[quote]lixy wrote:
A very good illustration of the degree of disinformation are the numerous polls showing substantial proportions of Americans believed Saddam was involved with Al-Qaeda and
[/quote]
lixy, today’s lesson: SADDAM WAS HARBORING AND INVOLVED WITH AL QAEDA.
See my post to pookie from today. You can’t miss it, it’s in lovely capitals.
I used the times because you’ve said you trust it.
JeffR
[quote]Vegita wrote:
JeffR wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Usually passion for a candidate is a good thing.
However, you guys pervert it into something pretty creepy.
It’s almost like a drug addiction. You just can’t see how wrong it is.
JeffR
The unusual passion shown for Ron Paul by his supporters is likely due to the extreme differences between him and the rest of the candidates of both parties. To many, this is “such a breath of fresh air” that an abundance of genuine excitement is created in return.
Perhaps we’ve become so accustomed to the insignificant amount of enthusiasm political candidates generate that when great enthusiasm is eventually displayed for a given politician it appears “unnatural”, making others feel uncomfortable in the process? However, it should be acknowledged that it isn’t so much Ron Paul himself as it is his ideas, which are extremely appealing to those completely unsatisfied with the status-quo.
cloak,
I disagree with your assertion to some degree. While I acknowledge that the impressionable amongst us might think “ABOLISH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT” is a great idea, I think there are some creepy factors in play.
The vast majority of these guys are Rage Against the Machiners. It’s the, “My Dad doesn’t like me so I’m going to be a rebel without a cause.”
Don’t believe me?
Pick one of these moRon’s and ask them directly about the ramifications of one of ron paul’s proposals.
You will quickly discover that not only are ron paul’s ideas untenable, but, his supporters haven’t thought through the ramifications.
Again, pick one of these fanatics and ask direct questions.
It’s drug addiction/rebellion/Rage Against the Machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ron paul is right on the issues.
JeffR
Jeff,
I am a bit surprised at your loyalty to the system. First off you know me and I have been on your side in many political debate in the past. In fact there was a time when I was one of your only allies on this board.
Let me point out. I am 28 an insurance agent for 9 years and am currently going to school to become a nurse. Which means I work 40 hours a week and put in 20+ hours a week on nights and weekends and still have 3 more years to go to get my certification. Also I am a republican, and voted for bush twice, even though I wasn’t thrilled about him, I thought kerry would have been much worse. I am not a 16 year old crackpot or weed smoker or any of the other derogitory terms you have used to classify Ron Pauls Supporters. In Fact, I have been talking to many rational democrats and republicans who I know through business, school and other aspects of my life I.E. friends at a private Country Club with a membership fee of 3,000+ per year depending on age. This group of people can hardly be considered fringe or uneducated or loony. Half of these people are blue bloods, and when they take an honest look at Ron Paul and his policies, many are intrigued, some believe in his message but don’t give him a credible chance to win, (yet) and still others have decided to be active supporters.
You really bit hard on the main street medias classification of ron paul supporters and for this I am a little dissapointed in you. Why don’t you go talk to a few ron paul supporters in your area, go to a meetup, see what they are all about. You may be surprised that the majority are honest hardworking americans who are sick and tired of the status quo and just want the government to go fuck off.
Nobody can argue about the long term ramifications of any foreign policy because look at what we thought would happen in Iraq, we would be recieved as liberators, even I believed it. But the reality is that we were wrong about how others would recieve us and our tanks and guns. I am willing to take a chance on letting people react to our peace and friendship for a while, it honestly can’t get any worse.
V[/quote]
Vegita,
That was a thoughtful post. You and Mike are the reason that I didn’t include every paul supporter in my post as being naive and irresponsible. You’ll see my use of the “>>>.”
Now, I would like you to take one of ron paul’s major campaign slogans.
I want you to pick. That way I won’t be accused of cherry-picking.
Let’s you and I digest it’s meaning and it’s likely consequences.
If I know you, I’ll bet you’ll be shocked at what we find.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Usually passion for a candidate is a good thing.
However, you guys pervert it into something pretty creepy.
It’s almost like a drug addiction. You just can’t see how wrong it is.
