, I should probably be a Ron Paul supporter. And if you want the cool people (Like Fred Tompson) to like you, you should vote for Ron Paul.

It's what the Founding Fathers would want.

Yes, that was me. The previous not a ron paul supporter was too funny not to try to parody, although I think he was funnier. Unless that was a parody too, in which case, maybe I really am a Ron Paul supporter.

Check out this comment in a Libby thread

Plame's husband did this country a disservice because he reported the proof that Niger never sold any yellowcake to Iraq so they could make nukes. So what if Plame was in the CIA for 20 years, and tracking missing nukes, Libby is a hero for revealing her identity as punishment for Plame's husband's mistake. Let that be a lesson to all.

How many mistakes in there? Plenty. That's sad.

I also liked the thread about Fred!'s mother. The poster wonders if she's Jewish or Mexican.

It was definitely done by some brand of weenie, either ignorant liberals or Ron Paul supporters.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Ron Paul supporters prove Blair's Law.

Ron Paul Support? Is that liek a jock strap or something?

Veeshir,
It was me. Jeeeeze!!! What does that say when a parody of a group is indistinguishable from the real thing???

Ron Paul couldn't be anymore ridiculous, even if he wore a pair of rhinestone-encrusted, ostrich-skin, shiat-kickers and a 10 gallon tinfoil hat!

As an example, here's his take on the economy;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdgB5JpON1g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RRmZphe50qQ

Yeeee-haw!

What does that say when a parody of a group is indistinguishable from the real thing???

That's pretty darn funny FormerHostage. Your parody was so spot on that I had to parody it.

But now I'm worried, does that mean I really am a Ron Paul supporter? Am I going to start screaming "Fiat Money" like an economist with some bizarre form of tourette's syndrome?

Ron Paul Support? Is that liek a jock strap or something?

You know you're candidate's going down when even McCain polls better than him. :P

Isn't playing both the pro and con side of a political dispute a little like masturbation? I think it is. So there you have it, proof positive that Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of wankers.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Ron Paul is quickly becomming the L. Ron Hubbard of the Republican Party? He's not just a nut, he's a nut that pulls all free floating nuts into his own gravitational field, sort of like a planet Jupiter for the clinically insane.

I think I'll start refering to him as L. Ron Paul.

What Strikes me as interesting is the lack of any factual citation on what makes Ron Paul so ... nutty. You may disagree with his opinions, but I have yet to see any substantial debate over his positions. The only thing I see is 'OMGWTF he's a nut!' or 'LOLZ what a whackjob'. Merits of a candidate and ideas are more than simply who can out shout the other side with insults and denigration.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

[Is this quote in the crazy Ron Paul supporter handbook? I ridicule chimps at the zoo. Am I about to fight them, and are they about to win? Sometimes ridicule is just... ridicule. -Ed.]

Hmmm, sounds like Stage two to me.

With your trolling and flamebaiting, the lot of you wouldn't keep good karma for a week on slashdot. (and if you don't know what slashdot is, you should have your internet taken away from you and sent to your room without dinner!)

"What Strikes me as interesting is the lack of any factual citation on what makes Ron Paul so ... nutty. You may disagree with his opinions, but I have yet to see any substantial debate over his positions. The only thing I see is 'OMGWTF he's a nut!' or 'LOLZ what a whackjob'. Merits of a candidate and ideas are more than simply who can out shout the other side with insults and denigration."

You missed some fun times around here. It's only in a debate with Ron Paul supporters where I’ve ever been part of a group that managed to get called Zionist Kikes and Brownshirts within the same thread. In fact, I openly advocate having a Ron Paul post every once in a while to relive this. As far as why the guy's a nut: he says he would have been against the Korean War, he's advocated the North American Union conspiracy theories, and while (when you corner him on it) he says he doesn't believe 9/11 was a set-up - he toys around a lot with World Trade Center conspiracy guys and doesn't seem bothered at all by how many of them are in his camp.

My own politics are pretty libertarian and to be honest, I actually did respect the guy, even after he came out against the Iraq War, for at least standing on principal. Because of that, I try not to be a dick to supporters of his that are both sane and civil. The conspiracy theories, though, were the last straw. [I’m sorry, the guy goes on Alex Jones Show and if that isn’t the definition of a nut I don’t know what is.]

