Ron Paul

[Furtherman]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Hfa7vT02lA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Hfa7vT02lA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I'm lovin' this guy.

I know it's early and barely matters, but I think he gave the most sincere, straight-forward answers and wasn't looking just to give sound bites.

[A.J.]

Any relation to Fez Paul?

[johnniewalker]

I'm glad he was able to get out there. Its the first time i've listened to a politician in a while. Is there a libertarian other than Ron Paul?

[badmonkey]

I was going to suggest Lyndon LaRouche until I looked him up online to verify spelling for his name and found this.

Another question we sometimes hear: Is political extremist Lyndon
LaRouche in the Libertarian Party? No. LaRouche has never been
associated in any way with us. He runs for office as a Democrat.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/party/common-questions/

Badmonkey

[El Mudo]

I'm going to vote for Pierre LaRouche


http://www.celebritygolf.com/celebpics/Photo479-sm.jpg

[Fezticle98]

I liked what he had to say about personal privacy, specifically in relation to the idea of a national ID Card. I don't think that bit was included in the video, but I caught it on a replay of the debate.

He seems like a pretty straightforward guy as far as his answers in the debate went. Even though he has no chance, hopefully he can stay in there long enough to get some of his pet-issues into the dialogue.

[johnniewalker]

I love Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!

Government and Racism

April 16, 2007

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus 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.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

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.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. 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. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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 obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

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.

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 our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

[Furtherman]

I love Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!

Government and Racism

April 16, 2007

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus 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.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

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.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. 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. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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 obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

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.

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 our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Did he write that? You didn't source it.

If it is him... I'm loving him even more!

[johnniewalker]

Did he write that? You didn't source it.

If it is him... I'm loving him even more!

Yeah he does a weekly column. I always thought that would be a great idea for politician to do a blog like this. It leaves you open to criticism, but it shows you have opinions and are willing to think out ideas like this. I'm fully in the ron paul camp.

[Furtherman]

Yeah he does a weekly column.


Alrighty then, let's have the web address!

[johnniewalker]

Alrighty then, let's have the web address!

Sorry, its actually on his congressional page which is kind of surprising to me. Most keep there opinions so bland on there.

Legislative Information (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml), its under the Texas Straight Talk.

[HBox]

I love Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!

Government and Racism

April 16, 2007

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus 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.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

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.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. 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. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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 obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

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.

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 our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

That is dumb. He used the Imus situation to attack the government and FCC even though the government and FCC had nothing to with the situation. He complains about the stifling of free speech but has no words of criticism for the company that stifled it: CBS. What the hell did the Imus situation have to do with taxes, corporate subsidies and welfare?

See this for what it is: A politician capitalizing on a news story and bending it beyond recognition to fit in with his own agenda. Just because he seems to be on your side (Although I honestly can't tell. He never said Imus shouldn't have been fired.) doesn't change that. I find this more insulting than those who called for Imus firing. At least they might have been genuine. This is just exploitation.

[Furtherman]

I disagree. He's said more on the FCC and the countries obsession "with racial group identities" than any other candidate.

Most are too scared to mention race at all, for fear of losing voters.

[johnniewalker]

That is dumb. He used the Imus situation to attack the government and FCC even though the government and FCC had nothing to with the situation. He complains about the stifling of free speech but has no words of criticism for the company that stifled it: CBS. What the hell did the Imus situation have to do with taxes, corporate subsidies and welfare?

See this for what it is: A politician capitalizing on a news story and bending it beyond recognition to fit in with his own agenda. Just because he seems to be on your side (Although I honestly can't tell. He never said Imus shouldn't have been fired.) doesn't change that. I find this more insulting than those who called for Imus firing. At least they might have been genuine. This is just exploitation.

Why is it dumb? He's saying that the rutger's girls never had the the power to speak for themselves and apologize with meaning, and they should have. Also if you read the title carefully it says Government and Racism, it makes no mention Imus. So i think it should follow that it should be about government and racism not wholly about the business aspects of the Imus firing. Could it be that the idea of the FCC has promoted the idea that certain aspects of language should be regulated, so therefore groups now think more should be regulated as well? It's not that far of a stretch. As much as you want to argue this is a singular business action, I think a lot of people see that there could be larger ramifications to it.

[HBox]

Why is it dumb? He's saying that the rutger's girls never had the the power to speak for themselves and apologize with meaning, and they should have. Also if you read the title carefully it says Government and Racism, it makes no mention Imus. So i think it should follow that it should be about government and racism not wholly about the business aspects of the Imus firing. Could it be that the idea of the FCC has promoted the idea that certain aspects of language should be regulated, so therefore groups now think more should be regulated as well? It's not that far of a stretch. As much as you want to argue this is a singular business action, I think a lot of people see that there could be larger ramifications to it.

I do think there is value to having a portion of the public airwaves content regulated as long as there are alternatives not regulated. There should be a portion of content that is subject to at least some standards. And just because there will never be general consensus on what those standards should be doesn't mean we should give up and not do it at all.

And yes, the premise is dumb and twisted the story for his own ideology. The idea that government regulation is at all responsible for these groups action is dumb. It would require ignoring the history of this country, the feelings of inferiority that creates and the racism that still exists. If government regulation stopped tomorrow those groups wouldn't stop and if it never existed it wouldn't have stopped them.

So again, the government had nothing to do with the Imus situation and any chilling effects will come from advertisers. But he has no time for that because he's too busy pushing his libertarian agenda. Because at the end of the day he doesn't have anything but a personal opinion on the matter. And he didn't even offer that. And as a libertarian he would stay out of it and allow the parties involved deal with it. Which would lead to the same conclusion. Unless you actually believe that if the FCC never existed this would never happen. Because that's all he's saying, and yes, I think that's really stupid.

[johnniewalker]

I do think there is value to having a portion of the public airwaves content regulated as long as there are alternatives not regulated. There should be a portion of content that is subject to at least some standards. And just because there will never be general consensus on what those standards should be doesn't mean we should give up and not do it at all.

And yes, the premise is dumb and twisted the story for his own ideology. The idea that government regulation is at all responsible for these groups action is dumb. It would require ignoring the history of this country, the feelings of inferiority that creates and the racism that still exists. If government regulation stopped tomorrow those groups wouldn't stop and if it never existed it wouldn't have stopped them.

So again, the government had nothing to do with the Imus situation and any chilling effects will come from advertisers. But he has no time for that because he's too busy pushing his libertarian agenda. Because at the end of the day he doesn't have anything but a personal opinion on the matter. And he didn't even offer that. And as a libertarian he would stay out of it and allow the parties involved deal with it. Which would lead to the same conclusion. Unless you actually believe that if the FCC never existed this would never happen. Because that's all he's saying, and yes, I think that's really stupid.

I re-read it and i'll give you two parts. "Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way." Ehh, actually they have some, but very little. The obvious "shouting fire in a theater" example, fighting words, etc...make sense and should be regulated. "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" Banning welfare is kind of an old argument that kind of has fallen to the wayside. Its obvious it has its usefulness. Maybe corporate subsidies, but its not a real great statement.

Alright let's get past those two kinda unfortuanate statements where I think you had the problem. "...[G]overnment as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society" I think you are missing the point that it is not that original government intervention was the initial cause of this type of group mentality or racial identification. Can you imagine a politician going up and saying Brown v. Board of Education was the reason why racism pervades today? That would be silly. I think a part of his argument he's clearly pointing at is affirmative action. I'm not sure who you consider dumb or smart, but the supreme fleshed out these very arguments about 4 years ago in the Michigan Law School and Michigan College affirmative action cases. O'Connor put a 25 year limit on affirmative action in the main opinion b/c of the problems that promoting "diversity" causes. Scalia argued the problems between location based culture and race based culture sort of the same race based collectivist argument Ron Paul made. I'm not just spouting off random shit to be a dick, i'm just saying similar arugments were made that pervasive government intervention can have negative effects even in the name of diversity. I think that's where he was going with it that the collective of racial identifcation promoted by the government, other things along with an idea of regulating morality with the FCC has led to the groups thinking they must take action in the Imus fiasco. I'm not sure it is 100% right, but its not stupid when you look at all the arugments.

Plus it is a weekly blog, and this is exactly why politicians don't f'n do this b/c they would have people nitpick every word they say and have said for as long as they've done their blog. I'd imagine he's not out to write a perfect piece of writing every week, so I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Long live Fez Paul!!!!!

[HBox]

I re-read it and i'll give you two parts. "Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way." Ehh, actually they have some, but very little. The obvious "shouting fire in a theater" example, fighting words, etc...make sense and should be regulated. "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" Banning welfare is kind of an old argument that kind of has fallen to the wayside. Its obvious it has its usefulness. Maybe corporate subsidies, but its not a real great statement.

Alright let's get past those two kinda unfortuanate statements where I think you had the problem. "...[G]overnment as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society" I think you are missing the point that it is not that original government intervention was the initial cause of this type of group mentality or racial identification. Can you imagine a politician going up and saying Brown v. Board of Education was the reason why racism pervades today? That would be silly. I think a part of his argument he's clearly pointing at is affirmative action. I'm not sure who you consider dumb or smart, but the supreme fleshed out these very arguments about 4 years ago in the Michigan Law School and Michigan College affirmative action cases. O'Connor put a 25 year limit on affirmative action in the main opinion b/c of the problems that promoting "diversity" causes. Scalia argued the problems between location based culture and race based culture sort of the same race based collectivist argument Ron Paul made. I'm not just spouting off random shit to be a dick, i'm just saying similar arugments were made that pervasive government intervention can have negative effects even in the name of diversity. I think that's where he was going with it that the collective of racial identifcation promoted by the government, other things along with an idea of regulating morality with the FCC has led to the groups thinking they must take action in the Imus fiasco. I'm not sure it is 100% right, but its not stupid when you look at all the arugments.

Plus it is a weekly blog, and this is exactly why politicians don't f'n do this b/c they would have people nitpick every word they say and have said for as long as they've done their blog. I'd imagine he's not out to write a perfect piece of writing every week, so I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Long live Fez Paul!!!!!

I just think that it's an example of a politician jumping on a story to try and justify his own beliefs when it has nothing to do with them. If he tried to do it with the Virginia Tech shooting people would be outraged. I think its wrong and annoying either way. And he's obviously not the only guy who does it but I feel this is a pretty egregious example.

I'll give you that affirmative action right now probably inflames racial tensions. I do think its necessary in some instances but its temporary problematic solution to a problem that will eventually need to be solved some other way. But I just don't think that kind of stuff had anything to do with this. Slurs create a very deep emotional response. Government coddling cannot possibly be responsible for all of it, most of it or any significant portion of it. Its comes from their own life experiences that none of us whities can truly understand.

And beyond that, even though I agree with libertarians a lot of the time they bug me. And it's for one reason: I hate blind ideology. It's stupid to think that government can be the solution to every problem. Similarly it stupid to think that government is the source of every problem, or cannot ever be a solution to any problem. I think that's a dangerous line of thinking. And reading Paul trying to jump on a unrelated story and twist it for his own views touched a nerve in me.

[Fezticle98]

Looks like Ron Paul may have shit the bed in tonight's debate. He made some comments to the effect of U.S. bombing of Iraq during sanctions is what caused 9/11. Giuliani angrily responded with the standard "they hate our freedoms" line. While I feel that Rudy's explanation is stupid oversimplification, the exchange didn't go over well for Paul. His zaniness came out.

I'm actually tuned in to Fox News to see his explanation.

[FezPaul]

Any relation to Fez Paul?

He seems to annoy HBox, so I would say yes.

[Fezticle98]

Ha ha! Ron Paul is winning the stupid Fox News text poll of who won the debate.

30% for Paul. He rules!

[scottinnj]

Yep, watching the debate right now on my DVR. This dude rules.




This is just as good as if Pat Buchanan were running.

[scottinnj]

I'm actually tuned in to Fox News to see his explanation.


I tune into Fox News all the time. It doesn't make you a bad person.

[JPMNICK]

the inflation tax arguement was a great one. I agree with him on that one a lot. I also love his stand on not regulating the internet

[johnniewalker]

A little Ron Paul update. Ron Paul is took some heat over the whole debate flap.

" After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate."

Pat Buchanan wrote a good article on it in support of him. Who was right - Rudy or Ron? (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true)

Hannity had a little exchange with Ron Paul, too (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KNz0pta4PVU)

It's lovely to see him irk people and make these debates a little bit interesting. Fight the good fight Ron Paul.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I definitely like this guy. Hbox, I find your argument lacking because all the precious Democrat candidates exploited the Imus situation way more than Paul did by actually going on television and then going for photo shoots with the players, and I know you would instantly vote for Clinton or Obama in a heartbeat. And you know I'm right in your heart of hearts.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

the inflation tax arguement was a great one. I agree with him on that one a lot. I also love his stand on not regulating the internet

Absolutely. That alone makes me love the man beyond all these other pontificating generalizing non-specific asses running for office. Shame he won't get nominated most likely.

[Fezticle98]

Ron Paul is on the Daily Show tonight. Should be great.

[Yerdaddy]

I agree with HBox completely.

[johnniewalker]

I agree with HBox completely.

You get absolutely nothing from him? I think he's really interesting he puts himself out there with a weekly blog and at the debates. Do you think he's a complete fraud, or do you just not identify with anything he says?

[Yerdaddy]

I think that article, while more moderate than half the vitriol spewed out from most of the right-wing propaganda industry, is populist clap-trap that simply exploits the issue of censorship and racism, (obviously with the Imus story in mind), to grind his own political axes. Government is the cause and capitalism is the solution to censorship and racism? That's retarded. Market forces was the main reason Imus was fired and market forces he was playing to when he made the racist comment. Government had nothing to do with it. (What you've been saying: that the government and group mentalities that influenced the markets to act the way they did is, frankly, just silly. You're saying that businesses look at governments as role models. Cuckoo!)

I don't hate the guy. I think he's interesting and I like having him in the House. He is a bit like having third party repersentation and I think we need a bit of that. I like the example he sets that you don't have to conform to the party line when that party line is insane and self-destructive. We need more of that. But he's ultimately an ideologue therefore assuring that he gets his facts and analysis wrong. This piece is a great example of that concept.

[high fly]

Ron Paul was correctr about the reasons given for Osama bin Laden attacking the U.S.
A sizeable portion of the first part of Michael Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris is devoted to this topic.
Scheuer is the former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden station.
Another good book is a compendium of all the statements by bin Laden released to the public, titled, Messages to the World.

The major reasons consistently given by bin Laden for attacking us are:

Our support of corrupt, oppressive regimes in Muslim countries

Our support for Israel

Our support for countries like Russia and China who abuse Muslims

Our trade policies which keep oil prices low and otherwise rob them of their profits

Stationing of military forces in Muslim lands - forces which bomb and kill Muslims

Presence of Americans on the Arabian Peninsula

There may be one or two others, but these are the main ones.


In one of bin Laden's communiques, he says something like, "Why are we killing you over there?
Because you are killing us over here."

[Midkiff]

Wow.... this is the first republican I could actually support.

[Yerdaddy]

Ron Paul was correctr about the reasons given for Osama bin Laden attacking the U.S.
A sizeable portion of the first part of Michael Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris is devoted to this topic.
Scheuer is the former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden station.
Another good book is a compendium of all the statements by bin Laden released to the public, titled, Messages to the World.

The major reasons consistently given by bin Laden for attacking us are:

Our support of corrupt, oppressive regimes in Muslim countries

Our support for Israel

Our support for countries like Russia and China who abuse Muslims

Our trade policies which keep oil prices low and otherwise rob them of their profits

Stationing of military forces in Muslim lands - forces which bomb and kill Muslims

Presence of Americans on the Arabian Peninsula

There may be one or two others, but these are the main ones.


In one of bin Laden's communiques, he says something like, "Why are we killing you over there?
Because you are killing us over here."

But no mention of of our WMD right?

[Ritalin]

Ron Paul O: There's no debate he should be president!..ah geh geh geh.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I agree with HBox completely.

I don't.

They're all fucking assholes with the Imus thing. The only people who have spoken any semblance of sense on the issue are Republicans I wouldn't dream of voting for. As Blowhard pointed out, Obama placed Imus and the Virginia Tech Shooter in the same sentence. That's not cuckoo to you? At least Ronnie talks some goddamn sense about most everything else. The fact that this is the major reason people dislike him is a load of crap and shows how we are nitpicking just because we can- we're no better than the Republican voters who make a big fat squeal about a politician's status as a "regular guy" as being a determinant factor in their votes.

I find in politics that most people running have at least one serious line of extra odiferous bullshit that is just erupting from all possible angles. This apparently is Ron Paul's major flaw. He happens to share it with most of the candidates who don't have an insane positive view of Iraq.