JeffR
The unusual passion shown for Ron Paul by his supporters is likely due to the extreme differences between him and the rest of the candidates of both parties. To many, this is “such a breath of fresh air” that an abundance of genuine excitement is created in return.
Perhaps we’ve become so accustomed to the insignificant amount of enthusiasm political candidates generate that when great enthusiasm is eventually displayed for a given politician it appears “unnatural”, making others feel uncomfortable in the process? However, it should be acknowledged that it isn’t so much Ron Paul himself as it is his ideas, which are extremely appealing to those completely unsatisfied with the status-quo.
cloak,
I disagree with your assertion to some degree. While I acknowledge that the impressionable amongst us might think “ABOLISH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT” is a great idea, I think there are some creepy factors in play.
The vast majority of these guys are Rage Against the Machiners. It’s the, “My Dad doesn’t like me so I’m going to be a rebel without a cause.”
Don’t believe me?
Pick one of these moRon’s and ask them directly about the ramifications of one of ron paul’s proposals.
You will quickly discover that not only are ron paul’s ideas untenable, but, his supporters haven’t thought through the ramifications.
Again, pick one of these fanatics and ask direct questions.
It’s drug addiction/rebellion/Rage Against the Machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ron paul is right on the issues.
JeffR[/quote]
I think Rage Against the Machine is cheesy and my dad is great.
Pick a proposal.
So anyways, who is actually voting rather than endlessly debating on the en-turnets?
If not for Ron Paul then for who and why?
I’ll be voting for him if he’s still around by the time California’s primary takes place. I’ll do so for basically three reasons. First, of the available choices, his political philosophy most approximates my own. Second, he’s one of the only candidates who answers questions in a straight forward manner.
And, frankly, I’m tired of candidates hemming and hawing and spewing out crap that only resembles answers – I just want someone to be honest with me. Lastly, the Republican party is in the shitter, and I see Ron Paul as a solution. The mainstream Republican party doesn’t deserve to win this election, in my opinion. They’ve lied to me enough; they sold themselves as “small government conservatives” and we all bought it. How has that worked out for us?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s either Ron Paul or a democrat, because I’ll be damned if I’m going to validate the current direction of the Republican party with my vote. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything – not by a long shot – but then again, even if he wins (and he wont) he hasn’t a chance in hell of getting a majority of his policies passed.
He would be a limit and correcting agent, and with all hope, he’d put the fear of god in the Republican party that they wont, in the future, jerk me off with a bunch of “small government” talk, only to govern as the reincarnation of LBJ.
Magnate wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Me, but not in the New York State primaries - just in the general election. I will not be 18 years old by the time NYS Primary runs through.
OH NO, I’m a teenager. I clearly fall under the realm of crazed paulies that only vote for him because we are on some rebellious, meth enhanced tirade against a daddy that didn’t love us.
Not close to being the case for me, might be for some though, I’m sure in any group of 100,000 people + you could find someone with a checkered past and family issues. Actually, I like Ron Paul because I realize full well that the chances of me ever being mailed a social security check are nil, yet I will have to pay into it for many years under our current system.
I like the idea of scrapping the system in it’s entirety, although the simple option to opt out of paying into it and thus be disqualified from any benefits is a compromise I would be happy with. I support him because of his idea of legalizing a competitive gold/silver based currency domestically, his desire to ditch the Fed (along with distancing the USA from international banking organizations like the WTO and World Bank).
I especially like his philosophy on the role of government in private life - none. He respects the privacy of citizens (I am specifically referring to his stance on the War on Drugs, but his view on privacy obviously reaches farther than just what anyone chooses to put into their body.) Before me mentioning drugs becomes ammo for some Rage Against the Machiner/Stoner comment, I have been sober for over 2 years and do not intend on using any drugs (exceptions being prescription drugs and steroids/PEDs) in my future. And Rage Against the Machine isn’t a band I listen to.
He clearly respects a person’s right to do as they wish to themselves more than any other candidate in my opinion, and for that alone I would write him in (big whoop, won’t mean shit).
His foreign policy is an exercise in naivety, but we can all dream that the world was that easy to handle - and frankly, I’m ok with pretending the Middle East is somebody else’s problem for a few years. Can we get China to cover our shift? He can’t possibly get done half of what he’d like to, obviously - but that’s fine, most never do all they promise.
