PDA

View Full Version : Elections Ron Paul: Something is Happening and You Don't Know What It Is, Do You Mr. Right Wing


Taco John
02-15-2011, 07:19 PM
A great read... Here is an excerpt:

There’s a very good reason anyone with any skin in the game of the status quo—politician, commentator, or citizen—has to find it very difficult to take Paul seriously... That’s because the radical solutions that the Paul worldview demands—an end to overseas military adventurism, ending government’s ability to manipulate paper currency, severe cuts in spending on all the myriad income-shifting promises Washington has made the past 80 years—don’t register as “practical solutions” to (for lack of a better word) the establishment. They seem like nihilism, though they are actually a belief in the American Constitution.

Any standard Republican or movement conservative really can’t take Paul seriously without massive cognitive dissonance. You mean, we really really have to obey the Constitution, we really can’t keep borrowing and inflating forever? Signs like the CPAC vote of a significant number of politically active youngsters believing in Ron Paul are indeed a sign of an apocalypse of sorts for the world that most politicians and pundits know. If Ron Paul is right, then everything they know is wrong.


The entire article discussing the conservative civil war is here:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/14/ron-paul-something-is-happenin

googlegoogle
02-15-2011, 07:23 PM
Rush limbaugh hates Ron Paul.

Jenson71
02-15-2011, 08:08 PM
Thats a bob dylan song reference

Rep if you name the song

bobbymitch
02-15-2011, 08:22 PM
Thats a bob dylan song reference

Rep if you name the song

Hmmm, don't know that one but Stephen Stills "For What It's Worth" is very close.

Bewbies
02-15-2011, 08:37 PM
I like Ron Paul a ton. I hate admitting that because so many of his followers, when not rigging polls, are busy deciding if Glenn Beck know's the CIA owns him, or if 9/11 was actually plotted, planned and executed by George W Bush. If anyone knows why so many kooks have run to Paul I'd love a dissertation. Not everyone who likes him is a kook, but he sure does have a large following of them. Although, he's a single A minor leaguer compared to hall of fame kook hoarder Obama.

That being said, he has a ton of great ideas, but I don't think he owns ALL the ideas we need moving forward. I hope he runs, just like I hope Herman Cain runs among many others. Let's add as many ideas to the fold and bring the debate about much more than Obama sucks, democrats are bad, lower taxes, lower spending, etc. Instead of platitudes, let's add some meat to the discussion.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2011, 09:25 PM
The rigging polls thing, was claimed for online, and turned out false to my recollection.

Other than that, the youth will turn this country around. We're all Egyptians now. So walk like an Egyptian.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2011, 09:25 PM
Rush limbaugh hates Ron Paul.

All the NeoCons hate Ron Paul. Paul outs them when he makes the news. :evil:

Captain Obvious
02-15-2011, 09:30 PM
So walk like an Egyptian.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PS0P7w4YCDI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
02-15-2011, 09:38 PM
OMG Never heard a country version before.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BWP-AsG5DRk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RJ
02-15-2011, 09:44 PM
Thats a bob dylan song reference

Rep if you name the song


Youngster, please. :harumph:

Bewbies
02-15-2011, 11:36 PM
The rigging polls thing, was claimed for online, and turned out false to my recollection.

Other than that, the youth will turn this country around. We're all Egyptians now. So walk like an Egyptian.

LMAO

I'm American. Certified tea bagger, global warming denier, capitalist pig, evil believer in personal liberty type who actually would like to see us governed by the rules set forth in the Constitution. I LOVE this country, and unlike the President, I love it AS IT WAS FOUNDED.

It's okay to admit that Ron Paul has some kooks following him. Anyone who can't admit that is, well.....

T-post Tom
02-15-2011, 11:42 PM
kook hoarder


Is that moonbat for 'coke whore'?

FD
02-15-2011, 11:57 PM
Hmmm, don't know that one but Stephen Stills "For What It's Worth" is very close.

Its "Ballad of a Thin Man." If you aren't familiar with it, look it up.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 07:02 AM
I like Ron Paul a ton. I hate admitting that because so many of his followers, when not rigging polls, are busy deciding if Glenn Beck know's the CIA owns him, or if 9/11 was actually plotted, planned and executed by George W Bush. If anyone knows why so many kooks have run to Paul I'd love a dissertation. Not everyone who likes him is a kook, but he sure does have a large following of them. Although, he's a single A minor leaguer compared to hall of fame kook hoarder Obama.

That being said, he has a ton of great ideas, but I don't think he owns ALL the ideas we need moving forward. I hope he runs, just like I hope Herman Cain runs among many others. Let's add as many ideas to the fold and bring the debate about much more than Obama sucks, democrats are bad, lower taxes, lower spending, etc. Instead of platitudes, let's add some meat to the discussion.

I think it's more a case of Ron Paul's crazies being more vocal than the other crazies. It's also possible that since he doesn't exactly make alot of friends on washington, it's in the rest of our government's self interest to paint his supporters as crazy so you see them more often.

I like Ron Paul too, and I don't think I'm crazy (of course, if I was crazy I wouldn't know it, so take my own opinion on the matter for what it's worth)

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 07:16 AM
LMAO

I'm American. Certified tea bagger, global warming denier, capitalist pig, evil believer in personal liberty type who actually would like to see us governed by the rules set forth in the Constitution. I LOVE this country, and unlike the President, I love it AS IT WAS FOUNDED.

It's okay to admit that Ron Paul has some kooks following him. Anyone who can't admit that is, well.....

I think the kook thing is more focused on by his opponents including msm, leaving out the fact that he has a diverse following. That's how they discredit him so no one will listen to him. They're an easy target and all candidates have their kooks. Obama had Wright, Ayers and the communist party usa endorsed him. Bush had the NeoCons. Ronald Reagan carried some of the same kooks Ron had....like white supremacists. :D

But the poll rigging was a false charge. And a lot of people calling into Fox is not poll rigging. That's just a passionate involved following participating while the rest of the conservatives sat on their arses.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 07:35 AM
Rush limbaugh hates Ron Paul.


Rush Limbaugh hates...


1. anyone who thought making Osama "not a priority" was not a good idea
2. anyone who doesn't think W was kinswervtv.
3. anyone opposed to socializing senior drugs by lying about the cost
4. anyone opposed to intentional lies to sell out our troops in Iraq
5. anyone who spends less than Jimmy Catta


cuz lik Rus es reely rellly kinxwwertiv...

dirk digler
02-16-2011, 07:35 AM
I think the kook thing is more focused on by his opponents including msm, leaving out the fact that he has a diverse following. That's how they discredit him so no one will listen to him. They're an easy target and all candidates have their kooks. Obama had Wright, Ayers and the communist party usa endorsed him. Bush had the NeoCons. Ronald Reagan carried some of the same kooks Ron had....like white supremacists. :D

But the poll rigging was a false charge. And a lot of people calling into Fox is not poll rigging. That's just a passionate involved following participating while the rest of the conservatives sat on their arses.