As for needing "a little" third party representation...I say we need a LOT of it. And we need to knock these lying Democrats and Republicans onto their asses and kick them out of power for now. Neither it's been proven want to stop the war in Iraq, they support it behind empty speeches they make against it, and nothing is gonna change for the better under either party unless things magically go their way in the world, which ain't gonna happen. And corporate markets have too much of a say on their policies as it is- lobbyists for instance- so it's not too far off the mark to say government and corporations are a wee bit too wedged together these days.

[Yerdaddy]

I don't.

They're all fucking assholes with the Imus thing. The only people who have spoken any semblance of sense on the issue are Republicans I wouldn't dream of voting for. As Blowhard pointed out, Obama placed Imus and the Virginia Tech Shooter in the same sentence. That's not cuckoo to you? At least Ronnie talks some goddamn sense about most everything else. The fact that this is the major reason people dislike him is a load of crap and shows how we are nitpicking just because we can- we're no better than the Republican voters who make a big fat squeal about a politician's status as a "regular guy" as being a determinant factor in their votes.

You're not addressing my (or HBox's) arguments. That Ron Paul piece is a pack of self-serving distortions. He blames government and liberals for racism and censorship because that fits his ideology. We disagreed with his arguments. I think you're talking about the fact that he's talking against censorship, but that's not what we were addressing at all.

As for needing "a little" third party representation...I say we need a LOT of it. And we need to knock these lying Democrats and Republicans onto their asses and kick them out of power for now. Neither it's been proven want to stop the war in Iraq, they support it behind empty speeches they make against it, and nothing is gonna change for the better under either party unless things magically go their way in the world, which ain't gonna happen. And corporate markets have too much of a say on their policies as it is- lobbyists for instance- so it's not too far off the mark to say government and corporations are a wee bit too wedged together these days.

I didn't say we need a little third party representation. i said he is the little we have and it's a good thing. We need more, but we won't get it. We have a winner-take-all electoral system and that guarantees two-party domination. The day we have proportional representation we'll have third parties in Congress. But that is just fantasy. The two parties will never change the system that brought them into power. Trying to get them to change is as useful as trying to get the country to adopt Communism. Look how long D.C. has been without voting representation in Congress. That's about a million Americans living in the same "taxation without representation" situation that the Founding Fathers founded this country to escape. And yet, here we are in 2007 and nobody gives a shit about Americans living the capital of America. We don't change.

And I'll say we shouldn't change. We're too stupid and lazy for proportional representation. First thing we'd do is vote in the most extreme parties and fuck everything up. That system is for people who read newspapers and have a sense of moderation. The Brits don't scream and yell about how the "other side" of the ideological spectrum are the treasonous demons who must never seek power and are willing to elect the craziest piece of shit in the race just to keep the other guy out. So they can handle left and right news organizations and proportional representation. We can't. No fucking way. We just plain hate knowing shit. We value our opinions way more than we care if our opinions are right or wrong. We eat up propaganda like they were chocolate covered cheeseburgers dipped in Salma Hayak's vagina. I think our two-party system is already too complicated for the American electorate as it is - and it's like the Starter Set for ages 8 and up already.

For example, this whole "both parties suck equally! There's no point in supporting either of them!" mantra that is the required mantra of the left and right. It's so fucking ridiculous that I'm willing to challenge anyone to debate the proposition. I say the democrats are the lesser of evils right now and that that makes them different and more appealing to a logical objective person who cares about America. (I'll even give you all a hint: one party brought us Iraq, Afghanistan and the Wurr on Turr. The other party didn't.) Now who fucking wants some of this shit?

[HBox]

I don't.

They're all fucking assholes with the Imus thing. The only people who have spoken any semblance of sense on the issue are Republicans I wouldn't dream of voting for. As Blowhard pointed out, Obama placed Imus and the Virginia Tech Shooter in the same sentence. That's not cuckoo to you? At least Ronnie talks some goddamn sense about most everything else. The fact that this is the major reason people dislike him is a load of crap and shows how we are nitpicking just because we can- we're no better than the Republican voters who make a big fat squeal about a politician's status as a "regular guy" as being a determinant factor in their votes.

That isn't the major reason I dislike him. Actually I don't "dislike" him. But I wouldn't vote for him. Everything he says is initially appealing but in the end he's a libertarian and he has pretty much the same extreme libertarian views as the Libertarian party. Everyone loves what he says about Iraq but extrapolate his reasoning and apply it to other foreign affairs. He's an isolationist. Is it really the smart thing to do right now to completely disengage from world affairs? I don't think so.

He said on the Daily Show he wants to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Why? He believes that the free market can provide those services better. If it could those programs wouldn't have needed to be created in the first place. And the market now is much worse than when those programs were created. This is him again blindly applying his ideology. He believes its right and will apply it regardless of any real world evidence. Does that sound eerily familiar? I have much more respect for a politician who can place aside his views on how he thinks things should be done and instead adapt to the real world and go with what actually works. There are candidates in both parties who have done that. In fact I'd call that quality something that is necessary in anyone I'd vote for this time. I think the country really needs someone like that after Bush.

BTW, there are plenty of people on this board who went on the dogpile and said they wouldn't vote for Obama based on him coming out against Imus. Which I think is asinine. Why are you making your decision on who to vote for on such an trivial matter, let alone one which the President would have zero role. It was just a personal opinion. To base your voting decision on a personal opinion completely unrelated to the job of President, that's just dumb. No matter what position the candidate took in the situation.

[scottinnj]

Hell,
Ron Paul has more guts then those who just got put in power promising to get us OUT of Iraq. He is actually his money where their mouth is, introducing a bill to sunset the authorization of force in Iraq.

You can read his statement about his bill introduction HERE. (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr060707.htm)

[johnniewalker]

I think that article, while more moderate than half the vitriol spewed out from most of the right-wing propaganda industry, is populist clap-trap that simply exploits the issue of censorship and racism, (obviously with the Imus story in mind), to grind his own political axes. Government is the cause and capitalism is the solution to censorship and racism? That's retarded. Market forces was the main reason Imus was fired and market forces he was playing to when he made the racist comment. Government had nothing to do with it. (What you've been saying: that the government and group mentalities that influenced the markets to act the way they did is, frankly, just silly. You're saying that businesses look at governments as role models. Cuckoo!)

I don't hate the guy. I think he's interesting and I like having him in the House. He is a bit like having third party repersentation and I think we need a bit of that. I like the example he sets that you don't have to conform to the party line when that party line is insane and self-destructive. We need more of that. But he's ultimately an ideologue therefore assuring that he gets his facts and analysis wrong. This piece is a great example of that concept.

I think you are kind of right in terms of his mentality, I cringed at exactly what HBOX said at his idea to eliminate medicare and medicaid. If he has nothing to back it up other than a straight personal responsibility argument then it is kind of silly.

Also, businesses are often well advised to look to the government as role models. In terms of hiring and firing they are liable just like the public sector to discrimination suits. Why wouldn't you have lawyers look at court opinions that explain what is constitutional for the public sector and use that as a model? Same goes with affirmative action, the government has outlined what goes and what doesn't. If it was such a crazy thing that there is potential problems with affirmative action why did the Supreme Court say it shouldn't be used in 25 years. Not saying they are right or wrong, but it's clearly not silly. It's hard to see how group mentalities also don't contribute to the market when I open the Tribune yesterday and on the front page is a story about why there isn't outrage for a white couple who were raped and killed by 4 black people when if it was the other way around black people would be outraged. It's crazy. These things aren't the sole reason for the problems in our society, but they certainly aren't helping.

[high fly]

But no mention of of our WMD right?

No, and he wasn't pissed off about our purchase of a bunch of aluminum tubes, either.....

[Yerdaddy]

I think you are kind of right in terms of his mentality, I cringed at exactly what HBOX said at his idea to eliminate medicare and medicaid. If he has nothing to back it up other than a straight personal responsibility argument then it is kind of silly.

Also, businesses are often well advised to look to the government as role models. In terms of hiring and firing they are liable just like the public sector to discrimination suits. Why wouldn't you have lawyers look at court opinions that explain what is constitutional for the public sector and use that as a model? Same goes with affirmative action, the government has outlined what goes and what doesn't. If it was such a crazy thing that there is potential problems with affirmative action why did the Supreme Court say it shouldn't be used in 25 years. Not saying they are right or wrong, but it's clearly not silly. It's hard to see how group mentalities also don't contribute to the market when I open the Tribune yesterday and on the front page is a story about why there isn't outrage for a white couple who were raped and killed by 4 black people when if it was the other way around black people would be outraged. It's crazy. These things aren't the sole reason for the problems in our society, but they certainly aren't helping.

I have to say I don't really understand your argument here. I'd be generous to say that what you're talking about has an even tenuous relationship to the issues of censorship and racism in the private media. No executive faced with firing or keeping Imus is going to take the time to look at Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action or the news space alotted to race-related crime. He's going to consider the business implications of his decisions - will he lose listeners or sponsors because of a racist comment by one of his broadcasters? Capitalism. Why would anything you've mentioned me more influential in that decision than his company's bottom line?

[johnniewalker]

I have to say I don't really understaInd your argument here. I'd be generous to say that what you're talking about has an even tenuous relationship to the issues of censorship and racism in the private media. No executive faced with firing or keeping Imus is going to take the time to look at Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action or the news space alotted to race-related crime. He's going to consider the business implications of his decisions - will he lose listeners or sponsors because of a racist comment by one of his broadcasters? Capitalism. Why would anything you've mentioned me more influential in that decision than his company's bottom line?

I think you are looking too close to the final decision. There are many reasons why sponsors come to the executive in the first place to say they are deciding to no longer continue advertising for that company. It may be a numbers decision there, but to say its just the "market" doesn't give a very accurate depiction of the situation.

There has be more to the whole situation than just that, I think that's what he was getting at in the article.

[Yerdaddy]

I think you are looking too close to the final decision. There are many reasons why sponsors come to the executive in the first place to say they are deciding to no longer continue advertising for that company. It may be a numbers decision there, but to say its just the "market" doesn't give a very accurate depiction of the situation.

There has be more to the whole situation than just that, I think that's what he was getting at in the article.

You have got to be shitting me. What is an executive's first responsibility to his shareholders? I'll give you a hint: it starts with $ and ends with $. And it's not like there are alot of corporate executives who follow that command grudgingly! You cannot say that there is any other obscure culture of government racial idealism rubbing off on the corporate executive mindset bullshit that is in any way a factor in that decision. That's you and Paul twisting this issue to fit your own world views. It's crazy talk on both your parts. Sorry. GE gives fuck-all about government racial policies when it comes to buying or not buying commerical time from a media company. It, (whatever principle it is you're talking about), has zippy impact. Zippy zero nada! Fuck-all!

Let me put it this way: "And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin!" - Nathan Arizona

[CofyCrakCocaine]

The basis of Yerdaddy and Hbox's complaining about RonPaul is based solely upon the Imus incident and Ron Paul's take on it. Hbox says that he hates blind ideology as represented by Ron Paul, and that he twisted the Imus situation to his own political ideological benefit (or tried to) really bugs him. Fair enough. He even said that if Ron Paul said something crazy like that about the VT shootings people would be outraged. Yerdaddy's arguments are completely based upon Ron Paul's admittedly far-fetched and fairly childlike assertions that the big bad guvvament fired Imus- meaning that Yerdaddy is basically condemning RonPaul for his statements regarding Imus. You can semantisize this up with some bullshit but in the end, that's the sum of all your argument's parts in this debate.

So I respond with the simple fact that Obama basically equated Imus with the VT shooter in one of his "taking advantage of the unrelated to presidential politics Imus incident" for his own political/ideological gain type speeches...similar speeches made by Clinton...Giuliani... to name some names. Gee, isn't that what you're so mad at RonPaul for in the first place in THIS PARTICULAR DEBATE? A wee bit hypocritical in my mind of you to whine about that of all things as though no one in the other parties have done this.

And so, by talking briefly about Imus and how everyone running has been jumping on the Imus incident bandwagon (whether it's the fire him or fuck those who fired him bandwagons is irrelevant), and thereby highlighting the fact that you complain about him based solely upon his response to the Imus incident, I have in fact addressed all I will ever need to address in the core of Yerdaddy and Hbox's arguments so far posted, and done so more efficiently than some windbag three page response that probably 3% of the people checking this thread will actually sit down and read the entirety of. I expect the same percentage of people skimming here to actually read this post entirely as well.

I simply don't care what either of you guys have to say about Ron Paul. You won't convince me in the context of the Imus complaint because all politicians are assholes and they've all been milking this race-cow for all it's worth. Don't act like their shit smells better just because they're democrats and he's an icky Libertarian. It's still shit, and shit smells like shit. Which is the sum of my point. I do agree with your arguments too, but I am doing a more than adequate job of addressing you guys.

I also disagree vehemently with your arguments about the third-party system Yerdaddy. We can always fight to make things better. At the very least change the parties from within. If Americans couldn't handle this, where the fuck did them Whigs go? Or those Funky Federalists? Howsabout them Pesky Populists? And just how old is that Democratic party anyway? Hm? Hm? And careful with your hatred of extremists. I do believe the entire Continental Congress was full of people like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin all of whom contemporaries and historians have labeled "the Radicals". Not all radicals are bad people or blindly stupid ideological demagogues. Just most of 'em. Like most people in general. I guess it's a crap shoot.

As for the whole Government and medical health shit...HMO's haven't exactly sped up medical progress since they were bestowed lots of extra power by the government under Ronny Reagan, now have they? One might say they've even hindered, or at the very least, slowed medical scientific progress over the years...and who exactly is making that big fuss about stem cells? Oh yeah. The Government. Governments are proving they don't know how to handle health care. Look at the clusterfuck going on in England right now. Ask any British doctor about how Parliament is handling health-care over there...and how they're handling the hospitals too. He'd laugh in your face if you thought the guvvament was doing a great job for medicine.

Love,
CuntCakeColtraine

P.S. I agree with Hbox's assertion that anyone wanting to change their vote on the basis of something as fickle and unimportant as Imus is an idiot. Shame there's alot of idiots in this country. That's the biggest thing that would determine how right or wrong Yerdaddy is about this. But I don't deal in absolutes and I think "never" is the word of the quitter. I hate blind ideology like that.

[Fat_Sunny]

Love,
CuntCakeColtraine

:lol: Sorry For Not Commenting On The Substance CCC, But Your Sign-Off Just Stole The Show!!

[HBox]

The basis of Yerdaddy and Hbox's complaining about RonPaul is based solely upon the Imus incident and Ron Paul's take on it. Hbox says that he hates blind ideology as represented by Ron Paul, and that he twisted the Imus situation to his own political ideological benefit (or tried to) really bugs him. Fair enough. He even said that if Ron Paul said something crazy like that about the VT shootings people would be outraged. Yerdaddy's arguments are completely based upon Ron Paul's admittedly far-fetched and fairly childlike assertions that the big bad guvvament fired Imus- meaning that Yerdaddy is basically condemning RonPaul for his statements regarding Imus. You can semantisize this up with some bullshit but in the end, that's the sum of all your argument's parts in this debate.

So I respond with the simple fact that Obama basically equated Imus with the VT shooter in one of his "taking advantage of the unrelated to presidential politics Imus incident" for his own political/ideological gain type speeches...similar speeches made by Clinton...Giuliani... to name some names. Gee, isn't that what you're so mad at RonPaul for in the first place in THIS PARTICULAR DEBATE? A wee bit hypocritical in my mind of you to whine about that of all things as though no one in the other parties have done this.

And so, by talking briefly about Imus and how everyone running has been jumping on the Imus incident bandwagon (whether it's the fire him or fuck those who fired him bandwagons is irrelevant), and thereby highlighting the fact that you complain about him based solely upon his response to the Imus incident, I have in fact addressed all I will ever need to address in the core of Yerdaddy and Hbox's arguments so far posted, and done so more efficiently than some windbag three page response that probably 3% of the people checking this thread will actually sit down and read the entirety of. I expect the same percentage of people skimming here to actually read this post entirely as well.

Well, I guess since the king of arguments has decreed such I shouldn't even bother.

But, no, you are simply wrong. I did not solely complain about him simply because he commented on the Imus situation. The first time I became acquainted with him was an appearance he had on Bill Maher's show prior to the Imus incident. And he did then what he did in his commentary on Imus: brought every question back to his ideology. No matter what the issue was the problem was the government. His comment on the Imus situation merely elicited a reply when I saw him doing the same thing he always does.

As for what Obama said, yeah, it was incredibly stupid and lowered my opinion of him. The first I even heard of it was when Blowhard mentioned it on the show. But to me it was political opportunism and nothing else. And you find me one candidate who doesn't do that and I'll give him a look. But I think you are overstating when you say he was equating the two issues. That "verbal violence" stuff was completely meaningless though. The whole speech was pretty dumb, quite frankly.