Given that I can only vote in the general election, Hillary gets credit for my vote (hooray Blue states…) no matter which lever I pull. I’m just going to write in Ron Paul (There won’t be a lever with his name on it, I have no delusion that he will make it to the general).
.
.edit
[quote]Magnate wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
So anyways, who is actually voting
Me, but not in the New York State primaries - just in the general election. I will not be 18 years old by the time NYS Primary runs through.
OH NO, I’m a teenager. I clearly fall under the realm of crazed paulies that only vote for him because we are on some rebellious, meth enhanced tirade against a daddy that didn’t love us.
Not close to being the case for me, might be for some though, I’m sure in any group of 100,000 people + you could find someone with a checkered past and family issues. Actually, I like Ron Paul because I realize full well that the chances of me ever being mailed a social security check are nil, yet I will have to pay into it for many years under our current system.
I like the idea of scrapping the system in it’s entirety, although the simple option to opt out of paying into it and thus be disqualified from any benefits is a compromise I would be happy with. I support him because of his idea of legalizing a competitive gold/silver based currency domestically, his desire to ditch the Fed (along with distancing the USA from international banking organizations like the WTO and World Bank).
I especially like his philosophy on the role of government in private life - none. He respects the privacy of citizens (I am specifically referring to his stance on the War on Drugs, but his view on privacy obviously reaches farther than just what anyone chooses to put into their body.) Before me mentioning drugs becomes ammo for some Rage Against the Machiner/Stoner comment, I have been sober for over 2 years and do not intend on using any drugs (exceptions being prescription drugs and steroids/PEDs) in my future. And Rage Against the Machine isn’t a band I listen to.
He clearly respects a person’s right to do as they wish to themselves more than any other candidate in my opinion, and for that alone I would write him in (big whoop, won’t mean shit).
His foreign policy is an exercise in naivety, but we can all dream that the world was that easy to handle - and frankly, I’m ok with pretending the Middle East is somebody else’s problem for a few years. Can we get China to cover our shift? He can’t possibly get done half of what he’d like to, obviously - but that’s fine, most never do all they promise.
If not for Ron Paul then for who and why?
Given that I can only vote in the general election, Hillary gets credit for my vote (hooray Blue states…) no matter which lever I pull. I’m just going to write in Ron Paul (There won’t be a lever with his name on it, I have no delusion that he will make it to the general).[/quote]
Based on your discussed likes of Ron Paul, why do you default to Hillary? She is like the anti Ron Paul. It seems that voting for her would create an internal conflict of interest?
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Based on your discussed likes of Ron Paul, why do you default to Hillary? She is like the anti Ron Paul. It seems that voting for her would create an internal conflict of interest?[/quote]
I don’t mean that I will vote for her, I mean no matter who I vote for the electoral votes go straight to her - all or nothing, as if I had voted for her.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Based on your discussed likes of Ron Paul, why do you default to Hillary? She is like the anti Ron Paul. It seems that voting for her would create an internal conflict of interest?
I don’t mean that I will vote for her, I mean no matter who I vote for the electoral votes go straight to her - all or nothing, as if I had voted for her.
[/quote]
I see. Yeah, the voting system bites in many ways. But take votes away from candidates who you do not want to see in office. You never know when there might be another close election that requires individual hand counts. In that case, every vote against her will count. Even if you don’t get your candidate in the oval office, you stand a chance at keeping your least favorite out. It’s a slim chance, but it happens.