They discredit him because he has radical views like removing all foreign troops and bases and retreating back behind our borders

Royal Fanatic
02-16-2011, 07:48 AM
I've never seen a candidate with a more zealous fanbase than Ron Paul. When he was running in the primaries in 2008 and sitting at roughly 7% in the polls, a large number of his supporters were absolutely certain that he was going to prevail.

The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are far too radical for most people, including me. I like incremental change so that if you find out that you're blundering off in the wrong direction, you can stop, re-assess, and adjust what you're doing.

When you come up with radical solutions and try to ram them down everybody's throats, you wind up with "solutions" like Obamacare. I suspect that a Ron Paul presidency would be no different. Paul is convinced that HIS radical solutions are the right solutions.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 07:55 AM
Paul is a terrible candidate, and also sucks up all the oxygen available to other, better libertarian candidates. Paul is essentially a plug on libertarians winning, since he can't win, and is absolutely committed to making sure nobody else libertarian wins.

Paul's ideas are not too radical, unless you are someone on the Fed dole, and then you hate Paul for wanting to ax you from the dole...

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 08:00 AM
All the NeoCons hate Ron Paul. Paul outs them when he makes the news. :evil:



Paul is ineffective. He is a very poor public speaker, and when he starts talking about the Fed, he loses 97% of his audience which doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

The NeoCons, the pseudocon Bible Thumping Socialists who think the US exists to support Israel, are easily discredited. Paul, however, isn't very good at discrediting them.

If Paul truly cared about the cause of libertarianism, he would realize he sukks as a candidate and step out of the way for a more electable one.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:10 AM
Paul is ineffective. He is a very poor public speaker, and when he starts talking about the Fed, he loses 97% of his audience which doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

The NeoCons, the pseudocon Bible Thumping Socialists who think the US exists to support Israel, are easily discredited. Paul, however, isn't very good at discrediting them.

If Paul truly cared about the cause of libertarianism, he would realize he sukks as a candidate and step out of the way for a more electable one.

I didn't say he was good at discrediting them. I only said he outs them. That's because when he speaks they go nuts foaming at the mouth due to their hate of him. Then you know who they are. You should see the google page posted over at Lews on how they're going full tilt at him right now ever since he won the Cpac strawpoll. He is a threat to them. That much is clear. The GOP leadership shut down a couple of primaries when too many Paulians showed up. This is what they do when threatened.

Ineffective? Nope, not his ideas which have challenged the status quo and he has changed some of the debate. That's effective enough for me.

You may have missed that July poll from last year at Rasmussen showing Paul would be in a dead heat with Obama should he run today. He carries more of the Independents in a general election. It's the Republican party who won't nominate him. So I don't think your assessment is 100% accurate. That and many people do know that too much money is being printed by banksters even if they can't follow his whole argument...they know something is wrong. Gotta get the message out as to why. Ideas are more powerful than bullets.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:15 AM
They discredit him because he has radical views like removing all foreign troops and bases and retreating back behind our borders

That's why they fear him....he challenges the empire at a level of thought. They fear him because that's been more of a trend even in the general population. Even Laura Ingraham criticized this trend when Bush was still in power. She sneered that it was "isolationism" like the good Progressive she's turned into. So it's his ideas they loathe and fear should they catch on. They also loathe the internet because they can't control the debate. And they couldn't ever control a president in his mold either. Their hold on this country's debate is thretened by him. We're all Egyptians now.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 08:17 AM
Ron Paul will never be President. The sooner you accept that BEP, the better off you will be.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:19 AM
Ron Paul will never be President. The sooner you accept that BEP, the better off you will be.

You can't read strawman-maker. I commented on the effect he has created on Neo Cons .

Please refer to my past post where I said I prefer he not run...he's more valuable on a very important committee.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 08:21 AM
You can't read strawman-maker. I commented on the effect he has created on Neo Cons .

Please refer to my past post where I said I prefer he not run...he's more valuable on a very important committee.

So you've finally accepted that he's never going to be president? At last the healing can begin.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:23 AM
You still didn't get the memo, Jaric-opt.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 08:24 AM
You still didn't get the memo, Jaric-opt.

That's fine. You do realize you fit into the category of Ron Paul supporters that bewbies is talking about right?

Jaric
02-16-2011, 08:32 AM
Wow, You really did come over here to be a troll. The true Jaric comes out when there's no moderatroChild please. I told you that I thought you were unstable at Patriot's Planet. I came over here because I like Pat's posts and thought I would check the place out. I like most of the people who post here and the banter so I decided to stick around for a bit.

You have, I assure you, nothing to do with my presence here.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:33 AM
I've never seen a candidate with a more zealous fanbase than Ron Paul. When he was running in the primaries in 2008 and sitting at roughly 7% in the polls, a large number of his supporters were absolutely certain that he was going to prevail.

The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are far too radical for most people, including me. I like incremental change so that if you find out that you're blundering off in the wrong direction, you can stop, re-assess, and adjust what you're doing.

When you come up with radical solutions and try to ram them down everybody's throats, you wind up with "solutions" like Obamacare. I suspect that a Ron Paul presidency would be no different. Paul is convinced that HIS radical solutions are the right solutions.

Do you know what the word radical means and where it comes from?

It stems from the words "root" as in "root causes." Unless we address some of those things you are not going to see any real improvement in conditions. Furthermore, due to the checks and balances in our system, Paul would need permission from Congress for his policies. He's admitted that. He won't get them. That means his plans would be tempered. That's a good thing due to how the dialectic works.

Furthermore, he has also admitted we can't get to where he'd like us to be because it took so long to stray. He only advocates going back to the 2000 year budget. If that's considered radical today then we're screwed. I think you need to actually read what he would run on instead of listening to some of the nonsense that gets spewed.

It's because a president has more say in FP that he really is a threat to the GOP Establishment. This is why I say he's unlikely to be nominated. I think he has a better chance in the general....but like that July poll showed it's no slam dunk but a dead heat.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:36 AM
Says the man who voted for Barr. Jaric can deflect, can't refute, can pile on when he's in a group to hide in, can't read but can ad hominem ! Sounds like a troll to me.

Oh yeah, it's bad form to whine about rep here.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 08:47 AM
Says the man who voted for Barr. Jaric can deflect, can't refute , can't read but can ad hominem ! Sounds like a troll to me.