RP supporters trying to hijack a Fred Thompson site. Not very smart.

Lol, speaking of forums, I made the mistake of taking a Ron Paul supporter seriously on another forum and got into a pages long argument with him.

It all started when I told the Ron Paulbot not to waste his vote on someone who would never make it past the primary (I know, I know, the man is frothing at the mouth...my mistake) and to vote for Fred Thompson, hehe. He came back with "Fred Thompson is a tool of the CFR and he is going to create a North American Union and change the dollar to the amero and have government stormtroopers break into your house and molest your children!"

I actually did some research on this before realize that the only places touting this nonsense also carried banner ads for the 9/11 truthers. Alarm bells then went off in my head. I tried showing him why conspiracy theories like his were logically flawed. He spewed more Ron Paulisms that his programmers input into him. I gave up after a couple of hours, because I realized that you can't reason with a crazy person...you can only mock them.

With regards to the Ron Paul Supporters I say:

"You can't talk to a psycho like a normal human being!"

As for 'Why is Ron Paul a nut?' Let me count the ways:

1. Ron Paul believes "There's no evidence that he's (Ahmedinajad) developing a nuclear bomb"

2. Ron Paul advocates crippling the CIA by denying them authorization to run black ops.

3. Ron Paul believes in Global Warming. (Paging Mr. Gore...)

4. Ron Paul advocates reinstating the Gold Standard.

5. Ron Paul advocates American withdrawl from the United Nations, which of course would cause us to lose our veto on the UN Security Council.

6. Ron Paul believes the North American Union poses a greater threat to America than Iranian aggression.

7. Ron Paul opposes any kind of national ID on the basis the it will create "an Orwellian world of no privacy" in America.

8. Ron Paul supports the immediate and unconditional withdrawl of American forces from Iraq, consequences be d@mned.

But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a "dis-information agent and here to sabatouge the Fred Head movement" wearing my "TIN FOIL HAT!!!"

#

As a scientist working at Los Almost nuclear labs I have never voted for a Republican, but Ron Paul is so true to the contry and all his ideas are really keen I plan on voting for him.
I also am president of the west-coast ammature rocket club so I am also a rocket scientist.

You should vote for him two.

Signed
Dr. Trevor Smartguy, PhD, BS, LLC

As the world's foremost philosopher and quasi-historial figure, I have always been a supporter of my fellow demi-god, Fred Thompson.

But noting that Ron Paul topped the Technorati tags list for weeks, it may be that he is also a superhuman who deserves my attention. After all, he is the oldest of the candidates, so perhaps he is immortal like Fred and I.

(In case you can't see through the dripping irony, I've always wondered if Congressman Paul's Technorati tags rank was astroturfed. I think it is. More popular than "iphone"? Videos? Paris (frickin') Hilton?

It's either astroturfed or Technorati is on the take.

The only thing you need to know about Fred Thompson is that he's anti-gun. Oh, he talks big, but he votes against gun owners. Just check with GOA - he's anti-gun on over 40% of his gun votes. There are DEMOCRATS that have a better gun record than that.

Ron Paul ain't perfect, but I've shaken the man's hand while openly carrying a cocked-and-locked 1911. Try that with ANY other candidate. There's only one Republican candidate who is pro-gun. If you're pro-gun, you'll vote for him. A vote for anyone else (including Thomspon) is as good as shaking hands with Sarah Brady.

[I thought the mentally ill couldn't have guns? -Ed.]

If that's the case, Ed., Fred Thomspon must consider all Americans mentall ill, huh?

Seriously, you talk big about guns, so why would you support someone who is anti-gun? I guess actions speak louder than words... Personally, I'll vote for someone who took an oath to serve and his country and defend the Constitution, and then actually did those things.

But, more to the point, I'll vote for someone who isn't in bed with the anti-gun moonbats. That gives me only one choice in the available candidates, doesn't it?

If that's the case, Ed., Fred Thomspon must consider all Americans mentall ill, huh?

Seriously, you talk big about guns, so why would you support someone who is anti-gun? I guess actions speak louder than words... Personally, I'll vote for someone who took an oath to serve and his country and defend the Constitution, and then actually did those things.

But, more to the point, I'll vote for someone who isn't in bed with the anti-gun moonbats. That gives me only one choice in the available candidates, doesn't it?