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
I’ll be voting for him if he’s still around by the time California’s primary takes place. I’ll do so for basically three reasons. First, of the available choices, his political philosophy most approximates my own. Second, he’s one of the only candidates who answers questions in a straight forward manner. [/quote]
This is why primaries should all be run on the same day across the nation.[quote]
And, frankly, I’m tired of candidates hemming and hawing and spewing out crap that only resembles answers – I just want someone to be honest with me. Lastly, the Republican party is in the shitter, and I see Ron Paul as a solution. The mainstream Republican party doesn’t deserve to win this election, in my opinion. They’ve lied to me enough; they sold themselves as “small government conservatives” and we all bought it. How has that worked out for us?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s either Ron Paul or a democrat, because I’ll be damned if I’m going to validate the current direction of the Republican party with my vote. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything – not by a long shot – but then again, even if he wins (and he wont) he hasn’t a chance in hell of getting a majority of his policies passed.[/quote]
Why not Ron Paul period? I could be wrong so correct me if I am, but how can you be pro-paul and still be willing to vote for a democrat? Are you a one-issue voter (Iraq)? There isn’t a single democrat that will do anything but expand the fedgov beyond where Bush took it. If the republicans deserve to lose (and they do), that doesn’t mean that the democrats deserve to win.[quote]
He would be a limit and correcting agent, and with all hope, he’d put the fear of god in the Republican party that they wont, in the future, jerk me off with a bunch of “small government” talk, only to govern as the reincarnation of LBJ.[/quote]
Agreed. People talk as if a Paul presidency would end with the streets running red with blood. He wouldn’t get a quarter of his ambitious agenda passed. That said, I can vote for an active veto pen. I don’t like his foreign policy, but there is no one with a better domestic one.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, it’s either Ron Paul or a democrat, because I’ll be damned if I’m going to validate the current direction of the Republican party with my vote. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything – not by a long shot – but then again, even if he wins (and he wont) he hasn’t a chance in hell of getting a majority of his policies passed.
Why not Ron Paul period? I could be wrong so correct me if I am, but how can you be pro-paul and still be willing to vote for a democrat? Are you a one-issue voter (Iraq)? There isn’t a single democrat that will do anything but expand the fedgov beyond where Bush took it. If the republicans deserve to lose (and they do), that doesn’t mean that the democrats deserve to win.
[/quote]
Well, do they deserve to win? and ought we elect one? are two different things. At least, for the most part, they’re honest in their effort to grow the Leviathan – in that they deserve it more than the Republicans. I’m certainly not a one issue voter, though; and I’m under no delusions about the Democrats, either. But I’m not convinced that a dem would expand the federal gov’t more than Bush has in the course of his two terms. Neoconservatism isn’t about limited government any more than liberalism. (In its modern, American sense, that is.)
Honestly, though, I was using a bit of hyperbole to make a point. We all know Paul isn’t going to win, and not all the Republican nominees are so bad that I wouldn’t vote for one of them if it came down to it. But I do believe a few years out of power may be beneficial to the health of the Republican party and, ultimately, the country as a whole. They were elected, going back to Gingrich in 94 and ultimately to Reagan in 80, under the pretext of small-government conservatism, and, after betraying those principles in nearly every way, they might learn a lesson if they now lose, and lose big.
[quote] He would be a limit and correcting agent, and with all hope, he’d put the fear of god in the Republican party that they wont, in the future, jerk me off with a bunch of “small government” talk, only to govern as the reincarnation of LBJ.
Agreed. People talk as if a Paul presidency would end with the streets running red with blood. He wouldn’t get a quarter of his ambitious agenda passed. That said, I can vote for an active veto pen. I don’t like his foreign policy, but there is no one with a better domestic one.
mike[/quote]
The prospect of a Ron Paul presidency and a Democratic legislature doesn’t sound so bad to me either.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Let me point out. I am 28 an insurance agent for 9 years and am currently going to school to become a nurse. Which means I work 40 hours a week and put in 20+ hours a week on nights and weekends and still have 3 more years to go to get my certification. Also I am a republican, and voted for bush twice, even though I wasn’t thrilled about him, I thought kerry would have been much worse.
Okay, I’m not Jeff, but I couldn’t help but respond to this:
Granted there is a large segment of male teens who support Ron Paul.
But…
You really are the typical Ron Paul supporter. A male in his 20’s registered republican who feels disenfranchised by the current system.
You have just enough political savvy to know something is wrong with the current system (I applaud you for that). But not enough real experience to know that Paul is a nut case of the highest order.
