Lars,

Point taken and I apologize for my 'argumentative response' (I took your comment personally which it seems I shouldn't have). There is nothing to be said of the trolls you speak of except to ignore them.

Sadly, the frustration that drives many RP supporters to behave the way they do is a reaction to the major media and news outlets having transformed into political propaganda machines. There is literally zero reporting going on. It is just pundits and editors spinning and crafting opinion and it is disturbing to say the least.

Did you watch the Democratic debates last night? Chris Matthews' post debate interviews were insanely dumb and pointless. Zero questions of substance. Bill Richardson is up there talking about his positions (our country is at WAR) and Chris is asking him about why he 'defended Hillary'. Even after he answered the question they went and showed the clip from the debate. Even worse, then the whole Kucinich UFO line of questioning was relentless. He put words into Richardson's mouth, and wouldn't stop asking the most irrelevant question. C'mon if Kucinich saw a UFO ask HIM about it. At least ask the other candidates real questions that are relevant to their candidacy. Why does the whole thing have to death spiral? Pathetic

Anyhow, it is my opinion that RP supporters merely reflect the terrible state of major media and news and the tremendous frustration out there with their repeated failures and blatant manipulations. Unfortunately that frustration is vented in online forums and chat rooms.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

On a related note to much of the conversation in this string:

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA--Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data indicating that Texas congressman Ron Paul is the top Republican presidential candidate among African-American voters.

1200 individuals were polled and asked if they preferred Ron Paul to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 33 percent of Black voters chose Congressman Paul over Senator Clinton and 31 percent over Senator Obama. Rasmussen Reports polled voters on their preference for the other GOP contenders over Clinton and Obama, and all polled lower than Congressman Paul. John McCain was preferred over Clinton and Obama by 24 and 16 percent, and Mitt Romney by 20 and 27 percent, respectively. Rudy Giuliani was only preferred to Clinton by 15 percent, and to Obama by 17 percent.

Congressman Paul’s support among African-Americans is much higher than what Republicans have received in recent presidential elections. CNN’s 2004 presidential election exit polls show that Democrat John Kerry was preferred over George Bush by 88 percent.

The RealClearPolitics Insider Advantage Poll from early October also indicated that Dr. Paul was the leading Republican candidate among Black voters in key primary state, New Hampshire.

“Dr. Paul is the candidate who brings Americans together,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is drawing supporters of all backgrounds back into the Republican party.”

Rasmussen Reports conducted preference polls for Ron Paul between October 12 and 14. Preference polls for Rudy Giuliani were conducted October 8 through 9 and 15 through 16, and for Mitt Romney and John McCain between October 10 and 11 and 17 through 18.

Hmmm....

So was Johnny Rotten pro-life or pro-choice? ; )

From Wikipedia: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.[1]

Lars - I think if you read the chronological progression of the comments under this post the 'troll-like activity', according to the definition, was actually started when someone accused RP of being a racist. That is clearly a 'controversial and contrary' claim and while intent is impossible to assess, calling someone a racist is very likely to 'bait users into an argumentative response.' That looks like textbook troll-like behavior to me.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how defending the man against such a claim, which many strongly believe is patently false and using supporting documents to counter the claim, could be considered 'detestable' as you put it. I think that accusing an honorable man of being a racist, on a public forum without disclosing that these claims are disputed, are contrary to his 30 year record, and have been addressed by the man himself is far more 'detestable' behavior!

But then again, I also think that voting to authorize sending our men and women to an endless war under false pretenses, or being voted into office to end the war but being completely impotent to fulfill your mandate is truly 'detestable' so maybe our definitions of the word are different. That must be it.

I agree with the earlier post about Mary Roach's book Stiff. She discusses all of this stuff in detail and it actually has been very useful for forensic science, solving crimes etc. There is no other way to know how long a body has been decomposing without observation and measurement.

The book is great and despite feeling nauseous about 50% of the time while reading it, it is actually very fun.

It also discusses some new methods for disposing of human remains (not available in US yet) which would be of interest to people who are environmentalists and should be opposed to modern embalming methods and cremation. One of them involves freeze drying the body, then using vibrations to turn it into a fine dust, then mixing it with soil and then using the soil to plant a memorial tree in that person's honor. I personally think that sounds pretty cool. I wonder if the embalming lobby will ever let it come to our shores ; )

oops ...I forgot to mention the cost of losing our unique constitutional republic and personal liberties!

I hear you but in my estimation it is substantially 'less worse' than all of my grievances with virtually every other candidate which seem to cost infinitely more life, blood, and treasure. Anyhow, see you at the voting booth!

Hey, we don't have editors checking our spelling and grammar here in the comment section although I often wish I did. Before I wrote "...an Ukranian born Jew"

Ouch

I'm not defending his mistake and I agree that he should have never allowed it to happen but it did happen and he did take responsibility for it.

However, putting his mistake in perspective, when I look at all of the things that the other candidates do, say, pander, and vote for I consider this to be minor especially since at the time he was a full time practicing obstetrician and not a public official.

Hillary voted for this war and for the resolution to give the president sole authority to bomb Iran pre-emptively without asking Congress to declare war. She also has some serious campaign finance skeletons in her closet among other very shady dealings (whitewater e.g.) Worse she now claims she is against the war (and somehow always was??) but refuses to say she will end it or bring troops home before 2013. She is also the largest recipient of 3Q campaign donations from the major military contracting companies. Hmmmm Is all of that worse than not checking a newsletter before it was published?

Romney says he wants to double Guantanamo and that torture is acceptable and has changed his tune to pander. He also thinks he should ask his lawyers if it is OK to pre-emptively bomb Iran, not Congress. Giuliani says the same along with official associations with pedophiles and criminals and other questionable things like completely changing his historical views on key issues just to run in this election. Even Huckabee had 14 ethics complaints while governor of Arkansas, five of which resulted in findings against him not to mention a tax record that is less than stellar. Worse than not checking a newsletter before it was published?

I could go on and on...

Here is a snippet from an interview done by Muckraker Report which shows his personal response to the allegations:

Muckraker Report: In a 1992 newsletter, arguing that government should lower the age at which juvenile criminals can be protected as adults, you wrote, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." In the same newsletter, you also wrote, "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on the grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" Obviously, there are many Americans and not just blacks and Asians, who would find these comments upsetting. What would you say to these people?

Congressman Ron Paul: In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that these comments do not reflect my beliefs.

*** His comments on the Imus controversy:

Let's be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

***

While neither of these items 'prove' he didn't write those words, his record is in overwhelming opposition to them and he has been a public figure for 30 years, written books, bills, articles, and legislation etc.

I will also point out that people try to smear him as an anti-semite because he thinks the US should stop giving foreign aid to Israel. This is ridiculous on several levels. Primarily because he wants to stop giving foreign aid to every country, not just Israel. In addition, his personal hero and intellectual touchstone is Ludwig Von Mises the "uncontested dean of the Austrian School of economics" and founder of the modern libertarian philosophy. Oh, I forgot to mention that Mises is an Ukranian born Jew.

The racist quotes attributed in these comments to Ron Paul are not his words. They were written and included in a newsletter he used to allow his name to be applied to but did not carefully oversee. He has addressed this mistake (lack of oversight) but took responsibility for it since these horrible words were published in his name.

Ron Paul also is opposed to Federal death penalty because he believes the system has been unfair and wrong too many times (which has hurt minority individuals disproportionately). He is also opposed to the federal drug war and the criminalization of non-violent offenses (again which have hurt minority individuals disproportionately).

Here is something Ron Paul wrote in December 2002 on the subject which is a legitimate quote and description of his views:

What Really Divides Us?

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.