I simply don't care what either of you guys have to say about Ron Paul. You won't convince me in the context of the Imus complaint because all politicians are assholes and they've all been milking this race-cow for all it's worth. Don't act like their shit smells better just because they're democrats and he's an icky Libertarian. It's still shit, and shit smells like shit. Which is the sum of my point. I do agree with your arguments too, but I am doing a more than adequate job of addressing you guys.

You are one confident guy.

One thing I think you are confusing: What Paul wrote about the Imus thing barely changed what I think of him. I certainly would be just as likely to vote for him whether or not he wrote what he did. But it was indicative of how much of an ideologue he is. Yeah, the opportunism bugged me but what his response revealed about him was much worse.

As for the whole Government and medical health shit...HMO's haven't exactly sped up medical progress since they were bestowed lots of extra power by the government under Ronny Reagan, now have they? One might say they've even hindered, or at the very least, slowed medical scientific progress over the years...and who exactly is making that big fuss about stem cells? Oh yeah. The Government. Governments are proving they don't know how to handle health care. Look at the clusterfuck going on in England right now. Ask any British doctor about how Parliament is handling health-care over there...and how they're handling the hospitals too. He'd laugh in your face if you thought the guvvament was doing a great job for medicine.

If you can cherry pick, so can I. So I'll just bring up the lady who just died on the floor of an ER in LA because no one treated her.

Fact is we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. Most government's health care system's have at least a partial role for private industry. Most aren't like Canada and Great Britain where the government runs hospitals and employs all (or just about all) doctors. The only thing the vast majority of them have in common is providing better health care for much less than what we spend.

[Yerdaddy]

The basis of Yerdaddy and Hbox's complaining about RonPaul is based solely upon the Imus incident and Ron Paul's take on it. Hbox says that he hates blind ideology as represented by Ron Paul, and that he twisted the Imus situation to his own political ideological benefit (or tried to) really bugs him. Fair enough. He even said that if Ron Paul said something crazy like that about the VT shootings people would be outraged. Yerdaddy's arguments are completely based upon Ron Paul's admittedly far-fetched and fairly childlike assertions that the big bad guvvament fired Imus- meaning that Yerdaddy is basically condemning RonPaul for his statements regarding Imus. You can semantisize this up with some bullshit but in the end, that's the sum of all your argument's parts in this debate.

So I respond with the simple fact that Obama basically equated Imus with the VT shooter in one of his "taking advantage of the unrelated to presidential politics Imus incident" for his own political/ideological gain type speeches...similar speeches made by Clinton...Giuliani... to name some names. Gee, isn't that what you're so mad at RonPaul for in the first place in THIS PARTICULAR DEBATE? A wee bit hypocritical in my mind of you to whine about that of all things as though no one in the other parties have done this.

There’s one substantive piece of information about Ron Paul in this thread and that’s his Op-Ed piece. I weighed into that argument with a sentence and got dragged into explaining myself. You’re basically criticizing me for not drifting off toping into a comparison/contrast with other political exploitation of the Imus thing. It’s irrelevant, and criticizing him is not an endorsement of any of them, which is what you’re implying. If you want to say they all did what Paul did, then OK. I’ll believe you, because I don’t really care about the Imus “issue”. I was just arguing about this because there was actually some content (the Op-Ed) to address, and I don’t know how to avoid trivial arguments like this one. You want me to insult the other pols for their Imus exploitation? Fine. They’re assholes. If you want elaboration then you’ll have to post their comments because I think the whole Imus thing is just too lame to do any research for.

And so, by talking briefly about Imus and how everyone running has been jumping on the Imus incident bandwagon (whether it's the fire him or fuck those who fired him bandwagons is irrelevant), and thereby highlighting the fact that you complain about him based solely upon his response to the Imus incident, I have in fact addressed all I will ever need to address in the core of Yerdaddy and Hbox's arguments so far posted, and done so more efficiently than some windbag three page response that probably 3% of the people checking this thread will actually sit down and read the entirety of. I expect the same percentage of people skimming here to actually read this post entirely as well.

What are you bent out of shape for? Did you take my response as directed at you? I drifted into a general rant about the generalized “they’re all bad so fuck it!” platform that I see constantly on here lately. I assumed you’d see that. I’m sorry.

I simply don't care what either of you guys have to say about Ron Paul. You won't convince me in the context of the Imus complaint because all politicians are assholes and they've all been milking this race-cow for all it's worth. Don't act like their shit smells better just because they're democrats and he's an icky Libertarian. It's still shit, and shit smells like shit. Which is the sum of my point. I do agree with your arguments too, but I am doing a more than adequate job of addressing you guys.

So post their Op-Eds. Have any of them really dwelt on the issue that much? I have no idea. And again, attacking Ron Paul’s arguments does not equate defending anyone else’s.

I also disagree vehemently with your arguments about the third-party system Yerdaddy. We can always fight to make things better. At the very least change the parties from within. If Americans couldn't handle this, where the fuck did them Whigs go? Or those Funky Federalists? Howsabout them Pesky Populists? And just how old is that Democratic party anyway? Hm? Hm? And careful with your hatred of extremists. I do believe the entire Continental Congress was full of people like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin all of whom contemporaries and historians have labeled "the Radicals". Not all radicals are bad people or blindly stupid ideological demagogues. Just most of 'em. Like most people in general. I guess it's a crap shoot.

“Change the parties from within”. Yes! That’s within the scope of what I said. And what I said about third parties is in the context of whether it’s possible in our winner-take-all electoral system. I did say we couldn’t handle it as an electorate because we’re too simplistic politically. We’re downright anti-intellectual. But that leaves changing the two-party system from within. That’s what I’ve been advocating for months. And I’m not saying it’s pointless to support a third party, but it’s not a solution. How long has it been since a third party became one of the two dominant ones? 1861? You support a third party because you want an idea or two injected into the public debates. Perot did that with the deficit. But that’s all he accomplished. You can get a guy into the debates. You might be able to get a guy into the House in our lifetimes. But I think it’s pointless to hang all your hopes on the idea of a third party seriously challenging the system as it exists. There’s too much wealth and power invested in those two parties. Fix that and then you can talk third parties. But don’t talk about the third parties without talking about our electoral system. That’s the glass ceiling that if you don’t address then you’re not being realistic.


Again, I didn’t mean anything personal in my response. I thought you were not addressing what we were saying but working in peripheral shit to make an off-topic point. Our subject was the Op-Ed. I don’t want to drift off into generalities about Ron Paul unless there’s some info to base it on.

[Fezticle98]

If anyone is interested, Ron Paul was on the Colbert Report last night. I think it re-airs at 230 and 830pm today.

[johnniewalker]

You have got to be shitting me. What is an executive's first responsibility to his shareholders? I'll give you a hint: it starts with $ and ends with $. And it's not like there are alot of corporate executives who follow that command grudgingly! You cannot say that there is any other obscure culture of government racial idealism rubbing off on the corporate executive mindset bullshit that is in any way a factor in that decision. That's you and Paul twisting this issue to fit your own world views. It's crazy talk on both your parts. Sorry. GE gives fuck-all about government racial policies when it comes to buying or not buying commerical time from a media company. It, (whatever principle it is you're talking about), has zippy impact. Zippy zero nada! Fuck-all!

Let me put it this way: "And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin!" - Nathan Arizona

Your not the least bit curious to why the racial divide is present in america? It wasn't just a decision that came up for no reason.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Well, I guess since the king of arguments has decreed such I shouldn't even bother.
Did I kick your dog or something? :D

But, no, you are simply wrong. I did not solely complain about him simply because he commented on the Imus situation. The first time I became acquainted with him was an appearance he had on Bill Maher's show prior to the Imus incident. And he did then what he did in his commentary on Imus: brought every question back to his ideology. No matter what the issue was the problem was the government. His comment on the Imus situation merely elicited a reply when I saw him doing the same thing he always does.

That's fine. But ultimately, you presented your argument as a reaction to what he had to say about Imus- so the Imus thing was the mother country from which your point was born, and then it traveled to make new points in the Moon Base...which is on the Moon. So I was going back to where your reaction was coming from in the first place. Thank you for clarifying that this comes from something else entirely, unrelated to Imus incident.

As for what Obama said, yeah, it was incredibly stupid and lowered my opinion of him. The first I even heard of it was when Blowhard mentioned it on the show. But to me it was political opportunism and nothing else. And you find me one candidate who doesn't do that and I'll give him a look. But I think you are overstating when you say he was equating the two issues. That "verbal violence" stuff was completely meaningless though. The whole speech was pretty dumb, quite frankly.

Yeah, it was really disappointing to hear him say it.

You are one confident guy.
Thank You!

One thing I think you are confusing: What Paul wrote about the Imus thing barely changed what I think of him. I certainly would be just as likely to vote for him whether or not he wrote what he did. But it was indicative of how much of an ideologue he is. Yeah, the opportunism bugged me but what his response revealed about him was much worse.


Well written, honest input. I have no arguments with you on this.

If you can cherry pick, so can I. So I'll just bring up the lady who just died on the floor of an ER in LA because no one treated her.

Fact is we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. Most government's health care system's have at least a partial role for private industry. Most aren't like Canada and Great Britain where the government runs hospitals and employs all (or just about all) doctors. The only thing the vast majority of them have in common is providing better health care for much less than what we spend.

Oh but I have arguments for this! I guess based upon our mutual cherry picking ways, health care sucks no matter who's in charge of it. I suppose it's a matter of determining who's worse at managing it. You have your instance of the market failing the patient...I have instances of where the government has failed the patient. Cherry picking at it's finest!

Our health care system is certainly fucked up. If things were up to me, obviously health-care should be a fundamental human right for every person. But they're not. And I'd probably bankrupt the industry if I tried doing that. About as effective as those African dictators who seized power, ran into money problems, and thought printing more paper money would solve the problem.

The truth is, we need a little bit of both in the health care industry. Private and government... as I said before, I do not believe in absolutes... Britain is proving how inept a government can be... and I've said before, the government's tampering with health care in this country over the past 20+ years has definitely left a bruise in scientific progress. So when it comes to Ron Paul's argument that all these medical care programs should be disbanded, I fundamentally agree with you that he's being mr.ideology and blind at that. But I do not think the market is necessarily all there is to blame. There are numerous reasons why it's not up to snuff these days, and the government most definitely has blood on its hands.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

And because it's 5 friggin' 7 AM, I am not going to full-out debate Yerdaddy's points just now. But I wanted to make this critical bit of input very very clear: there is nothing personal in any of what I'm saying here. Nor do I take political debates in general very personally unless it's something that directly affects me in a very real way (or if there is in fact some personal allegation made against me or some insult thrown). Rest assured, Ron Paul and Imus do not affect me in any real way.

I merely read an argument, and if I find something I take umbrage with, I disagree with it in my own style. But never is it personal. Talking about politics does light a fire under my ass, but that's because I'm generally a passionate person about these issues- so I may get fired up in my arguing or disagreeing- but I am not making it personal. I forget who I heard it from, but some politician once said "the trick to politics is to never take it personally". And I think it's very true.

Don't worry Yerdaddy, I wasn't mistaking you for personally attacking me- I was just responding. I'm sorry if my response was too combative or insulting, as I do not always intend to annoy someone with my opinion of their opinion. Though the very concept itself is annoying.

As for the whole Ron Paul thing...I've already said on more than one occasion that I'm inclined to agree with you and Hbox regarding blind ideology and Ron Paul's particularly delusional line that he tows...I agree with most of what you say, exempting the third-party system...which your further elaboration upon in your latest post here has clarified and leaves me agreeing with you more than I was before.

[Yerdaddy]

Your not the least bit curious to why the racial divide is present in america? It wasn't just a decision that came up for no reason.

"Why is there a racial divide in this country?" and "Are government programs and actions on race a primary cause of private sector decisions on race-related hiring and firings?" are two entirely different questions - in both form and substance. You have my answer on the second one. If you don't like my answer don't suggest that I'm indifferent to the first. It's insulting.

[Yerdaddy]

And because it's 5 friggin' 7 AM, I am not going to full-out debate Yerdaddy's points just now. But I wanted to make this critical bit of input very very clear: there is nothing personal in any of what I'm saying here. Nor do I take political debates in general very personally unless it's something that directly affects me in a very real way (or if there is in fact some personal allegation made against me or some insult thrown). Rest assured, Ron Paul and Imus do not affect me in any real way.

I merely read an argument, and if I find something I take umbrage with, I disagree with it in my own style. But never is it personal. Talking about politics does light a fire under my ass, but that's because I'm generally a passionate person about these issues- so I may get fired up in my arguing or disagreeing- but I am not making it personal. I forget who I heard it from, but some politician once said "the trick to politics is to never take it personally". And I think it's very true.

Don't worry Yerdaddy, I wasn't mistaking you for personally attacking me- I was just responding. I'm sorry if my response was too combative or insulting, as I do not always intend to annoy someone with my opinion of their opinion. Though the very concept itself is annoying.

As for the whole Ron Paul thing...I've already said on more than one occasion that I'm inclined to agree with you and Hbox regarding blind ideology and Ron Paul's particularly delusional line that he tows...I agree with most of what you say, exempting the third-party system...which your further elaboration upon in your latest post here has clarified and leaves me agreeing with you more than I was before.

I knew you weren't taking it personally. I probably should have said "worked up" or something. Honestly I'm not sure why these debates contain such strong opinions when it seems obvious that the debates keep drifting off into different directions. I wanted to limit the argument to the subject of Paul's OpEd. I didn't - and still don't - want to compare it to other people's handling of the subject. It's off-topic and it's just too messy. And it's not the same thing. I don't mind talking about third party politics because I do find it interesting and important. But I think it deserves a different thread because it's too much work to join with this one - it's too broad a topic to try to restrict it to using Ron Paul as the primary example of third parties (especially since he's technically not even a third party).

Mainly though, I don't really feel like discussing Ron Paul in general. It's one thing to focus on one Op-Ed by him; it's another to work in the man's politics in general. And I've got too much on my plate right now to deal with it. Frankly I'd rather let the subject drop altogether. I don't have anything to add two what I've said about it already. I'd just be rehashing the same things I've said in this thread. In the next day or two I'm going to be visiting the Killing Fields of Cambodia and the Tuol Sleng torture museum. I'm not going to be in the mood to develop my opinions on Ron Paul. Let's just kiss and make up?

[HBox]

In the next day or two I'm going to be visiting the Killing Fields of Cambodia and the Tuol Sleng torture museum.

You must be getting all horny just in anticipation.

[Fezticle98]

In the next day or two I'm going to be visiting the Killing Fields of Cambodia and the Tuol Sleng torture museum.

Remember, it's Anquetil Brewer. Keep practicing.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4623/killingfields49wg2.jpg

[Fezticle98]

Interesting article on Ron Paul:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502428.html?nav=hcmodule&sub=AR

The mainstream press is really starting to grasp the concept that is teh internets.

[Fezticle98]

Ron Paul raised $4 million+ on Guy Fawkes Day, more than any other Republican has raised in one day.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/11/06/ron_paul_raises_$42_million_24_hours

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/11/paul_sets_oneda.html

[Swannee]

First of all, I am a supporter of Ron Paul. I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the complete media freeze out of Ron Paul. No matter what sort of advances his campaign makes, whether it be in the polls or with financial contributions, the media continues to ignore him. I just find it suspicious that, on a day where Ron Paul set a GOP record for fundraising in a single day, Fox News did even have the story on the front page of its website. At the beginning of the campaign they tried to make him look crazy, and since that didn't work they are just flat out ignoring him. I pray that when the primaries do start that the results will show something different than what the media is trying to shove down the public’s throats

[epo]

Can we merge with this thread please. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59701&highlight=ron+paul)

[Swannee]

Can we merge with this thread please. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59701&highlight=ron+paul)

I searched for a thread and didn't find one, but thanks for being on top of it

[ChrisTheCop]

The more I learn about this guy, the more I like him.

[Yerdaddy]

First of all, I am a supporter of Ron Paul. I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the complete media freeze out of Ron Paul. No matter what sort of advances his campaign makes, whether it be in the polls or with financial contributions, the media continues to ignore him. I just find it suspicious that, on a day where Ron Paul set a GOP record for fundraising in a single day, Fox News did even have the story on the front page of its website. At the beginning of the campaign they tried to make him look crazy, and since that didn't work they are just flat out ignoring him. I pray that when the primaries do start that the results will show something different than what the media is trying to shove down the public’s throats

If you're expecting Fox to back, or at least fairly cover Ron Paul forget it. Murdoch has his network backing Rudy and he's got about as much coverage as the rest of the Republicans combined. It's what they do - which is try to influence the politcal system and make a shitload of money in the process while barely pretending to be a news service. And they expect you to goose-step, so either get in line or don't put your hopes for fair news coverage on them anymore. You can't lump Fox "News" in with "the media" without qualifying the vast difference between a conservative advocacy organization and regular news.