[/quote]
Whatever, I am not interested in changing the minds of people who think Ron Paul is a nutcase. I am only interested in making sure people KNOW who he is and do thier own research. Again, the great thing about the country we live in is that people can have different opinions and I am happy you don’t have the same views as I do. It would be a boring place to live if everyone did, (even though I think I’m awsome). I don’t post a lot on T-Nation anymore because of the limited time I have in my personal life. I just wanted to peruse the political section to see if there was nay buzz here about Dr Paul, and show my support. I really don’t have time to get into a philosophical argument at this time, but Jeffrey has asked me to pick a topic and I will honor that at least. Please be patient as it may take some time between posts for me. Also, if you don’t think there is a difference in a 28 year old and a 20 year old then you are truly delusional. Saying 20’s is just another form of grouping trying to marginalize me as an individual. In fact I have much more in common with a person in thier 30’s, I am a former Homeowner, have run my own business, have been in a relationship for more than 4 years, etc… You saying 20’s makes me sound like a college kid who is hitting the bong and out at the bar cruising chicks 6 nights a week. I don’t know you like I know some of the older vets around here so I can’t even say I am dissapointed in you. Obviously our first exchange on here isn’t going too well.
Jeffrey, I pick Dr Pauls position on Foreign policy. I think that many of you here disagree with it, even some of his supporters, and I actually think it is spot on. That being non-interventionist. As a Starting point and maybe to give you a little ammo, not that you need it, I believe that us being a military presence throughout the world is a major cause of other people around the world hating us. Canada is basically equally as free as wee are, save some political quirks. But the Lifestyle that supposedly makes other people hate us is the same. I don’t see anyone running in to bomb Canada. In Fact, I think overall it is free of any worries of foreign born violence, Save maybe from the US. I am not saying that if we pull out of all our military installations around the world, that the next day, peace would flow like the amazon around the globe and everyone would love us. I do think However that My generation and those younger than myself would still have enough growing left to do to make the worl much more peaceful in the next 20 years. That alone should be enough of a reason to do it, yet the double edged sword is that it will save us, trillions of dollars as well, making some underfunded programs work temporarily, and eventually eliminated, and uor money staying in our pockets.
You see the issues are all connected so it is hard to pick just one policy. Basically, he only has one policy, that is strict adherence to the constitution. Everything he stands for stems from that basic standard. It is probably easier for you to attack one of his policies as it stands on it’s own, but that is not how they work, so I can’t in good faith present them like that. Anyways, I guess this is a starting point. Looking foward to your response.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Jeff,
I am a bit surprised at your loyalty to the system. [/quote]
You were actually surprised by this?
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
I’ll be voting for him if he’s still around by the time California’s primary takes place. I’ll do so for basically three reasons. First, of the available choices, his political philosophy most approximates my own. Second, he’s one of the only candidates who answers questions in a straight forward manner.
This is why primaries should all be run on the same day across the nation.
And, frankly, I’m tired of candidates hemming and hawing and spewing out crap that only resembles answers – I just want someone to be honest with me. Lastly, the Republican party is in the shitter, and I see Ron Paul as a solution. The mainstream Republican party doesn’t deserve to win this election, in my opinion. They’ve lied to me enough; they sold themselves as “small government conservatives” and we all bought it. How has that worked out for us?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s either Ron Paul or a democrat, because I’ll be damned if I’m going to validate the current direction of the Republican party with my vote. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything – not by a long shot – but then again, even if he wins (and he wont) he hasn’t a chance in hell of getting a majority of his policies passed.
Why not Ron Paul period? I could be wrong so correct me if I am, but how can you be pro-paul and still be willing to vote for a democrat? Are you a one-issue voter (Iraq)? There isn’t a single democrat that will do anything but expand the fedgov beyond where Bush took it. If the republicans deserve to lose (and they do), that doesn’t mean that the democrats deserve to win.
He would be a limit and correcting agent, and with all hope, he’d put the fear of god in the Republican party that they wont, in the future, jerk me off with a bunch of “small government” talk, only to govern as the reincarnation of LBJ.
Agreed. People talk as if a Paul presidency would end with the streets running red with blood. He wouldn’t get a quarter of his ambitious agenda passed. That said, I can vote for an active veto pen. I don’t like his foreign policy, but there is no one with a better domestic one.
mike[/quote]
I believe he explained how he could be pro Paul and pro democrat in his post. Many people don’t view politics as rival teams competing in a sporting arena.