Yes. And I cast my vote knowing full well that he had no chance of winning the election. He was however, the candidate I felt best reflected my personal opinions, and therefore cast my vote for him.

I didn't say you had to stop voting for Paul, Ms strawman maker. You need to learn to read. Just that you needed to accept he wasn't ever going to win.

But anyways, I'm done talking to you. It serves no point or purpose. I should have known that, having dealt with your madness over at PP, but here we are.

By the way, if you insist on continuing to send me long draw out message via the rep system, you should expect them to be posted in whatever thread it came from. If you have something to say to me, do so publically.

EDIT: And go ahead and continue to neg rep me, I really don't care in the slightest.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 08:50 AM
If you're gonna start your shit expect red dots. I use it to moderate. I do not use it for opinions I don't agree with jaric-steve-o-opt.
Weren't you the one who whined at cried about me trying to moderate YOU with my posts?

I guess we can add "Hypocrite" to your list of labels.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 08:52 AM
uh huh

Stewie
02-16-2011, 08:58 AM
Ron Paul is fine by me. Especially his hell-bent desire to get into the Federal Reserve's books. However, I like Susanna Hoffs better.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 09:00 AM
You weren't moderating.Not sure what on earth this means, but do me a favor and just me on your fake ignore list.

ClevelandBronco
02-16-2011, 09:01 AM
Ron Paul was correct long ago when he warned that we we were on a collision course with an iceberg. Unfortunately, we hit the bitch and we're way too far out to sea to limp back to safe harbor.

Ron Paul isn't crazy. The loons who are still screaming about the iceberg are.

EDIT: My bad. I didn't realize that I was interrupting an argument between BEP and someone who's able to form a coherent thought.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:05 AM
The real solution to turning America around rests more in the Congress than in the Presidential branch, folks.
The have the power of the purse. One man is not enough to do it.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 09:06 AM
I've never seen a candidate with a more zealous fanbase than Ron Paul. When he was running in the primaries in 2008 and sitting at roughly 7% in the polls, a large number of his supporters were absolutely certain that he was going to prevail.

The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are far too radical for most people, including me. I like incremental change so that if you find out that you're blundering off in the wrong direction, you can stop, re-assess, and adjust what you're doing.

When you come up with radical solutions and try to ram them down everybody's throats, you wind up with "solutions" like Obamacare. I suspect that a Ron Paul presidency would be no different. Paul is convinced that HIS radical solutions are the right solutions.


I'm always amused that some people see stopping spending money that we don't have, and following the constitution to a fault (or changing it properly) as a "radical" solution.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 09:08 AM
I didn't say he was good at discrediting them. I only said he outs them. That's because when he speaks they go nuts foaming at the mouth due to their hate of him. Then you know who they are. You should see the google page posted over at Lews on how they're going full tilt at him right now ever since he won the Cpac strawpoll. He is a threat to them. That much is clear. The GOP leadership shut down a couple of primaries when too many Paulians showed up. This is what they do when threatened.

Ineffective? Nope, not his ideas which have challenged the status quo and he has changed some of the debate. That's effective enough for me.

You may have missed that July poll from last year at Rasmussen showing Paul would be in a dead heat with Obama should he run today. He carries more of the Independents in a general election. It's the Republican party who won't nominate him. So I don't think your assessment is 100% accurate. That and many people do know that too much money is being printed by banksters even if they can't follow his whole argument...they know something is wrong. Gotta get the message out as to why. Ideas are more powerful than bullets.



Hasn't Paul won the CPAC straw poll before, only to get single digits in libertarian New Hampshire GOP primary??

Taco John
02-16-2011, 09:10 AM
EDIT: My bad. I didn't realize that I was interrupting an argument between BEP and someone who's able to form a coherent thought.

It's a big reason I stopped posting on this forum. All my threads end up in BEP bickering with someone else about something I don't care about.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 09:11 AM
Hasn't Paul won the CPAC straw poll before, only to get single digits in libertarian New Hampshire GOP primary??

His first CPAC win was last year. New Hampshire was 2008.

Just for the record, 2008 came before 2010.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 09:13 AM
Ron Paul was correct long ago when he warned that we we were on a collision course with an iceberg. Unfortunately, we hit the bitch and we're way too far out to sea to limp back to safe harbor.

Ron Paul isn't crazy. The loons who are still screaming about the iceberg are.

EDIT: My bad. I didn't realize that I was interrupting an argument between BEP and someone who's able to form a coherent thought.

No please, by all means continue. It's nice finding other non-crazy Ron Paul supporters.

My opinion is that Paul has two main problems.

The first is that he's more or less alone in congress. That makes him easier to ignore and I know that has to be frustrating for him. But to his credit he doesn't seem to have let that discourage him.

The second, is that the issues he brings up (which are completely valid) are really above the typical voter's understanding of things. I'd bet my paycheck that the average voter doesn't even know who the Federal Reserve is, let alone what they do.

What Paul needs to find a way to do, is to figure out how to get his message across in a way so that the average (aka ignorant) American voter can understand and get behind. Unfortunately, I don't know how he does that other than come up with catchy slogans unrelated to anything.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 09:13 AM
How did Paul do in 2008 against a field of sub humans, big spenders, and liars?

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:14 AM
It's a big reason I stopped posting on this forum. All my threads end up in BEP bickering with someone else about something I don't care about.

If you notice I didn't start it. I usually don't. If it looks like I did it's due to something the person said earlier and it's just responding back at a later time.
No different than some others here. If they can do it why can't I dish it back? I usually put those kind of posters on ignore so I won't get into as it's the same handful. ( CB being one of them.) If you notice those usually don't get any response. Here, Jaric said I was one of those deemed as one of the "crazy" Paul supporters. I neg repped him for it. That's an appropriate act. I do defend Paul, but it's not like I am one of the Truthers nor am I a Birther. I am just passionate about Ron Paul and it's well known what political elements go nuts when he talks. Sorry if I refuse to be a doormat. To be fair though, you should look at what I responded to first. You consider yourself a fair person right? Remember you were being called names when you believed the govt was behind 9/11.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:19 AM
Paul has a national favorable rating of 39 percent, 30 percent view him unfavorably and 32 percent are not sure.
I bet I know who is in that 30 percent.

ClevelandBronco
02-16-2011, 09:21 AM
Sorry if I refuse to be a doormat.

Bitch, the epitaph to your lonely, mismanaged life should read only, "WELCOME."

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 09:21 AM
If I thought Paul had a chance to win, I would support him.

I don't.

I think Paul is not a good public speaker, and loses his audience quickly.

I think the cause of libertarianism would improve if Paul realized he is a terrible candidate and started to find and endorse candidates who are good with 30 second TV slots...

Jaric
02-16-2011, 09:24 AM
If I thought Paul had a chance to win, I would support him.