If you're complaining about Paul not getting his due press in the mainstream news media try the print media. Search the NYY and Washington Post archives and you'll find he's getting more coverage than his polling numbers say he deserves, including huge pieces in their weekend magazines in the last few months. They're also archiving plenty of AP and Reuters pieces on him and he's all over their blogs.

The guy gets a shitload more press than any other non-frontrunner in either party. How much press is Kucinich getting, who, if we are to believe all this tard babble about the "librul media" should be the darling of the MSM and getting a huge push. I'd say he's getting about a quarter of the press that Ron Paul gets.

I think your problem isn't "the media" but what your definition of it is.

[TheMojoPin]

I really am baffled as to what people see in this guy.

His platform seems hinge on the idea of dismantling things left and right.

[HBox]

I really am baffled as to what people see in this guy.

His platform seems hinge on the idea of dismantling things left and right.

I think people like the idea of Ron Paul. Other than the actual hardcore libertarians.

[TheMojoPin]

I think people like the idea of Ron Paul. Other than the actual hardcore libertarians.

Yeah, that's what I keep chalking it up to, becase once I actually read up on what his proposals are, he seems to have little understanding of the reality of how not only our country actually works, but how it needs to work. His campaign is the equivalent of the "falling prices" commercials at Wal-Mart..."who cares how we do it or what harm it does, WE'RE GONNA JUST DO IT FOR YOU AND CUT OUT THE COSTS!"

[PapaBear]

Everyone who likes him says the exact same thing. "If you just listen to what this guy says, he makes so much sense." Judging someone by just listening to what they say in speeches and interviews is no way to really get to know what that person stands for.

[HBox]

Yeah, that's what I keep chalking it up to, becase once I actually read up on what his proposals are, he seems to have little understanding of the reality of how not only our country actually works, but how it needs to work. His campaign is the equivalent of the "falling prices" commercials at Wal-Mart..."who cares how we do it or what harm it does, WE'RE GONNA JUST DO IT FOR YOU AND CUT OUT THE COSTS!"

It's like he wants to move history back to before the New Deal. And I don't think people remember how horrible things were beofre then, and that makes a bit nervous. Yeah, we having some very serous issues as far as the economy, deficits and health care goes. So let's turn the clock back and get rid of social security, Medicare and on top of that, let's go back to the gold standard. THAT'S the solution?

EDIT: Remember was the wrong choice of words. Know would have been better.

[TheMojoPin]

It's like he wants to move history back to before the New Deal. And I don't think people remember how horrible things were beofre then, and that makes a bit nervous. Yeah, we having some very serous issues as far as the economy, deficits and health care goes. So let's turn the clock back and get rid of social security, Medicare and on top of that, let's go back to the gold standard. THAT'S the solution?

Apparently. It's like they just want to completely ignore how much this country has changed and evolved in the last century and just scale everything back as much as possible, which just completely ignores the reality of what type of country and world we live in now. It's the definition of "conservative" taken to a very unrealistic literal extreme.

[scottinnj]

Well, he was the only Republican talking about getting out of Iraq in the primaries, so he created a lot of buzz for that. I got into him for a while too, because a lot of what he said was just plain common sense. But then I started to dig a bit, and found out a lot of his support is coming from the David Duke types, at least on the conservative side. He hasn't yet refused any money from these groups or rejected their endorsements. As far as documented money, only 500 dollars are known, but the various neo-nazi websites have links for individual members to go and donate to the Ron Paul campaign. I've been getting nervous about him lately. Not because he has a snowball's chance in hell to get the nomination, but just the fact that a Senator is in office that willigly accepts money from hate groups. That disturbs me. A lot of the money he has received is because of these neo-nazi websites, and he hasn't done anything to get them to take down his image or links from their website to his campaign fund site. It's disturbing to me.

Story Here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html)

[scottinnj]

Can we merge with this thread please. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59701&highlight=ron+paul)


What? "Merge?"
Did you say "merge?"


Nothing's merging until we decide it merging!

Did this thread merge when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Hell, No!

Germans?

Forget it, he's on a roll.

And it ain't merging now!

'Cause when the threads get tough...........the threads get going! Who's with me?

[Yerdaddy]

Everyone who likes him says the exact same thing. "If you just listen to what this guy says, he makes so much sense." Judging someone by just listening to what they say in speeches and interviews is no way to really get to know what that person stands for.

But when you listen to him and then specify the specific issues you have with his ideas or proposals they say you listened, but you didn't really hear him. It's like a cult being lead by Rosie Perez in White Men Can't Jump.

[PapaBear]

But when you listen to him and then specify the specific issues you have with his ideas or proposals they say you listened, but you didn't really hear him. It's like a cult being lead by Rosie Perez in White Men Can't Jump.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/snowmaninva66/farkmikeyboy.jpg

[Swannee]

Everyone who likes him says the exact same thing. "If you just listen to what this guy says, he makes so much sense." Judging someone by just listening to what they say in speeches and interviews is no way to really get to know what that person stands for.

It is not all about speeches he has a twenty year voting record

[Yerdaddy]

It is not all about speeches he has a twenty year voting record

I'm sold! Where do I get my white Nikes and Puerto Rican accent?

[HBox]

For a guy who rails against wasteful governemnt spending and pork he sure has a weird voting record. (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php)

Paul's record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake's anti-pork amendments in 2006,^{[28 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#28)]} but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth's RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments.^{[29 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#29)]} Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's Urban Center; $129,000 for the "perfect Christmas tree project;" $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.^{[30 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#30)]} This year, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks "worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state's shrimp industry."^{[31 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#31)]}
In defense of his support for earmarks, Rep. Paul took the if you can't beat 'em, join 'em position, arguing that "I don't think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."^{[32 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#32)]} This is a contradiction of Paul's self-proclaimed "opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution."^{[33 (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#33)]}

[epo]

For a guy who rails against wasteful governemnt spending and pork he sure has a weird voting record. (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php)

</sup>

It shouldn't be too big of a shocker, he's a weird guy.

[TheMojoPin]

But when you listen to him and then specify the specific issues you have with his ideas or proposals they say you listened, but you didn't really hear him. It's like a cult being lead by Rosie Perez in White Men Can't Jump.

That was Snipes' theory, fool.

[Swannee]

I'm sold! Where do I get my white Nikes and Puerto Rican accent?

I love having political conversations with pretentious dicks

[TheMojoPin]

But we're arrogant pricks.

[Fezticle98]

Glad that Mr. Paul has inspired such a spirited discussion. Wonder why the other candidates can't seem to do that, at least not on the issues...

What is the purpose of government? To dole out entitlements? To provide for a military to be used at the President's discretion for foreign conquest? To take care of us from cradle to grave with medicare, welfare, and social security? How does the government pay for all this? With our tax dollars.

Isn't it possible that some of these functions can now be handled more efficiently and effectively by the free market?

Maybe providing for the common defense does not require spending $500+ billion to invade Iraq.

[HBox]

What is the purpose of government? To dole out entitlements? To provide for a military to be used at the President's discretion for foreign conquest? To take care of us from cradle to grave with medicare, welfare, and social security? How does the government pay for all this? With our tax dollars.

Isn't it possible that some of these functions can now be handled more efficiently and effectively by the free market?

No. We have the most free market system of health care in the world and also the most inefficient system which wastes tons of money and can't even cover everybody. We spend the most by far and do not have close to the best outcomes.

As for welfare, it's really a choice of whether you want it or not. Because the government is the only one who's going to provide it. And it's an essential non-issue. The money we spend on it is so small compared to other programs that need reform.

On Social Security. People want it. Sure, the also say they support private accounts. But that's only a majority when the government guarantees they don't lose any money. Which defeats the whole purpose and will end up costing even more money.

There are simply a few areas where the free market fails.

[furie]

i like ron paul and i probably will vote for him in the primary. he is a constitutionalist, a libertarian, and yet a true conservative all of which i identify with.
the only thing is, he really wants to cut the size of the federal government too much too quickly. the size of the federal government is bloated, no argument, but i would like to see a well thought out time table before i totally commit to the guy.

[ChrisTheCop]

he's got some great ideas, and i love the fact that he's well informed about every topic; no flip flops yet! other than deciding whether to serve his community as doctor or politician.

and for those of you who think he's gonna change everything and we'll be in the dark ages, dont forget he's also a firm believer in the balance of power. Nothing will change until he gets the ok from congress, etc...

but cmon...hillary, obama, giuliani....nothings gonna change except the face of the white house. its time for a shake up in dc! its time to think about America.

[epo]

Why won't Ron Paul release copies of the "Ron Paul Political/Survival Report"? Oh yea...cuz they're filled with racist bullshit.

[HBox]

It's a shame that since on the Republican side everyone else is a complete delusion shill on the Iraq War and on the Democratic side no one is willing to go far enough against the war that it allowed this wacko to sound reasonable.

[Fezticle98]

Why won't Ron Paul release copies of the "Ron Paul Political/Survival Report"? Oh yea...cuz they're filled with racist bullshit.

That's the same reason why Hillary won't release her White House papers.

[epo]

That's the same reason why Hillary won't release her White House papers.

Those two things are worlds apart.

[scottinnj]

I'm sold! Where do I get my white Nikes and Puerto Rican accent?

I love having political conversations with pretentious dicks

But we're arrogant pricks.

I didn't get it, so:

A. Is Yerdaddy's joke funny? and
B. Is he a dick for saying it?

[scottinnj]

Those two things are worlds apart.


Don't you mean Separate Ways (Worlds Apart)?




http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~perry/page/StevePerry/discography/journey/frontiers/83frontier.jpg

Here we stand
World's apart, hearts broken in two, two, two!
Sleepless nights
Losing ground
I'm reaching for you, you, you!

Feelin' that it's gone
Can change your mind
If we can't go on
To survive the tide love divides

*Someday love will find you
Break those chains that bind you
One night will remind you
How we touched and went our separate ways
If he ever hurts you
True love won't desert you
You know I still love you
Though we touched and went our separate ways

Troubled times
Caught between confusion and pain, hey, hey!
Distant eyes
Promises we made were in vain, in vaaaiiin!

If you must go, I wish you love
You'll never walk alone
Take care my love
Miss you love

(*chorus*)

I still love you girl
I really love you girl
And if he ever hurts you
True love won't desert you
No....no...

[TheMojoPin]

he's got some great ideas, and i love the fact that he's well informed about every topic; no flip flops yet! other than deciding whether to serve his community as doctor or politician.

and for those of you who think he's gonna change everything and we'll be in the dark ages, dont forget he's also a firm believer in the balance of power. Nothing will change until he gets the ok from congress, etc...

but cmon...hillary, obama, giuliani....nothings gonna change except the face of the white house. its time for a shake up in dc! its time to think about America.

I do think about America...that's why Ron Paul as president scares the shit out of me. "Different" doesn't automatically equal "good." And honestly, I have no idea what you're hearing that makes him sound "well informed about every topic."

And "flip-flop?" Really? So, we want leaders that aren't ever going to change their minds? Oh, wai, we have that in the White House right now. That's working out great.

[Yerdaddy]

I didn't get it, so:

A. Is Yerdaddy's joke funny? and
B. Is he a dick for saying it?

Q. My dick is funny. Who's up for a little pickle tickle?

[ChrisTheCop]

I do think about America...that's why Ron Paul as president scares the shit out of me. "Different" doesn't automatically equal "good." And honestly, I have no idea what you're hearing that makes him sound "well informed about every topic."

And "flip-flop?" Really? So, we want leaders that aren't ever going to change their minds? Oh, wai, we have that in the White House right now. That's working out great.

No, its not. I know you were being facetious (wow, thats really how thats spelled?), but my point was that we need an outsider, free thinker who doesnt just do and say what the old boys club wants him to do or say. And Ive never heard him retreat from any topic, and believe me he's not a media darling so he doesnt get many softballs. Please just go to his website, I think its RonPaul2008.com or some such... yes, some of his ideas are scary... but the really scary shit wont ever get passed. America is in need of DRASTIC changes however, and if anyone can get them done, first they have to think of them.

Ive added His stands on the issues. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)

[TheMojoPin]

No, its not. I know you were being facetious (wow, thats really how thats spelled?), but my point was that we need an outsider, free thinker who doesnt just do and say what the old boys club wants him to do or say. And Ive never heard him retreat from any topic, and believe me he's not a media darling so he doesnt get many softballs. Please just go to his website, I think its RonPaul2008.com or some such... yes, some of his ideas are scary... but the really scary shit wont ever get passed. America is in need of DRASTIC changes however, and if anyone can get them done, first they have to think of them.

Ive added His stands on the issues. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)

Yes, I've been to his website many times. That's what I'm basing a lot of my opinions about him on. Besides, as it's been pointed out, many of his current positions conflict with ones he's taken in the past, so doesn't that conflict with the idea of him not "flip-flopping?" And seriously, how is he an "outsider" from the national political scene? That's like saying Fred Thompson is an outsider.

And as much as I often disagree with the actions of the states' and federal government, I just do not agree that this country needs or is even capable of "drastic" change. It's simply not feasable. We need to work with what we have, not just start stripping parts away.

[Yerdaddy]

No, its not. I know you were being facetious (wow, thats really how thats spelled?), but my point was that we need an outsider, free thinker who doesnt just do and say what the old boys club wants him to do or say. And Ive never heard him retreat from any topic, and believe me he's not a media darling so he doesnt get many softballs. Please just go to his website, I think its RonPaul2008.com or some such... yes, some of his ideas are scary... but the really scary shit wont ever get passed. America is in need of DRASTIC changes however, and if anyone can get them done, first they have to think of them.

Ive added His stands on the issues. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)

ALL of that is what Republicans said about Bush in 2000. "Washington outsider" turned out to mean totally unqualified to be President, and a lot of the crazy shit that won't get passed got passed.

[HBox]

ALL of that is what Republicans said about Bush in 2000. "Washington outsider" turned out to mean totally unqualified to be President, and a lot of the crazy shit that won't get passed got passed.

Exactly.

[ChrisTheCop]

Yes, I've been to his website many times. That's what I'm basing a lot of my opinions about him on. Besides, as it's been pointed out, many of his current positions conflict with ones he's taken in the past, so doesn't that conflict with the idea of him not "flip-flopping?" And seriously, how is he an "outsider" from the national political scene? That's like saying Fred Thompson is an outsider.

And as much as I often disagree with the actions of the states' and federal government, I just do not agree that this country needs or is even capable of "drastic" change. It's simply not feasable. We need to work with what we have, not just start stripping parts away.

ok. so lets keep gwb?...or put another bush in there? or clinton? To me, anyone who doesnt have the last name bush or clinton is an outsider. There comes a time when we have to realize our mistakes, and account for them. I was an ardent Bush supporter until recently, and I'll tell ya, once I realized that was a mistake, I was at a loss for what to do/where to go. Ron Paul is it. For me.

Your post is the first time Ive heard about him changing his mind on anything but as I said, what career to pursue; I think he may have run as an independent in 88. But what else?

Mojo, I want you to know that I value your opinion.

[ChrisTheCop]

ALL of that is what Republicans said about Bush in 2000. "Washington outsider" turned out to mean totally unqualified to be President, and a lot of the crazy shit that won't get passed got passed.

I will admit that sometimes when he speaks, I get a little GWB from him. Especially if he laughs. and that bothers me because no ones gonna vote for someone who reminds them of Bush, even cosmetically. But those mistakes you speak of...guess who was against them? Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not your typical Republican...he's what republicans were supposed to be.

[TheMojoPin]

ok. so lets keep gwb?...or put another bush in there? or clinton? To me, anyone who doesnt have the last name bush or clinton is an outsider. There comes a time when we have to realize our mistakes, and account for them. I was an ardent Bush supporter until recently, and I'll tell ya, once I realized that was a mistake, I was at a loss for what to do/where to go. Ron Paul is it. For me.

Your post is the first time Ive heard about him changing his mind on anything but as I said, what career to pursue; I think he may have run as an independent in 88. But what else?

Mojo, I want you to know that I value your opinion.

And I yours. I'm honestly curious as to why people support Paul, because I WANT a so-called "outsider" that I could get behind, on the left or right, but everything I find when I look into this guy just really turn me off to him. As Yerdaddy is pointing out, the stuff he's propped up by with his supporters are the same feelgood things people said about Bush when he was running 10 years ago.

[ChrisTheCop]

I dont recall ever thinking that Bush was an outsider. His dad was the friggin VP and P.
I remember liking him because he seemed stable, and could bring back some kind of honor to the office. At that time, I didnt want radical change...I was just missing Reagan, and his dad. It seemed like a good idea to have another Bush in there...if he ever needed help, all his dad's friends would be there to help out. (shudder).