No, Ron Paul would not get a lot of his proposals passed, but what president does? Ron Paul does offer many, many ideas that lots of people enjoy and it would be best, in his supporters eyes, for him to get some of his proposals made in to law than none.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Let me point out. I am 28 an insurance agent for 9 years and am currently going to school to become a nurse. Which means I work 40 hours a week and put in 20+ hours a week on nights and weekends and still have 3 more years to go to get my certification. Also I am a republican, and voted for bush twice, even though I wasn’t thrilled about him, I thought kerry would have been much worse.
Okay, I’m not Jeff, but I couldn’t help but respond to this:
Granted there is a large segment of male teens who support Ron Paul.
But…
You really are the typical Ron Paul supporter. A male in his 20’s registered republican who feels disenfranchised by the current system.
You have just enough political savvy to know something is wrong with the current system (I applaud you for that). But not enough real experience to know that Paul is a nut case of the highest order.
Whatever, I am not interested in changing the minds of people who think Ron Paul is a nutcase. I am only interested in making sure people KNOW who he is and do thier own research.
The question is, do YOU know who he really is?
f you don’t think there is a difference in a 28 year old and a 20 year old then you are truly delusional.
Where did I say that there were no differences?
But, even with the differences 20 somethings do not have the experience and background to fully understand a political nut when they see one…apparently.
have been in a relationship for more than 4 years, etc…
Wow…four years huh?
You saying 20’s makes me sound like a college kid who is hitting the bong and out at the bar cruising chicks 6 nights a week.
That’s your definition, I never said that.
.I don’t know you like I know some of the older vets around here so I can’t even say I am dissapointed in you. Obviously our first exchange on here isn’t going too well.
I don’t know why you’ve taken such a defensive position. I’m merely pointing out the facts.
Ron Paul attracts young males. You’re a young male and you are supporting Ron Paul.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Maybe 20 somethings are also more sensitive.
Oh well…rage on my friend…rage on.
[/quote]
Hah! if you think this is raging, I suggest you go search out some of the older political threads I have participated in. I used to get out of control and emotional, I am past that stage in my life. Your statement that Ron Paul attracts Young Males is actually correct. However, that is not the only people he attracts, He attracts young females, middle aged males, middle aged females, old males and old females. So again, if your point of labeling me a 20’s male, was not meant to marginalize my viewpoints, then you were mereley stating the obvious and I fail to see any point you were trying to make. If you were trying to mariginalize my opinion, which I still feel you were trying to do, then your backpedaling shows me why you like some of these other candidates so much, because like them, you have opened your mouth and gotten exposed and are now trying to spin things to avoind taking any responsibilities for what you say.
I hat to harp on this point, but this type of behavior is exactly what I stand against. It would be better if you just came right oput and said that you think I am full of shit and don’t know anything (or as much as you) about politics and thier effects on the world. But to put me into a group and then claim that that group doesn’t know the full effects opf politics, is cowardice. Argue my positions if you wish, but don’t marginalize thier validity, by straw manning me.
V
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Jeff,
I am a bit surprised at your loyalty to the system.
You were actually surprised by this? [/quote]
al-a-baby:
Sorry to hear that your rock shelter isn’t meeting your needs.
Too bad you’ve decided to crawl back out from underneath it.
Whenever someone says that Rudy is the “establishment” or the “system” I yawn. Using those tag-lines must be easier than actually thinking about his positions. The whole, “humans usually take the path of least resistance.”
I can’t think of any serious Republican candidate that is less “ESTABLISHMENT/SYSTEM” than Rudy.
He’s causing many Republicans to prioritize and come up with a more broad based approach to thinking.
This can only help attract more moderates and independents to the Republicans.
I DO NOT want to be defined by the far right loons.
Period.
JeffR
The above link gives the Demographic of people who have regestered with ron pauls official site. Please check it out. It also shows the demographic of another one of his support sites and then several of the other candidates site demographics. And while the Ron paul sites certainly have a large showing of youg supporters, there is also an equally large amount of traffic from older people as well. His support is more balanced than everyone but rudys, and how can we blame him, Rudy is after all getting the most media attention (love).
V