I don't.

I think Paul is not a good public speaker, and loses his audience quickly.

I think the cause of libertarianism would improve if Paul realized he is a terrible candidate and started to find and endorse candidates who are good with 30 second TV slots...

God help me, I agree with LaDairis. I think I need a drink.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 09:28 AM
If I thought Paul had a chance to win, I would support him.

I don't.

I think Paul is not a good public speaker, and loses his audience quickly.

I think the cause of libertarianism would improve if Paul realized he is a terrible candidate and started to find and endorse candidates who are good with 30 second TV slots...


You miss the entire point of Paul's campaign if this is what you think. Ron Paul is the anti-modern "television" candidate. And if you can't see this as a good thing, then you deserve the candidates that are winning.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:29 AM
If I thought Paul had a chance to win, I would support him.

I don't.

I think Paul is not a good public speaker, and loses his audience quickly.

I think the cause of libertarianism would improve if Paul realized he is a terrible candidate and started to find and endorse candidates who are good with 30 second TV slots...

He doesn't have the charisma of a great speaker. He doesn't have the superficial qualities a candidate needs to win with today. That much is true. He's more of an intellect and a policy wonk. I'm still glad he's gained a wider audience. It shows that ideas are powerful. That's a good thing.

Then again, if enough changed their mind about electability maybe he'd have a good shot at winning. The thing is if the Estblishment wanted him, they'd package him for the masses.

BTW I am not a libertarian. I support more govt then even Ron Paul.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 09:30 AM
You miss the entire point of Paul's campaign if this is what you think. Ron Paul is the anti-modern "television" candidate. And if you can't see this as a good thing, then you deserve the candidates that are winning.

That's sort of the problem why he doesn't get elected. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong only that it's part of what prevents him from getting to the oval office.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:30 AM
God help me, I agree with LaDairis. I think I need a drink.

I'll drink to that too.

BTW weren't you a Paul supporter in the last primary, but when he didn't win you went for Barr?

Hydrae
02-16-2011, 09:30 AM
If I thought Paul had a chance to win, I would support him.

I don't.

I think Paul is not a good public speaker, and loses his audience quickly.

I think the cause of libertarianism would improve if Paul realized he is a terrible candidate and started to find and endorse candidates who are good with 30 second TV slots...

Although Paul espouses many libertarian concepts and beliefs, he is not a libertarian. He only runs as a Republican, can you please stop this nonsense about how he is hurting Libertarians? This is at least the third such incorrect reference in this thread alone.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 09:30 AM
Reagan did. Others can. Paul can't. End of story...

Jaric
02-16-2011, 09:33 AM
I'll drink to that too.

BTW weren't you a Paul supporter in the last primary, but when he didn't win you went for Barr?

Yes. And I do so knowing he doesn't have a chance in hell to win.

I voted for the lesser of two evils once and I ended up voting for John Kerry. I refuse to make that mistake a second time. But I have no illusions about the outcome.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:38 AM
Although Paul espouses many libertarian concepts and beliefs, he is not a libertarian. He only runs as a Republican, can you please stop this nonsense about how he is hurting Libertarians? This is at least the third such incorrect reference in this thread alone.

This is a charge some libertarians make about Paul but Paul IS a libertarian. He's actually more of a libertarian than most modern ones as he's closer to Libertarianism's Godfather Murray Rothbard who has a good article on how most libertarians today do not fit the label. Then again it is a big tent ranging from left libertarians to right libertarians including paleo-libertarians. I realize this sounds like arcane terms but they do stand for what views the different branches adhere to. There's Cato which is more inside-the-beltway as well as those who are looking for their next drug fix. I think most who claim Paul is not a libertarian don't understand it. Paul is also a Constitutionalist first which means general laws are determined at the local level instead of using the incorporation doctrine that some libertarians support. Men like Randy Barnett and Pilon of Cato.


Also the Republican party does have a libertarian wing. Libertarians are about evenly divided between the two parties since they share some views of each.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:40 AM
Yes. And I do so knowing he doesn't have a chance in hell to win.

I voted for the lesser of two evils once and I ended up voting for John Kerry. I refuse to make that mistake a second time. But I have no illusions about the outcome.

Did you or did you not vote for Bob Barr in the last presidential election?

BTW you think wrong if you think I had any illusions at all about the outcome. I knew it was a long shot. You're barking up the wrong tree here, as usual.
I simply think things have changed since the last election based for one on that poll. That by no means indicates I think he would pull it off. I know the Establishment's machine would do everything they can to prevent it. Ya' know like the GOP shutting down a couple of state primaries when too many Paulies showed up.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 09:46 AM
That's sort of the problem why he doesn't get elected. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong only that it's part of what prevents him from getting to the oval office.

Ron Paul is more interested in being right than being president.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:49 AM
Plus Paul had to be heavily persuaded to run last time and probably again. I think it's a good way to get different ideas out. It influences the debate.

ClevelandBronco
02-16-2011, 09:50 AM
Although Paul espouses many libertarian concepts and beliefs, he is not a libertarian. He only runs as a Republican, can you please stop this nonsense about how he is hurting Libertarians? This is at least the third such incorrect reference in this thread alone.

I think we all understand that Ron Paul is libertarian, but not a Libertarian.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 09:53 AM
Ron Paul is more interested in being right than being president.

Which is sadly why he had no chance of being president. Again, I'm not making a value judgement, only stating what I percieve to be the issue.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 09:53 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B7jyYpYgOeE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 10:02 AM
O.M. G. Paul used a label in the video! Corporatist versus Socialist. Tsk! Tsk!

patteeu
02-16-2011, 10:37 AM
I like Ron Paul a ton. I hate admitting that because so many of his followers, when not rigging polls, are busy deciding if Glenn Beck know's the CIA owns him, or if 9/11 was actually plotted, planned and executed by George W Bush. If anyone knows why so many kooks have run to Paul I'd love a dissertation. Not everyone who likes him is a kook, but he sure does have a large following of them. Although, he's a single A minor leaguer compared to hall of fame kook hoarder Obama.

That being said, he has a ton of great ideas, but I don't think he owns ALL the ideas we need moving forward. I hope he runs, just like I hope Herman Cain runs among many others. Let's add as many ideas to the fold and bring the debate about much more than Obama sucks, democrats are bad, lower taxes, lower spending, etc. Instead of platitudes, let's add some meat to the discussion.

I agree with this although I think Ron Paul deserves some personal criticism for embracing and encouraging the crazies in his fanbase. He goes further than merely tolerating them. He actively curries their favor.

patteeu
02-16-2011, 10:49 AM
Child please. I told you that I thought you were unstable at Patriot's Planet. I came over here because I like Pat's posts and thought I would check the place out. I like most of the people who post here and the banter so I decided to stick around for a bit.