[But Ron Paul is in bed with Communists and the evil lesbian cabal. I read that somewhere... -Ed.]

Calling Fred Thompson anti-gun is sorta like saying fiat money really doesn't bother L. ron paul.

RE: Fred! being anti-gun, look at some of the actual bills the GOA based their ratings on. A waiting period on handguns is "anti-gun"? A background check before selling guns is "anti-gun"? Requiring that people with kids secure their guns so kids can't shoot themselves is "anti-gun"? I think we're getting our definitions out of whack:

* DC banning all personal ownership of handguns was anti-gun.
* Maryland requiring definitive proof of an imminent threat to your life is anti-gun.
* Disallowing personal ownership of functional bazookas, hand grenades, high explosives, etc. is *not* anti-gun, it's just common sense.
* Taxing gun sales at non-punitive levels is not necessarily anti-gun, though it could be used in such a way.
* Requiring simple background/sanity checks ("Did this guy ever spend time in a mental hospital", "Is this a violent felon?", etc.) is not anti-gun, though I suppose it could be used in such a way.

Looking at percentage-based scores like these can often mislead people. When you look at Fred!'s actual gun-issue voting record, I at least personally feel that it lines up with my beliefs quite well. And the guy's foreign policy doesn't have America curling up in a little armadillo-ball for the next twenty years, which is more than I can say for some people.

James: feeling that way makes you anti-gun, too. Everything you say is "minor" are the very things that the Brady nutcases and their friends want to use to completely ban all firearms from private ownership. That's not "conspiracy theories"... these nuts openly admit that their goals in passing such laws are to use them as a gateway to banning all firearms.

Regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy, you might want to check out which Congressman tried to get a formal declaration of war against the terrorist nations like Afghanistan and Iraq, so we could actually fight a war instead of some silly "police action." Americans soldiers win wars. Americans soldiers don't do so well at impersonating SWAT teams, because that's not what they are. Supporting the troops means letting them fight as soldiers in a WAR, not expecting them to walk a policeman's beat.

You also might want to find out which Congressman tried to get Congress to give the President authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal agaisnt terrorists. If you don't know your Constitution, that refers to a bounty on people or propery of an enemy. Everyone else in Congress seems to have throught that was "mean" or something, because putting bounties on the heads of known terrorists wouldn't be nice...

Too bad most Fred Heads are too old and arthritic to get their on their walkers and attend a fred meetup.

They can't even get their old pentium-75s running mosaic over to fredthompsonforum to vote in their poll.

Like Ron says in his amazing Vegas speech, freedom has been successfully passed down to a new generation!

I admit it, I'm a FRED THOMPSON ADDICT.

Every day, I need to look at Fred's picture and reassure myself with his manly visage. Who could resist having a man crush on that square jawed titan. Look at those broad shoulders, ready to carry the burdens of the Wars on Terror, Drugs, Poverty, and Hate.

I swoon at the chance to vote for a real life TV star. There's just something about him that seems better than Ron Paul. I just get the feeling that Fred is more of a law and order candidate.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I can with a sound mind understand that the odds are stacked against him winning. He is hated (due to his congressional record for only voting for laws that pass contitutional muster), and at the same time feared, by the GOP, so that provides for an uphill battle in itself. Paul's presence in the race is important, however, because he puts issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone makes them far more substantive and interesting than they've been in a generation. One example is the Patriot Act, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage.

Ron Paul is more than just a conservative seeking office, he is a leader teaching us a nearly forgotten way of life with long lost ideas of liberty and responsibility, of truth and humility. His thoughts resonate with millions of Americans who yearn for the solid, honest, small-government, pro-peace party that the Republicans can become once again.

As for Fred Thompson, I don't see the substance. He comes across as someone who is just using shallow political talking points as opposed to someone who truly believes, and has truly backed-up, what he says - like Ron Paul has.

Is Ron Paul perfect? Am I a nut because I support Ron Paul from what I wrote above? Neither is the case, and Ron Paul is not perfect by any means. He probably won't win, but you never know, and he has my vote. That being said, If Ron Paul were not in the race, Thompson might well get my vote.

Per the below link, Ron Paul has shown himself to be an eloquent speaker and debater.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8