OK, I have tried to investigate this before, but I still have no answers. So I will try it again.
Let's start with what I am seeing issue-wise; we will look at his presidential campaign later.
Ron Paul believes in the following things:
Personal Beliefs
Abortion is morally wrong.
Christianity is his religion.
He is personally frugal.
He is a doctor and believes that life is precious.
Americans have a right to keep what they earn.
Political Beliefs
Government should serve the people.
Americans should not be afraid of the government.
Americans should take care of their own first.
Government should be efficient and minimally invasive.
Control of communities should be local.
Business can be self-regulating and consumers have power.
Americans should not be afraid of the government.
Americans should take care of their own first.
Government should be efficient and minimally invasive.
Control of communities should be local.
Business can be self-regulating and consumers have power.
I am sure there are other points of view and ways to word his beliefs, but I think these are the ones that are pertinent to the discussion. At least these are the ones I see that seem to be most disputed on blogs, social networks, etc. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but they align with my beliefs enough for me to think he is the best candidate for the job.
The 2008 presidential campaign throws more wrenches in the works. The grassroots movement around the Paul campaign has inspired his followers to expand the it into all available mediums. From skywriting to simple signs, but mostly on the Internet.
I think the "saturation" of the 'Net by Ron's supporters has just fanned the flames of "Paul hate". Ron has many opponents who do not believe that a free market is safe for consumers, that people do need the Federal government to help them in their lives, that wealth should be re-distributed in some ways, etc. Many have found reasons to attack him, even before the presidential campaign.
So that leads me to wonder if his sudden popularity AND the rising tide of Internet interest is causing the issue. I know there are some on networking sites who spend much of their time attempting to make Paul posts popular, but there seems to be an effort to also do the opposite. My question, beyond the root of the hate, also attempts to expose the positions of the "haters". Do they have a position? Are their actions purely anti-Paul? Or is there a real end to their means (other than defeating Ron Paul)?
To the "haters": If you don't want Paul, is there something else you do want? If so, I do not see it being voiced on the Internet. In the event that you are endorsing some other candidate, why not just do that? Why is it necessary to attempt to discredit Ron Paul and his followers?
Leave some answers here in the comments. Obviously, I am a Paul supporter, but I am still interested in some answers. They won't change my mind, but they may give me some insight into the voter pool and what drives them.
The 2008 presidential campaign throws more wrenches in the works. The grassroots movement around the Paul campaign has inspired his followers to expand the it into all available mediums. From skywriting to simple signs, but mostly on the Internet.
I think the "saturation" of the 'Net by Ron's supporters has just fanned the flames of "Paul hate". Ron has many opponents who do not believe that a free market is safe for consumers, that people do need the Federal government to help them in their lives, that wealth should be re-distributed in some ways, etc. Many have found reasons to attack him, even before the presidential campaign.
So that leads me to wonder if his sudden popularity AND the rising tide of Internet interest is causing the issue. I know there are some on networking sites who spend much of their time attempting to make Paul posts popular, but there seems to be an effort to also do the opposite. My question, beyond the root of the hate, also attempts to expose the positions of the "haters". Do they have a position? Are their actions purely anti-Paul? Or is there a real end to their means (other than defeating Ron Paul)?
To the "haters": If you don't want Paul, is there something else you do want? If so, I do not see it being voiced on the Internet. In the event that you are endorsing some other candidate, why not just do that? Why is it necessary to attempt to discredit Ron Paul and his followers?
Leave some answers here in the comments. Obviously, I am a Paul supporter, but I am still interested in some answers. They won't change my mind, but they may give me some insight into the voter pool and what drives them.