You have, I assure you, nothing to do with my presence here.

LOL, this is exactly what she thought about me at Patriot's Planet. While it's definitely true that I went over there to expose her fake Reagan quotes initially, my subsequent posts were completely unrelated to her presence but she can't believe that she's not the center of our attention.

patteeu
02-16-2011, 10:55 AM
God help me, I agree with LaDairis. I think I need a drink.

You support, he supports. OMG :eek:

:)

SNR
02-16-2011, 10:57 AM
If Paul truly cared about the cause of libertarianism, he would realize he sukks as a candidate and step out of the way for a more electable one.By all means, if a better Libertarian candidate out there exists with as much experience, knowledge, rhetoric skills, and courage as Paul, let him/her come forward. At least the odds are they would be younger.

But none exist. Paul is the only candidate who has come around since it was necessary to create a Libertarian party/faction who has held a political office as high as Congressman.

Libertarianism in its very nature distrusts government solutions. Therefore a Libertarian involved in government politics is rare... unless they're crazy. Dr. Paul is slightly crazy to be doing this as long as he has, but he's also the only one who has had success.

Christ, you're like a Lions fan who hates Barry Sanders because he never won any big games for the team.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 11:18 AM
You support, he supports. OMG :eek:

:)

ROFL

Pretty sure the internet just blinked there.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:16 PM
"But none exist."


Paul is the ONE, there is NO OTHER PERSON who can represent the cause of libertarianism, and everyone else who tries like Barr gets their money cut off because really STOOOPID Paul butt lickers have a woody on for their guy and have trouble comprehending that their guy is ALWAYS GOING TO LOSE because he SUKKS as a CANDIDATE...

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:29 PM
"But none exist."


Paul is the ONE, there is NO OTHER PERSON who can represent the cause of libertarianism, and everyone else who tries like Barr gets their money cut off because really STOOOPID Paul butt lickers have a woody on for their guy and have trouble comprehending that their guy is ALWAYS GOING TO LOSE because he SUKKS as a CANDIDATE...

You do realize that Barr was a military interventionist which makes him not a libertarian either? He was for being involved in South America as I recall one of the LP's complaints about Barr.
Barr and that guy who ran with him as his VP, whatever his name, he turned out to be a NeoCon too. There were a lot of libertarians who were unhappy with Barr running on the L ticket. He just came along with disaffected Rs hoping he could use the LP because there were a few overlaps in views.

If you were for Barr, then I can understand your hostility toward Paul, because when he was out of the primary Barr wanted Paul to endorse him and his VP. Of course Paul wouldn't because he has too much integrity. So Barr and his VP dissed the heck out of Paul.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:31 PM
Barr was admittedly not a perfect libertarian, but he was sure a lot better option than John Sellout McCaipac.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 12:31 PM
Christ, you're like a Lions fan who hates Barry Sanders because he never won any big games for the team.

That's a great analogy. Ron Paul has advanced Libertarian politics more than anyone in at least 100 years (probably more). For a libertarian to be eager to see Ron Paul exit the stage is not seeing the forest through the trees.

And for my part, I don't believe anyone in the current Republican field has a shot to get elected against Obama, least of all Gary Johnson, who is the only other viable libertarian out there. But together on the national stage, I think the two of them can do a lot of damage to the lost Republican establishment, and put the party on a much better course for 2016.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:33 PM
Barr was admittedly not a perfect libertarian, but he was sure a lot better option than John Sellout McCaipac.

No, what I am saying is Barr is not a libertarian period. He's a conservative. Don't think I think there is something wrong with that either. I consider myself a conservative. Conservativism does have a libertarian heart but that's not the same as being a libertarian. There's just overlaps. I would have definitely voted for Barr had he won an R primary. But I wouldn't vote for him as a protest vote on the LP ticket. If I'm gonna do that I'd just as soon write in Paul which is what I did.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:34 PM
Ron Paul hasn't advanced libertarian politics AT ALL, other than his little cult of intolerant flattering worshippers...

UNDER 10% in the NH GOP PRIMARY = ANY QUESTIONS...

The guy SUKKS and should STEP ASIDE for someone WHO CAN WIN since HE CAN'T.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Ron Paul hasn't advanced libertarian politics AT ALL, other than his little cult of intolerant flattering worshippers...

UNDER 10% in the NH GOP PRIMARY = ANY QUESTIONS...

The guy SUKKS and should STEP ASIDE for someone WHO CAN WIN since HE CAN'T.

If that's true as you claim, then no one else with the same views has a chance of winning.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:36 PM
No, what I am saying is Barr is not a libertarian period. He's a conservative. Don't think I think there is something wrong with that either. I consider myself a conservative. Conservativism does have a libertarian heart but that's not the same as being a libertarian. There's just overlaps.


I don't agree. I think Barr is well above 50 on the score of 1-100 libertarian, and clearly was on the "outs" of a GOP that had been couped and was ready to start porking and selling out our troops. That's your biggest clue, that the GOP hated Barr. Why? Because Barr was asking questions and standing up to the Bible Thumping Socialist Porkfest...

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:37 PM
If that's true as you claim, then no one else with the same views has a chance of winning.


No, someone has a chance of winning if they "connect" with people, like Reagan did...

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:38 PM
I don't agree. I think Barr is well above 50 on the score of 1-100 libertarian, and clearly was on the "outs" of a GOP that had been couped and was ready to start porking and selling out our troops. That's your biggest clue, that the GOP hated Barr. Why? Because Barr was asking questions and standing up to the Bible Thumping Socialist Porkfest...

I agree on his stand on selling out our troops, his civil liberties stand and spending but he wanted some intervention in South America as I recall. LP doesn't go for that. He was a fish out of water there.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:39 PM
No, someone has a chance of winning if they "connect" with people, like Reagan did...

That's not good enough for me. Obama connected because he said the right things but it had a double meaning. People did want change they did not like the direction of the country. They still don't despite Obama's claiming to be for change. Charisma and charm does win elections but it isn't getting the country where it needs to go either. People get what they vote for. Besides Barr isn't exactly a charmer that connected either. You don't think anyone would remember him for the Clinton impeachment?

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:40 PM
but he was still a lot better than John Sellout McCaipac and Obama.

Do you want to WIN and get SOME of the libertarian agenda, or do you insist on NONE like the Paul fanatics?

Taco John
02-16-2011, 12:40 PM
Ron Paul hasn't advanced libertarian politics AT ALL, other than his little cult of intolerant flattering worshippers...

UNDER 10% in the NH GOP PRIMARY = ANY QUESTIONS...