Yes, Paul works in Washington. Yes, he has spent his life serving his fellow man. But I consider him to be an outsider because even his own party doesnt like him. They respect the hell out of him, but he's been against them in so many instances. Therefore, an outsider.

[TeeBone]

It's time for a discussion about the candidates:

Bill Richardson(D) - The only Democrat I like in the race. He has an impressive resume and seems intelligent. I also see him as a good leader. Sadly, nobody knows who the hell he is. Another candidate nobody knows is Alaska Senator Mike Gravel(D). In a recent debate, Gravel said that when he first arrived in Washington he looked around and remarked, "...how the hell did I get here?" He then looked around the stage at the other candidates he said, "...and how the hell did these idiots get here?" For that he earns high marks but again, who the hell is this guy?
Tom Tancredo(R) - Its somewhat sad that History will no doubt cast Tancredo as a racist, hellbent on separating the United States from the rest of North America. This guy has been beating the border-issue drum longer than anyone and he has a lot of good things to say. And, until the next round of mud is slung by the candidates, we may not know the real truth behind Tancredo's motives. As far as we know he has no illegals working for him, does not have a gay love-child and worships no slithering deities.
Mitt Romney(R) - He actually looks like what a President should look like if that makes sense. Contrary to what some believe, Mormons aren't marrying multiple women simultaneously and don't share the common goal of world domination. To put it mildly, if a Republican mormon can win a Gubernatorial race in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts he must have something good to share with us. That all being said, I just don't think Romney has the steam to win. Sorry, Mitt - but it may be time to leave with whatever dignity you and your family have left.
We mustn't leave out the other bright shinning bastion of freedom from New England; Connecticut Senior Senator Chris Dodd(D). This horse's ass is Ted Kennedy's sweat towel and has been for years. The only great thing he has done in recent memory is posting a question on youtube for the upcoming Republican debate in St. Petersburg. The youtube debate is actually comprised of questions people are posting on youtube and Chris Dodd posted a question. Bravo for the idea Chris, but this will be your only high-point. Incidentally, The Mahaffey Theater in St. Petersburg will play host to the youtube debate is a great venue. I just saw Ratdog play there. I think its great all those future hopefuls will be in the same room where so much illegal activity took place watching Bob Weir play recently.
The best debate we could ever hope for this election season would be a camera positioned between the plug-headed snake-oil salesmen, Joe Biden(D) and Ole' Hominy Head, John McCain(R). Both of these media whores would beat each other senseless for more airtime. It would be great. That's the debate for me.
Anyway, back to the 'legitimate' candidates:
Hillary Clinton(D) - My God can you imagine a world where Hillary Clinton is President of the United States? Let it sink in for a second and think it over. This Socialist whack-job would do nothing for our country and I hope that people understand that. Just listen to her robotic rhetoric and understand the magnitude of her message. Similarly, when speaking of Socialism; Barack Hussein Obama(D) !!! i think the L.A. Times put it best; he is the Magic Negro. He has the Oprah backing and is making a genuine push for the White House. I'm sure he has good points and underneath his black-scales he is just as human as you and me but with limited experience he just makes me think that another inexperienced President is not what we need right now. Between Dubya and Billy-Boy, our tainted office needs some seasoned veterans in there. His name alone should disqualify him anyway; Barack Hussein Obama. I can't tell if he's the run of the mill Socialist or a deep cover Islamic operative.
...And what about John Edwards(D)?----Good lord, I am running out of text to list his many faults. What kind of asshole parades his sick wife around for sympathy votes? That tells you all you need to know. You lost once Johnny and you will no doubt lose again.
Ron Paul (R) - My favorite of all the Republican candidates. He has true Libertarian ties but is it wrong that I am extremely put off by the people that love Ron Paul? They're creepy. Seriously, look at the Ron Paul supporters, they are of an odd ilk. If we could somehow develop a 2-President system with one President dedicated to domestic policy and one President devoted to Foreign Policy, Ron Paul would be my vote for Domestic Policy President. He is the man for that job, but its how he would deal with the planet that worries me.
Rudy Giuliani (R) - He did some good for New York and whereas it was certainly needed and more work needs to be done there, Rudy more than any candidate panders to the electorate. Its pathetic, Rudy. I like him and he represents a new guard in the Republican Party and I think he will ultimately face off against Hillary. Like all the other though, he is a mediocre candidate. unlike most candidates though, he is somewhat Vampiric in appearance and that is troubling as well.

There are also a few more slugs that we have to list but have no real chance:
Fred Thompson (R) - As an actor, he sure isn't acting the part of a Presidential hopeful. The more I see him talk, the more I dislike him. Like most Republicans, its his personal life and spouse, etc...that will cost him in the end. He has taken a beating in the press more than most. Some warranted, most of it however; not warranted.
Dennis Kucinich(D) - My god, why?
Mike Huckabee(R) - Another President from Arkansas?-----No way!!!! And 'President Huckabee' has too much of a Country-old-timey sound to it. Catching fireflies down by the briar patch sounds like a Huckabee sort of thing to do, not become the most powerful man in the world.
Duncan Hunter(R) - Again, I ask; WHO???

The Final analysis is simple: "Pull a name out of the hat in 2008". We are working on borrowed time either way. The best and our brightest are smart enough to know it just isn't worth it anymore to seek higher office.

[ChrisTheCop]

Did you write that all yourself? If not, please credit the source.

(woohoo-- look at me-- I'm at the top page of a political discussion! My Dad would be so proud.)

[TeeBone]

Did you write that all yourself? If not, please credit the source.

The source is all mine, CTC.
I pay attention and see no hope for this Presidential Race. It does make for compelling television/radio programming all the same. It's the funniest thing on TV by far.

[ChrisTheCop]

Wow, pretty well done. it read like a "professional" blogger.

[Yerdaddy]

It's time for a discussion about the candidates:

Bill Richardson(D) - The only Democrat I like in the race. He has an impressive resume and seems intelligent. I also see him as a good leader. Sadly, nobody knows who the hell he is. Another candidate nobody knows is Alaska Senator Mike Gravel(D). In a recent debate, Gravel said that when he first arrived in Washington he looked around and remarked, "...how the hell did I get here?" He then looked around the stage at the other candidates he said, "...and how the hell did these idiots get here?" For that he earns high marks but again, who the hell is this guy?
Tom Tancredo(R) - Its somewhat sad that History will no doubt cast Tancredo as a racist, hellbent on separating the United States from the rest of North America. This guy has been beating the border-issue drum longer than anyone and he has a lot of good things to say. And, until the next round of mud is slung by the candidates, we may not know the real truth behind Tancredo's motives. As far as we know he has no illegals working for him, does not have a gay love-child and worships no slithering deities.
Mitt Romney(R) - He actually looks like what a President should look like if that makes sense. Contrary to what some believe, Mormons aren't marrying multiple women simultaneously and don't share the common goal of world domination. To put it mildly, if a Republican mormon can win a Gubernatorial race in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts he must have something good to share with us. That all being said, I just don't think Romney has the steam to win. Sorry, Mitt - but it may be time to leave with whatever dignity you and your family have left.
We mustn't leave out the other bright shinning bastion of freedom from New England; Connecticut Senior Senator Chris Dodd(D). This horse's ass is Ted Kennedy's sweat towel and has been for years. The only great thing he has done in recent memory is posting a question on youtube for the upcoming Republican debate in St. Petersburg. The youtube debate is actually comprised of questions people are posting on youtube and Chris Dodd posted a question. Bravo for the idea Chris, but this will be your only high-point. Incidentally, The Mahaffey Theater in St. Petersburg will play host to the youtube debate is a great venue. I just saw Ratdog play there. I think its great all those future hopefuls will be in the same room where so much illegal activity took place watching Bob Weir play recently.
The best debate we could ever hope for this election season would be a camera positioned between the plug-headed snake-oil salesmen, Joe Biden(D) and Ole' Hominy Head, John McCain(R). Both of these media whores would beat each other senseless for more airtime. It would be great. That's the debate for me.
Anyway, back to the 'legitimate' candidates:
Hillary Clinton(D) - My God can you imagine a world where Hillary Clinton is President of the United States? Let it sink in for a second and think it over. This Socialist whack-job would do nothing for our country and I hope that people understand that. Just listen to her robotic rhetoric and understand the magnitude of her message. Similarly, when speaking of Socialism; Barack Hussein Obama(D) !!! i think the L.A. Times put it best; he is the Magic Negro. He has the Oprah backing and is making a genuine push for the White House. I'm sure he has good points and underneath his black-scales he is just as human as you and me but with limited experience he just makes me think that another inexperienced President is not what we need right now. Between Dubya and Billy-Boy, our tainted office needs some seasoned veterans in there. His name alone should disqualify him anyway; Barack Hussein Obama. I can't tell if he's the run of the mill Socialist or a deep cover Islamic operative.
...And what about John Edwards(D)?----Good lord, I am running out of text to list his many faults. What kind of asshole parades his sick wife around for sympathy votes? That tells you all you need to know. You lost once Johnny and you will no doubt lose again.
Ron Paul (R) - My favorite of all the Republican candidates. He has true Libertarian ties but is it wrong that I am extremely put off by the people that love Ron Paul? They're creepy. Seriously, look at the Ron Paul supporters, they are of an odd ilk. If we could somehow develop a 2-President system with one President dedicated to domestic policy and one President devoted to Foreign Policy, Ron Paul would be my vote for Domestic Policy President. He is the man for that job, but its how he would deal with the planet that worries me.
Rudy Giuliani (R) - He did some good for New York and whereas it was certainly needed and more work needs to be done there, Rudy more than any candidate panders to the electorate. Its pathetic, Rudy. I like him and he represents a new guard in the Republican Party and I think he will ultimately face off against Hillary. Like all the other though, he is a mediocre candidate. unlike most candidates though, he is somewhat Vampiric in appearance and that is troubling as well.

There are also a few more slugs that we have to list but have no real chance:
Fred Thompson (R) - As an actor, he sure isn't acting the part of a Presidential hopeful. The more I see him talk, the more I dislike him. Like most Republicans, its his personal life and spouse, etc...that will cost him in the end. He has taken a beating in the press more than most. Some warranted, most of it however; not warranted.
Dennis Kucinich(D) - My god, why?
Mike Huckabee(R) - Another President from Arkansas?-----No way!!!! And 'President Huckabee' has too much of a Country-old-timey sound to it. Catching fireflies down by the briar patch sounds like a Huckabee sort of thing to do, not become the most powerful man in the world.
Duncan Hunter(R) - Again, I ask; WHO???

The Final analysis is simple: "Pull a name out of the hat in 2008". We are working on borrowed time either way. The best and our brightest are smart enough to know it just isn't worth it anymore to seek higher office.

Dumbocrats! LAL!!!!1

[TheMojoPin]

Remember, there is NOTHING socialist about America. Nope, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Never has been, never will be...

Oh, wait.

[epo]

Barack Hussein Obama(D) !!! i think the L.A. Times put it best; he is the Magic Negro. He has the Oprah backing and is making a genuine push for the White House. I'm sure he has good points and underneath his black-scales he is just as human as you and me but with limited experience he just makes me think that another inexperienced President is not what we need right now. Between Dubya and Billy-Boy, our tainted office needs some seasoned veterans in there. His name alone should disqualify him anyway; Barack Hussein Obama. I can't tell if he's the run of the mill Socialist or a deep cover Islamic operative.


Bill O'Reilly would be so proud of you:

A. Hussein. Check
B. Black. Check
C. No Experience. Check
D. Socialist. Check
E. Islam/Pseudo-Terrorist. Check.

You do sound like a Ron Paul voter.

[foodcourtdruide]

It's time for a discussion about the candidates:

Bill Richardson(D) - The only Democrat I like in the race. He has an impressive resume and seems intelligent. I also see him as a good leader. Sadly, nobody knows who the hell he is. Another candidate nobody knows is Alaska Senator Mike Gravel(D). In a recent debate, Gravel said that when he first arrived in Washington he looked around and remarked, "...how the hell did I get here?" He then looked around the stage at the other candidates he said, "...and how the hell did these idiots get here?" For that he earns high marks but again, who the hell is this guy?
Tom Tancredo(R) - Its somewhat sad that History will no doubt cast Tancredo as a racist, hellbent on separating the United States from the rest of North America. This guy has been beating the border-issue drum longer than anyone and he has a lot of good things to say. And, until the next round of mud is slung by the candidates, we may not know the real truth behind Tancredo's motives. As far as we know he has no illegals working for him, does not have a gay love-child and worships no slithering deities.
Mitt Romney(R) - He actually looks like what a President should look like if that makes sense. Contrary to what some believe, Mormons aren't marrying multiple women simultaneously and don't share the common goal of world domination. To put it mildly, if a Republican mormon can win a Gubernatorial race in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts he must have something good to share with us. That all being said, I just don't think Romney has the steam to win. Sorry, Mitt - but it may be time to leave with whatever dignity you and your family have left.
We mustn't leave out the other bright shinning bastion of freedom from New England; Connecticut Senior Senator Chris Dodd(D). This horse's ass is Ted Kennedy's sweat towel and has been for years. The only great thing he has done in recent memory is posting a question on youtube for the upcoming Republican debate in St. Petersburg. The youtube debate is actually comprised of questions people are posting on youtube and Chris Dodd posted a question. Bravo for the idea Chris, but this will be your only high-point. Incidentally, The Mahaffey Theater in St. Petersburg will play host to the youtube debate is a great venue. I just saw Ratdog play there. I think its great all those future hopefuls will be in the same room where so much illegal activity took place watching Bob Weir play recently.
The best debate we could ever hope for this election season would be a camera positioned between the plug-headed snake-oil salesmen, Joe Biden(D) and Ole' Hominy Head, John McCain(R). Both of these media whores would beat each other senseless for more airtime. It would be great. That's the debate for me.
Anyway, back to the 'legitimate' candidates:
Hillary Clinton(D) - My God can you imagine a world where Hillary Clinton is President of the United States? Let it sink in for a second and think it over. This Socialist whack-job would do nothing for our country and I hope that people understand that. Just listen to her robotic rhetoric and understand the magnitude of her message. Similarly, when speaking of Socialism; Barack Hussein Obama(D) !!! i think the L.A. Times put it best; he is the Magic Negro. He has the Oprah backing and is making a genuine push for the White House. I'm sure he has good points and underneath his black-scales he is just as human as you and me but with limited experience he just makes me think that another inexperienced President is not what we need right now. Between Dubya and Billy-Boy, our tainted office needs some seasoned veterans in there. His name alone should disqualify him anyway; Barack Hussein Obama. I can't tell if he's the run of the mill Socialist or a deep cover Islamic operative.
...And what about John Edwards(D)?----Good lord, I am running out of text to list his many faults. What kind of asshole parades his sick wife around for sympathy votes? That tells you all you need to know. You lost once Johnny and you will no doubt lose again.
Ron Paul (R) - My favorite of all the Republican candidates. He has true Libertarian ties but is it wrong that I am extremely put off by the people that love Ron Paul? They're creepy. Seriously, look at the Ron Paul supporters, they are of an odd ilk. If we could somehow develop a 2-President system with one President dedicated to domestic policy and one President devoted to Foreign Policy, Ron Paul would be my vote for Domestic Policy President. He is the man for that job, but its how he would deal with the planet that worries me.
Rudy Giuliani (R) - He did some good for New York and whereas it was certainly needed and more work needs to be done there, Rudy more than any candidate panders to the electorate. Its pathetic, Rudy. I like him and he represents a new guard in the Republican Party and I think he will ultimately face off against Hillary. Like all the other though, he is a mediocre candidate. unlike most candidates though, he is somewhat Vampiric in appearance and that is troubling as well.

There are also a few more slugs that we have to list but have no real chance:
Fred Thompson (R) - As an actor, he sure isn't acting the part of a Presidential hopeful. The more I see him talk, the more I dislike him. Like most Republicans, its his personal life and spouse, etc...that will cost him in the end. He has taken a beating in the press more than most. Some warranted, most of it however; not warranted.
Dennis Kucinich(D) - My god, why?
Mike Huckabee(R) - Another President from Arkansas?-----No way!!!! And 'President Huckabee' has too much of a Country-old-timey sound to it. Catching fireflies down by the briar patch sounds like a Huckabee sort of thing to do, not become the most powerful man in the world.
Duncan Hunter(R) - Again, I ask; WHO???

The Final analysis is simple: "Pull a name out of the hat in 2008". We are working on borrowed time either way. The best and our brightest are smart enough to know it just isn't worth it anymore to seek higher office.

You echo a lot of right-wing talking points. Are you a big fan of right-wing radio/tv?