The guy SUKKS and should STEP ASIDE for someone WHO CAN WIN since HE CAN'T.



That's fine by me. You voted for Bob ****ing Barr. I mean, how seriously do you expect anyone to take you. It's one thing to cast a protest vote for a real libertarian with a distinguished libertarian public track record, and another thing to just throw your vote away on a guy who woke up one day and decided that liberty suits his political goals.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:41 PM
That's not good enough for me. Obama connected because he said the right things but it had a double meaning. Charisma and charm does win elections but it isn't getting the country where it needs to go either. Besides Barr isn't exactly a charmer either.



But you need charisma to WIN. The American voting public is not intellectual. They are mostly "people persons" without a clue. Reagan campaigned as a libertarian, with the "US media" howling at him the whole time, and did he get over 10% in a NH primary???

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:42 PM
But you need charisma to WIN. The American voting public is not intellectual. They are mostly "people persons" without a clue. Reagan campaigned as a libertarian, with the "US media" howling at him the whole time, and did he get over 10% in a NH primary???

I know. I said that. Remember?
I am just saying that's not enough for me.


BTW, true libertarians are critical of Reagan for resorting to a Keynesian stimulus, not abolishing the DoE, hardly any spending cuts, too little deregulation and they never bought into the Cold War....as the US gave them aid and trade or they would have collapsed sooner.

patteeu
02-16-2011, 12:43 PM
That's fine by me. You voted for Bob ****ing Barr. I mean, how seriously do you expect anyone to take you. It's one thing to cast a protest vote for a real libertarian with a distinguished libertarian public track record, and another thing to just throw your vote away on a guy who woke up one day and decided that liberty suits his political goals.

Nah, a protest vote is a protest vote. No more, no less.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 12:43 PM
but he was still a lot better than John Sellout McCaipac and Obama.

Do you want to WIN and get SOME of the libertarian agenda, or do you insist on NONE like the Paul fanatics?


Winning is the whole point. That's why I support Ron Paul. I don't expect Ron Paul to win. I expect him to educate better than anyone else out there could possibly do. No one else, Bob Barr least of all, has managed to do as much as Ron Paul has in this regard since Reagan was a bright-eyed firebrand during the Barry Goldwater days. Whoever comes up under Paul (which I believe Rand Paul and Gary Johnson will be the benefactors) will have Ron Paul to thank for setting the stage for them.

Bob Barr? He's a nobody neverwas.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:43 PM
That's fine by me. You voted for Bob ****ing Barr. I mean, how seriously do you expect anyone to take you. It's one thing to cast a protest vote for a real libertarian with a distinguished libertarian public track record, and another thing to just throw your vote away on a guy who woke up one day and decided that liberty suits his political goals.


You see elections as either

1. vote for Ron Paul

or

2. go home, suck thumb, and look forward to the next election where Ron Paul will suck up all the oxygen from the libertarian base and flop again as a candidate...



I see elections as a chance to vote for the candidate who will do the most good, and of the choice of

Obama
John Sellout McCaipac
and Bob Barr



was pretty obvious IMO...

Taco John
02-16-2011, 12:44 PM
Nah, a protest vote is a protest vote. No more, no less.

A vote is a vote, no more no less. The only ones that count are for the winning candidate.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:44 PM
"Winning is the whole point. That's why I support Ron Paul. I don't expect Ron Paul to win."


and you call others "crazy" and "insane..."

patteeu
02-16-2011, 12:46 PM
"Winning is the whole point. That's why I support Ron Paul. I don't expect Ron Paul to win."


and you call others "crazy" and "insane..."

The rare case of LaDairis scoring a clever rhetorical point has been preserved here for posterity.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:47 PM
You see elections as either

1. vote for Ron Paul

or

2. go home, suck thumb, and look forward to the next election where Ron Paul will suck up all the oxygen from the libertarian base and flop again as a candidate...



I see elections as a chance to vote for the candidate who will do the most good, and of the choice of

Obama
John Sellout McCaipac
and Bob Barr



was pretty obvious IMO...

I used to vote that way but in the last Presidential election. I knew I was tossing out my vote for a winner, but I felt strongly about that for that election. I didn't think the Rs were going to win anyway. In the meantime I voted D for congress in 2006 as a protest but didn't vote for a D for congress in 2010. When I am ready to jump back into, at least a moderately true election, then I go back to voting for the lesser of two evils....just not when it's evil versus evil. I mean I could consider Trump even because of what he said about Iraq. I just wonder about his Constitutional knowledge as he's a businessman more.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:48 PM
We definitely need more organic billionaires in government, because they do not SELL OUT like non-billionaires. Trump at least would do what Trump wants, not what AIPAC and AARP want like W did...

patteeu
02-16-2011, 12:49 PM
I used to vote that way but in the last Presidential election. I knew I was tossing out my vote for a winner, but I felt strongly about that for that election. I didn't think the Rs were going to win anyway. In the meantime I voted D for congress in 2006 as a protest but didn't vote for a D for congress in 2010. When I ready to jump back into at least a moderately true election then I go back to voting for the lesser of two evils....just not when it's evil versus evil. I mean I could consider Trump even because of what he said about Iraq. I just wonder about his Constitutional knowledge as he's a businessman more.

Thanks for Obamacare.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 12:51 PM
"Winning is the whole point. That's why I support Ron Paul. I don't expect Ron Paul to win."


and you call others "crazy" and "insane..."

Where did I call anyone "crazy" or "insane?" You apparently have a persecution complex.

Interesting that aside from that little piece of make-believe, you also ripped my statement from it's context and considered it to be good.

I'm looking at the big picture - the long run. Libertarian politics are advanced 10 years from where I had imagined they would be when I first contemplated their progression in the 90's. The reason for this advancement is the 2008 Ron Paul campaign.

I see 2016 and 2020 as viable years for libertarian politics. 2012, I see as a chance to educate the population the same way that Barry Goldwater did back in the day. Nobody is going to beat Obama given the current trajectory. That's not to count out a black swan event from sabotaging him. But absent of that, Obama is going to get his second term at this current rate.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:52 PM
Well look who's thanking for Obamacare—the man who supported Romney of Romney care and who wants to keep but tweak Obamacare. ( like many other Rs as well)
You got Obamcare because you ran NeoCons resulting in McCain and for defending Bush/Cheney/Rummy on Iraq no matter what when most people were fed up and disgusted at the direction the country was led in. You've got no one to blame but your past leader. Another case of zero responsibility.

patteeu
02-16-2011, 12:55 PM
Well look who's thanking for Obamacare—the man who supported Romney of Romney care and who wants to keep but tweak Obamacare. ( like many other Rs as well)
You got Obamcare because you ran NeoCons resulting in McCain and for defending Bush/Cheney/Rummy on Iraq no matter what when most people were fed up and disgusted at the direction the country was led in. You've got no one to blame but your past leader. Another case of zero responsibility.

Thanks for porkulus and the bailouts too.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 12:55 PM
uh huh

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 12:56 PM
"'I'm looking at the big picture - the long run. Libertarian politics are advanced 10 years from where I had imagined they would be when I first contemplated their progression in the 90's. The reason for this advancement is the 2008 Ron Paul campaign."


In the 1990s, we had six straight years of NO FEDERAL SPENDING INCREASES...

In 2008, Ron Paul, the only even remotely "libertarian" candidate in the GOP primaries, failed to get 10% in NH....

In 2011, Paul's fanatical supporters look to "build" upon Paul's "impressive" showing in 2008, and will be fully satisfied of Paul gets to 11% in NH in 2012...

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 01:00 PM
"'I'm looking at the big picture - the long run. Libertarian politics are advanced 10 years from where I had imagined they would be when I first contemplated their progression in the 90's. The reason for this advancement is the 2008 Ron Paul campaign."


In the 1990s, we had six straight years of NO FEDERAL SPENDING INCREASES...
Like I said, a divided govt with a Republican congress ( hopefully with enough of the right kind of Rs) is the best way out of our current condition. That congress doesn't get enough credit but that is how it works. Presidents get all the credit.

In 2008, Ron Paul, the only even remotely "libertarian" candidate in the GOP primaries, failed to get 10% in NH....

In 2011, Paul's fanatical supporters look to "build" upon Paul's "impressive" showing in 2008, and will be fully satisfied of Paul gets to 11% in NH in 2012...

2008 is in the past. Paul wouldn't be subjected to the current levels of attacks if he was not creating some stir or threat even if just at the level of ideas put on the national stage. That's saying something.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Seems like we're in the later part of stage 2 crossing over into fighting. Ya' know like we're doing here. For me, if his ideas take hold then we're winning.

Taco John
02-16-2011, 01:05 PM
Thanks for porkulus and the bailouts too.

Both of those would have cleared McCain's desk.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 01:06 PM
"Paul wouldn't be subjected to the current levels of attacks if he was not creating some stir"


FALSE

Mitch (I love EARMARKS) McConnell and other "kinswervivtvs" hate Paul and anyone else who wants to constrain federal PORK.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 01:13 PM
"Paul wouldn't be subjected to the current levels of attacks if he was not creating some stir"


FALSE

Mitch (I love EARMARKS) McConnell and other "kinswervivtvs" hate Paul and anyone else who wants to constrain federal PORK.

You just made the same claim I made, using a different example. He threatens the status-quo.

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 01:24 PM
but he doesn't threaten the Presidency, and THAT is the point...

patteeu
02-16-2011, 01:26 PM
Like I said, a divided govt with a Republican congress ( hopefully with enough of the right kind of Rs) is the best way out of our current condition. That congress doesn't get enough credit but that is how it works. Presidents get all the credit.



2008 is in the past. Paul wouldn't be subjected to the current levels of attacks if he was not creating some stir or threat even if just at the level of ideas put on the national stage. That's saying something.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Seems like we're in the later part of stage 2 crossing over into fighting. Ya' know like we're doing here. For me, if his ideas take hold then we're winning.

I think we're still at the "ridiculing" stage wrt his foreign policy views. I don't see us moving on anytime soon, either.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 02:47 PM
That's fine by me. You voted for Bob ****ing Barr. I mean, how seriously do you expect anyone to take you. It's one thing to cast a protest vote for a real libertarian with a distinguished libertarian public track record, and another thing to just throw your vote away on a guy who woke up one day and decided that liberty suits his political goals.

If given a choice between McCain, Obama, or Bob Barr, I'm taking Barr.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 02:49 PM
Where did I call anyone "crazy" or "insane?" You apparently have a persecution complex.

Interesting that aside from that little piece of make-believe, you also ripped my statement from it's context and considered it to be good.

I'm looking at the big picture - the long run. Libertarian politics are advanced 10 years from where I had imagined they would be when I first contemplated their progression in the 90's. The reason for this advancement is the 2008 Ron Paul campaign.

I see 2016 and 2020 as viable years for libertarian politics. 2012, I see as a chance to educate the population the same way that Barry Goldwater did back in the day. Nobody is going to beat Obama given the current trajectory. That's not to count out a black swan event from sabotaging him. But absent of that, Obama is going to get his second term at this current rate.

Sadly, I'm in agreement here.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 02:56 PM
but he doesn't threaten the Presidency, and THAT is the point...

If he wasn't a potential threat there, as well as on the committee he is on there wouldn't be much noise. That there is says something.

Jaric
02-16-2011, 03:05 PM
I think we're still at the "ridiculing" stage wrt his foreign policy views. I don't see us moving on anytime soon, either.

I don't take foreign policy to the extremes that Paul does. I also accept that if we wanted to switch to something closer to what he wants, there is no way it could be done any other way other than to take baby steps that direction.

That said, the demands of empire are expensive. And it needs to be scaled back along with the rest of our spending.

Not to mention that you can never escape the law of unintended consequences.

jettio
02-16-2011, 03:16 PM
Like I said, a divided govt with a Republican congress ( hopefully with enough of the right kind of Rs) is the best way out of our current condition. That congress doesn't get enough credit but that is how it works. Presidents get all the credit.



2008 is in the past. Paul wouldn't be subjected to the current levels of attacks if he was not creating some stir or threat even if just at the level of ideas put on the national stage. That's saying something.


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Seems like we're in the later part of stage 2 crossing over into fighting. Ya' know like we're doing here. For me, if his ideas take hold then we're winning.

I don't think that Gandhi quote applies to everybody.

Like Obama, First they congratulate you for your speech, then you get a lead in the primaries, then you win the election and then Buc Eyed Pea says that you must be lying about who your daddy is because she can do DNA testing by looking at photographs.

I think Ron Paul's biggest problem is that his strongest supporters tend to have most of their screws torqued well below the manufacturer's specifications.

SNR
02-16-2011, 03:31 PM
Ron Paul hasn't advanced libertarian politics AT ALL, other than his little cult of intolerant flattering worshippers...

UNDER 10% in the NH GOP PRIMARY = ANY QUESTIONS...

The guy SUKKS and should STEP ASIDE for someone WHO CAN WIN since HE CAN'T.Ron Paul's "They hate us for our freedoms" moment against Giuliani in the debates is what solidified my own personal understanding of libertarianism and my own political beliefs. They've slightly changed since then, but not by much.

Who the fuck was I supposed to listen to before Ron Paul articulated these ideas in a presidential debate? There was NOBODY.

Ron Paul is the first and only so far. So get out of here with that shit. Go find a Libertarian leader as good as Paul. Until you do, shut the fuck up

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 03:42 PM
"Ron Paul is the first and only so far"


as if time began post 911...

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 03:45 PM
I think Ron Paul's biggest problem is that his strongest supporters tend to have most of their screws torqued well below the manufacturer's specifications.

Except that's just your opinion. Not everyone was in Ghandi's camp or even our Founding Fathers who were considered radicals.
The thing is polls show the majority of the American people sick of the occupations and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ( as well as Bushevik's and Obma's spending) One of those occupations Obama said he'd do something about. Our FP isn't that much different between the two parties. They just differ in how they want it done.

Still, it says all about those who can't refute Paul on his stands when they can only go after the boisterous youth that support him or Truthers. There's so much more to the man than focusing on part of a very diverse group of supporters. It's actually the "fringe" that's been in power for 11 years now.

SNR
02-16-2011, 03:46 PM
"Ron Paul is the first and only so far"


as if time began post 911...Give me names, Jew-hater

jettio
02-16-2011, 04:00 PM
Except that's just your opinion. Not everyone was in Ghandi's camp or even our Founding Fathers who were considered radicals.
The thing is polls show the majority of the American people sick of the occupations and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ( as well as Bushevik's and Obma's spending) One of those occupations Obama said he'd do something about. Our FP isn't that much different between the two parties. They just differ in how they want it done.

Still, it says all about those who can't refute Paul on his stands when they can only go after the boisterous youth that support him or Truthers. There's so much more to the man than focusing on part of a very diverse group of supporters. It's actually the "fringe" that's been in power for 11 years now.

I think it will be hard for Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination when his female supporters don't shave their armpits but his male supporters do.

Who is Rand Paul's real father?

You must think he looks more like Lew Rockwell than Ron Paul.

go bowe
02-16-2011, 04:02 PM
Give me names, Jew-haterbible thumping socialist zionist conservative in name only w supporter!

SNR
02-16-2011, 04:07 PM
bible thumping socialist zionist conservative in name only w supporter!
Do you guys remember why this asshole disappeared before? Did he get banned?

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 04:22 PM
thik cuz two meny wur upst et de truth TFG wuz postin bout W not bein kinswervitv

SNR
02-16-2011, 04:26 PM
thik cuz two meny wur upst et de truth TFG wuz postin bout W not bein kinswervitvNo, I think it's because you choose to frame all of your political views within the context of those dirty Zionists who protect the dirty Jews who control our country.

Am I close?

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 04:27 PM
I think it will be hard for Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination....
I already said this. But copying is the sincerest form of flattery.
Who is Rand Paul's real father?

You must think he looks more like Lew Rockwell than Ron Paul.

Hey look, I'm a visual artist. I think Obama has features of Davis. That's my opinion. I also think it's plausible that he could be his real dad. I listened to that broadcast. Lots of circumstantial evidence. That plus he had the money to put him through Columbia and Harvard because his mom and so-called dad did not have that kind of money. Not only that it also means Obama is really an American. He may have also been born at home and all these circumstantial pieces combined could explain the reluctance to produce a long form BC—because it's really something else that's just personally embarrassing he may not want known. So I don't see what your problem is, other than you're having difficulty with someone's opinion and are trying to be be tit-for-tat. Not that it's really the topic of this thread. To be honest, I don't care if Rockwell was Rand's father or not—at least he's not a communist. :D

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 04:33 PM
No, I think it's because you choose to frame all of your political views within the context of those dirty Zionists who protect the dirty Jews who control our country.

Am I close?



Cowards always toss cards...


The term "dirty Jews" was never used...


Now, in explaining why W wanted to invade Iraq over intentional lies, one cannot do that without looking at Zionism and Zionists...

SNR
02-16-2011, 04:39 PM
Cowards always toss cards...


The term "dirty Jews" was never used...


Now, in explaining why W wanted to invade Iraq over intentional lies, one cannot do that without looking at Zionism and Zionists...We're getting off topic.

Name me some past/present Libertarian politicians who carried the torch and rallied thousands of small government fans nationally. I'll even start you out with one:

-Ron Paul
- ??????

LaDairis
02-16-2011, 04:47 PM
Ronald Wilson Reagan

won two landslides despite our "US media" being 100% against him

ClevelandBronco
02-16-2011, 04:50 PM
Do you guys remember why this asshole disappeared before? Did he get banned?

I'll lay heavy odds that it had something to do with him being institutionalized.

SNR
02-16-2011, 04:55 PM
Ronald Wilson Reagan

won two landslides despite our "US media" being 100% against him:facepalm:

I thought you were going to say Barry Goldwater. You instead showed that I have way too much faith in your intelligence.

go bowe
02-16-2011, 05:36 PM
really, are you slow or something?

jew-lover!

jettio
02-16-2011, 06:11 PM
I already said this. But copying is the sincerest form of flattery.


Hey look, I'm a visual artist. I think Obama has features of Davis. That's my opinion. I also think it's plausible that he could be his real dad. I listened to that broadcast. Lots of circumstantial evidence. That plus he had the money to put him through Columbia and Harvard because his mom and so-called dad did not have that kind of money. Not only that it also means Obama is really an American. He may have also been born at home and all these circumstantial pieces combined could explain the reluctance to produce a long form BC—because it's really something else that's just personally embarrassing he may not want known. So I don't see what your problem is, other than you're having difficulty with someone's opinion and are trying to be be tit-for-tat. Not that it's really the topic of this thread. To be honest, I don't care if Rockwell was Rand's father or not—at least he's not a communist. :D

Perhaps, you should attempt to visualize how you make yourself look when you adopt mean-spirited nonsense and then explain your gullibility by telling everyone how talented you are at comparing photographs to discern genetic origin.

The people putting forward that nonsense do not even believe in it, and here you are believing in it more than the people that made the sh*t up.

Ron Paul would thank you if you used your extraordinary visual talent to stop making a spectacle of yourself.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:33 PM
Perhaps, you should attempt to visualize how you make yourself look when you adopt mean-spirited nonsense and then explain your gullibility by telling everyone how talented you are at comparing photographs to discern genetic origin.

The people putting forward that nonsense do not even believe in it, and here you are believing in it more than the people that made the sh*t up.

Ron Paul would thank you if you used your extraordinary visual talent to stop making a spectacle of yourself.

Uh huh. I think you're in the wrong thread.

BTW "plausible" means apparently valid or having an appearance of truth or reason....it does not mean hard fact. If there's more there to look at or that refutes this story I am willing to hear it.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2011, 09:34 PM
Fox news at it again.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lwo0Iyrh1Zk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>