[badmonkey]

You echo a lot of right-wing talking points. Are you a big fan of right-wing radio/tv?

Right wing talking points cringe at some of those right wing talking points.


It's time for a discussion about the candidates:

Bill Richardson(D) - The only Democrat I like in the race. He has an impressive resume and seems intelligent. I also see him as a good leader. Sadly, nobody knows who the hell he is. Another candidate nobody knows is Alaska Senator Mike Gravel(D). In a recent debate, Gravel said that when he first arrived in Washington he looked around and remarked, "...how the hell did I get here?" He then looked around the stage at the other candidates he said, "...and how the hell did these idiots get here?" For that he earns high marks but again, who the hell is this guy?
Tom Tancredo(R) - Its somewhat sad that History will no doubt cast Tancredo as a racist, hellbent on separating the United States from the rest of North America. This guy has been beating the border-issue drum longer than anyone and he has a lot of good things to say. And, until the next round of mud is slung by the candidates, we may not know the real truth behind Tancredo's motives. As far as we know he has no illegals working for him, does not have a gay love-child and worships no slithering deities.
Mitt Romney(R) - He actually looks like what a President should look like if that makes sense. Contrary to what some believe, Mormons aren't marrying multiple women simultaneously and don't share the common goal of world domination. To put it mildly, if a Republican mormon can win a Gubernatorial race in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts he must have something good to share with us. That all being said, I just don't think Romney has the steam to win. Sorry, Mitt - but it may be time to leave with whatever dignity you and your family have left.
We mustn't leave out the other bright shinning bastion of freedom from New England; Connecticut Senior Senator Chris Dodd(D). This horse's ass is Ted Kennedy's sweat towel and has been for years. The only great thing he has done in recent memory is posting a question on youtube for the upcoming Republican debate in St. Petersburg. The youtube debate is actually comprised of questions people are posting on youtube and Chris Dodd posted a question. Bravo for the idea Chris, but this will be your only high-point. Incidentally, The Mahaffey Theater in St. Petersburg will play host to the youtube debate is a great venue. I just saw Ratdog play there. I think its great all those future hopefuls will be in the same room where so much illegal activity took place watching Bob Weir play recently.
The best debate we could ever hope for this election season would be a camera positioned between the plug-headed snake-oil salesmen, Joe Biden(D) and Ole' Hominy Head, John McCain(R). Both of these media whores would beat each other senseless for more airtime. It would be great. That's the debate for me.
Anyway, back to the 'legitimate' candidates:
Hillary Clinton(D) - My God can you imagine a world where Hillary Clinton is President of the United States? Let it sink in for a second and think it over. This Socialist whack-job would do nothing for our country and I hope that people understand that. Just listen to her robotic rhetoric and understand the magnitude of her message. Similarly, when speaking of Socialism; Barack Hussein Obama(D) !!! i think the L.A. Times put it best; he is the Magic Negro. He has the Oprah backing and is making a genuine push for the White House. I'm sure he has good points and underneath his black-scales he is just as human as you and me but with limited experience he just makes me think that another inexperienced President is not what we need right now. Between Dubya and Billy-Boy, our tainted office needs some seasoned veterans in there. His name alone should disqualify him anyway; Barack Hussein Obama. I can't tell if he's the run of the mill Socialist or a deep cover Islamic operative.
...And what about John Edwards(D)?----Good lord, I am running out of text to list his many faults. What kind of asshole parades his sick wife around for sympathy votes? That tells you all you need to know. You lost once Johnny and you will no doubt lose again.
Ron Paul (R) - My favorite of all the Republican candidates. He has true Libertarian ties but is it wrong that I am extremely put off by the people that love Ron Paul? They're creepy. Seriously, look at the Ron Paul supporters, they are of an odd ilk. If we could somehow develop a 2-President system with one President dedicated to domestic policy and one President devoted to Foreign Policy, Ron Paul would be my vote for Domestic Policy President. He is the man for that job, but its how he would deal with the planet that worries me.
Rudy Giuliani (R) - He did some good for New York and whereas it was certainly needed and more work needs to be done there, Rudy more than any candidate panders to the electorate. Its pathetic, Rudy. I like him and he represents a new guard in the Republican Party and I think he will ultimately face off against Hillary. Like all the other though, he is a mediocre candidate. unlike most candidates though, he is somewhat Vampiric in appearance and that is troubling as well.

There are also a few more slugs that we have to list but have no real chance:
Fred Thompson (R) - As an actor, he sure isn't acting the part of a Presidential hopeful. The more I see him talk, the more I dislike him. Like most Republicans, its his personal life and spouse, etc...that will cost him in the end. He has taken a beating in the press more than most. Some warranted, most of it however; not warranted.
Dennis Kucinich(D) - My god, why?
Mike Huckabee(R) - Another President from Arkansas?-----No way!!!! And 'President Huckabee' has too much of a Country-old-timey sound to it. Catching fireflies down by the briar patch sounds like a Huckabee sort of thing to do, not become the most powerful man in the world.
Duncan Hunter(R) - Again, I ask; WHO???

The Final analysis is simple: "Pull a name out of the hat in 2008". We are working on borrowed time either way. The best and our brightest are smart enough to know it just isn't worth it anymore to seek higher office.


I still don't understand the point of throwing Obama's middle name around all the time. Anybody ignorant enough to be put off by his middle name has already decided not to vote for him because he's black.

You started off interesting and then trailed off miserably after a giant paragraph slamming non-candidate Chris Dodd. There are 3 Democratic candidates: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. You may begin ignoring the rest at any time.

You dismissed Huckabee because of his name and his being from Arkansas, yet he seems to be leading in Iowa (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/11/ia_poll_huckabee_leads.html) right now.
The Republican nomination is still a wide open field for the most part as far as I can tell. I have no idea why Ron Paul is so popular right now. The only person I know personally that is interested in Ron Paul as a candidate happens to be a serious conspiracy guy that thinks the illuminati controls everything. I haven't picked my favorite candidate yet but I do know it wont be Ron Paul.

[TeeBone]

I love talking politics with Liberals. If anyone read what I wrote you will see that I am equally put off by both parties. The truth is I am not a fan of political TV nor am I a fan of politically driven radio shows. I'm a concerned American and an adult who is able to pick and choose what I want. When I hear idiots like Dave MacDonald saying that America is stupid because we, 'voted for Bush twice', I laugh. At some point you do have to take an Earl Douglas approach when analyzing Dave; given that Dave is a shit-eating dog-fucker. Does that qualify Dave from saying who is or isn't stupid? When I have read some of what you wrote,Epo; I laugh beacuse you just don't get what I was saying. Neither do the rest of the respondees. None of them are even worthy of a mention.
Granted it was a long-winded attempt at comedy and may have fallen short but lighten up a little bit. I respect your right to opinions and try hard when you attempt comedic writing, but you may be a little out of your league.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, that damn BadMonkey is clearly the craziest liberal here.

[badmonkey]

Yeah, that damn BadMonkey is clearly the craziest liberal here.

I tried to tell you....

[Yerdaddy]

I love talking politics with Liberals. If anyone read what I wrote you will see that I am equally put off by both parties. The truth is I am not a fan of political TV nor am I a fan of politically driven radio shows. I'm a concerned American and an adult who is able to pick and choose what I want. When I hear idiots like Dave MacDonald saying that America is stupid because we, 'voted for Bush twice', I laugh. At some point you do have to take an Earl Douglas approach when analyzing Dave; given that Dave is a shit-eating dog-fucker. Does that qualify Dave from saying who is or isn't stupid? When I have read some of what you wrote,Epo; I laugh beacuse you just don't get what I was saying. Neither do the rest of the respondees. None of them are even worthy of a mention.
Granted it was a long-winded attempt at comedy and may have fallen short but lighten up a little bit. I respect your right to opinions and try hard when you attempt comedic writing, but you may be a little out of your league.

Ohhhhh! It was comedy! You should tell us next time you're doing comedy.

[TheMojoPin]

No, we're simply not smart enough for his brilliance. You kill me and then I'll kill you. oh, wait...UH-OH SPAGHETTI-O'S!!!

[Grendel_Kahn]

I love talking politics with Liberals.

I never quite understood the outright hatred right wingers have for Liberals. Why they throw that word around like it is SUCH an insult. Now I know the red staters of you read that and said to yourselfs, " It is an insult!" Just remember that every single move forward this country has made, came from Liberals guiding it.

As far as lefties not getting along with the right........... Republicans are like Yankee fans. They can NEVER see past the pin stripes. They will ignore the last decade, and still claim it s all Bill Clintons fault. Meanwhile the seeds of the current mess we are stuck in were firmly planted in the Reagan era. There is no question of this. I have to stop now because I feel a long winded rant coming on and I just don't have it in me.

[TeeBone]

Just remember that every single move forward this country has made, came from Liberals guiding it.

I have to stop now because I feel a long winded rant coming on and I just don't have it in me.


You all make this so easy, PAWN. I never said I was a right-winger at all, in fact if you had basic reading comprehension skills, you would see that I dislike both parties equally. In the future, I'll use smaller words for the liberals.
I would however; be interested to hear how you can justify your stance on Liberals guiding this country. It's laughable and you stopping before you go on a rant is even more so. Is it you just don't have it in you or are you incapable?
I await your long-winded attempt at justification through an equally bad attempt at comedic writing, with bated breathe. Nah, on second thought, I'll just not read it and put this in the win- column.
Thanks for the laugh, PAWN. It's been fun talking with you. At the end of the day, we are lucky that we can even debate these things and I do respect your right to say whatever you want.


'bated breathe' is actually the correct spelling. (I wanted to clarify that for your comprehension pleasure)

[angrymissy]

'bated breathe' is actually the correct spelling. (I wanted to clarify that for your comprehension pleasure)

You're kidding, right? It's bated BREATH, as in what comes out of your mouth, like "Bad Breath". Not Bated Breathe, as in the process of taking a breath.

Anyway back to Ron Paul, filthy liberal pawn that I am, I listened to the Youtube debates on my way back from work last night (heard the whole thing), and man does he have some passionate supporters. He had people booing McCain and cheering every time he spoke.

I admire Ron Paul's passion, but he is a little batshit crazy. Now, everything he proposes sounds good in THEORY, but I don't think all of his policies would work practically.

[TheMojoPin]

TeeBone, seriously, stop being on the attack wih almost all of your posts in this forum. You can argue the points without going out of your way to deliberately insult people like you're continually doing.

[foodcourtdruide]

I love talking politics with Liberals. If anyone read what I wrote you will see that I am equally put off by both parties. The truth is I am not a fan of political TV nor am I a fan of politically driven radio shows. I'm a concerned American and an adult who is able to pick and choose what I want. When I hear idiots like Dave MacDonald saying that America is stupid because we, 'voted for Bush twice', I laugh. At some point you do have to take an Earl Douglas approach when analyzing Dave; given that Dave is a shit-eating dog-fucker. Does that qualify Dave from saying who is or isn't stupid? When I have read some of what you wrote,Epo; I laugh beacuse you just don't get what I was saying. Neither do the rest of the respondees. None of them are even worthy of a mention.
Granted it was a long-winded attempt at comedy and may have fallen short but lighten up a little bit. I respect your right to opinions and try hard when you attempt comedic writing, but you may be a little out of your league.

You just echoed a lot of typical right-wing talking head media talking points, so I was curious.

Hillary is a socialist.
Obama has Islam in his past.
John Edwards drags his sick wife around.

[TheMojoPin]

Here's the two things that bug me the most about Paul, besides the questionable racist/racial stuff from his organization over the years...Paul's version of "small government" puts too much power into the hands of too few people. That's scary and very dangerous. Secondly, he's presented as someone who won't pander to corporate interests as if those are the worst things in the world...but doesn't much of his dismantling involve privatizing large chunks of what the government currently attempts to run across the board? Who does he and his supporters think are going to have the capabilities to run these newly structured "agencies?" The big corporations, many of which now are internationally structured. How is this a better alternative?

[Grendel_Kahn]

You all make this so easy, PAWN. I never said I was a right-winger at all, in fact if you had basic reading comprehension skills, you would see that I dislike both parties equally. In the future, I'll use smaller words for the liberals.
I would however; be interested to hear how you can justify your stance on Liberals guiding this country. It's laughable and you stopping before you go on a rant is even more so. Is it you just don't have it in you or are you incapable?
I await your long-winded attempt at justification through an equally bad attempt at comedic writing, with bated breathe. Nah, on second thought, I'll just not read it and put this in the win- column.
Thanks for the laugh, PAWN. It's been fun talking with you. At the end of the day, we are lucky that we can even debate these things and I do respect your right to say whatever you want.


'bated breathe' is actually the correct spelling. (I wanted to clarify that for your comprehension pleasure)


I'm not sure I get the whole PAWN thing.

[Grendel_Kahn]

You know now that I have read your posts again, it occurs to me that you are incapable of having a normal debate or even a conversation. I no not if this is from all the right wing radio, or what.


Civil Rights.
Social Security
GI BILL
Disabled Americans Act
Family Leave Act


Thats just off the top of my head. Not to mention the Republicans that would never get elected today. Namely Roosevelt and Lincoln. Both very Liberal in their views of environmental and fiscal policies, and very Liberal in Social issues.

[scottinnj]

You kill me and then I'll kill you. oh, wait...UH-OH SPAGHETTI-O'S!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not sure I get the whole PAWN thing.

He meant "PRAWN." Somebody thinks you're delicious and expensive!

[HBox]

You know now that I have read your posts again, it occurs to me that you are incapable of having a normal debate or even a conversation. I no not if this is from all the right wing radio, or what.


Civil Rights.
Social Security
GI BILL
Disabled Americans Act
Family Leave Act


Thats just off the top of my head. Not to mention the Republicans that would never get elected today. Namely Roosevelt and Lincoln. Both very Liberal in their views of environmental and fiscal policies, and very Liberal in Social issues.

That's just what i would expect from a ROOK.

[Fezticle98]

Here's the two things that bug me the most about Paul, besides the questionable racist/racial stuff from his organization over the years...Paul's version of "small government" puts too much power into the hands of too few people. That's scary and very dangerous. Secondly, he's presented as someone who won't pander to corporate interests as if those are the worst things in the world...but doesn't much of his dismantling involve privatizing large chunks of what the government currently attempts to run across the board? Who does he and his supporters think are going to have the capabilities to run these newly structured "agencies?" The big corporations, many of which now are internationally structured. How is this a better alternative?

You're missing the point. His idea of government does not centralize power in the hands of the few, it decentralizes power/responsibility by giving rights back to citizens and some back to the states. Privatizing certain functions will not give power to corporations, but rather allows the free market to determine the course of events. The free market is not controlled solely by corporations, but by the interplay between consumers and producers. I, for one, trust myself to make most choices instead of the government. There are certain functions that the government must take on, but not on the scale that it does now.

[TheMojoPin]

You're missing the point. His idea of government does not centralize power in the hands of the few, it decentralizes power/responsibility by giving rights back to citizens and some back to the states. Privatizing certain functions will not give power to corporations, but rather allows the free market to determine the course of events. The free market is not controlled solely by corporations, but by the interplay between consumers and producers. I, for one, trust myself to make most choices instead of the government. There are certain functions that the government must take on, but not on the scale that it does now.

But these are the kind of things that demonstrate to me that his rhetoric is completely unrealistic. I think it's simply a fantasy to think that the privatization of such expansive functions would not inevitably end up in the hands of the biggest businesses because ultimately they're the only ones with the means and the money to run them on the scale America requires. Anything less is simply impossible or wefully inadequate. And subjecting things to the free market, OUR market, which is ultimately dictated by profit uber alles, is not how I would want things like the Department of Education or (especially) the FDA run. And again, this puts the control of too much ino the hands of too few, private or federal. I find Paul's ideas to be downright dangerous in this regard. America is simply too big a country to have its government whiddled down like he's talking about. That much power in the hands of the relative few is simply not the answer. Yes, I know that the idealized result would have more power in the hands of "the people," but the realistic side of me just doesn't ever see that happening like he talks about. When that much money and power is involved, people are simply not that altruistic.

[epo]

Thats just off the top of my head. Not to mention the Republicans that would never get elected today. Namely Roosevelt and Lincoln. Both very Liberal in their views of environmental and fiscal policies, and very Liberal in Social issues.

That is such funny as I just had a conversation with a friend of mine the other day explaining that Richard Nixon would branded a commie by today's Neo-cons.

Hot damn, Goldwater really did change this nation.

[Grendel_Kahn]

He meant "PRAWN." Somebody thinks you're delicious and expensive!

Oh, but I am good sir. I most certainly am.

[Grendel_Kahn]

That's just what i would expect from a ROOK.

I always saw myself as more of a

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cX525QtdKrsnfM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Chess_bishop_0970.jpg/401px-Chess_bishop_0970.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

I dont recall ever thinking that Bush was an outsider. His dad was the friggin VP and P.
I remember liking him because he seemed stable, and could bring back some kind of honor to the office. At that time, I didnt want radical change...I was just missing Reagan, and his dad. It seemed like a good idea to have another Bush in there...if he ever needed help, all his dad's friends would be there to help out. (shudder).

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30349)

[scottinnj]

That is such funny as I just had a conversation with a friend of mine the other day explaining that Richard Nixon would branded a commie by today's Neo-cons.


He did go to China.

Just sayin'!

[Grendel_Kahn]

Just to say it.




Thought so.

[Fezticle98]

I hope they book Ron Paul on the show. I know Earl isn't in charge of it, so there is actually a possibility that it could happen.

Paul is around 71, so I don't know if he would "get it." But Ronnie B. is such a great interviewer that he could make it work.

[TheMojoPin]

IPaul is around 71

There's another reason I'd never vote for him. I've resolved to never vote for anyone over the age of 60 ever again, even if I believed in everything they stood for. Complete ageism, I know, but I'm sick of ancient old men running this country.

[sailor]

There's another reason I'd never vote for him. I've resolved to never vote for anyone over the age of 60 ever again, even if I believed in everything they stood for. Complete ageism, I know, but I'm sick of ancient old men running this country.

you do know how old kucinich is, right?

[TheMojoPin]

you do know how old kucinich is, right?

Yes...and? I had no plan on voting for him anyway. He's the Left's Ron Paul in terms of how unrealistic his overall rhetoric is.

[Rthentic]

This Guy's Got Moxy

[TheMojoPin]

so all this meant nothing?

Correct. Like I said, I'm not voting for ayone over 60 even if I agree with all of their policies. I'm not sure where that quote said I'm voting for him, but hey, whatever's clever.

[TheMojoPin]

OK, I moved all the media bias posts to a new thread. Please use that one instead.

[scottinnj]

OK, I moved all the media bias posts to a new thread. Please use that one instead.


Oh great and mighty Moderator. Your wisdom and mercy knows no bounds.

Thanks. You guys were wearing me down.

Now back to Ron.

[sailor]

Correct. Like I said, I'm not voting for ayone over 60 even if I agree with all of their policies. I'm not sure where that quote said I'm voting for him, but hey, whatever's clever.

what's the constant attitude for? in that previous thread it seemed like you had glowing support for kucinich, so i'm honestly surprised that you would not vote for him based on his age. it was an assumption, but i would imagine any rational person who read the other thread would have thought you were voting for him.

edit: you also seem to have moved my post that you were quoting. i am assuming this was an oversight.

[TheMojoPin]

what's the constant attitude for? in that previous thread it seemed like you had glowing support for kucinich, so i'm honestly surprised that you would not vote for him based on his age. it was an assumption, but i would imagine any rational person who read the other thread would have thought you were voting for him.

As far as I can recall, that's about the only thing I've posted about Kucinich that even comes remotely close to being supportive of him. I've aways recognized that on an issue-by-issue basis I typically end up closest to guys like Kucinich, but I've never viewed him as a realistic or viable candidate, even when his age didn't disqualify him from my vote. I'm not really sure how I was "glowing" in my support of him, especialy since that's probably the only remotely positive thing I've said about him here. He's an all-sensational rhetoric kind of guy, like Paul.

Do you assume that everyone in that thread is voting for the person they matched most with?

[sailor]

As far as I can recall, that's about the only thing I've posted about Kucinich that even comes remotely close to being supportive of him. I've aways recognized that on an issue-by-issue basis I typically end up closest to guys like Kucinich, but I've never viewed him as a realistic or viable candidate, even when his age didn't disqualify him from my vote. I'm not really sure how I was "glowing" in my support of him, especialy since that's probably the only remotely positive thing I've said about him here. He's an all-sensational rhetoric kind of guy, like Paul.

Do you assume that everyone in that thread is voting for the person they matched most with?

of course i don't assume that. like i said, i believe any rational person who viewed the thread would assume you were voting for him. now, i understand you're not. my bad.

[badmonkey]

but if you support Kucinich... you get a cool hat!

http://www.geocities.com/eukodol/headgear3.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

It creeps me out how he's always pulling stuff out of his pockets. And I keep thinking his wife is the alien disguised as a chick from Mars Attacks!. If he gets elected, MARS WINS.

[badmonkey]

funny you should say that

http://bigheaddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/kucinich-ufo.JPG
Could This Whole “Alien Encounter” Thing Finally Explain How Dennis Kucinich Scored Elizabeth? (http://bigheaddc.com/2007/10/24/could-this-whole-alien-encounter-thing-finally-explain-how-dennis-kucinich-scored-elizabeth-kucinich/)

[ChrisTheCop]

Ron Paul on Less Govmt, medicare, and govt subsidized insurance programs 12/10/07 abc (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977601&affil=kxtv)

Ron Paul on justifiable war and other countries problems 12/10/07 abc 20/20 (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977514&affil=kxtv)

Ron Paul on Freedom of Choice, abc 20/20, 12/10/07
(http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3970744&affil=kxtv)

[Yerdaddy]

Ron Paul on Less Govmt, medicare, and govt subsidized insurance programs 12/10/07 abc (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977601&affil=kxtv)

Ron Paul on justifiable war and other countries problems 12/10/07 abc 20/20 (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977514&affil=kxtv)

Ron Paul on Freedom of Choice, abc 20/20, 12/10/07
(http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3970744&affil=kxtv)

And don't forget: Ron Paul on conspiracy by librul mainstream media to shut him out of the mainstream librul media 12/13/07 abc (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507ronpaul.htm)

[Yerdaddy]

Here's a speech by Ron Paul I think is exactly what I would have said. Props to him for it.

Lying War Propaganda Against Iran (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul393.html)

[TheMojoPin]

And don't forget: Ron Paul on conspiracy by librul mainstream media to shut him out of the mainstream librul media 12/13/07 abc (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507ronpaul.htm)

He also recently said that he doesn't believe any major invesitgation conducted by the government and feels that things like 9/11 and the JFK assassination need to be seriously reinvestigated.

[scottinnj]

funny you should say that

http://bigheaddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/kucinich-ufo.JPG


I don't care if she's a Martian or that she's married to a Democrat. SHE'S HOT!

[Fezticle98]

I don't care if she's a Martian or that she's married to a Democrat. SHE'S HOT!

I saw them out on Capitol Hill one night. Dennis is doing well for himself. She is not amazingly hot, but very attractive. He's lucky to have anyone, let alone a tall, young (female) redhead.

On the Ron Paul side of things, I'm enjoying the coverage of the blimp. It's a great gimmick and definitely pushes the boundaries of campaign finance rules.

www.ronpaulblimp.com

“The mainstream media is mesmerized as the image of the Ron Paul blimp is shown to tens of millions of Americans throughout the day. ... The local television stations broadcast its every move. ... The PR stunt generates millions upon millions of dollars worth in free publicity, and captures the imagination of America.”

I'm pretty sure that description is tongue-in-cheek. Either way, it makes me laugh.

[epo]

FYI: Ron Paul is scheduled to be the guest on Meet the Press next week.

[scottinnj]

FYI: Ron Paul is scheduled to be the guest on Meet the Press next week.

If you have a non iPod video MP3 player, click here (http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-MTP-NETCAST-M4V.xml)for the video podcast link, and use this link (http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-MTP.xml) if you only need the audio.


Mitt Romney was on today, here is the transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/) and usually the podcast comes out Monday morning.

[scottinnj]

My bad, the podcast for today is already out, my iTunes is already downloading it.

[ChrisTheCop]

If you have a non iPod video MP3 player, click here (http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-MTP-NETCAST-M4V.xml)for the video podcast link, and use this link (http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-MTP.xml) if you only need the audio.


Mitt Romney was on today, here is the transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/) and usually the podcast comes out Monday morning.

He also recently said that he doesn't believe any major invesitgation conducted by the government and feels that things like 9/11 and the JFK assassination need to be seriously reinvestigated.

Not sure if youre agreeing with him there or not.

Yerdaddy, Great posts! I also am consistently amazed that evrey news organization feels the need to say, "well..he certainly doesnt have a chance to win, but he's raising alot of money..." as if to say, "he's not the one chosen by us, but I guess we gotta mention him cuz he's making waves..."

We've already hit out mark, but today, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, is also a milestone fundraising day for the Ron Paul campaign. There's still time to get in on it, and support a man who, although he's not a pretty cookie cutter same old same old republican candidate, is actually the best person for the job.

Buy a sweat shirt or bumper sticker, and it counts as a donation to Dr Paul's campaign, or you can just throw money at them if you prefer: You can find both options here. (www.ronpaul2008.com)

[scottinnj]

Not sure if youre agreeing with him there or not.




Nope, just providing information to fellow posters so we can all have access to the most information possible about the candidates.

[TheMojoPin]

Not sure if youre agreeing with him there or not.

If that's about my quote regarding his opinions on the 9/11 and JFK federal investigations, no, I am definitely not agreeing with him. That kind of thinking shows a blatant disregard for well backed up, researched and presenting factual information in favor of heresay, slander and intellectual mush.

[ChrisTheCop]

If that's about my quote regarding his opinions on the 9/11 and JFK federal investigations, no, I am definitely not agreeing with him. That kind of thinking shows a blatant disregard for well backed up, researched and presenting factual information in favor of heresay, slander and intellectual mush.

yeah, sorry scott i quoted you, but wasnt referring to ya.

Mojo, thanks for clarifying. Although I personally believe the 9/11 report and The Warren Report, and have a lot of faith in my government and its internal investigations, Ron Paul's ideals follow that if people want to re-investigate these things themselves, they should be allowed to, without fear of being ostracized for their need to know the truth.

Although he distrusts government investigating itself, he himself certainly doesnt think the 9/11 commision's report is completely erroneous, because he uses it to defuse Rudy G.

It's the same problem people have with the police dept investigating possible inappropriate actions by its own officers; an outside agency should do the investigation. All Ron Paul is saying is that if the government is being accused of something criminal, the people certainly have a right to question the investigation by that same government.

[TheMojoPin]

yeah, sorry scott i quoted you, but wasnt referring to ya.

Mojo, thanks for clarifying. Although I personally believe the 9/11 report and The Warren Report, and have a lot of faith in my government and its internal investigations, Ron Paul's ideals follow that if people want to re-investigate these things themselves, they should be allowed to, without fear of being ostracized for their need to know the truth.

Although he distrusts government investigating itself, he himself certainly doesnt think the 9/11 commision's report is completely erroneous, because he uses it to defuse Rudy G.

It's the same problem people have with the police dept investigating possible inappropriate actions by its own officers; an outside agency should do the investigation. All Ron Paul is saying is that if the government is being accused of something criminal, the people certainly have a right to question the investigation by that same government.

Who is stopping the "Truthers" from "re-investigating" these things? It's a pandering non-point on Pauls' part then because nobody is stopping them from researching the information and evidence available.

[ChrisTheCop]

Who is stopping the "Truthers" from "re-investigating" these things? It's a pandering non-point on Pauls' part then because nobody is stopping them from researching the information and evidence available.

ok...so where's the problem? You seemed to be saying, once again, he's a nut job for even suggesting they have that right. He's just saying that they do.

Politicians pander? Wow, he IS an innovator!

[TheMojoPin]

ok...so where's the problem? You seemed to be saying, once again, he's a nut job for even suggesting they have that right. He's just saying that they do.

Politicians pander? Wow, he IS an innovator!

I didn't say he's a nut job, nor did he simply suggest that private citizens have the right to re-evalutae these incidents. He specifically said that he doesn't believe the government investigations into these events and that he agrees with the people who are pushing for them to be re-investigated on the scale (or greater) of the previous federal investigations. That's a huge difference from what you're spinning it as. And forget pandering, this is flat out lying if he's using that government investigation of 9/11 to debunk Giulani.

It's simply another reason on my list of reasons to not vote for Ron Paul for president. He talks huge and constantly contradicts himself, as many politicias do, but he compounds that by showing that he has no idea how to play the game and has no real grasp of how the systems we have in place actually need to work.

[scottinnj]

You seemed to be saying, once again, he's a nut job for even suggesting they have that right.

No, it isn't Mojo saying that he's a nut job, it's me. And not for the 9/11 stuff, it's for the report of him willingly and knowingly accepting money from racist organizations. At best, it's a dumb move that will lock him out of getting votes from mainstream Americans. At worst, it's evidence that he is a closet racist himself.
But when you put that evidence alongside of the 9/11 investigation remarks, it shows me that he is pandering to those who are sending him money. And since a majority of them are from the David Duke camp, who coincidentally believe the "Jews did it" conspiracy flavor, I have definetly ended any support I have had for him in the past, and I also pray that the voters of Texas get him out of Congress the first chance they get.

[HBox]

Ron Paul to keep $500 donation from leader of Stormfront.org (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/)

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

That's fine. He's just lost all standing to criticize anyone else for taking special interest money.

[ChrisTheCop]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iNb6uSjelfA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iNb6uSjelfA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Fezticle98]

I'd like to see Ron officially endorse Ron Paul. I thought he was close on the show today. Seriously, he'd be more impressive than former MTV VJ Adam Curry and some state senator from NH.

Fez seemed pretty impressed by the Ron Paul blimp. That's probably enough to win him over.

[Fezticle98]

Oh yeah, RP on Leno tonight.

[K.C.]

Crazy bastards

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YMrHorlOB0k&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YMrHorlOB0k&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ralphbxny]

I love to see kids take part in politics!!

[Tall_James]

My sound is not working so well, who are they chasing?

[K.C.]

I love to see kids take part in politics!!

Anyone who chases Hannity all the back to his hotel is ok in my book.

He was bitching about it for like a half hour today.

[Fezticle98]

My sound is not working so well, who are they chasing?

Sean Hannity.

I think they have the same problem as Earl. They need to mix in a jack once in a while.

[K.C.]

My sound is not working so well, who are they chasing?

Sean Hannity and his producers...they're chasing him down the street throwing snowballs at him.

[Fezticle98]

Anyone who chases Hannity all the back to his hotel is ok in my book.

He was bitching about it for like a half hour today.

Do you have that video. That would be great.

[K.C.]

Do you have that video. That would be great.

Sadly that's the only video, and you can't really see him getting hit...you can only see Hannity at the very end when he enters his hotel.

When he was talking about it today, he said they hit him and his female producer with several snowballs as they chased him down the street.

You can clearly see that blonde bitch towards the end yelling at the crowd to stop throwing stuff.


All that scene is missing is torches and pitchforks.


I hope they hop in the Ron Paul Blimp and follow everyone down to South Carolina so they can raise havok there too.

They're already ruining Anderson Cooper show on CNN right now...he's doing a live location show, and they're drowning him out, standing behind him, because they're so loud.


EDIT: Anderson moved his location away from them during the commercial break. Hahaha.

[Grendel_Kahn]

This has all sorta become moot as it looks like it's gonna be Obama -v- Huckabee. I'm not folled by N.H. going for Mccain.

[Fezticle98]

This has all sorta become moot as it looks like it's gonna be Obama -v- Huckabee. I'm not folled by N.H. going for Mccain.

I disagree. I think Huckabee is going to be destroyed on Super Tuesday. I think it is between McCain and Giuliani for the GOP. Although they could split the electorate and give Huckabee and opening, but I don't see that happening.

Anyone's guess between Hillary and Obama.

If I had to guess at this point, it would be Giuliani vs. Obama.

[epo]

Well, somebody finally got to it. This week The New Republic ran a damning article on Ron Paul & his old newsletter. Surprise, he's a crazy old racist!

Link to article here. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

Link to a few damning quotes here. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129)

Any comments?

[scottinnj]

Any comments?


Um, I've always agreed with you?

Oh and for you other doubters, CLICKEY CLICKEY! (http://www.davidduke.com/general/3339_3339.html) One of Ron Paul's biggest money makers! That "internet" money Ron raised in record time didn't come mainly from idealistic college kids, it came from strident racists rallied to the cause by David Duke.

I know you guys who are Ron Paul supporters on this board mean well, but Epo and me keep showing you the brick wall, and you guys keep smacking your head into it. :wallbash:

[scottinnj]

From American Thinker, November 25th, 2007 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_odd_alliance_supporting_ro.html)


And even earlier, November 14th, 2007 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html)

From Micheal Medved on Townhall.com, October 26th, 2007 (http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/77711671-de32-47da-a721-8f606d586ad0)

And from Rick Moran on American thinker today, January 11th, 2008 (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/ron_pauls_racist_rheoric_uncov.html)

Please read these articles Epo and I are posting, and consider who you are aligning with, and ask yourself, "Why doesn't, or hasn't Ron Paul been stronger in denouncing these hateful voices, and why does he openly accept money from them?"

[Swannee]

I love how the media has talked about Ron Paul getting a donation of $500 (out of $16 million) from a white supremacists, but hasn't mentioned the tens of millions of dollars that Obama and Hillary have raised from corporations and special interest groups. Which donors do you think would have a larger influence on a candidate’s presidency?

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, it's "the media."

All of those links are hardly only talking about that one donation.

[Yerdaddy]

I love how the media has talked about Ron Paul getting a donation of $500 (out of $16 million) from a white supremacists, but hasn't mentioned the tens of millions of dollars that Obama and Hillary have raised from corporations and special interest groups. Which donors do you think would have a larger influence on a candidate’s presidency?

What's that got do do with him being a racist or not? Especially given the 30 years worth of racist statements published in his newsletters?

[HBox]

Yes, it's "the media."

All of those links are hardly only talking about that one donation.

I don't know, I've never seen sources liberal to that insane magnitude.

[pennington]

Ron Paul has been an amusing distraction and he's made some good points. Dennis Kucinich, too (at least the amusing distraction part).

But they need to drop out of this race soon so people can seriously decide who the next president is going to be.

[HBox]

This sums up Ron Paul on economic issues: the only one brave enough to talk about the real problems but who unfortunately has the worst possible solutions.

[pennington]

This sums up Ron Paul on economic issues: the only one brave enough to talk about the real problems but who unfortunately has the worst possible solutions.

If Ron Paul was ever a serious candidate, this would be the absolute perfect ad to run against him. It would also work for international issues.

[HBox]

If Ron Paul was ever a serious candidate, this would be the absolute perfect ad to run against him. It would also work for international issues.

Other than Iraq but that's all anyone's paying attention to. No one pays attention to the withdraw from the UN, withdraw all troops from everywhere, withdraw all foreign aid, withdraw from all free trade treaties, and make the US completely completely isolationist again ideas in an age where the world is becoming more interconnected than ever before and at blistering pace.

[Swannee]

Other than Iraq but that's all anyone's paying attention to. No one pays attention to the withdraw from the UN, withdraw all troops from everywhere, withdraw all foreign aid, withdraw from all free trade treaties, and make the US completely completely isolationist again ideas in an age where the world is becoming more interconnected than ever before and at blistering pace.

It is not ablut isolationism, it is about not being the policeman of the fucking world. And to call Ron Paul a racist for other people's words, is the same as calling Ron or Fez a racist for having some hayseed call in an insult Earl or to have a racist comment on this board.

[scottinnj]

It is not ablut isolationism, it is about not being the policeman of the fucking world. And to call Ron Paul a racist for other people's words, is the same as calling Ron or Fez a racist for having some hayseed call in an insult Earl or to have a racist comment on this board.

This stuff was printed on his letterhead. Either he wrote it, or a person on his staff wrote it for him. Far different then having a caller elude Pitzy's genius screening methods to say something racist to Ear.

[Swannee]

Listen to his WORDS and you will hear him denounce these writings and any racist ideology. This controversy has been around for ten years and it hasn’t kept him from getting elected in his district because it is obvious bull shit

[TheMojoPin]

Listen to his WORDS and you will hear him denounce these writings and any racist ideology. This controversy has been around for ten years and it hasn’t kept him from getting elected in his district because it is obvious bull shit

It wasn't a huge issue before because he wasn't on this level of public awareness. And no, he's not denouncing these animals who are supporting him. He's pretending like they're not there ad he's taking their money.

[Snoogans]

Ron Paul Is A Baby Killer

[Yerdaddy]

Clearly Ron Paul has the sycophant vote locked up. Now if he gets the coveted narcissistic dogmatist vote we really need to start to worry.

[ChrisTheCop]

Things need to change.
We want change,
But unless youre absolutely perfect,
let's keep things the same.

Not the best poem, but I think it wraps up my thoughts perfectly.
Americans want things to stay status quo so they can whine for another 4 years.
And another...and another.

Thank you Ron Paul, for your service to our country, for trying to answer our call, but some people who support you are racist, or otherwise imperfect, so you must go away. Not to mention the fact that not every plan you had was viable...not that any other candidate's every strategy is, nor is everyone who supports them squeaky clean, but it looks like theyre not really interested in changing things too much...so thats who we're gonna elect.

Ron Bennington said it best; if you think there's a difference beyween Republican and Democrat, you couldnt be more fucking wrong. Sadly, Dr Paul was just a little too different. Shame on him.

4 more years! 4 more years!!!!:glurps:

[TheMojoPin]

What "changes" would he enact that aren't throwbacks? That's only change in the most technical definition of the word. He's not even a classical conservative...he's a regressionist.

Please don't tell me that I don't support him because he's "too different." I don't support him and ultimately deride him because he's a social, political and economic dinosaur whose "changes" aren't applicable or feasable for America today or tomorrow.

[Yerdaddy]

Things need to change.
We want change,
But unless youre absolutely perfect,
let's keep things the same.

Not the best poem, but I think it wraps up my thoughts perfectly.
Americans want things to stay status quo so they can whine for another 4 years.
And another...and another.

Thank you Ron Paul, for your service to our country, for trying to answer our call, but some people who support you are racist, or otherwise imperfect, so you must go away. Not to mention the fact that not every plan you had was viable...not that any other candidate's every strategy is, nor is everyone who supports them squeaky clean, but it looks like theyre not really interested in changing things too much...so thats who we're gonna elect.

Ron Bennington said it best; if you think there's a difference beyween Republican and Democrat, you couldnt be more fucking wrong. Sadly, Dr Paul was just a little too different. Shame on him.

4 more years! 4 more years!!!!:glurps:

You can't tell me that this is an accurate description of the sum total of all of our criticisms of Ron Paul - that we just don't want any change because we like to complain. No RP supporter has even attempted to defend his idea that the Dept. of Education, the FDA or any other federal agencies should be scrapped like he proposes, or why the gold standard is suddenly a good idea, or the total withdrawall of America from the world, sealing of the borders and living like North Korea and Burma, or any of the other batshit crazy ways the man proposes to change this country are good ideas. Instead, most of you RP supporters simply take the position that if we don't support him there's something wrong with us. That's it. Defend his ideas if you think they're right for the country! If you can't, then you (Ron Paul supporters in general) need to look at why that is and then maybe you'll understand why we don't take him, or your insults seriously. Being passionate about a political idea or a political leader is not a virtue if the idea or the leader's ideas are practical and virtuous. And if you can't prove that they are, then they probably aren't!

[ChrisTheCop]

I'm agreeing with you!

Lets not change anything.

You win.

I'm sick of being called an idiot for wanting change and being attracted to a candidate who had some ideas for change, batshit crazy as they may have been. There were times in this thread where I backed up his theories, and the misconceptions of the same by "you" all, simply by posting his own videos; the man defends himself with his own words. But you decided to dismiss them, if you even watched them at all...and thats your right, as it it my right to be disappointed in my fellow Americans who want "Change We Can Believe In" which is no change other than a political party so we can say "yay WE won!!"

I havent been on in awhile, and I forget whose posts I normally appreciate reading. But these last two just seem like more of the same, "if someone posts something you dont agree with, just call them an idiot. tee fuckin hee"

At this point... I'll pose a question, so as to deflect more of the same.

Someone please explain to me what difference it makes if I vote for Obama, Hillary or Huck? Or anyone? To me, Ron Paul was the only one who stood out. Oh geez, I did it again. Forget I said that...ok, you can call him batshit crazy one more time...but answer me that.

(I'm just biding time til 2:30 so I can here the R and F update)

[TheMojoPin]

I'm agreeing with you!

Lets not change anything.

You win.

I'm sick of being called an idiot for wanting change and being attracted to a candidate who had some ideas for change, batshit crazy as they may have been. There were times in this thread where I backed up his theories, and the misconceptions of the same by "you" all, simply by posting his own videos; the man defends himself with his own words. But you decided to dismiss them, if you even watched them at all...and thats your right, as it it my right to be disappointed in my fellow Americans who want "Change We Can Believe In" which is no change other than a political party so we can say "yay WE won!!"

I havent been on in awhile, and I forget whose posts I normally appreciate reading. But these last two just seem like more of the same, "if someone posts something you dont agree with, just call them an idiot. tee fuckin hee"

At this point... I'll pose a question, so as to deflect more of the same.

Someone please explain to me what difference it makes if I vote for Obama, Hillary or Huck? Or anyone? To me, Ron Paul was the only one who stood out. Oh geez, I did it again. Forget I said that...ok, you can call him batshit crazy one more time...but answer me that.

(I'm just biding time til 2:30 so I can here the R and F update)

Last two? Last two what, my post and Yerdaddy's? Please show me where we called you anything or said he was crazy.

I'm not to telling you to not vote for him, or to vote for someone else. Vote for whoever you want, it doesn't mae a difference to me. But if you can use this thread to talk about why you want to vote for him ad support him, then I can use it to talk about why I won't vote for him or support him. The thread is called "Ron Paul"...it's about people's thoughts on him, good and bad.

The continued argument that "all the politicians are the same" or "there's no difference between the two parties" is a lazy one that typically indicates a general lack of interest in everyday politics. If that's how people want to live their lives, fine, but history proves otherwise. Please point out the presidencies up until today that have been exactly the same as any that came before.

There aren't any.

If you want to continue to not wat to debate this and either only post links to articles and video clips or play the martyr for simply backing a presidential candidate, fine, go ahead. I will ask again how a man who has stubbornly refused to evolve politically for over two decades is somehow a bastion for change. Impossibly reverting the country to a political and social structure that either can no longer exist or could never exist given the scale and scope of America.

This isn't fearing change. This is recognizing the unrealistic.

[ChrisTheCop]

This isn't fearing change. This is recognizing the unrealistic.

It's also not answering the question.

And change is only unrealistic because of your fear of it.

also, forgive me for providing answers to peoples questions by actually providing videos of the man answering those questions.
I shouldve just called them names, said they were wasting my time, and called them wanna be martyrs for liking an "unrealistic" choice...like Nader.

(now here comes the "how dare you call MY previous candidate unrealistic!",,,not sure who it was, but i distinctly remember one of the usual political forum suspects jumping all over me because I called Nader a spoiler...)

20 minutes til the special Ron and Fez update on 202!

[TheMojoPin]

It's also not answering the question.

And change is only unrealistic because of your fear of it.

There's nothing to fear since he offers no actual change. Only pipe dreams that would never become reality or regression.

Again, if "all politicians are the same," tossing out presidencies that weren't different at all from each other shouldn't be difficult at all. Claiming there's no difference between Hillary, Obama and (especially) Huckabee isn't realistic.

[ChrisTheCop]

There's nothing to fear since he offers no actual change. Only pipe dreams that would never become reality or regression.

Again, if "all politicians are the same," tossing out presidencies that weren't different at all from each other shouldn't be difficult at all. Claiming there's no difference between Hillary, Obama and (especially) Huckabee isn't realistic.

Instead of telling me how incredibly wrong I am...please answer my question.

I KNOW you CAN!! Youre a smart guy, Mojo... youve impressed me before...

Ive already conceded that America doesnt want Ron Paul... but now where should I look?

I generally want the dollar to strengthen and for our military to be stronger.
Who, in your opinion, offers me the best chance and why?

[TheMojoPin]

Instead of telling me how incredibly wrong I am...please answer my question.

I KNOW you CAN!! Youre a smart guy, Mojo... youve impressed me before...

Ive already conceded that America doesnt want Ron Paul... but now where should I look?

I generally want the dollar to strengthen and for our military to be stronger.
Who, in your opinion, offers me the best chance and why?

I answered your question on the other page. I'm not telling you who you should vote for. That's your choice. My arguments against Paul are why *I* have decided to not vote for him. I have no desire to steer you away from voting him or to tell you to vote for anyone else. That's a decision you make on your own.

[helterskeletor]

I do think there is value to having a portion of the public airwaves content regulated as long as there are alternatives not regulated.

That doesn't make any god damned sense.

I would give anything to see Ron Paul "jerk the wheel." I think the US is heading down a path leading to economic depression, a weak dollar, and finally loss of international influence.

Also, I think there is SOME difference between different polticians. Bush's regime has done a lot toward getting us in the mess we're in today.

[west milly Tom]

The top republicans earmark reaper is former presidential candidate Ron Paul securing 73.7 million in earmarks for his state. Way to go budday. What happened, I thought he ran a platform of fiscal conservativisim. What a fraud.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/09/winners-losers-proposed-massive-spending/

[ChrisTheCop]

The top republicans earmark reaper is former presidential candidate Ron Paul securing 73.7 million in earmarks for his state. Way to go budday. What happened, I thought he ran a platform of fiscal conservativisim. What a fraud.

He'd be an idiot to not take advantage of existing loopholes.

He said he wanted to change things, but if you work in a cookie factory, youre gonna eat cookies, even if your dream is to make it a cracker factory.

His job as Senator is to get what he can for his state.
His job as President wouldve been to do whats best for the country, which would be to get rid of these earmarks.

Note the difference.

[west milly Tom]

I'm not arguing with your logic at all, but come on man. He ran as a watch dog for the people saying he'd rid is of those fucking earmarked bills, then he receives more than any other republican. That is fraudulent.

[ChrisTheCop]

I'm not arguing with your logic at all, but come on man. He ran as a watch dog for the people saying he'd rid is of those ducking earmarked bills, then he receives more than any other republican. That is fraudulent.

If youre not arguing with the logic, then why are you still calling him a fraud?

He may find it distasteful, but it's his job to get whatever money he can for his state.

If he won the Presidency, and continued to allow earmarks, then he'd be a fraud.

In a perfect world, if he could get as much 'free' money in another way other than earmarking, maybe he'd do it,
but this is allowed, so he's gonna do it.

[HBox]

If youre not arguing with the logic, then why are you still calling him a fraud?

He may find it distasteful, but it's his job to get whatever money he can for his state.

If he won the Presidency, and continued to allow earmarks, then he'd be a fraud.

In a perfect world, if he could get as much 'free' money in another way other than earmarking, maybe he'd do it,
but this is allowed, so he's gonna do it.

However he wants to rationalize it to himself. If you think something is wrong and self-destructive you don't take part in it, especially to the point where you do it more than any other Republican. Paul is a libertarian. This activity goes against everything he says he stands for. John McCain for all his faults walks the walk as far as earmarks go.

[SatCam]

If youre not arguing with the logic, then why are you still calling him a fraud?

He may find it distasteful, but it's his job to get whatever money he can for his state.

If he won the Presidency, and continued to allow earmarks, then he'd be a fraud.

In a perfect world, if he could get as much 'free' money in another way other than earmarking, maybe he'd do it,
but this is allowed, so he's gonna do it.

As much as I'd like to stand up for the man I can't in this case. A libertarian like John Stossel would say take all the government hand outs you can get, like welfare, tax rebates etc. On the other hand, Paul is the opposite. For example, at his ob/gyn practice, he refused to take medicare/medicaid.

[keithy_19]

Obama said no earmarks too...

[ChrisTheCop]

As much as I'd like to stand up for the man I can't in this case. A libertarian like John Stossel would say take all the government hand outs you can get, like welfare, tax rebates etc. On the other hand, Paul is the opposite. For example, at his ob/gyn practice, he refused to take medicare/medicaid.

The difference is PRIVATE PRACTICE vs serving your constituents.

Obama said no earmarks too...

Except when he walks through a door... (get it? he's got big ears!)

[HBox]

Obama said no earmarks too...

No he didn't.

[SP1!]

I'm not arguing with your logic at all, but come on man. He ran as a watch dog for the people saying he'd rid is of those fucking earmarked bills, then he receives more than any other republican. That is fraudulent.

Ok the article was very fucking vague, were these earmarks that paul sponsored himself or just given to the district? I would think that the way the article is phrased that its just money given to his district and would make sense since bush and quite a lot of his family has shit in and around pauls district, hell bush sr served the same district as a congressman.

Not trying to defend him since I think all politicians are full of shit but still what was sponsored by him and what was given to the district as favors to old political cronies?

This line pissed me off even more:

Congress may also be handing out $500,000 to The National Council of La Raza, a Latino rights group.Even though they claim no affiliation with the la raza people all you have to do is ask mexicans what their group really stands for.

I have no problems with immigrants as long as its done legally, yeah it takes a long time, so fucking what? Plenty of people have done it and there is no reason to streamline it just because you pick our tomatoes.

[SP1!]

No he didn't.

Yes he did, it was a big part of his campaign, now he says just wait till next year (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-08-obama-administration-sunday_N.htm) and we will really do it!!!!!!!

I am starting to hear tones of the Howard Dean scream every time hes talking now.........

YEEEEEEEEEARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGh