ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Unchainme]

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

long read..but...holy shit.

dude reads like an even more fucked up version of pRick perry.

[FORD]

While it's true that these allegations about Ron Paul have been out there for years, it's probably the Newt camp that's pushing this right now, out of desperation. Newt's been bashing him in just about every way possible on FAUX and anywhere else somebody sticks a camera in his face.

I wonder when Newt will accuse Romney of the same thing, basing it on the long standing Mormon doctrine that black folks are descendants of the 1/3 of the angels who were too lazy to fight Satan?

[Unchainme]

The GOP is the epitome of fucked right now FORD..

there's no way any of these clowns beat obama. none.

[jhale667]

Paul's "rationalization/explanation" for those vile posts is pretty lame too. Sorry buddy, if you don't pay attention to what goes out in a newsletter with your name on it, you're clearly not qualified to run the country.

[Unchainme]

Paul's "rationalization/explanation" for those vile posts is pretty lame too. Sorry buddy, if you don't pay attention to what goes out in a newsletter with your name on it, you're clearly not qualified to run the country.

bingo.

[Dr. Love]

First, they ignored him. Then, they dismissed him. Now, they're attacking him. Seems like they are pretty desperate to make sure he doesn't get any traction! And no wonder -- if he actually did make it, it would mean the end for a lot of special interests that drive life in the USA.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134-naacp-president-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist.html
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/12/29/new-information-discredits-racist-media-smear-campaign-against-ron-paul/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/five-22-reasons-ron-pauls-not-racist-are-compelling/46753/


I don't believe he's a racist. And even if he were ... I wouldn't care.

[Dr. Love]

Paul's "rationalization/explanation" for those vile posts is pretty lame too. Sorry buddy, if you don't pay attention to what goes out in a newsletter with your name on it, you're clearly not qualified to run the country.

Good point, I'm sure we should all hold David Lee Roth accountable for everything that is written on a message board bearing his name, especially since we're getting some attention and official recognition these days! I'm sure he reads it all and would have publically disavowed anything he disagreed with.

[Dr. Love]

This is simply a smear campaign. Don't let people so brazenly manipulate you guys into believing something. Research both sides of it and come up with your own point of view.

[Dr. Love]

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

Well, now the NAACP is defending racists! What has the world come to.

[Jagermeister]

This is simply a smear campaign. Don't let people so brazenly manipulate you guys into believing something. Research both sides of it and come up with your own point of view.

You do realize that this place is populated with the most far left liberal mofo's on the face of the earth?

[jhale667]

Good point, I'm sure we should all hold David Lee Roth accountable for everything that is written on a message board bearing his name, especially since we're getting some attention and official recognition these days! I'm sure he reads it all and would have publically disavowed anything he disagreed with.

Puh-leez. So far no one's written anything here claiming to be him... and sorry, being a racist is an automatic DQ for presidential aspirations too. That was his newsletter, and if he was allowing articles to be written under his name (and apparently he was, not the 1st time this has come up, and he DIDN'T disavow it in the past), and was too dumb to know one of the writers misrepresenting themselves as him was a racist homophobic douche? FAIL.

[Jagermeister]

Who cares what Ron Paul said? He's not going to be on the ticket anyway.

[Seshmeister]

He may not be racist but he's definitely a homophobe! :D


http://www.anyclip.com/movies/bruno/ron-paul-interview/

[Dr. Love]

Puh-leez. So far no one's written anything here claiming to be him... and sorry, being a racist is an automatic DQ for presidential aspirations too. That was his newsletter, and if he was allowing articles to be written under his name (and apparently he was, not the 1st time this has come up, and he DIDN'T disavow it in the past), and was too dumb to know one of the writers misrepresenting themselves as him was a racist homophobic douche? FAIL.

I know racism is your hot button. I just think it's unfortunate that you let others press it and manipulate you with it.

[Jagermeister]

I know racism is your hot button. I just think it's unfortunate that you let others press it and manipulate you with it.

Oh that's not true at all Dr. Love.

[Dr. Love]

He may not be racist but he's definitely a homophobe! :D


http://www.anyclip.com/movies/bruno/ron-paul-interview/

In Texas, he's lucky he didn't get shot (and I doubt anyone would have convicted Ron Paul if he had shot him).

[Dr. Love]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4#!

ron paul reaction


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mB7SG5gpWAw

[Seshmeister]

In Texas, he's lucky he didn't get shot (and I doubt anyone would have convicted Ron Paul if he had shot him).

Shot just for misreading the signs? :D

[Dr. Love]

I think, watching the video, an invitation to a bedroom with a guy that puts on music, lights candles, starts dancing and then disrobes (and blocks the door) ... in Texas, yeah, that could very well get you severely hurt, and most citizens would not really blame the person for feeling threatened/protecting themselves.

Regardless, I've been watching more of the news lately and they are finally talking about Ron Paul but only to try to smear him further, claiming that he appeals only to a fringe element and that he doesn't have any real support in the US (despite being 20%+ in Iowa ... that's a huge fringe). Furthermore, they are trying very hard to make his votes look anti-minority/anti-gay by framing it as "Ron Paul votes against Rosa Parks getting the Congressional Gold Medal" when in fact he was voting against the government paying for it ... offering and challenging his fellow congressman to put forward money out of their own pockets to pay for it instead of paying for it with taxpayer money. Same thing with saying that Ron Paul supports laws against homosexuality. He believes the states should be able to pass their own laws and the federal government should be limited to it's constitutional mandate. No realistic person believes that a state will pass an ardently anti-homosexual law, but it's a nice way to twist the position to fit the agenda to commit slander and libel against him.

Again, why? Because his positions threaten to take power away from the powerful, to undermine and dismantle the establishment, and take the country down a path where the entrenched interests will lose power and influence. Ignoring him didn't undermine his traction, dismissing him didn't undermine his traction. So, now they will attack him.

The unfortunate thing is, he's not a very eloquent speaker, so he may have a harder time defending himself.

[Dr. Love]

I could go on at length, but perhaps it's better for you guys to read up on his political positions yourselves, and make up your own minds and not let a news channel tell you what to think. Here's a good place to start, as it will help give a lot more direct quote information on his views on many, many things, including racism and homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

[Seshmeister]

I think, watching the video, an invitation to a bedroom with a guy that puts on music, lights candles, starts dancing and then disrobes (and blocks the door) ... in Texas, yeah, that could very well get you severely hurt, and most citizens would not really blame the person for feeling threatened/protecting themselves.


I was only kidding I don't think Paul did anything wrong but violence never mind extreme violence in those circumstances says more about the person having doubts about their own sexuality than anything else.

Change the sex of Ron Paul in the scenario to female then she is far more vulnerable being physically weaker. If a girl went willingly into a bedroom with a guy with a film crew in an adjoining room it would be ok if she shot him the minute he dropped his pants?

[Nickdfresh]

He may not be racist but he's definitely a homophobe! :D


http://www.anyclip.com/movies/bruno/ron-paul-interview/


There's an article around stating that most gays don't have a huge problem with Paul as his record regarding basic civil liberties is good...

[knuckleboner]

I could go on at length, but perhaps it's better for you guys to read up on his political positions yourselves, and make up your own minds and not let a news channel tell you what to think. Here's a good place to start, as it will help give a lot more direct quote information on his views on many, many things, including racism and homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

i've studied up a bit on ron paul. i definitely believe he's sincere. moreso than most, if not all members of congress. good for him. that said, sincerity, by itself, does not make up for absolutely loony economic policies, no matter how much you really believe in them.

my favorite is his, "let's let every American make up their own form of currency." because, the one thing this economy needs right now is 300 million potential exchange rates...

[sadaist]

You do realize that this place is populated with the most far left liberal mofo's on the face of the earth?


Makes it interesting & fun for me. Otherwise we would just have threads with a hundred posts of "I agree".

[Dr. Love]

my favorite is his, "let's let every American make up their own form of currency." because, the one thing this economy needs right now is 300 million potential exchange rates...

link/source?

[jhale667]

I know racism is your hot button. I just think it's unfortunate that you let others press it and manipulate you with it.

I don't. And I've done my research on Dr. Paul. While I agree with him about ending the wars and a couple of other things, he'absolutely batshit on social issues. He also just picked up an endorsement from a zealot preacher who's most well-known for saying gays should be executed. Not helping his case...

[Nitro Express]

You would never hear these allegations come out if Ron Paul didn't have a chance at becoming the next president. I think the way the Republican establishment has treated him has been shameful. If you want war with Iran. More corporate bailouts. More debt. Go ahead and vote for the other Republicans. If you want a neocon agenda with a more socialist flavor, leave Obama in. Ron Paul is the only candidate to start focusing on this country instead of running 800 overseas bases, letting a private bank screw us, and bailing out corporations that should just go broke due to their own incompetence.

It's going to get nasty. I hope nobody shoots him.

[Dr. Love]

I don't. And I've done my research on Dr. Paul. While I agree with him about ending the wars and a couple of other things, he'absolutely batshit on social issues. He also just picked up an endorsement from a zealot preacher who's most well-known for saying gays should be executed. Not helping his case...

On the social issues, he's all about personal freedom and liberty, and about making sure that the federal government cannot tell you what you can/can't do ... only local and state governments would be able to legislate things like that. He wants to keep the federal government out of everything about your personal lives. Unless you mean abortion?

I could certainly understand and agree if you said his views on regulations were crazy, but on the social side, I don't understand. What do you disagree with in particular?

As for the preacher ... well, I'm not voting for a preacher, I'm voting for a President to start fixing things (not perpetuate the problem). I couldn't care less what the preacher thinks unless the candidate tells me he agrees with it. And given his record on the homosexuality issue, I extremely doubt he agrees with the preacher.

[Nitro Express]

I don't. And I've done my research on Dr. Paul. While I agree with him about ending the wars and a couple of other things, he'absolutely batshit on social issues. He also just picked up an endorsement from a zealot preacher who's most well-known for saying gays should be executed. Not helping his case...

You can't run on a right wing ticket and not have some bat shit. Obama got some crazy backing too. If you want to nit pick you can dig dirt on anyone or connect some dots to some unsavory sources. Liberatarians tend to be hands off on social issues and a lot of right wing fringe lean that way. You are going to get some snake handlers give you a donation.

I look at the bigger picture. I want the Federal Reserve audited and I don't want war with Iran. Israel is not our friend and it's time to start rebuilding the US instead of policing the whole world with 800 overseas bases. I could care less about a little bat shit in the pool.

[FORD]

Despite all of this, Ron Paul apparently had a good day today, as two key members of the Batshit Bachmann team defected to his camp. You know that's gotta hurt, 5 days before the fucking Iowa caucus :biggrin:

[FORD]

You can't run on a right wing ticket and not have some bat shit. Obama got some crazy backing too. If you want to nit pick you can dig dirt on anyone or connect some dots to some unsavory sources. Liberatarians tend to be hands off on social issues and a lot of right wing fringe lean that way. You are going to get some snake handlers give you a donation.

I look at the bigger picture. I want the Federal Reserve audited and I don't want war with Iran. Israel is not our friend and it's time to start rebuilding the US instead of policing the whole world with 800 overseas bases. I could care less about a little bat shit in the pool.

Then you support throwing every last Republican and false "Democrat" in Congress, right?

Because the ONLY way Ron Paul can even be considered as President, is with a solid Liberal majority in both houses of Congress, which will gladly help him stop the PNAC imperialism, and either abolish/seriously reform the "Federal" Reserve. Maybe even legalize weed. But they would also prevent him from enacting a Randtard fairytale agenda which would be this country's worse nightmare.

Ron Paul with a teabagger Congress would have all of us begging for the "good old days" of a brain dead Chimp in office. :(

[LoungeMachine]

Good point, I'm sure we should all hold David Lee Roth accountable for everything that is written on a message board bearing his name, especially since we're getting some attention and official recognition these days! I'm sure he reads it all and would have publically disavowed anything he disagreed with.

Terrible analogy....

:gulp:

But great siggy....

[Nickdfresh]

You would never hear these allegations come out if Ron Paul didn't have a chance at becoming the next president...

I have more of a chance of being the next president than Ron Paul does...

[Nickdfresh]

Despite all of this, Ron Paul apparently had a good day today, as two key members of the Batshit Bachmann team defected to his camp. You know that's gotta hurt, 5 days before the fucking Iowa caucus :biggrin:

Maybe, but one of his longtime advisers quit and said that Paul's foreign policy would be unconscionably disastrous...

[Nitro Express]

Then you support throwing every last Republican and false "Democrat" in Congress, right?

Because the ONLY way Ron Paul can even be considered as President, is with a solid Liberal majority in both houses of Congress, which will gladly help him stop the PNAC imperialism, and either abolish/seriously reform the "Federal" Reserve. Maybe even legalize weed. But they would also prevent him from enacting a Randtard fairytale agenda which would be this country's worse nightmare.

Ron Paul with a teabagger Congress would have all of us begging for the "good old days" of a brain dead Chimp in office. :(

I think you have inhaled too much of the Democrat establishment propaganda. The reality is this country is going to go through a tough stretch. You are going to have to fare for yourself for awhile because the government is too broke and screwed up to help you. What we first have to break is the central bank control over the money. Then we wipe out the debt we owe to the Federal Reserve. Our biggest creditor actually. Washington is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme. Once that is done then we can see where we are at and then look into doing some of these social programs you Democrats like. For what we are spending on the big military machine a single payer national insurance program would be a pitance. But what I have learned from Obama is the Democrat establishment wants to keep the war/oil machine going too. They just sell it differeent than the neocons do.

The truth is the American citizens are not liable for the Federal Government debt. The Federal Government only exists in the District of Columbia and it's a corporation. Why are we getting stuck with it's debts? Then when you look at it, the Federal Reserve ponzi scheme is generating a good share of that debt. It's one big shell game and we are being stuck with the shitty end of the stick while our value is getting sent to off shore bank accounts.

The only candidate I see that is wiling to break that scam is Ron Paul. Who cares about the social issues. We will never agree on those and frankly, the government should stay out of it anyways. I just want the government to fix the roads, keep monopolies from taking everything over and keep the huns from invading. Also, if someone is breaking the constitution it needs to go to Supreme Court. I mean the role of the Federal Government is suppossed to be a small role. The states are supossed to run themselves. It's when the government got into bed with the Federal Reserve they started buying the states off with the funny money and controlling everything. It's not how the system was meant to work. The country is too big to be ran by a central government. If one sector wants to be right wing so be it. If another sector wants gay marriage and legal pot so be it. Let the states decide and move to what suits your lifestyle. That will get rid of the petty social issue bickering in Washington that accomplishes nothing.

[Dr. Love]

I have more of a chance of being the next president than Ron Paul does...

I look forward to seeing where you place in the Iowa Caucuses then! ;)

[hambon4lif]

I remember in California during the late 80's coming home from a party, and the only television shows on at 2am were the Wally George show, and this assface Morton Downey Jr.
It was the first time I had seen and heard of Ron Paul, and after watching this again almost 30 years later, I realize that the man has stuck to his guns and hasn't changed his point of view...at all.
There's something to be said for that...

[FORD]

Maybe, but one of his longtime advisers quit and said that Paul's foreign policy would be unconscionably disastrous...

Quite the contrary... foreign policy is probably one area where he would be better than Obama, let alone any of the other Repukes. No more PNAC bullshit.

It's his domestic policy that would be a disaster - if not blocked by a Liberal congress.

[lesfunk]

I think as of today, Ron Paul is the closest thing there is to a third party candidate....or more like a second party candidate; since other than ideological rhetoric, The Dems and GOP seem pretty much the same

[Nitro Express]

I think as of today, Ron Paul is the closest thing there is to a third party candidate....or more like a second party candidate; since other than ideological rhetoric, The Dems and GOP seem pretty much the same

Exactly. Let's not kid ourselves. There is never going to be the perfect candidate. At least with Ron Paul you know what you are getting. He's been out there selling the same ideas for a long time. Sarah Palin and Obama basically were products of the media Johnny come latelys. Then you have wish wash Mitt and the old guard Newt. Someone is putting big bribe bucks out to stir some shit with Iran.

What the Democrats and Republicans really have in common is they both are easily bribed by the same special interests and really amazingly do the same shit when they get in office. That is, keep the war machine going, put corporations above the average citizen, and do back room deals, and steal from the treasury. I bet Democrats and Republicans both have fat Swiss bank accounts in the same banks.

[Nitro Express]

I remember in California during the late 80's coming home from a party, and the only television shows on at 2am were the Wally George show, and this assface Morton Downey Jr.
It was the first time I had seen and heard of Ron Paul, and after watching this again almost 30 years later, I realize that the man has stuck to his guns and hasn't changed his point of view...at all.
There's something to be said for that...



Yup. Unlike Mitt Romney who will become anything to get elected. Mitt truly is the man of a thousand faces.

[knuckleboner]

link/source?

straight from the man, himself:

ron paul's free competition in currency act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:19:./temp/~bd40L4:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/|)

[FORD]

I think as of today, Ron Paul is the closest thing there is to a third party candidate....or more like a second party candidate; since other than ideological rhetoric, The Dems and GOP seem pretty much the same

You must not have heard of Rocky Anderson.
https://www.voterocky.org/home

[Nitro Express]

You must not have heard of Rocky Anderson.
https://www.voterocky.org/home

Along with all the other independent candidates nobody has heard about. Ron Paul knows you have to run in a major party to get on all the ballots. Unless your independent party has access to billions of dollars you just can't get the exposure and get on the ballots to win. Sadly, the average person has been priced out of the game.

[lesfunk]

You must not have heard of Rocky Anderson.
https://www.voterocky.org/home

You are correct sir. Never heard of 'im. Heard of Rocky Balboa though...

[Dr. Love]

straight from the man, himself:

ron paul's free competition in currency act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:19:./temp/~bd40L4:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/|)

After reading it (and several other related arcitles), this appears to be an "end the fed" tactic; I doubt we would wind up with 300 million currencies, or even more than a few, because the infrastructure isn't there for a lot of companies to produce it, and the populace at large wouldn't accept it in general.

His point of view seems to be that gold, being a limited commodity, would not be subject to inflation and if you have 2 prices listed for goods, where 1 is in gold/silver, and the other in FRN, that as the fed prints more money, the FRN price would go up due to inflation where the gold/silver price would stay the same. Slowly, people would abandon the FRN in favor of gold/silver.

I personally have no idea if that would actually happen or not. However, I doubt to a large degree that as President he could get that through the Congress without a large amount of tempering, like a lot of his ideas. I think that, properly tempered, they could be good for the country, and I think the Congress and the Courts would provide that tempering. I think that at the very least it would be much better than leaving things as they are now.

I do wonder how much he would exercise the veto power against the Congress.

[Dr. Love]

here's another link for unchainme/jhale. Don't buy the smear campaign, guys.

http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com/2011/12/unabridged-even-more-racially-charged.html

[Nickdfresh]

I look forward to seeing where you place in the Iowa Caucuses then! ;)

Well, at least I'll beat Bachmann by default...

[Seshmeister]

Quite the contrary... foreign policy is probably one area where he would be better than Obama, let alone any of the other Repukes. No more PNAC bullshit.

It's his domestic policy that would be a disaster - if not blocked by a Liberal congress.

As far as I can make out the US president only really does foreign policy and PR these days.

No president with even a remotely radical domestic policy will ever get it through congress. The unforeseeable consequences of the slavers constitution has left the US government like a big fat oil tanker unable to make any sort of change of direction to avoid icebergs.

[knuckleboner]

After reading it (and several other related arcitles), this appears to be an "end the fed" tactic; I doubt we would wind up with 300 million currencies, or even more than a few, because the infrastructure isn't there for a lot of companies to produce it, and the populace at large wouldn't accept it in general.

His point of view seems to be that gold, being a limited commodity, would not be subject to inflation and if you have 2 prices listed for goods, where 1 is in gold/silver, and the other in FRN, that as the fed prints more money, the FRN price would go up due to inflation where the gold/silver price would stay the same. Slowly, people would abandon the FRN in favor of gold/silver.

I personally have no idea if that would actually happen or not. However, I doubt to a large degree that as President he could get that through the Congress without a large amount of tempering, like a lot of his ideas. I think that, properly tempered, they could be good for the country, and I think the Congress and the Courts would provide that tempering. I think that at the very least it would be much better than leaving things as they are now.

I do wonder how much he would exercise the veto power against the Congress.

yeah, it is part of his end the fed concept. and yes, i was being WAAAY hyperbolic in saying 300 million currencies.

but it's still a really bad policy. moving back to the gold standard is not necessarily as bad. mind you, it's not nearly as certain as its proponents claim. a lot has happened since the 1970s when we left the standard. for instance, gold has a lot more hi-tech uses these days. it's not inconceivable to assume that an even greater demand for gold as a conductor or whatever, causes inflationary pressure on gold as the dollar standard.

that said, again, the gold standard, by itself, is not that crazy. but the way to do that is not to stop the single currency.

even 2 competing currencies would be highly problematic, at least in the short term. vending machines would have to either make changes or not accommodate every type. and businesses would have to have 2 different, changing prices.

the fact is, if you don't like aspects of the current monetary system, there are changes that could be made that don't involve chaos. but because ron paul (sincerely) believes in the extreme freedoms of libertarianism, he believes that it's worth it to go through any amount of chaos as long as the free market gets the ultimate choice.

and that, i think, is crazy...

[Nickdfresh]

...
that said, again, the gold standard, by itself, is not that crazy. but the way to do that is not to stop the single currency.

....

Most economists say that it is crazy, and completely nihilistic fantasy...

[Dr. Love]

Lead Guitarist for Aerosmith Says Ron Paul Has His Vote

Lead guitarist for Aerosmith, Joe Perry, has been tweeting:

@AdmiralPerry
All the kids I talk to are into Ron Paul . They like his voting record. He's not a smiling grinning talking head spewing party BS.

@AdmiralPerry
Obama hasn't done anything close to what he promised he'd do.didn't get my vote and I got lotta grief. Well,my votes for Ron Paul.

@AdmiralPerry
Media is trying to crush Paul. It's so transparent. They will smear himevery chance.beware! Get your news from lot of different sources.

[Dr. Love]

I'm starting to wonder how the rest of the republica nomination race goes ... I don't think Santorum can make it through South Carolina with his candidacy in tact. If no one else starts to emerge, it could be a nomination fight between Romney and Paul. Then it's down to who the majority of republicans can stomach more.

I think an awesome hypothetical situation that pits a republican nominee Paul against President Obama. Suddenly you have someone that is both to the right AND to the left of the President. How bizarre would it be that the President has to explain why his opponent's positions are wrong to a democratic base that doesn't agree with the president but agrees with the republican nominee on more than a few critical issues? Especially when these are areas that candidate Obama promised on but President Obama betrayed his constituency on (the wars, the patriot act, gitmo, indefinite detention, etc)

[Dr. Love]

http://i.imgur.com/yg9tb.jpg

[Dr. Love]

well, that broke the forum.

[Guitar Shark]

Lead Guitarist for Aerosmith Says Ron Paul Has His Vote

Lead guitarist for Aerosmith, Joe Perry, has been tweeting:

@AdmiralPerry
All the kids I talk to are into Ron Paul . They like his voting record. He's not a smiling grinning talking head spewing party BS.

@AdmiralPerry
Obama hasn't done anything close to what he promised he'd do.didn't get my vote and I got lotta grief. Well,my votes for Ron Paul.

@AdmiralPerry
Media is trying to crush Paul. It's so transparent. They will smear himevery chance.beware! Get your news from lot of different sources.

LOL. Well if Joe Perry is voting for him, then.... uh... maybe someone out there will find that to be persuasive?

[Dr. Love]

He's an admiral. Surely that has some sway. ;)

[Guitar Shark]

If the chick in your sig is voting for him, then maybe I'll reconsider. :)

[Dr. Love]

http://i.imgur.com/H2COr.png

[fifth element]

The GOP is the epitome of fucked right now FORD..

there's no way any of these clowns beat obama. none.

i could not say it any better if i tried.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul, in 2002, with his predictions for the next 10 years (which are drawing to a close)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zGDisyWkIBM

[Nickdfresh]

Ron Paul is just a self deluded anarchist, hypocrite fuckwit. I don't get the dewy, masturbatory adoration for this fucking guy. Yeah, I get he's a "libertarian" (unless you happen to be a women with an unwanted pregnancy, that's different apparently. The gov't can tell you what to do then). But the idiots that run around with bumper-stickers fornicating for this guy haven't the slightest clue of what actually implementing his policies (via gov't BTW) would actually entail, because often they're trust fund rich kids unable to actually earn the wealth their parents did...

[FORD]

Bottom line is that we need to elect a Liberal veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. And I mean Bernie Sanders - Dennis Kucinich Liberals, not a bunch of Clinton Reid Pelosi Nelson Lieberman "centrist" frauds.

I doubt Ron Paul will be "allowed" to win the nomination, but if he did, and then somehow won the general election, only a solid Liberal Congress would save this country from a Randtard nightmare which would make the BCE blood orgy of Chimp & Cheney seem like the "good old days". If we got an end to all the stupid wars - and that means Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Hemp, and a serious audit/overhaul of the "Federal" Reserve, it would still be the best accomplishments of government since 1981, even if there was nothing but complete gridlock after that.

And if Obama gets re-elected, a Liberal congress is even better. He's not about to veto Liberal legislation after he somehow talks Democrats into voting for him again. And if he did, fucking override the veto. Get all the good things we could get from Ron Paul PLUS Single Payer Health Care and some real infrastructure/jobs programs.

We have seen what a right wing Congress gets us. And don't kid yourself, it didn't stop being right wing in 2006, and it only got more right wing in 2010 because Kennedy and Byrd died, and Grayson & Feingold got screwed by the assholes who claimed to be on "their side" (useless Tim Kaine and the once again DLC corrupted national Democratic party) You can shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want, but Pelosi was just as useless as Boner.

Best place to fight back is the congressional primaries. If you have a right winger in office - whether they have an (R) or a (D) after their name - kick them the fuck out and vote in someone who represents the 99%.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul is just a self deluded anarchist, hypocrite fuckwit. I don't get the dewy, masturbatory adoration for this fucking guy. Yeah, I get he's a "libertarian" (unless you happen to be a women with an unwanted pregnancy, that's different apparently. The gov't can tell you what to do then). But the idiots that run around with bumper-stickers fornicating for this guy haven't the slightest clue of what actually implementing his policies (via gov't BTW) would actually entail, because often they're trust fund rich kids unable to actually earn the wealth their parents did...

I can't answer for why other people like him, but I can for why I like him.

I'm not on board with every one of his points of view, but I do believe that he's the only candidate that represents an actual different direction for the nation. I don't think he'd be able to do everything he wanted but I do believe he'd be better than Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry or Newt.

I don't believe a word the other candidates tell me. They are in this for themselves, and they will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate things to get into office. Obama lied to people. We have to accept that. I thought he would take things in a different direction, but in a lot of ways, he's been worse than Bush was. In other ways, not as bad. But on the balance, it's more of the same.

Santorum, Perry, Newt ... those guys would be just as bad as Obama in different ways. None of them want to change the course we're on. None of them would even try. Things would simply get worse, slowly and inexorably.

For me, that leaves Paul. I look at him, read about him, watch his positions now and in older interviews, and the guy is consistent. I don't agree with all of his points of view, but they are logical and thought out. And he believes it. I know what I'm getting. I know what he'll try to get done. And a lot of it is good.

I don't care about abortion, so that isn't a disqualifier for me. I don't care about this racism nonsense, either. Every single presidential candidate gets accused of being a racist. Obama, Perry, Newt, Paul, Romney... all of them.

I do care about the nations budget and finances. I do care about how much we go to war (without authorization) and push the rest of the world around. I do care about the expanding intrusiveness of the federal government, spying on me, telling me what I can and can't do, exerting more and more control over my life, and now, being allowed to arrest me and hold me indefinitely. I care about the principles of freedom that the country was founded on that are being eroded by Obama and Bush and all the other douchebags that have served in the congress. Do you think Romney will be any better? Perry? Do you think Obama will suddenly say, "no, this is wrong, we have to change it?" Those ships sailed a long time ago. They are lying to you.

You can call Ron Paul a nutbag all you want, but consider this:

When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.

When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?

I don't believe for a second that Paul would get everything he wanted. But he would do something Obama doesn't do. He'd start saying "no" and start arguing for a different direction. With that platform, he could change the mindset and direction of the country. We could make some actual progress. I thought Obama would do that, but he's nothing more than a liar. I am a lot more skeptical about politicians as a result. Obama is a failure. Paul is consistent and you know what you'll get.

That doesn't sound crazy to me at all.

[Combat Ready]

Ron Paul, in 2002, with his predictions for the next 10 years (which are drawing to a close)


RP got it right, for the most part.

[Pink Spider]

But the idiots that run around with bumper-stickers fornicating for this guy haven't the slightest clue of what actually implementing his policies (via gov't BTW) would actually entail, because often they're trust fund rich kids unable to actually earn the wealth their parents did...

Trust fund rich kids?

Top contributors to Ron Paul: US Army, US Air Force, US Navy (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906)


You can look these up too on the same site, but Romney's top contributor are Goldman Sachs employees.

Obama's are Microsoft and Comcast.

I'm sure there's no trust funds involved there.

[Nitro Express]

The reason Ron Paul is popular is he's the only guy running who isn't bought off and he isn't a liar or flip flopper. If any of the other Republicans win or Obama wins it will be more war and more bailout and more taxes for us people who actually pay them.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on making abortions illegal. I just think the government should stay out of that issue completely. Let's say your daughter gets raped and gets pregnant from it. It's a bad enough situation and do we really need the government involved when it should be the family and their chosen physician. You can't legislate morals; especially, with the den of corruption we have as a government now.

I do agree with him on ending the Federal Reserve. It's nothing more than a grand ponzi scheme and it's actually our biggest creditor. We wipe out a lot of debt getting rid of it and it was nothing but bankers rigging interest rates to manipulate the markets so a few connected bankers could make money. The depression we are now in is simply the result of Alan Greenspan dropping the interest rates and keeping them low. They wanted to do that so they could generate the demand to trade a lot of derivatives and make money so they could buy things up cheap when the economy finally crashed.

Whoever the big money was that had the idea to run Barrack Obama as president was very cleaver. They knew a black president would be untouchable due to political correctness. That means if you can get Obama in office he can get away with things that would be impossible for another president to get away with. You run him as a game changer and make him a media darling and people buy into it because Bush was so terrible but then you just have Barrack run the Bush agenda but at an even larger scale.

Ron Paul might not be perfect but at least he's the only one who might bring a stop to the banking/corporate abuse and stop the endless wars for money game. For me that's better than the Goldman Sach's/General Electric/Big Pharma/Monsanto/Insurance industry fascism going on right now. If you like monopolies and government thugs enforcing their corruption vote for the others.

[Nitro Express]

I'm tired of this kind of shit.


Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric Co. tapped by President Barack Obama as his next top outside economic adviser, will be asked to guide the White House as it attempts to jump-start lackluster job creation and spur a muddled recovery.

Immelt's firm stands as Exhibit A of a successful and profitable corporate America standing at the forefront of the recovery. It also represents the archetypal company that's hoarding cash, sending jobs overseas, relying on taxpayer bailouts and paying less taxes than envisioned.

The move is the latest salvo in the White House's continued aggressive and very public outreach to corporate America. Earlier this month, Obama appointed a top executive at JPMorgan Chase as his chief of staff, and this week he granted a longtime wish of business interests by promising to review federal regulations perceived as onerous.

Immelt's appointment raises fresh questions about Obama's courtship and future policy proposals. Firms like GE say good jobs will come from lower taxes and less regulation. Immelt told analysts Friday that he'll focus on tax policy and regulation, among other topics.

"A clear problem in the recovery is that it's been a much stronger recovery for business in terms of their profit and earnings than for those folks who work and earn a living in the U.S.," said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research and policy organization in Washington.

Burtless said Immelt was likely hired to reassure corporate America. Political opponents have cast the Obama administration as unfriendly to business interests, and the administration has had difficulty rebutting that theme. Immelt's hiring was yet another step in that direction.

"It's a significant piece of outreach to the business community," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and top economic adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. The appointment could mean business has a "genuine liaison" at the White House, Holtz-Eakin said.

"Business folks will trust an Immelt much more than an academic or a politician with academic experience," said Burtless.

Whether GE's chief executive should represent the White House in those discussions, though, is another matter. He will continue to serve atop GE while advising the Obama administration.

The corporate chieftain's experience running GE, one of the world's biggest companies, may shed light on the kinds of recommendations he'd make behind closed doors.

The company is sitting on $79 billion in cash, tops worldwide among non-financial publicly-traded companies, according to a Jan. 10 note by analysts at Standard and Poor's. In fact, GE's cash holdings are about 62 percent more than the next company, Toyota Motor Corp.

"We feel good about that," Immelt said in noting the "flexibility" the surplus cash gives the firm. GE generated a $11.6 billion profit last year, a six percent increase from the previous year.

Non-financial corporations sit atop a record $1.9 trillion in liquid assets, according to the Federal Reserve. Relative to their short-term liabilities, U.S. corporations haven't been this flush with cash since 1956. The administration has been critical of corporate cash-hoarding.

GE's improving fortunes reflect the general trend in corporate America. In the quarter ending Sept. 30, corporate profits reached an all-time high of $1.66 trillion on an annual basis, according to the Commerce Department.

Yet nearly one in ten American workers is jobless. The unemployment rate has been stuck above nine percent for 20 consecutive months, the longest such streak since records began in 1948, according to the Labor Department. When Barack Obama took office, joblessness stood at 7.8 percent.

And the rate isn't forecast to significantly decrease anytime soon. During the firm's Friday call with analysts, Keith S. Sherin, GE's vice chairman and chief financial officer, described the nation's unemployment situation as "sticky."

The diverging fortunes of big business and households reflect the central challenge faced by the Obama administration: What kind of policies can it implement to incentivize profitable firms to spend and hire at home?

As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S., according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it's added 25,000 jobs overseas.

At the end of 2009, GE employed 36,000 more people abroad than it did in the U.S. In 2000, it was nearly the opposite.

Unions are worried. Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said he hopes the Immelt-led White House panel won't be dominated by big business.

"It has to have more than CEOs that are already operating offshore," Gerard said.

Foreign work has proven lucrative to GE. In 2007, it derived half of its global sales from work abroad. In 2009, that share increased to 54 percent. U.S. sales have shrunk.

And rather than invest in the U.S., the company has decided to look elsewhere. In 2008 and 2009, GE decided to "indefinitely" reinvest prior-year earnings outside the country, according to SEC filings. That's helped the firm lower its tax rate.

In 2009, the Connecticut-based firm effectively had a negative tax rate, thanks to the $498 million loss it booked on U.S. operations versus the $10.8 billion in earnings it booked abroad. GE realized a $1.1 billion tax benefit in 2009.

In 2008, it paid $1.1 billion in taxes for a 5.3 percent tax rate. In 2007, it paid $4.2 billion in taxes for a 15.1 percent tax rate.

By comparison, during those three years -- 2007 through 2009 -- the firm reported combined net income of $50.6 billion.

The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is supposed to be 35 percent.

"I am so proud and pleased that Jeff has agreed to chair this panel -- my Council on Jobs and Competitiveness -- because we think GE has something to teach businesses all across America," Obama told a crowd of GE workers Friday at a plant in Schenectady, New York.

Immelt's appointment makes all but certain that the administration will focus on cutting corporate tax rates as part of the tax code overhaul Obama is reportedly considering, said Thomas Ferguson, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a New York-based research organization.

"It's hard to see corporate tax cuts as a problem for the U.S. right now," Ferguson said. "But those cuts are clearly coming. They've signaled that already," he said about the Obama administration.

Immelt, who's long had influence with the Obama White House -- he's visited the White House at least 16 times, meeting with Obama on at least five occasions -- is among an influential group of executives who want to see lower corporate tax rates. Corporate executives say lower taxes will lead to job creation as businesses would focus their cash on expansion.

And as Immelt takes over a council that had been dedicated to advising Obama on how to heal the economy and financial sector after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, observers noted the extent to which Immelt's firm benefited from various bailout programs.

While the previous council was led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, whose warnings about the growth of the financial sector and the increasing riskiness it poses to the economy made him a hero to reformers, the current incarnation will be led by a chief executive who serves on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's board of directors. His firm continues to benefit from lower costs thanks to the $55 billion of outstanding taxpayer-backed debt its finance unit has issued under a crisis-era program that was supposed to be for banks.

All told, GE and its subsidiary, GE Capital, accessed nearly $100 billion through programs created by the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to combat frozen credit markets.

"There are two problematical issues for folks who are not sympathetic to the president," said Burtless. One, "GE was intimately connected to the financial crisis," and two, "GE may have shifted a bigger proportion of its output outside the U.S."

On Friday, though, Immelt's hire was nearly universally praised by business groups.

Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called Obama's move a "promising step toward a renewed focus on creating jobs, boosting economic growth, and enhancing America's global competitiveness." He added that Immelt was an "excellent choice."

Sam Stein and Marcus Baram contributed reporting.

At least Mitt Romney admits he loves corporations. Obama painted this big vision of social utopia and then fucked everyone over running up a huge tab bailing out his buddies on Wall Street and destroying more jobs in the process. In short, if you vote for a liar and buy the hype, this is what happens.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul might not be perfect but at least he's the only one who might bring a stop to the banking/corporate abuse and stop the endless wars for money game. For me that's better than the Goldman Sach's/General Electric/Big Pharma/Monsanto/Insurance industry fascism going on right now. If you like monopolies and government thugs enforcing their corruption vote for the others.

Yep. That's what it comes down to for me.

If you like the direction this country is going in,
If you like having your freedoms taken away,
If you like Americans being assassinated by their own government,
If you want your own government to be able to hold you indefinitely,
If you want your own government to be able to spy on you,
If you want your government to give your money to the banks,
If you want your government to go to war after war after war,
If you want the 1% to continue to do whatever they want with your money,
If you want everything that is wrong with the direction of this country to continue...

Then yeah, vote for Romney. Vote for Obama. Vote for Perry. Vote for Santorum. Vote for Gingrich. They are all offering you the same thing.

If you want someone that won't be bought and paid for, someone that you know what they believe in, someone that will absolutely stand up and change the direction of this country, then vote for Paul.

[Nitro Express]

When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.

When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?


Great points. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It's above the congress and it's above the president. They just can't pass laws that contradict the constitution and say it's legal and we better obey it. That's illegal. You only can change the constitution by going through the amendment process spelled out in the constitution itself or by having a constitutional convention. So alarmingly what has happened is the government is out of control. It's been hijacked by the big money that can afford to bribe the politicians. It's running the largest military in the history of the world all over the place on one crazy mission after the next. The biggest superpower in world history has just gone ape shit nuts.

What has happened if corporations figured it was more profitable to buy influence in Washington DC and outsource the jobs to cheap labor markets than it was to actually make a better product here. It's less work buying off politicians and they will bail your incompetent ass out. Then we have all these military contractors that need constant war to justify their existence. Since the cold war ended they needed something to replace it with. So let's have a war on terror that will be the next cold war. The problem is they are running out of countries to invade and the world is getting tired of it. Meanwhile all of this short sighted greed has moved the real manufacturing economy and wealth over to Asia while the west needs printed money, war, and banking shenanigans to keep going. It also needs an oil reserve currency. The financial system in the west has gotten itself so out of whack from reality thanks to the return of what should have been illegal derivative trading. When you can trade 100 times leverage you have a problem. If business as usual continues all the little people will lose everything while the fat cats steal it all and then their house of cards collapses because it's mathemetically impossible to sustain. We've been kicking the can down the road for the last 40 fucking years and now the camel's back has snapped. Politicians still think they can continue the same game because they have done it for so long but now it's brought in an even bigger depression than what we had in the 1930's. It just that they can paper over the reality with government subsidies but they can't do that forever. The day the food stamps and welfare debit cards no longer work is the day the reality hits. We can wait for that or we can change it now. The thing is the politicians aren't going to change shit, the people will have to step up and do it. The bunch currently in Washington have demonstrated they have not only proven their corruption but they are the domestic enemies of the constitution itself. The enemy isn't in Iran or Iraq. None of those countries attacked us on 9/11. The enemy are those in power who are ignoring the constitution and using terrorism as the excuse to grab more power for themselves and trash us.

[Nitro Express]

The shocker for me was Mitt Romney. I was living in Salt Lake City and doing volunteer work for the olympic committee. Salt Lake had an incredibly corrupt mayor and some business people and so much money had been mismanaged and stolen that it was looking like the olympics were not going to happen. It would be a first in olympic history and Utah would have egg all over it's face. Out of desperation the guy called to come in and fix things was Mitt Romney. He came in and did an excellent job. I personally was in some meetings with him. He was an excellent manager and could get things done in a meeting in 15 minutes in what would take the average person over an hour to do. The olympics would have been one big fucking disaster if Mitt hadn't come in.

I know Mitt enough to know he's not stupid. He's not like going duh, I didn't know there was so much corruption and these institutions and corporations I'm in bed with. He knows what he's doing. He knows he's selling his country out. Even more sickening it's a Mormon prophecy that the US Constitution would hang by a thread. The Mormons believe the United States was set up by God to be a bastion of freedom for the world and the constitution was sacred. They pretty much consider it almost like scripture and the US of course is zion the new Jerusalem.

What does Mitt do? He sides with the corporate fascists that are trashing the constitution and killing innocent people in wars to make money. Not only is that lousy from a patriot side of view, he's spitting in the face of the religion he claims to be a good member of. Money and power makes people do funny things. One reason Washington DC is such a cess pool it's full of both.

Could Mitt be a good president? Sure. He's got the managerial skills and is smart enough to learn the presidency. The problem is Mitt has no integrity and allows himself to be manipulated by those who have money and influence. One problem we have had for years is our presidents have just been puppets. The last one that had any balls was Kennedy. We need a president who is the fucking president and knows he works for the citizens who voted him into office, not a few people with very deep pockets.

[Nitro Express]

Bottom line is that we need to elect a Liberal veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. And I mean Bernie Sanders - Dennis Kucinich Liberals, not a bunch of Clinton Reid Pelosi Nelson Lieberman "centrist" frauds.

I doubt Ron Paul will be "allowed" to win the nomination, but if he did, and then somehow won the general election, only a solid Liberal Congress would save this country from a Randtard nightmare which would make the BCE blood orgy of Chimp & Cheney seem like the "good old days". If we got an end to all the stupid wars - and that means Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Hemp, and a serious audit/overhaul of the "Federal" Reserve, it would still be the best accomplishments of government since 1981, even if there was nothing but complete gridlock after that.

And if Obama gets re-elected, a Liberal congress is even better. He's not about to veto Liberal legislation after he somehow talks Democrats into voting for him again. And if he did, fucking override the veto. Get all the good things we could get from Ron Paul PLUS Single Payer Health Care and some real infrastructure/jobs programs.

The thing is we can debate healthcare and how the budget is spent but when you see the whole US senate except for seven vote to give domestic police powers to the US military and allow them to detain US citizens indefinitely with no due process it's a way bigger fucking deal. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, we both enjoy freedom of speech, being innocent until proven guilty, the right to a public trial, and assurance that your own military won't be used to turn the country into a police state.

That's a congress that has no regard for constitutional rights at all. Either they want to abuse their power or they are so incompetent they just vote the way someone tells them to vote. Either way they don't belong in office.

I mean we can debate who gets what and how much but we all know what are rights are and when you see the elected officials trash them there should be no debate. We should all agree a big wrong has been done. That is how bad things have gotten. It's beyond the petty politics now, it's about the survival of our nation. It's a big fucking deal because if we can't fix this through the political process it gets real messy beyond that point.

We have seen what a right wing Congress gets us. And don't kid yourself, it didn't stop being right wing in 2006, and it only got more right wing in 2010 because Kennedy and Byrd died, and Grayson & Feingold got screwed by the assholes who claimed to be on "their side" (useless Tim Kaine and the once again DLC corrupted national Democratic party) You can shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want, but Pelosi was just as useless as Boner.

Best place to fight back is the congressional primaries. If you have a right winger in office - whether they have an (R) or a (D) after their name - kick them the fuck out and vote in someone who represents the 99%.

If the Democrat party was decent it would run Kucinich or Sanders instead of anti-constitution Barrack. I would love to see those guys run. I hate to say it but the Democratic and Republican parties have both been hijacked. They both are corrupt. I don't even see them as different parties anymore. I agree. Fire them all.

[FORD]

Ron Paul might not be perfect but at least he's the only one who might bring a stop to the banking/corporate abuse and stop the endless wars for money game. For me that's better than the Goldman Sach's/General Electric/Big Pharma/Monsanto/Insurance industry fascism going on right now. If you like monopolies and government thugs enforcing their corruption vote for the others.

You know why GE, MonSatan, Gold Mansacks and the other criminals you mentioned are getting away with so much?

30 years of fucking deregulation which has now re-enabled these criminals to do everything they got away with doing in the 1920's, which caused the Depression. Or in MonSatan's case, do even worse things which weren't even possible then, like putting mutant toxic artificial crap in the grocery stores, and calling it "vegetables"

Ron Paul thinks we still have too MUCH regulation. He wants to destroy what little of it remains. The teabaggers currently in Congress not only want to eliminate everything FDR accomplished, they also want to wipe out all the good his cousin Teddy did. Including eliminating the National Parks and selling them off to the goddamned energy companies. Remember that "Super Volcano" that you live right next door to? I guarantee you that the minute those douchebags start fracking Yellowstone, you'll wake up one morning to a wall of molten lava coming down on your ass.

Ron Paul won't stop corporate abuse. He'll accelerate it, because his blind obedience to Ayn Rand fairytales keeps him from realizing that you cannot trust these fucking bastards to act like goddamn decent human beings and compete fairly in a so-called "free market" (which basically no longer exists anyway)

[Nitro Express]

It won't be lava oozing out of Yellowstone if it goes. It will be a huge fucking explosion with a pyroclastic flow of hot gas going out to a radius of 150 miles. Every tree, every house, every building here will be leveled and incinerated. I will be dead before I even knew what hit me. Then the place gets covered up with a few feet of volcanic ash. The good news is I won't have to worry about this political bullshit anymore.

The mother of corporations is the Federal Reserve Bank. Last I checked Ron Paul sure wanted to regulate that mother fucker.

[Pink Spider]

You know why GE, MonSatan, Gold Mansacks and the other criminals you mentioned are getting away with so much?

Because GE and Goldman Sachs were bailed out by the federal government. These companies wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the federal government and the taxpayers by force subsidizing every one of their failures. You credit this government for holding them back when they're doing the opposite. Big businesses like these would have a hard time in a fair market where no one gets free money.



30 years of fucking deregulation which has now re-enabled these criminals to do everything they got away with doing in the 1920's, which caused the Depression. Or in MonSatan's case, do even worse things which weren't even possible then, like putting mutant toxic artificial crap in the grocery stores, and calling it "vegetables"

I don't trust Monsanto and perhaps they're a bit evil, but genetic engineering and selective breeding of crops has saved BILLIONS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug)of lives and will possibly save billions more in the future. Organic is not sustainable with the current population and the forests that would have to be cut down to plant organic crops which produce lower yields would create even more environmental trouble.



Ron Paul thinks we still have too MUCH regulation. He wants to destroy what little of it remains. The teabaggers currently in Congress not only want to eliminate everything FDR accomplished, they also want to wipe out all the good his cousin Teddy did. Including eliminating the National Parks and selling them off to the goddamned energy companies. Remember that "Super Volcano" that you live right next door to? I guarantee you that the minute those douchebags start fracking Yellowstone, you'll wake up one morning to a wall of molten lava coming down on your ass.

Ron Paul doesn't want to do anything beyond the federal government. State governments would take over all of this theoretically. Pollution laws and things like would fall under the laws of private property and I would say would be more strict if their were actual consequences for polluting instead of a slap on the hand from the federal government. Anyway, this is pointless to argue since this isn't probably going to happen anytime soon.



Ron Paul won't stop corporate abuse. He'll accelerate it, because his blind obedience to Ayn Rand fairytales keeps him from realizing that you cannot trust these fucking bastards to act like goddamn decent human beings and compete fairly in a so-called "free market" (which basically no longer exists anyway)

She had some decent ideas on religion, but Ayn Rand was an objectivist and HATED libertarians. Link. (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians) I would agree with you about the Randtard term, you're just targeting the wrong group. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

I can't answer for why other people like him, but I can for why I like him.

....

Doc, that was an excellent, well thought out response that I can respectfully disagree with. And it deserves an equally well thought out response in return, which is why I'm going to wait until I'm really pissed-drunk later to write you back. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Trust fund rich kids?

Based on a personal experience back in 08' with the rich owner of a previous place of employment, who inherited everything from his mommy, telling everyone they should vote for Paul....


Top contributors to Ron Paul: US Army, US Air Force, US Navy (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906)

Not even sure exactly what this link is telling me, members of the Army donated $24K? That's all?


You can look these up too on the same site, but Romney's top contributor are Goldman Sachs employees.

Obama's are Microsoft and Comcast.

I'm sure there's no trust funds involved there.

Touche!

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, nice to see you crawling back into the forum, Pink...

http://www.usefilm.com/images/5/0/4/6/5046/1291928-medium.jpg

[Candy Girl]

Ron Paul is good on domestics; the deficit. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

[FORD]

Ron Paul is good on domestics; the deficit. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

I think you have that backwards. Foreign policy is where Ron Paul is mostly correct. And the best thing to do to lower the deficit is to put an end to all this imperialist world police PNAC horseshit.

[Nitro Express]

The way I see it is during World War II the US built up this huge military machine and after the war we went into the cold war which justified the big military machine. Once the iron curtain came down we didn't need the big military machine anymore so when 9/11 happened that was a perfect excuse to keep the big military machine going. What I would have done was increased border security and deported the illegal aliens. I would have increased the security on people entering this country. I would have left Iraq alone and used intelligence and special operatives to go after the real terrorists. I really don't buy the terrorism threat because the big juicy target in this country is the power grid. If you know anything about it it would take years to replace the big transformers if enough of them were damaged. So guess what you target and it could be done easy. It hasn't happened and there is zero security around the main power hubs to this date. So it's all a joke to me. Just an excuse for the military industrial complex to make more money and they seem to like to invade countries full of oil, drugs, and natural resources that are in demand (lithium).

There's nothing in these countries worth killing our kids over and don't think there won't be a draft in the future if this gets out of control and this time, the government will be drafting your daughter. Think about it.

There is no such thing as a perfect presidential candidate. Ford is right to a point regarding deregulation but we are also over regulated. Where we currently are is the big corporations can do whatever they want if they have bought off enough politicians but the smaller businesses are put out of business by the government regulatory agencies. Monopolies have taken over the government and the agencies are now their muscle that run mom and pop out of business. Obamacare will do more of this. McDonald's gets and exemption but the small mom and pop businesses will have to pay into it and it will put them out of business due to regulation.

Let's just say regulation now is not fair and is used for political and financial gain more than keeping the free market place a fair place to do business or to keep us safe.

I'm just tired of living in a country that has traded making and selling goods for war. Most the technology we develop is for the war industry and to justify that we have to find someone to use it on and it's gotten so out of hand that the government has even declared our home soil a war zone. The situation is nuts. We should be focusing on consumers goods, affordable health solutions, and exploring space and deep oceans more that the bullets, bombs, and banks program. History has always shown war based countries end up destroying themselves and the US is on the road to doing just that.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul is good on domestics; the deficit. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, IMHO.



I think you have that backwards. Foreign policy is where Ron Paul is mostly correct. And the best thing to do to lower the deficit is to put an end to all this imperialist world police PNAC horseshit.

This is why I think RP can make some traction. He can make coalitions with both sides to get things done, depending on the issue.

[lesfunk]

Im With you Dr. Love. Ron Paul is my man. At least he's not a Muslim...

[lesfunk]

... like Mitt Romney

[Pink Spider]

Not even sure exactly what this link is telling me, members of the Army donated $24K? That's all?




If you combine all branches of active military that donated, it's a decent number. Not as much as Romney's contributions from Goldman Sachs for obvious reasons, but far more than any other candidate recieved from members of the military. We've come a long way, that the most staunch supporters of an anti-war candidate are actually in the military!

It's kind of funny and sad that all of these Republican candidates that are so gung ho and claim to support the military the loudest aren't getting that same support by the numbers, yet they want to send these guys to Iran as soon as they can.

[Pink Spider]

The latest in Ron Paul media censorship:



Ron Paul came in second place with 14%.

[sadaist]

Yesterday (Saturday Jan 7) at a main intersection here in Temecula, CA there were about 5-6 adults holding various Ron Paul signs. they were getting some cheers & honks. It stood out because this isn't a very politically active area for that type of stuff.

[knuckleboner]

Yep. That's what it comes down to for me.

If you like the direction this country is going in,
If you like having your freedoms taken away,
If you like Americans being assassinated by their own government,
If you want your own government to be able to hold you indefinitely,
If you want your own government to be able to spy on you,
If you want your government to give your money to the banks,
If you want your government to go to war after war after war,
If you want the 1% to continue to do whatever they want with your money,
If you want everything that is wrong with the direction of this country to continue...

Then yeah, vote for Romney. Vote for Obama. Vote for Perry. Vote for Santorum. Vote for Gingrich. They are all offering you the same thing.

If you want someone that won't be bought and paid for, someone that you know what they believe in, someone that will absolutely stand up and change the direction of this country, then vote for Paul.

i understand and respect your concerns on most of that. but with paul's economic agenda - as sincere as i believe he his - the direction of the country will certainly not improve. under ron paul's plan, the invisible hand may eventually right the economy, but whatever short-term pain and chaos ensues, he's ok with, in the name of liberty.

take giving money to banks. yep, universal hatred. TARP is a toxic word. republicans who voted for it are just as likely to lose in a primary because of it. yet most economists say that TARP was actually one of the better things the government did. perfect? no. but the for whatever reason, the financial sector was heading into a severe tailspin. a few too many failing banks, especially the big ones, and the subsequent run on banks that would occur would have been devastating for millions.

but what would ron paul's solution have been? he'd have gotten rid of all regulations, in the name of liberty, and allowed the banks to make whatever risky moves they wanted to make, assuming that those the market will reward those that succeed and cast aside those that failed. then, when they start failing, the market will simply eventually sort things out. if grandma and grandpa lose their entire savings, then they'll learn to chose more wisely the next time.*

(*which may or may not have been a thinly veiled rand paul reference...)

[Seshmeister]

Do you really want to make someone president who runs out a room just because someone's pants have fallen down?

[Dr. Love]

i understand and respect your concerns on most of that. but with paul's economic agenda - as sincere as i believe he his - the direction of the country will certainly not improve. under ron paul's plan, the invisible hand may eventually right the economy, but whatever short-term pain and chaos ensues, he's ok with, in the name of liberty.

take giving money to banks. yep, universal hatred. TARP is a toxic word. republicans who voted for it are just as likely to lose in a primary because of it. yet most economists say that TARP was actually one of the better things the government did. perfect? no. but the for whatever reason, the financial sector was heading into a severe tailspin. a few too many failing banks, especially the big ones, and the subsequent run on banks that would occur would have been devastating for millions.

but what would ron paul's solution have been? he'd have gotten rid of all regulations, in the name of liberty, and allowed the banks to make whatever risky moves they wanted to make, assuming that those the market will reward those that succeed and cast aside those that failed. then, when they start failing, the market will simply eventually sort things out. if grandma and grandpa lose their entire savings, then they'll learn to chose more wisely the next time.*

(*which may or may not have been a thinly veiled rand paul reference...)

The regulations are the one area that I disagree with him on, but I have no illusions that he could get his vision through without a lot of temperance, even in the areas where he can act unilaterally.

[Nitro Express]

Since when is using public money to bail out mismanaged and corrupt businesses a good thing? What the banks did was convince the government to make 100 times leverage legal. Here's a true story. The banks approved a $750,000 mortgage to a person in California who didn't make the income to legitimately be approved. It didn't matter they just wanted to sell mortgages and so they take that $750,000 mortgage and they can count it as an asset to make loans on. 100 more loans thanks to Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan. So they make $75 million out of nothing while everyone get's foreclosed on and then they buy everything up cheap and resell it again. Then you stick the loses on the taxpayer.

Exactly how is TARP a good thing when it will saddle generations of Americans in so much debt, nobody is going to be able to pay it off. If we would have let these corrupt institutions fail then sure, it would be a couple years of pain but then you pull out of it for good instead of prolonging it for decades which is what they are doing now.

Of course if you are part of the American public who pay no taxes I guess you don't care.

[Nitro Express]

Do you really want to make someone president who runs out a room just because someone's pants have fallen down?

Who is that?

[knuckleboner]

Since when is using public money to bail out mismanaged and corrupt businesses a good thing? What the banks did was convince the government to make 100 times leverage legal. Here's a true story. The banks approved a $750,000 mortgage to a person in California who didn't make the income to legitimately be approved. It didn't matter they just wanted to sell mortgages and so they take that $750,000 mortgage and they can count it as an asset to make loans on. 100 more loans thanks to Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan. So they make $75 million out of nothing while everyone get's foreclosed on and then they buy everything up cheap and resell it again. Then you stick the loses on the taxpayer.

Exactly how is TARP a good thing when it will saddle generations of Americans in so much debt, nobody is going to be able to pay it off. If we would have let these corrupt institutions fail then sure, it would be a couple years of pain but then you pull out of it for good instead of prolonging it for decades which is what they are doing now.

Of course if you are part of the American public who pay no taxes I guess you don't care.

dude, it was a damned if we do, damned if we don't moment. but the damned if we don't was damn near eternal damnation.

i won't argue whether or not the banks were corrupt, greedy, stupid, risky, illegal, whatever. yes, regardless, they at the least acted very poorly, and by themselves, they certainly deserved to fail.

but seriously, without TARP, a LOT of banks fail. and a lot of people lose their savings. and i'm not talking about 401ks, where you expect the value to go up and down, at least to some extent. i'm talking about a run on the banks where people lose cash in accounts. and a complete lack of lending credit. this is DANGER ZONE for the economy.

millions more would have lost their jobs. no joke. millions. in the worst of the recession we did have, 700,000 lost their jobs each month for 3 months straight. 2 million jobs lost in 90 days. if credit got a lot worse, and if big banks failed, you would literally have added millions more to that total.

so if you want to argue how bad the banks were, great; i won't disagree. but by the time september 2008 rolled around, all that shit was moot. already happened. so it was up to the choice of the lesser of 2 evils. and not doing TARP (or something similar) would've been WAY more evil.

[sadaist]

I swear we had this exact conversation the last time Van Halen toured. Deja Vu.

[sadaist]

Or 'Vuja De'......the feeling that none of this has ever happened before?

[knuckleboner]

I swear we had this exact conversation the last time Van Halen toured. Deja Vu.

dude, i think the only discussion we HAVEN'T had in the front line before, is the, "meghan mccain or huntsman daughters."

but the tour doesn't start for another month, so we've still got time...

[Seshmeister]

I don't have the figures but I wonder if instead of propping up the banks the government(s) had just protected people up to say $250k on any savings they had in a failed bank then it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and allowed the deadwood to go. There would be very little bad feeling about the government bailing out losses by people who had not acted badly rather than giving huge sums to the bastards that caused the problem and who are still sticking multi million dollar bonuses into their greedy thieving pockets.

[Nitro Express]

dude, it was a damned if we do, damned if we don't moment. but the damned if we don't was damn near eternal damnation.

i won't argue whether or not the banks were corrupt, greedy, stupid, risky, illegal, whatever. yes, regardless, they at the least acted very poorly, and by themselves, they certainly deserved to fail.

but seriously, without TARP, a LOT of banks fail. and a lot of people lose their savings. and i'm not talking about 401ks, where you expect the value to go up and down, at least to some extent. i'm talking about a run on the banks where people lose cash in accounts. and a complete lack of lending credit. this is DANGER ZONE for the economy.

millions more would have lost their jobs. no joke. millions. in the worst of the recession we did have, 700,000 lost their jobs each month for 3 months straight. 2 million jobs lost in 90 days. if credit got a lot worse, and if big banks failed, you would literally have added millions more to that total.

so if you want to argue how bad the banks were, great; i won't disagree. but by the time september 2008 rolled around, all that shit was moot. already happened. so it was up to the choice of the lesser of 2 evils. and not doing TARP (or something similar) would've been WAY more evil.

You only have to look at other countries. Sweden let the banks fail and they went through a tough time but recovered. Japan bailed them out and their economy never recovered in two decades. By letting the losers fail you have a faster recovery. You have to get rid of the bad wood. You have to kill the termites or they eat the whole house. I'm sorry but when you spend more than you have or your central bank prints too much funny money there's going to be some pain. No way around it but if you continue to print funny money and you throw the good money after bad, you eliminate some short term pain but create a worse long-term situation.

Of course the politicians are going to go for the short-term solution and kick the can down the road. It's what they do. We are now at the point where we can't kick the can any longer. Historically when they politicians have no solutions they take you to war and looky looky what's happening now. If we just let the losers fail, we could have avoided all this.

[Seshmeister]

Who is that?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-ylrAbJ724hbb7Y/bruno_2009_ron_paul_interview/

[Seshmeister]

They are having to come up with new words for the debt Japan is in.

Quadrillions.

1 000 000 000 000 000 yen in debt.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japans-debt-to-exceed-1-quadrillion-yen-report-2011-11-07

A quadrillion pennies looks like this.

http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/quadrillion_bldgs_A.jpg

[FORD]

dude, i think the only discussion we HAVEN'T had in the front line before, is the, "meghan mccain or huntsman daughters."

but the tour doesn't start for another month, so we've still got time...

http://www.glittarazzi.com/images/BLOG-MAIN/huntsman-daughters-2011-12-02.jpg

These are Huntsman's kids?? Holy Elohim! :headlights:

[Nitro Express]

I don't have the figures but I wonder if instead of propping up the banks the government(s) had just protected people up to say $250k on any savings they had in a failed bank then it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and allowed the deadwood to go. There would be very little bad feeling about the government bailing out losses by people who had not acted badly rather than giving huge sums to the bastards that caused the problem and who are still sticking multi million dollar bonuses into their greedy thieving pockets.

Exactly. In Occupy Wall Street terms we bailed out the 1% and stuck it to the 99%. Let's just say it's welfare for the rich. Giving the FDIC insurance settlements would have been far cheaper.

[Nitro Express]

http://www.glittarazzi.com/images/BLOG-MAIN/huntsman-daughters-2011-12-02.jpg

These are Huntsman's kids?? Holy Elohim! :headlights:

The one redeeming value of the Mormon church is there is no shortage of pretty girls in it. Then as David Lee Roth said in his book, they couldn't wait to get to Utah because of the women there. Religious oppression brings in great rebellion. I had many good times in the beehive state. Max if he was still with us would agree I'm sure. Utah actually is a good place to get laid. The problem is these girls go through their rebellious stage but too many marry another Mormon and get sucked back into it and pop out a bunch of kids. To leave you basically have to disown your family and most just can't do it.

Actually these young girls are used as bait by the church leaders. They will tell them not to marry anyone who is not a returned missionary and they get a bunch of horny young guys to give up two years of their youth slaving for the church in hopes to score one of those cute things. They control these people with sex. It's a pretty sick system once you learn how it works. It's how they keep the next generation in the cult because only disturbed people like Glenn Beck convert to Mormonism these days. Everyone else knows it's a silly cult.

It's one of those things that makes you think the sane reality is somewhere else in the universe and what's going on here is down in some strange rabbit hole you fell into. This world is truly nuts and with the increase of technology, it becomes just more insane. LOL!

The older I get the more I realize I'm glad I rolled one on and had a good time allowing a Mormon maiden to live a little before she went back to the prison waiting for her.

[Nitro Express]

They are having to come up with new words for the debt Japan is in.

Quadrillions.

1 000 000 000 000 000 yen in debt.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japans-debt-to-exceed-1-quadrillion-yen-report-2011-11-07

A quadrillion pennies looks like this.

http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/quadrillion_bldgs_A.jpg

The problem is the world financial system due to leverage and printing money from thin air has gotten out of touch with reality. The math no longer makes sense. Money should be an IOU based on real goods. Once it becomes pure fantasy and speculation it no longer works. It's easier to buy political influence and move money around than actually making real goods and selling them. That's why and investment banker once joked to me he could teach a dog on a three day weekend to be an investment banker. I've never heard anyone running a real productive operation ever joke that it was easy.

After World War II it was universally agreed with the Brenton Woods Accord that the US, U.K., and France would run the world financial system until 1996. When that expired those same countries still wanted to be in charge of things and nothing else has been set up. I'm sure there is a lot of infighting between Asia (Where the real money is) and the west (Where the world's biggest debtor nations are) that we don't see.

The reality is we are going into a stage now that people don't trust paper anymore. Once you no longer can trust some of the oldest and biggest institutions in finance the system has been compromised. People can't make any interest in banks so they are buying real assets now. We are going to go into more of a commodities economy than a paper economy but the paper economy owns most the politicians and is trying to take over the commodities side. If you work in agriculture you certainly see this. So what we are seeing is a failed paper economy pulling out all the stops to stay relevant even if they have to start more wars to do it.

It's one big mess and the only way to solve short of settling it out in an all out world war is to erase a ton of debt but of course the bankers don't want that.

[Dr. Love]

http://i.imgur.com/Q0nsG.jpg

A lot can change in 4 years. :)

[DRD]

Nitro, I am with you 100%

[Pink Spider]

CBS poll: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney tied with President Obama

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/cbs-poll-ron-paul-mitt-romney-tied-with-president-obama/

A new CBS poll finds Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are tied with President Obama.

According to the latest national poll, Mr. Romney leads Mr. Obama by two percentage points, 47 percent to 45 percent. Mr. Paul trails Mr. Obama by one percentage point, 45 percent to 46 percent.


Among the rest of the Republican field, Mr. Obama leads former Sen. Rick Santorum 47 percent to 43 percent; he leads Texas Governor Rick Perry 49 percent to 42 percent; he leads former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman 48 percent to 41 percent; and he leads former Newt Gingrich 49 percent to 41 percent.

The poll comes as recent polls out of New Hampshire and South Carolina how Mr. Romney leading the Republican presidential field. The Massachusetts Republican also leads in Florida, which holds its primary at the end of the month. Meanwhile, Mr. Paul has faced a surge in support since taking third place in Tuesday’s Iowa caucus. The Texas Republican announced earlier this week that his campaign has raised upwards of $10 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, placing him just behind Mr. Romney’s campaign.

The poll is the latest indication that Mr. Obama will face a tough bid for re-election. The incumbent Democrat has struggled to lower the nation’s rate of unemployment, a key issue for voters in the upcoming race.

The CBS News poll was conducted Jan. 4 to 8, surveying 1,413 adults, for a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. The poll includes a subsample of 1.247 registered voters.

[lesfunk]

[ELVIS]

Yep. That's what it comes down to for me.

If you like the direction this country is going in,
If you like having your freedoms taken away,
If you like Americans being assassinated by their own government,
If you want your own government to be able to hold you indefinitely,
If you want your own government to be able to spy on you,
If you want your government to give your money to the banks,
If you want your government to go to war after war after war,
If you want the 1% to continue to do whatever they want with your money,
If you want everything that is wrong with the direction of this country to continue...

Then yeah, vote for Romney. Vote for Obama. Vote for Perry. Vote for Santorum. Vote for Gingrich. They are all offering you the same thing.

If you want someone that won't be bought and paid for, someone that you know what they believe in, someone that will absolutely stand up and change the direction of this country, then vote for Paul.

Amen brother!


:elvis:

[BITEYOASS]

At the ABC debate, Ron Paul totally PWNED Newt Gingrich! Which is pretty easy considering that Newt is just a sack of shit with a wig on.

[FORD]

If that's a wig, he needs to stop spending $500K at Tiffany's and spend a little money at Hair Club for Republican Douchebags.

[ELVIS]

Where Romoney is the president...

[FORD]

Romney is never going to be President of anything other than Bain Capital. Or possibly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (President is the official title, though he would also be called "the Prophet")

[LoungeMachine]

Neither is Romoney for that matter.....

:gulp:

Obama is going to win, the RePukes really screwed themselves this time with this Clown Show

[ELVIS]

President Paul

[kwame k]

If that's a wig, he needs to stop spending $500K at Tiffany's and spend a little money at Hair Club for Republican Douchebags.

Newt can afford it.......


Casino executive Sheldon Adelson, a long-time financial backer and friend of Newt Gingrich, has given $5 million to a political action committee supporting the former House speaker’s presidential candidacy, according to a person close to the chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. Link (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-09/adelson-said-to-donate-5-million-to-pro-gingrich-pac.html)

[kwame k]

President Paul

Never gonna happen.......

[LoungeMachine]

President Paul

Not even you believe that for a moment.....

You might be an unmitigated asshole, but you're not dumb.

:gulp:

[FORD]

Yeah, it's actually sad that the reason Ron Paul will not be the nominee, let alone the President, is because of the things he's actually on the correct side of (ending PNAC wars, the war on drugs, and overhauling/abolishing the "Federal" reserve)

[LoungeMachine]

Make Ron Paul Sec Of State or Treas. Sec......

:lmao:

[FORD]

...or "drug czar"

[kwame k]

Yeah, it's actually sad that the reason Ron Paul will not be the nominee, let alone the President, is because of the things he's actually on the correct side of (ending PNAC wars, the war on drugs, and overhauling/abolishing the "Federal" reserve)

If he wasn't for zero regulations.........hell, I could even support him.

[Headly1984]

Obama's COS resigned due to infighting and turmoil in his cabinet ...

O may have the media in his pocket but ..

The large % of African Americans that voted for him last election may not come out to support him due to lack of fulfilling campaign promises and high unemployment(also many were not regular voters and the urgency to elect the 1st black president isn't there this time) .. the educated independents and the youth vote that got behind BO last election are leaning Paul

Many blacks, when they hear Paul criticize drug laws as racist, as he cites the disproportionate # of blacks serving time for drug arrests and convictions- even though arrests for AA and whites are about = %,... of those serving time - the black% is much greater .. Obama is not seeking to reform drug laws and address those concerns as Paul is ..

seems Paul may be a spoiler and split the vote ..

Also keep in mind - Romney may be Mormon and believe in Jesus - Christians don't necessarily accept the claim of Mormons as Christian due to the Mormon sect being the only sect to follow Jesus and not accept the nicene creed - I am not a religious nut - but to those that follow politics and the trend of voter demographics have pointed that out as to why romney is only garnering 25-30% of the right vote - which means 70-75% do not support him

Politics is math - If Romney gains 25-30% of the vote and O gets 30-35% - Paul could pull an upset with 35-40%

But .. the popular vote only means so much - the electoral college has it's say in the matter too .. 2012 will be an interesting election fo' sho'


The GOP is the epitome of fucked right now FORD..

there's no way any of these clowns beat obama. none.

[LoungeMachine]

No, the only 2 things a Ron Paul third party run would accomplish is guaranteeing a BHO re-election and ruining any chance his wack job son has with the GOP

:gulp:

[ELVIS]

I disagree...

Circle gets a square...

[kwame k]

Paul could only be a spoiler if he runs as an Independent.......

He refused last time to leave the GOP and I see no reason for him not to do the same this time.

The GOP don't really like him and I doubt he'll get the nomination.

So he's out in my book.

I will say this......it looks like the Repukes don't have any candidate that the party can rally around. So who knows who'll get the nod.

Mitt has ran and lost before........Repukes aren't keen on Newt.

The rest are right wing nut jobs with Paul being the most rational of them........Huntsman is a dead man walking!

4 more years for Obama!

[FORD]

Good riddance to Bill "Shittibank" Daley. Fuck him and his entire family. They should have been kicked out of the Democratic party after that display of fascism at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

If Obama had a brain in his head and a nut in his sack, he'd never appoint ANYBODY from Chicago, or from the DLC to his administration again. And if he wants his base back, he really needs to appoint somebody from the Dean/Feingold/Grayson wing of the party. Or as they are otherwise known, ACTUAL Democrats.

[FORD]

I disagree...

Circle gets a square...

If you want Ron Paul to run on a Libertarian/Randtard/whatever ticket, then you better be lobbying your congressional teabaggers to overturn Shittizens United. Because you gotta get corporate money out of politics before anybody else has a chance.

Otherwise, I'd probably be backing Rocky Anderson this time around.

[LoungeMachine]

Buddy Roehmer has a better chance than Ron / Rand Paul......

:gulp:

ELBOW is just stirring shit

[Pink Spider]

Maybe you guys missed this.


CBS poll: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney tied with President Obama

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/cbs-poll-ron-paul-mitt-romney-tied-with-president-obama/

A new CBS poll finds Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are tied with President Obama.

According to the latest national poll, Mr. Romney leads Mr. Obama by two percentage points, 47 percent to 45 percent. Mr. Paul trails Mr. Obama by one percentage point, 45 percent to 46 percent.


Among the rest of the Republican field, Mr. Obama leads former Sen. Rick Santorum 47 percent to 43 percent; he leads Texas Governor Rick Perry 49 percent to 42 percent; he leads former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman 48 percent to 41 percent; and he leads former Newt Gingrich 49 percent to 41 percent.

The poll comes as recent polls out of New Hampshire and South Carolina how Mr. Romney leading the Republican presidential field. The Massachusetts Republican also leads in Florida, which holds its primary at the end of the month. Meanwhile, Mr. Paul has faced a surge in support since taking third place in Tuesday’s Iowa caucus. The Texas Republican announced earlier this week that his campaign has raised upwards of $10 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, placing him just behind Mr. Romney’s campaign.

The poll is the latest indication that Mr. Obama will face a tough bid for re-election. The incumbent Democrat has struggled to lower the nation’s rate of unemployment, a key issue for voters in the upcoming race.

The CBS News poll was conducted Jan. 4 to 8, surveying 1,413 adults, for a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. The poll includes a subsample of 1.247 registered voters.

Paul is in a virtual tie with Romney and Obama. Can't win? He's done this well while being ignored or smeared by the mainstream media. The more they ignore him at this point, the more support he gets.

[kwame k]

Maybe you guys missed this.



Paul is in a virtual tie with Romney and Obama. Can't win? He's done this well while being ignored or smeared by the mainstream media. The more they ignore him at this point, the more support he gets.

Yeah but it's still way too early for those numbers to mean anything........

[Pink Spider]

Yeah but it's still way too early for those numbers to mean anything........

Quite true. Paul will be in the lead in a few months. ;)

[kwame k]

Paul's a pipe dream.........was last time, is this time!

[lesfunk]

I'm surprised that So called "progressives", especially here, aren't giving Paul more support. I mean, President Obama has certainly proved himself to be an "establishment" politician; much like Mittens.
Paul, while far from perfect, is the only candidate who is even remotely anti establishment and therefore more progressive. He's the only one who will even consider shaking things up.
I'm noticing that the liberals seem to be just as partisan as conservatives. This tells me that both Dem and GOP supporters are pretty much supporting the status quo.

[kwame k]

Nope, I'm not partisan at all. I vote Demo, Repuke, or Indy if I feel the person is right for the job.

Paul's biggest turn off for me is his belief that ending regulations will balance itself out in the marketplace. I disagree and looking back in history tells me I'm right.

The Great Depression caused in great part because of lax regulation..........

The Great Recession caused in great part because of lax regulations........

See a pattern there?

[FORD]

I'm surprised that So called "progressives", especially here, aren't giving Paul more support. I mean, President Obama has certainly proved himself to be an "establishment" politician; much like Mittens.
Paul, while far from perfect, is the only candidate who is even remotely anti establishment and therefore more progressive. He's the only one who will even consider shaking things up.
I'm noticing that the liberals seem to be just as partisan as conservatives. This tells me that both Dem and GOP supporters are pretty much supporting the status quo.

If we had a congress made up with at least a 67% majority in both houses of actual Sanders/Kucinich/Feingold/Grayson style Liberals, I would vote for Ron Paul as President. They would agree on the good things, like ending the stupid wars which have nothing to do with this country, the war on drugs, and the out of control private mafia bank called the "Federal" reserve.

But without that kind of Congress, Paul is too big of a risk. His Randtard fairytale agenda, with a teabagger congress to pass it, would literally be the death of this country. The last 30 years of BCE policies may have seriously wounded it, but there's still hope of recovery if the damage is reversed.

Ron Paul wants to do MORE damage.

[kwame k]

I don't think any of us so-called Liberals have given Obama a free pass on anything and I defy you to find someone who hates Reid and Pelosi more than I do.

The problem is.....not one candidate is better than Obama......so what choice do I have?

[lesfunk]

I don't think any of us so-called Liberals have given Obama a free pass on anything and I defy you to find someone who hates Reid and Pelosi more than I do.

The problem is.....not one candidate is better than Obama......so what choice do I have?

I agree that you guys have not sucked on Obama's asshole very hard since he's been President; and that's fair. Where we disagree is that I do believe that Paul is a better candidate than President Obama. If Paul does not receive the GOP nomination, and he probably won't, I ain't gonna bother voting for Obama or Romney either because I don't think there's much of a difference.

[LoungeMachine]

OMFG

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT

:gulp:

[Pink Spider]

The Democratic party is a party of war now. I would say that they're just as much of a risk as the GOP. If you vote for Obama, you support a guy who's foreign policies, drug policies, etc are in sync with Mitt Romney.

If you don't like Paul's domestic policies, then you should vote 3rd party. It's what I've done in past years. At least I knew that I didn't vote for any of this draconian stuff.

[kwame k]

I agree that you guys have not sucked on Obama's asshole very hard since he's been President; and that's fair. Where we disagree is that I do believe that Paul is a better candidate than President Obama. If Paul does not receive the GOP nomination, and he probably won't, I ain't gonna bother voting for Obama or Romney either because I don't think there's much of a difference.

Look, I'm as pissed as anyone that the spineless wonders were too much of a pussy to pass anything when the Demos had the majority.......the Health Care Bill, which effects every single American and with costs spiraling out of control couldn't ram a decent Bill down the Repukes throats.

The Repukes ran a good fear campaign with Death Panels and mandatory jail sentences.....while the Demos just caved in. They paid the price by losing the majority.

Mitt is running away from his progressive past and I think there are huge differences between him and Obama.

Out of everyone running.....Obama is the best there is. I'd love a viable 3rd option but there isn't anyone.

What......vote for Nader?

[kwame k]

The Democratic party is a party of war now. I would say that they're just as much of a risk as the GOP. If you vote for Obama, you support a guy who's foreign policies, drug policies, etc are in sync with Mitt Romney.

If you don't like Paul's domestic policies, then you should vote 3rd party. It's what I've done in past years. At least I knew that I didn't vote for any of this draconian stuff.

I threw away my vote when I voted for Perot back in the day.......which actually helped defeat Bush, so it worked out OK!

I did like the idea if he got x percentage of the vote he'd get national funding for his party. He was actually the last hope for a viable 3rd party. All the other 3rd party groups today are just too fringe for my taste and it'd be throwing my vote away.

There's too much at stake to have a Repuke president.

The Democratic Party are the ones bringing our troops home....while the Newt is saying he'll send them back to Iraq. Obama pledged he'd do it and has. Took longer than promised but at least we're getting the fuck out of Iraq.

If the Repukes have their way.....we'll be back in Iraq and invading Iran. No fucking way am I letting that happen.

[Nickdfresh]

I can't answer for why other people like him, but I can for why I like him.

I'm not on board with every one of his points of view, but I do believe that he's the only candidate that represents an actual different direction for the nation. I don't think he'd be able to do everything he wanted but I do believe he'd be better than Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry or Newt.

Fair enough. But downward is an actual different direction....


I don't believe a word the other candidates tell me. They are in this for themselves, and they will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate things to get into office. Obama lied to people. We have to accept that. I thought he would take things in a different direction, but in a lot of ways, he's been worse than Bush was. In other ways, not as bad. But on the balance, it's more of the same.

Funny, but Obama is often seen as not ruthless enough rather than a Machiavellian politician saying anything to anyone to get elected. He's seen as weak in the face of a bulwarking, mindlessly partisan congress more interested in a masturbatory orgy of the teabagger mentality thwarting actual governance. You can argue he isn't taking things in a different direction, but I would seriously debate that. I'm no Obama sycophant, but it is hard to argue that at the very least he hasn't changed our course and pulled us out of Iraq, is working to get out of Afghanistan, and has rolled back at least a little of the corporate shilling by the Bushleaguers...


Santorum, Perry, Newt ... those guys would be just as bad as Obama in different ways. None of them want to change the course we're on. None of them would even try. Things would simply get worse, slowly and inexorably.

I'd say they're vastly worse than Obama, and run the gambit from hypocrite to completely delusional. Obama has at least a modicum of palpable intelligence whereas all save Newt are just a bunch of fucking dumb guys too stupid to be selfconscious as to how moronic they actually sound...


For me, that leaves Paul. I look at him, read about him, watch his positions now and in older interviews, and the guy is consistent. I don't agree with all of his points of view, but they are logical and thought out. And he believes it. I know what I'm getting. I know what he'll try to get done. And a lot of it is good.

You can't be a libertarian and be against a woman's right to choose. And much of his foreign policy is anything but "well thought out," bordering on being unworkability insane IMO. One of his main advisers just left him on this basis alone...


I don't care about abortion, so that isn't a disqualifier for me. I don't care about this racism nonsense, either. Every single presidential candidate gets accused of being a racist. Obama, Perry, Newt, Paul, Romney... all of them.

Read above. You may not care about abortion, but it is still a litmus test as to someone's commitment to true libertarianism. You either believe that gov't should be off our backs, or you don't!


I do care about the nations budget and finances. I do care about how much we go to war (without authorization) and push the rest of the world around.

Pres. Obama didn't go to war without authorization, the party that Paul belongs too did...


I do care about the expanding intrusiveness of the federal government, spying on me, telling me what I can and can't do, exerting more and more control over my life, and now, being allowed to arrest me and hold me indefinitely.

It's a shitty bill that was rammed down our throats by a dickish congress as part of a defense bill, but the gov't cannot just hold everyone without charge if they are Americans....


Obama and Bush and all the other douchebags that have served in the congress. Do you think Romney will be any better? Perry? Do you think Obama will suddenly say, "no, this is wrong, we have to change it?" Those ships sailed a long time ago. They are lying to you.

Isn't Paul in the Congress?


You can call Ron Paul a nutbag all you want, but consider this:

When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.

Um, it was a document written over 200 years ago that couldn't possibly spell out all of the intricacies of modern technology, society, economy, etc.

In that case of absolute literalism that extremist right winger sometime argue, we should disband the U.S. Air Force, because the Constitution says nothing regardings the provision of it!


When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?

Um, Obama did bring the troops back from Iraq, though...


I don't believe for a second that Paul would get everything he wanted. But he would do something Obama doesn't do. He'd start saying "no" and start arguing for a different direction. With that platform, he could change the mindset and direction of the country. We could make some actual progress. I thought Obama would do that, but he's nothing more than a liar. I am a lot more skeptical about politicians as a result. Obama is a failure. Paul is consistent and you know what you'll get.

That doesn't sound crazy to me at all.

Ron Paul's policies would paralyze the gov't, and it is way to early to proclaim Obama, a president whom inherited one of the worst economies in history, a "failure." You may feel that way, but I think his policies averted a much greater catastrophe and an economic Depression. With Paul, you'd get an erratic, unworkable statesmen. We WOULD have been in a severe depression had that guy won in 2008...

Furthermore, Paul masks himself behind the feelgood rhetoric of an economic, property-rights libertarian while his policies would actually aid and abed the REAL problem, the further down-slide into a plutocracy with gov't being gradually castrated as any sort of check on the powers of multinational corporations, and their seeming course to mindlessly annihilate the middle classes...

[ELVIS]

OMFG

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT

:gulp:

Is that what Faux news told you ??

[kwame k]

Is that what Faux news told you ??

What's Beck telling you?

[ELVIS]

I don't listen to Beck...

[kwame k]

Must be Rush, then...........

[LoungeMachine]

Is that what Faux news told you ??

No, common sense.

:gulp:

What does baby jesus tell you?

[Headly1984]

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama

Keep an open mind and realize congress will keep the balance - 1 thing Paul won't do is invade a country w/o congressional approval or abuse executive mandates

The guy is a constitutionalist - which is great ! A concept most modern politicians cannot comprehend. Maybe you like the idea of a constitutionalist candidate but don;t like the wrapper this one comes in - oh well, it is what it is

A vote for Mitt or O is a vote for the lobbyist swayed politician who operates behind closed doors and issues executive orders appointing people to office when congress is out of session

Ron Paul will give the government some transparency - & he would also audit the Federal Reserve - we don't need our bank operating outside of our best interest :flypig:

[LoungeMachine]

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama

:


:lmao:

[Headly1984]

:lmao:

laugh now, cry later, then vote Paul

.. unless you want 4 more yrs of Obama

[Dr. Love]

You guys saying RP will never be President, well ... he's doing pretty well so far. And in national polls, he's equaling Obama. I honestly think RP could pull support away from Obama and Romney due to being both to the left and to the right of both Obama and Romney.


Fair enough. But downward is an actual different direction....



Funny, but Obama is often seen as not ruthless enough rather than a Machiavellian politician saying anything to anyone to get elected. He's seen as weak in the face of a bulwarking, mindlessly partisan congress more interested in a masturbatory orgy of the teabagger mentality thwarting actual governance. You can argue he isn't taking things in a different direction, but I would seriously debate that. I'm no Obama sycophant, but it is hard to argue that at the very least he hasn't changed our course and pulled us out of Iraq, is working to get out of Afghanistan, and has rolled back at least a little of the corporate shilling by the Bushleaguers...

He followed Bush's timetable for withdrawal, and that's only because Iraq wouldn't agree to a longer timetable.




I'd say they're vastly worse than Obama, and run the gambit from hypocrite to completely delusional. Obama has at least a modicum of palpable intelligence whereas all save Newt are just a bunch of fucking dumb guys too stupid to be selfconscious as to how moronic they actually sound...

Look at it in the macro sense. What are they going to do that significantly differs than Obama, other than the healthcare thing? Obama has disappointed a lot of people. Candidate Obama and President Obama are very different people. He caves to the right constantly. Heck, on a lot of positions, Obama is to the right of Paul! That's crazy! How does Obama reconcile that with the electorate?


You can't be a libertarian and be against a woman's right to choose. And much of his foreign policy is anything but "well thought out," bordering on being unworkability insane IMO. One of his main advisers just left him on this basis alone...


Which one? Are you talking about the guy that left quite a long time ago and was on the news saying RP isn't racist but his foreign policy is loony?



Read above. You may not care about abortion, but it is still a litmus test as to someone's commitment to true libertarianism. You either believe that gov't should be off our backs, or you don't!


So I'm bundling my response to this and the "not a libertarian" thing together here ... it just doesn't matter to me and doesn't affect my support. Ron Paul's views are self-consistent. I don't care if they aren't totally libertarian or republican or anything. I'm an independent... I don't care about party line or ideology as much as I care about the individual and their positions.


Pres. Obama didn't go to war without authorization, the party that Paul belongs too did...


Doesn't resonate with me. I don't like the republicans. If Paul isn't the nominee, I won't be voting for their party. But I won't vote for Obama again. He does not deserve my support.



It's a shitty bill that was rammed down our throats by a dickish congress as part of a defense bill, but the gov't cannot just hold everyone without charge if they are Americans....


Yeah, it was, as for the latter, I'm not so sure.



Isn't Paul in the Congress? thankfully yes. He isn't voting for the destruction of our rights.




Um, it was a document written over 200 years ago that couldn't possibly spell out all of the intricacies of modern technology, society, economy, etc.

In that case of absolute literalism that extremist right winger sometime argue, we should disband the U.S. Air Force, because the Constitution says nothing regardings the provision of it!


So if we want to give the Federal Government more power, we amend the constitution. Why should we let them just decide they should have more power on their own? Every single congressman, every single senator, every single president goes in saying that government is too powerful and that they'll change that. None of them ever do. (I realize that's a vast generalization).

The thing is, when RP says it, I really believe it ... but then, I believed Obama and what a liar he turned out to be.


Um, Obama did bring the troops back from Iraq, though...

He was following a pre-determined timeline and had tried to press for extending that schedule and when the iraqis told him no, only then did he do it. That doesn't really sell it for me.




Ron Paul's policies would paralyze the gov't, and it is way to early to proclaim Obama, a president whom inherited one of the worst economies in history, a "failure." You may feel that way, but I think his policies averted a much greater catastrophe and an economic Depression. With Paul, you'd get an erratic, unworkable statesmen. We WOULD have been in a severe depression had that guy won in 2008...

Furthermore, Paul masks himself behind the feelgood rhetoric of an economic, property-rights libertarian while his policies would actually aid and abed the REAL problem, the further down-slide into a plutocracy with gov't being gradually castrated as any sort of check on the powers of multinational corporations, and their seeming course to mindlessly annihilate the middle classes...

I still take a macro point of view. Paul and Congress temper each other and he can build broader coalitions with both repubs AND dems and hopefully breaks more of the gridlock. I don't have any illusions that RP or Obama can single handedly save or destroy the economy. But Obama had a REAL chance to change things up there. The bankers were on their heels and there was a clear opportunity to deal with corruption and crony capitalism.

What did Obama do? What did he do?

Did he go on the offensive and put in the things we need to fix the problems?

Or did he appoint an insider to the treasury dept? Did he waffle and pander? Did he keep on the gloves and throw soft punches? Did he give the very people that fucked this place royally our money?

I don't agree with Ron Paul's idea of completely removing all regulations. I think part of that is national security and defending the rest of us. But RP is firmly against crony capitalism and the abuses that were going on. Is Obama? Are any of the other candidates?

[Dr. Love]

http://i.imgur.com/FpsG8.jpg

[Dr. Love]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da6irSCvnZY

[Guitar Shark]

Do you really want to make someone president who runs out a room just because someone's pants have fallen down?

C'mon, I'm not a Paul supporter by any means but I can't fault him for that decision.

[LoungeMachine]

That speech cracked me up......

I swear Ron Paul is like your Poli Sci Prof who won't shut up.....

:gulp:

I admire his Foreign Policy stance, I really do....with a few exceptions...

BUT. HE. WILL. NEVER. WIN.

Today's elected office is about ONE thing....... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$44

And he will never have enough.

[LoungeMachine]

And you can thank Citizens United and the bought and paid for SCOTUS for that...

:gulp:

Fucking lawyers [ Hi Sharkey]

[Dr. Love]

$$$$ don't elect Presidents, people do ... just look at how much Romney had to pay per vote in Iowa. And there's every indication that he won by a typo.

If Paul can make it a two man race between him and Romney we'll see if republicans can sacrifice principal for the false promise of victory (romney will never beat Obama) or if they will vote for principle and conviction.

Seeing the republican party, I'm not hopeful.

[LoungeMachine]

$$$$ don't elect Presidents, people do ... j.

Calling Dr. Love......wakey wakey.

:gulp:

They do now.

[kwame k]

When it hits national election time $$$$$$ will count, period.

TV ads sway people's perceptions because most people are too fucking lazy to read or form their own opinions.

[LoungeMachine]

The Resheeple vote for whom they're told to vote for....

:gulp:

And when in doubt, they check FAUX KNEWS

[Dr. Love]

Well, we'll see how SC goes ... but tonight was another good night for Paul

[LoungeMachine]

He could WIN SC and FLA and still never be the Nom......

:gulp:

The GOP would never allow it

[kwame k]

He's doing well early, that's for sure but you know how these things go........how many times has someone been hot early on, only to get destroyed a few weeks later.

That's my prediction for Paul.........

Although, I still stand by.....the GOP isn't crazy about Mitt and they hate Newt.

So given those two factors, Paul could slip in......highly doubt it, though!

[LoungeMachine]

Look at the 2 windmills Paul tilts at most.....

Defense Spending
and
The Fed

Tell me the powers that be would ever let him get the nomination....

:gulp:

FORD has a better chance.

[Dr. Love]

It might not matter ... if he can get enough delegates, he can cause trouble for the nomination and get influence the process anyway. He's already altered the debate by a fair bit.

[kwame k]

Look at the 2 windmills Paul tilts at most.....

Defense Spending
and
The Fed

Tell me the powers that be would ever let him get the nomination....

:gulp:

FORD has a better chance.

It's sad but it's true....... Eisenhower's farewell speech warning about the military industrial complex rings as true today as it did back then.

[LoungeMachine]

It might not matter ... if he can get enough delegates, he can cause trouble for the nomination and get influence the process anyway. He's already altered the debate by a fair bit.

I don't disagree with that in the slightest......

I think, and HOPE he can shake things up.

:gulp:

ALL I'm saying is he can't/won't ever win a GOP Nom....

[LoungeMachine]

It's sad but it's true....... Eisenhower's farewell speech warning about the military industrial complex rings as true today as it did back then.

Dwight would be a far-left socialist Democrat in the vein of Bernie Sanders today....

:gulp:

But then again, so would Ronnie

[kwame k]

Dwight would be a far-left socialist Democrat in the vein of Bernie Sanders today....

:gulp:

But then again, so would Ronnie

Jesus.....look how far the GOP has fallen since Dubya ruined the country and his Party......

Palin as a VP nom.......

Batshit was an early front runner........Prick had a minute in the sun.

Lincoln must be spinning in his Grave!

[LoungeMachine]

Lincoln would be shunned by today's GOP as a crazy left wing loon

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

At least the current candidates aren't as racist as Lincoln.

Not openly anyway.

[FORD]

The Democratic party is a party of war now. I would say that they're just as much of a risk as the GOP. If you vote for Obama, you support a guy who's foreign policies, drug policies, etc are in sync with Mitt Romney.

If you don't like Paul's domestic policies, then you should vote 3rd party. It's what I've done in past years. At least I knew that I didn't vote for any of this draconian stuff.

If Diebold and Shittizens United weren't in the way of an actual fair election, I'd probably vote for Rocky Anderson this time around . Or write in Howard Dean, because this country would be a lot better off right now, if the 8th year of his presidency were about to begin :(

[FORD]

Look at the 2 windmills Paul tilts at most.....

Defense Spending
and
The Fed

Tell me the powers that be would ever let him get the nomination....

:gulp:

FORD has a better chance.

As a Repuke nominee??

Nah, the BCE would never let that happen :biggrin:

[ELVIS]

How 'bout a Paul / Kucinich ticket ??

[kwame k]

How 'bout a Paul / Kucinich ticket ??

In theory it might work but I guess I'm jaded enough to realize...........what might be good on paper doesn't play well to the average American.

It's all about showbiz now.....I'm not defending it nor do I like it but the past has shown me.....the best and the brightest rarely get the job.

[ELVIS]

Well, with Paul's strategy he could very realistically end up with the delagates to become the nominee...

Just because the media says it can't happen doesn't make it so...

Nobody really likes Romoney and Paul is the strongest candidate by far...

[kwame k]

Well, with Paul's strategy he could very realistically end up with the delagates to become the nominee...

Just because the media says it can't happen doesn't make it so...

Nobody really likes Romoney and Paul is the strongest candidate by far...

I can see your point but I don't think the GOP will allow Paul the victory, period.

The GOP hates all of their candidates and not one of them is galvanizing the base.

This is a race for the chance to get nominated and that in and of itself doesn't mean Paul can force anything........

Backroom deals have been made numerous times in the past and the popular candidate doesn't always win.

[ELVIS]

You should read up on their strategy...

Paul is running a great campaign...

[kwame k]

You should read up on their strategy...

Paul is running a great campaign...

Looking at the way too early results, I agree....he is!

Doesn't mean that this is going to get him the nom, though!

He registered with a Party and has to respect the decisions that the Party leaders make......if he doesn't his only choice is to run as an independent.

I disagree with his zero regulation, let the market correct itself, theory and a few other points but that doesn't mean I don't respect the campaign he's running or some of his views.

[ELVIS]

I don't know that he said zero regulation...

[ELVIS]

But either way, if your reason for not supporting Paul is his stance on regulation, that's not much to go on...

His strict adherence to the Constitution is reason to support him. That and he's the only candidate who wants to cut spending and the size of the federal government...

Ron Paul is the closest thing to the founding father's philosophy we will ever see...


:elvis:

[Jagermeister]

But either way, if your reason for not supporting Paul is his stance on regulation, that's not much to go on...

His strict adherence to the Constitution is reason to support him.
That and he's the only candidate who wants to cut spending and the size of the federal government...
Ron Paul is the closest thing to the founding father's philosophy we will ever see...


:elvis:

He is?

[FORD]

Here's the situation with the Republican party at the moment:

The corporatists running the party want Romney (including the BCE, and history proves they have been behind every Republican nomination since 1952)

The actual Repuke voters want anybody BUT Romney, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (because they hate him for the few things he believes that actually make sense - his foreign policy, and views on civil liberties and "federal" banks)

No doubt that Diebold gave a huge "assist" to Mittens last night, as I predicted it would.

South Carolina should be interesting. They don't like Mormons down there. Probably not that crazy about Catholics either. Ron Paul might have a shot there, except he's not a warmonger, and they really seem to like that in the South, for some reason.

God forbid they might vote for pRick Perry, because he's a warmongering Southern dumbass.

[Nitro Express]

Well you have all these piss dweebs in office illegally making laws that trample the constitution and then they try and convince us that what they just did is the law. Someone needs to make it clear the constitution is above the congress and president. The government right now is completely out of control as is the financial system. Also, fuck the political parties. They both are corrupt. I'm tired of voting for a party. I say it's time we vote for people again and they can pick their own cabinet instead of having the party appoint the motherfuckers. We have had puppets for too damn long.

Ron Paul is running on integrity. The others aren't because they can't. They have no integrity.

[Nitro Express]

At least the current candidates aren't as racist as Lincoln.

Not openly anyway.

The president that gave the slaves their freedom was a racist?

[ELVIS]

Well, the BCE as you like to call it FORD have effectively brainwashed people on both sides regarding foreign policy...

I credit you in helping me see things from a different perspective...

This nation building, spreading democracy total bullshit has to stop, and that alone is good enough reason to back Paul...


:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

Okay.....who HACKED into ELBOW's account?

:gulp:

fess up.

[FORD]

Well you have all these piss dweebs in office illegally making laws that trample the constitution and then they try and convince us that what they just did is the law. Someone needs to make it clear the constitution is above the congress and president. The government right now is completely out of control as is the financial system. Also, fuck the political parties. They both are corrupt. I'm tired of voting for a party. I say it's time we vote for people again and they can pick their own cabinet instead of having the party appoint the motherfuckers. We have had puppets for too damn long.

Ron Paul is running on integrity. The others aren't because they can't. They have no integrity.

Pretty sure it would take a Constitutional amendment to make the entire cabinet/executive branch into elected offices. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to the idea. Hell even if Chimp & Darth would have actually WON the 2000 election, there's no way the likes of Perle, Wolfoshitz, or John Bolton ever would have won a vote.

And God knows Obama would have had a much better cabinet :(

The people should get a vote on the Supreme Court too. It's only fair, since they decided a Presidential Election, despite the will of the People. Opie Roberts, who had an entire two years on the bench (also a Chimpointed term) was ridiculously underqualified to be on the Supreme Court at all, and absolutely unsuitable as a Chief Justice.

Son of a bitch couldn't even get the Presidential Oath of Office right. Let alone any of his court decisions.

[ELVIS]

I like ELBOW...


:biggrin:

[chefcraig]

Okay.....who HACKED into ELBOW's account?

:gulp:

fess up.

It was me, but in terms of full disclosure, I did learn that "edit the post" thing from YOU.

[Nitro Express]

If this next election is a failure the bloodshed comes next.

[kwame k]

But either way, if your reason for not supporting Paul is his stance on regulation, that's not much to go on...

His strict adherence to the Constitution is reason to support him. That and he's the only candidate who wants to cut spending and the size of the federal government...

Ron Paul is the closest thing to the founding father's philosophy we will ever see...


:elvis:

Do you really think the country can follow a strict adherence to the Constitution? It hasn't in our lifetime and longer.

This feel good talk about going back to strict adherence to the Constitution is a fairy tale.......electing Paul will not get you there because it takes more than one man to do that and Congress will never let that happen........

After 9/11 we basically allowed every Anti-Constitutional Bill to pass.......cheered on in the naive belief that we were making ourselves safer by doing so......Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers had quite a lot to say on exactly that subject and they weren't Pro-Dubya on it either. They would of been locked away in Gitmo as terrorists.

Do we take away every Amendment made since it was ratified? Or do we let the powers that be cherry pick what is advantageous to their agenda, decide? What about the stuff that the Founding Fathers had no way of knowing about....technology, modern warfare, and the likes.

Or is the document and the structure allowed to live and breathe as was the intention.....

We never punished a President and Vice-President who violated the Constitution, blatantly........even the biggest Dubya apologist agrees that they, at the very least, abused their powers. I personally believe a convincing case could be made for Treason, as it's defined.

People are too fucking lazy and stupid to go back to yesteryear, when the most popular news stations and topical commentators are nothing but opinionist, who will take the time and energy necessary to bring about real and lasting change?

[kwame k]

I like ELBOW...


:biggrin:

How about TEBOW?

[LoungeMachine]

How about TEBOW?

Somebody BAN this twat.

:gulp:

[K-tuna]

Respectfully, The Founders may not have know exactly HOW the times would change, but they WISELY knew one thing: Human Nature. They knew tyranny, lies , honor, morals, war, freedom and lack of control, and responsibility and where it leads.

Of course they had no idea of what and how we'd advance as a people, but they made sure the constitution was flexible enough to change if times called for if absolutely needed.

And , If you have folks wanting strap bombs on and walk into a crowd and kill as many women and children as they can, then I have no problem with "DUBYA" CONSIDER doing what he can to keep people safe and change with the times. Ol' Barack has no problem INCREASING drone Strikes , getting into war with LIBYA ( hiding behind the UN to do so) and GITMO still is there doing its thing. hmmmmmmm.....



sorry....continue.


Can someone tell exactly how Im supposed to beleive PMSNBC is so reputable and unbiased...that s a bigger joke than Joe Biden.

[kwame k]

Somebody BAN this twat.

:gulp:

:biggrin:

[Jagermeister]

Respectfully, The Founders may not have know exactly HOW the times would change, but they WISELY knew one thing: Human Nature. They knew tyranny, lies , honor, morals, war, freedom and lack of control, and responsibility and where it leads.

Of course they had no idea of what and how we'd advance as a people, but they made sure the constitution was flexible enough to change if times called for if absolutely needed.

And , If you have folks wanting strap bombs on and walk into a crowd and kill as many women and children as they can, then I have no problem with "DUBYA" CONSIDER doing what he can to keep people safe and change with the times. Ol' Barack has no problem INCREASING drone Strikes , getting into war with LIBYA ( hiding behind the UN to do so) and GITMO still is there doing its thing. hmmmmmmm.....



sorry....continue.


Can someone tell exactly how Im supposed to beleive PMSNBC is so reputable and unbiased...that s a bigger joke than Joe Biden.

I like the new guy.

[kwame k]

Respectfully, The Founders may not have know exactly HOW the times would change, but they WISELY knew one thing: Human Nature. They knew tyranny, lies , honor, morals, war, freedom and lack of control, and responsibility and where it leads.

Of course they had no idea of what and how we'd advance as a people, but they made sure the constitution was flexible enough to change if times called for if absolutely needed.

That's my point......the Constitution lives and breathes according to the times.

Every time I hear a politician or Teabagger spout off about going back to a strict adherence of the Constitution......in the same breathe they talk about changing it and THEN adhering to it! So my question is......what parts are you going to change or are you just making a blanket statement because you know it's an "issue" button you can throw in your rhetoric arsenal. You know like, "I'm tough on crime, want to save SS, I'll make the country safe and that bile that they spew.


And , If you have folks wanting strap bombs on and walk into a crowd and kill as many women and children as they can, then I have no problem with "DUBYA" CONSIDER doing what he can to keep people safe and change with the times. Ol' Barack has no problem INCREASING drone Strikes , getting into war with LIBYA ( hiding behind the UN to do so) and GITMO still is there doing its thing. hmmmmmmm.....

So you have zero problems with suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, torture, the blanket spying on average citizens without a warrant, and invading Sovereign Nations. So basically you're against the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Let's see what a Founding Father has to say about that exact subject........."Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.". Don't think old Ben Franklin could make that any clearer, do you?

For the record..........how many troops do we have in Libya right now? How many troops did we send there? The last what.......5 Presidents bombed a country in conjunction with NATO.......1 President invaded a country with NATO.....His son basically said fuck NATO and we'll invade a Sovereign Nation without their consent and I'll lie to the American people about why we're going to invade.....


sorry....continue.

By all means, lets!


Can someone tell exactly how Im supposed to beleive PMSNBC is so reputable and unbiased...that s a bigger joke than Joe Biden.

No idea, don't watch opinionist news channels.......

[K-tuna]

Look, Im not aiming top pick a fight/ disagreement ...........Of Course we don't have a lot in libya...Obama decided to hide behind the UN. He didn't ask congress for approval. he just DID IT.


Aas far as suspending habeas corpus...Lincoln did it. May have been a bad idea, but it worked out the way it should. But I don't want anyone locked up, i also don't like the idea of idiots with bombs sneeking throiugh the border or another 9/11.


Invading a foreign country? Sorry i don't see that the same way. And to be fair, other than our own, can we name one country we have had war with , or "invaded" , that WE ACTUALLY CLAIMED?

When Iraq had elections and stabilized enough to sell its own oil..did we we claim it or did Bush step back and let them sell it to whom they wanted....They sold it to the Brits, Russia and China.


I don't normall quote fiction but in this case it explains my personal view as far as torture goes , a great line from one of the last episodes of 24 ..

" I know there are laws i have to follow, i know these laws were made by smarter men than I, but if theres someone gonna blow up a bus in a crowd of people and I have no choice to force this man to tell me what i need to know, I can't ignore those people....im gonna do what i have to do"


If a guy knows something for sure, and its him or the bomb in times square...sorry, sucks to be that guy.

But To be sure Ben Franklin was indeed very smart.. I tread lightly in any opinion that seems to disagree with him.

My only Problem with Ron Paul is that he has a Ostrich foreign policy. Its our fault all those poor jihadists are pissed off.....its a blind fool crock. Its absolutely dangerous. Does a bully ease off you if you try to avoid him? Were we in Afghanistan , Iraq, when 9/11 happened? were we bombing them?


I respect where your coming from, But We do have a right to defend ourselves and if there proper intelligence saying theres a threat, then we should act on it and i don't feel thats a violation of the constitution.

[kwame k]

Look, Im not aiming top pick a fight/ disagreement ...........Of Course we don't have a lot in libya...Obama decided to hide behind the UN. He didn't ask congress for approval. he just DID IT.

We're debating that's what this forum is for........

We have, according to our Defense Secretary, 16 US troops on the ground there for our Embassy in Tripoli.........that's 16 people. Although I imagine they are highly skilled and would be worth about 5 times that many as far as fighting skills go;)

We are a member of NATO and have given them support as did other members of NATO......we were there in a support role and the only time we had boots on the ground was to rescue downed pilots. All in accordance with NATO. Yes, we bombed them but turned over control of the No-Fly zone to NATO months ago. We were there to minimize civilians casualties. We never invaded, period.

Isn't that what being the bastion of Democracy and the defender of Freedom is all about? If not then the war in Iraq was not what it was sold to us as......overthrowing a blood thirsty Dictator. These people were trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny, we didn't invade and only gave those people a fighting chance.

The confusion comes in from the Neocons because they get pissed when it's not their side warring and tried to make a huge case about a Vietnam era law that says after 60 days the President must get congress' approval. Remember the accusations that we were leading from behind, which to this day makes no sense to me. The President acted in accordance with the War Powers Resolution and didn't need approval.



Aas far as suspending habeas corpus...Lincoln did it. May have been a bad idea, but it worked out the way it should. But I don't want anyone locked up, i also don't like the idea of idiots with bombs sneeking throiugh the border or another 9/11.

Man, that's a stretch there....suspending Habeas Corpus because the Nation was in the midst of a Civil War is a hell of a lot different than what happened on 9/11.....not even close.

Who gets to decide on who we get to spy on.....what if I say something that may be contrary to what the powers that be like? Does that give them the right to spy on me, detain me and take away my rights as an American? That's a Pandora Box that I don't want open and there's zero evidence that when the Government hacked into AT&T and just downloaded all communications that it stopped any terrorist, period.

I'm reminded of the Blackstone Ratio, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

[Nickdfresh]

Libya was the perfect war from an American/NATO interventionist point-of-view. Few if any NATO personnel were casualties, the Libyan people did most of their own fighting on the ground, and we got rid of an enormous cunt...

[kwame k]

Invading a foreign country? Sorry i don't see that the same way. And to be fair, other than our own, can we name one country we have had war with , or "invaded" , that WE ACTUALLY CLAIMED?

When Iraq had elections and stabilized enough to sell its own oil..did we we claim it or did Bush step back and let them sell it to whom they wanted....They sold it to the Brits, Russia and China.

Ah, when you send troops into a country and overthrow the established government that's a text book definition of invasion.

We were told that Iraq would pay us back in oil for invading their country......right on national TV. Another lie about justification for the war.

You're losing me with the CLAIMED part......you either invade a country or you don't.



I don't normall quote fiction but in this case it explains my personal view as far as torture goes , a great line from one of the last episodes of 24 ..

" I know there are laws i have to follow, i know these laws were made by smarter men than I, but if theres someone gonna blow up a bus in a crowd of people and I have no choice to force this man to tell me what i need to know, I can't ignore those people....im gonna do what i have to do"


If a guy knows something for sure, and its him or the bomb in times square...sorry, sucks to be that guy.

I'll let you off easy on this one because you're new but........find a better source than a TV show. Read through some of the posts here on other subjects so you get a feel how we do things around here.


But To be sure Ben Franklin was indeed very smart.. I tread lightly in any opinion that seems to disagree with him.

Good policy.


My only Problem with Ron Paul is that he has a Ostrich foreign policy. Its our fault all those poor jihadists are pissed off.....its a blind fool crock. Its absolutely dangerous. Does a bully ease off you if you try to avoid him? Were we in Afghanistan , Iraq, when 9/11 happened? were we bombing them?

We invaded Iraq before 9/11, you do remember that little party we had back in the 90's when Dubya's daddy was in power, right?

Part of what pissed Bin Laden off was we had troops in Mecca, you know during that little get together back in the 90's. That lead to his wanting to pull off 9/11. Yes our cowboy diplomacy, might makes right, caused us to be in the mess we got ourselves into.



I respect where your coming from, But We do have a right to defend ourselves and if there proper intelligence saying theres a threat, then we should act on it and i don't feel thats a violation of the constitution.

Ah, the Neocon Preemptive War Theory.......maybe we should arrest people before they commit murder or crimes, by that logic. Guilty until proven innocent. That seems to go against everything we stand for as a country.

There was zero, I repeat zero terrorist in Iraq when we invaded the second time. Saddam was as scared of the Taliban as we were. He wasn't a zealot and was more Westernize than they or Bin Laden would of tolerated.

Tons of research has been done on this subject here....search this forum and it'll open your eyes.

[kwame k]

Libya was the perfect war from an American/NATO interventionist point-of-view. Few if any NATO personnel were casualties, the Libyan people did most of their own fighting on the ground, and we got rid of an enormous cunt...

...and we're not bogged down in a decade long occupation.

We were the good guys in this one!

[Jagermeister]

I'm not reading all this shit but I'm glad to see it. :umm:

[kwame k]

I'm not reading all this shit but I'm glad to see it. :umm:

Not to worry, Jag.

I'm sure Rush/Beck will be right along to tell you what your opinion is:)

[K-tuna]

...and we're not bogged down in a decade long occupation.

We were the good guys in this one!

No , We very much are not..at least not yet. Like a bunch of people did, whether its Libya or Egypt...everyone has jumped the gun on how "democratic" these uprisings actually are, or how smart they were. In these cases everyone has over looked how the progenitor of Al Queada, The muslim brotherhood have positioned themselves to take over . It may VERY well be they have traded douchebags for far more evil replacements.

Obama used a loophole by claiming he was working with UN so he could do what he wanted.....Funny , Lets see a Repub do that and see how happy the libs are with that.


No Obama wasn't the good guy in that, he went over congress's head. BTW, years ago Khaddaffi had ALREADY given up to Bush. he was no immmediate threat because he had constant cooperation with us.

I repeat He was NO immediate threat. He had surrendered to Bush shortly after 9/11.

Ok The First Iraq war was because Saddam was gassing the Kurds AND Saddam for years was ignoring UN sanctions. Are we supposed to always ignore Genocide ?

I'm sorry , any excuse that tries to justify Bin Laden doesn't wash. and Bin laden and Al Qaeda weren't bombing just us , he hit his own people, the saudis, and anyone he could to make a point.

I can disagree with you , but telling me to "open my eyes" assumes somehow you're right , ..I don't agree, at all.


And I stand by My Quote from 24...it express my feeling perfectly. If I have a choice , theres a hidden nuke and I know some jihadist has some info. Sorry , I'm gonna do what it takes.


Zero terroists in Iraq? Really, do you have those statistics and facts from the CIA? Were you there. that absolutist statement is hurting your argument.

I have NO problem with the preemptive approach as long as we have the info and approval from congress.


BTW, when I wrote " sorry...continue" it was an acknowledgement that I butted in. Didn't't mean to sound snarky.

[LoungeMachine]

:lmao:

What utter bullshit.

But keep it up, with Brie gone we need someone to post revisionist history FAUX bullshit.

:gulp:

May as well be you.

[K-tuna]

Just so you can eat that bs you get from PMS-NBC.

heres just one recent mention of it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/when-condoleezza-rice-met-moammar-gaddafi/2011/10/25/gIQAtdFsGM_blog.html


and since we're calling BS, .... Mobarak, ousted Pres of Egypt was a douche, but where as he at least kept a moderate luke warm relationship with Israel , now because the instigation of the Muslim brotherhood, we have a breakdown of the egyptian society and most " freedom fighters " and civilians calling for death to israel and are at odds with the military...which were pro-civilan before and because the cops were corrupt.

sound like Obama is doing so well. actually every country he's helped has seemed to fallen in MORE chaos....not less.


But I'm done, i've made the points i wanted to make. You can make all the stupid "Faux News " jokes..i still yet to see anyone prove the PMS-NBC'ers are any better and not nutbag liars.

[LoungeMachine]

:clap:

[Dr. Love]

I don't see a complication with a desire to follow the constitution and change it at the same time. There's a reason it has provisions for amendments. I want people to stick to the constitution and be able to update it. I don't like our government legislating themselves additional powers the constitution doesn't give them.

If the government needs more power, amend it and give the states the opportunity to say yes or no. Don't just give it to yourself.

On the issue of it being too early to see where the nomination is going ... this is the republican nomination. They wrap this shit up in the first 3 - 4 contests. For it to still be a question after Romney won twice shows two things:

1. Romney is going to have a problem getting it done (especially if the field narrows)
2. Ron Paul is running a damn good campaign. He's placing consistently well. When the other candidates drop out, those voters have to decide ... do they want Romney or Paul? That should be fun to watch.

I'm voting in my state's primary. I just hope Perry is out by then.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul growing in the polls!


Ron Paul surges five points in latest national poll
The State Column | Staff | Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, can celebrate two victories Wednesday. Mr. Paul is tied with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for 2nd place at the national level among Republicans and Independents, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Mr. Paul and Mr. Gingrich pulled in 17 percent of the votes each, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney garnered 29 percent of the votes.

The results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll were released prior to Mr. Paul’s 2nd place finish in the New Hampshire Primary. Whether Mr. Paul’s strong finish on Tuesday night will impact his standing in South Carolina or at the national level will be revealed in the coming days.

The results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll are a major victory for Mr. Paul, as the Texas congressman has jumped 5 percentage points since Ipsos Public Affairs last conducted a GOP poll between December 8th and December 12th. On the other hand, the results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll are somewhat troubling for Mr. Gingrich. The Georgia Republican’s support has dipped 8 percentage points among Republicans and Independents.

Mr. Romney has benefited from Mr. Gingrich’s fall from the top. The former Massachusetts governor has surged 11 percentage points in one month. After securing a strong second place finish in the Iowa Caucuses, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has risen 8 percentage points.

Mr. Romney won the New Hampshire Primary Tuesday night. With nearly 100 percent of the voting precincts reporting, the Bain Capital co-founder has pulled in 39.3 percent of the votes, according to data from The Associated Press. Mr. Paul grabbed 2nd place in the New Hampshire Primary and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned a 3rd place finish. Mr. Paul has garnered 22.8 percent of the votes and Mr. Huntsman has received 16.9 percent of the votes.

The Paul campaign offered its take on the results of the New Hampshire Primary: “When added to Paul’s top-tier showing in Iowa, it’s clear he is the sole Republican candidate who can take on and defeat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama,” Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said in a press release.

Ipsos Public Affairs surveyed 414 Republicans and 119 Independents from January 5th through January 9th. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percent for Republicans and plus or minus 9.0 percent for Independents.



http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-surges-5-points-at-national-level/#ixzz1jAnsy2Oc

[Dr. Love]

http://i.imgur.com/VrobA.jpg

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul shrugs off electability concerns

CBS News) After a second-place finish in New Hampshire's Republican primary Tuesday, Texas Rep. Ron Paul dismissed concerns that he's not a candidate that conservatives can coalesce around to take on frontrunner Mitt Romney.
Romney handily won the Granite State by a margin of tens of thousands of votes over Paul, but the Texas congressman, who finished third in last week's Iowa caucuses, showed no sign of backing down as the nomination race heads to South Carolina.

"I've been electable," said Paul. "I've won 12 elections already, and we're doing quite well now. It's amazing that I do so much better than those other candidates that are all electable. They're all in fourth, fifth and sixth place, but they're all electable, but I come in second or third, and all of the sudden people say, 'Oh, he's not electable.' I don't know how that adds up."

Paul described the dilemma anti-Romney Republicans face in uniting behind one candidate as "a big problem," adding that the GOP has drifted from his brand of conservatism.

"There's a lot of confusion on how you define conservative," said Paul. "I define conservative as for less government, less spending and balanced budgets, but ... in recent history the Republican Party has drifted over to saying conservative means you cut spending and maybe interference in the market, but ... the more money you spend overseas, the more conservative you are. That doesn't even add up, doesn't make sense."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57356769/ron-paul-shrugs-off-electability-concerns/

[Dr. Love]

The establishment just can't stand Ron Paul.


Sen. DeMint urges Republicans to listen to Ron Paul
By Alicia M. Cohn

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.

"One of the things that's hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul," DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "I'd like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas."



Paul's views on foreign policy have taken plenty of heat from his rivals for the GOP nomination, who have slammed his views on the topic as outside of the mainstream of Republican thought. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called his views "dangerous" before dropping out of the race.
DeMint said he does not agree with the Texas congressman on everything but that the rest of the GOP presidential field should capture some of what Paul's been talking about for years because the Republican Party "needs" the libertarian movement.

"You don't have to agree with everything he's saying, but if the other candidates miss some of the wisdom about what he's saying about monetary policy ... that will be to our detriment," DeMint said.

DeMint, who is an influential conservative lawmaker with a key role in the Tea Party movement, said the debate within the Republican Party he's most comfortable with is between conservatives and libertarians.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203557-sen-demint-urges-republicans-to-listen-to-ron-paul-

[K-tuna]

I don't see a complication with a desire to follow the constitution and change it at the same time. There's a reason it has provisions for amendments. I want people to stick to the constitution and be able to update it. I don't like our government legislating themselves additional powers the constitution doesn't give them.

If the government needs more power, amend it and give the states the opportunity to say yes or no. Don't just give it to yourself.

On the issue of it being too early to see where the nomination is going ... this is the republican nomination. They wrap this shit up in the first 3 - 4 contests. For it to still be a question after Romney won twice shows two things:

1. Romney is going to have a problem getting it done (especially if the field narrows)
2. Ron Paul is running a damn good campaign. He's placing consistently well. When the other candidates drop out, those voters have to decide ... do they want Romney or Paul? That should be fun to watch.

I'm voting in my state's primary. I just hope Perry is out by then.

AGREED!!

and goddamn I love that gif...

[Dr. Love]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttvQ042b6i4&feature=g-all-u&context=G2fb3d4aFAAAAAAAACAA

[kwame k]

No , We very much are not..at least not yet. Like a bunch of people did, whether its Libya or Egypt...everyone has jumped the gun on how "democratic" these uprisings actually are, or how smart they were. In these cases everyone has over looked how the progenitor of Al Queada, The muslim brotherhood have positioned themselves to take over . It may VERY well be they have traded douchebags for far more evil replacements.

Or they might not.......We helped Libya try and gain it's independence what they do with it from there is their own business. We didn't invade or occupy....we helped people who would of been slaughtered had we not bombed their military. You really buy into the boogieman, boo be very afraid thing, don't you. Al-Qaeda isn't as big and powerful as you are lead to believe. By it's nature it doesn't have to be. It only takes a few people to plot and carry out a terrorist attack.


Obama used a loophole by claiming he was working with UN so he could do what he wanted.....Funny , Lets see a Repub do that and see how happy the libs are with that.


No Obama wasn't the good guy in that, he went over congress's head. BTW, years ago Khaddaffi had ALREADY given up to Bush. he was no immmediate threat because he had constant cooperation with us.

Now I get it......if it doesn't fit your agenda fuck the rest of the world. Like how we turned a blind eye in Rwanda or the massacres on the Ivory coast? Yet a made up a pretext to invade Iraq is cool? Yeah, let 'em slaughter innocent women and children....unless of course that country has something we want.

What did Obama make up? What? Name it! How did he go over Congress' head?


I repeat He was NO immediate threat. He had surrendered to Bush shortly after 9/11.

I repeat.....unless a country has something we want or they threaten to kill Dubya's daddy fuck 'em?




Ok The First Iraq war was because Saddam was gassing the Kurds AND Saddam for years was ignoring UN sanctions. Are we supposed to always ignore Genocide ?

I'm sorry , any excuse that tries to justify Bin Laden doesn't wash. and Bin laden and Al Qaeda weren't bombing us , he hit his own people, the saudis, and anyone he could to make a point.


I thought it was because he invaded Kuwait........get your facts straight.

He gassed the Kurds 1988 and used gas in 1983 and 1985 against the Iranians when they were at war and Saddam was our ally then and we supplied him with weapons. It's called Google, it can be your friend:lmao:


I can disagree with you , but telling me to "open my eyes" assumes somehow you're right , ..I don't agree, at all.

I am right......open your eyes and maybe you too can be right;)



And I stand by My Quote from 24...it express my feeling perfectly. If I have a choice , theres a hidden nuke and I know some jihadist has some info. Sorry , I'm gonna do what it takes.

Wow......I couldn't imagine what your geopolitical views would be if your favorite show was Two and a Half Men :lmao:



Zero terroists in Iraq? Really, do you have those statistics and facts from the CIA? Were you there. that absolutist statement is hurting your argument.

Why yes, I do as a matter of fact.....

How about we start with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Curveball and the WND lies........

"Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.........

In particular he singled out the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency – the Pentagon's military intelligence arm. Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admission this week that he lied." Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball)

On to Terrorists......

"According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."


I have NO problem with the preemptive approach as long as we have the info and approval from congress.

I do when from the President right on down lied about WMD's, terrorist and the pretext to war. Look up what Hans Blix had to say about WND's....remember Google's your friend:lmao:

How about the Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger, lie?

Joesph Wilson was our former acting ambassador to Iraq who wrote that little Op-Ed piece in the Times exposing the lie saying he found zero evidence that Saddam bought or was trying to by uranium in Niger........you know how old Joe was rewarded? They outed his wife who was a CIA operative......

"United States v. Libby in which Lewis Libby, the former Chief of Staff to Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, was tried on five federal felony counts. He was convicted on four of the counts, involving false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, none of which related directly to the Plame revelation but rather to his failure to cooperate with the subsequent investigation into the revelation. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Libby's prison sentence was commuted by President Bush, who let the conviction and fine stand" Wiki link!

It pisses me off when American men and women die for a lie, how about you?





BTW, when I wrote " sorry...continue" it was an acknowledgement that I butted in. Didn't't mean to sound snarky.

Neither did I!

[kwame k]

:lmao:

What utter bullshit.

But keep it up, with Brie gone we need someone to post revisionist history FAUX bullshit.

:gulp:

May as well be you.

:biggrin:

I tried to tell him to search the Front Line forums.....

You know, where we've debated this Ad nauseam with links, facts and stuff:)

[LoungeMachine]

I love newbies.....

:gulp:

Come in here all fresh and tell us what's what.

[K-tuna]

No dude, respectfully you aren't right.

and again WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN OVER A COUNTRY IN ANY WAR IN OUR HISTORY.

Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait later... he was killing kuwaities...I left out part of my point, you pounced...good for you . But just because you got me because i forgot part of my point doesn't make you right.


Dude LIBBY had NOTHING to do with it. It was Robert Novak who said as much , that He outed Plame in one of his columns and told prosecutors that. they got Libby on a loop hole......c'mon now you're just showing your bias here bring that stuff up.

Bush commuted it because EVERYONE knew Libby was falsely accused. ( btw hoswabout those drug dealering buddies Clinton Pardoned?...fun stuff huh? )

Again, you falsely said there were ZERO terrorists in Iraq....did you get a head count while you were there?

CONGRESS was given the same info for Iraq....Hilary agreed as well. Whos lying here?

But the bigger issue is you tried to mock my points to dismiss them, but i didn't think we're having that kinda disagreement.


They died for a lie?....I don't call stoping a nutbag dictator who ACTIVELY killed his citizens, maimed them, raped them for his and his sons enjoyment and got that same country their first FREE elections, dying for a lie.

[Dr. Love]

Don't let these turkeys discourage you from posting. Having new people to debate is good for this forum rather than having it turn into an even bigger circle jerk.

[K-tuna]

I love newbies.....

:gulp:

Come in here all fresh and tell us what's what.

Ah so you you memorized your talking points and you thought somehow you schooled me.

Go back to drinking.

[K-tuna]

Don't let these turkeys discourage you from posting. Having new people to debate is good for this forum rather than having it turn into an even bigger circle jerk.

LOL..thanks man..


mmmmmmBOOBIES!!

[kwame k]

No dude, respectfully you aren't right.

and again WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN OVER A COUNTRY IN ANY WAR IN OUR HISTORY.

You really don't understand invade and occupy, do you?


Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait later... he was killing kuwaities...I left out part of my point, you pounced...good for you . But just because you got me because i forgot part of my point doesn't make you right.

Nice back peddle....



Dude LIBBY had NOTHING to do with it. It was Robert Novak who said as much , that He outed Plame.....c'mon now you're just showing your bias here bring that stuff up.

I guess when a court of law convicts him of false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice....I tend to go with the our laws of the land.


Bush commuted it because EVERYONE knew Libby was falsely accused.

Bush commuted it because his Vice President's office was involved and rewarding him for taking one for the team......


Again, you falsely said there were ZERO terrorists in Iraq....did you get a head count while you were there?

OK, I've given you a former State Department intelligence chief's statement and you've given me nothing......Quid pro quo, Clarice:lmao:


CONGRESS was given the same info for Iraq....Hilary agreed as well. Whos lying here?

Let's see, uh maybe the fucking people who gave them the intel.....you know, the Bush Administration.

Remember, Google is your friend....look up comprehension and get back to me:lmao:


But the bigger issue is you tried to mock my points to dismiss them, but i didn't think we're having that kinda disagreement.

No, the bigger issue is that your talking out of your ass and have provided zero links to back up you argument.......having trouble linking to Fox News?



They die for a lie....I don't call stoping a nutbag dictator who ACTIVELY killed his citizens, maimed them, raped them for his and his sons enjoyment and got that same country their first FREE elections, dying for a lie.

Neither do I....that's why I supported the people trying to over-throw Libya's dictator.....

[kwame k]

Don't let these turkeys discourage you from posting. Having new people to debate is good for this forum rather than having it turn into an even bigger circle jerk.

Agreed.....

[LoungeMachine]

I DID ask him to keep it up.....

:gulp:

I find his posts amusing.

[knuckleboner]

Maybe you guys missed this.



Paul is in a virtual tie with Romney and Obama. Can't win? He's done this well while being ignored or smeared by the mainstream media. The more they ignore him at this point, the more support he gets.

michelle bachman won the ames straw poll. this is the same thing. ron paul has absolutely no chance.

[kwame k]

This thread is about Ron Paul?

:headlights:

[K-tuna]

hey Kwame'

yeah I dont have the PMS_NBC Talking points in front of me like you do .


Invade and occupy.....really? Having trouble understanding we had cooperation with Iraq?

Bush covering for Cheney...I know you have this whole Bush conspiracy thing down, but you're a bit nutty. Especially when the dems went after Libby when they knew they couldn't get Cheney. can you say a TECHNICALITY? Ask PMS-NBC you can get some more talking points.


Obama didn't liberate Libya...I thought you said we only had 16 troops.... so I guess we did go to war...AH you just lied yourself in a corner.

And still you can't simply google " muslim brotherhood"...

Howsabout Egypt....hows that liberation going? Is it all better now? Funny NOBAMA didn't seem so happy to help when the Iranian people asked them to help?

Wheres your respect for the constitution when He and Pelosi tried to "DEEM" Healthcare passed.BTW.


Where exactly is all that oil you guys said we went to Iraq for? Oh yeah, Bush Let the IRAQI"S decide a a free government.


Sorry, You wanna TRY to school me, you 'll have to go back yourself.

[LoungeMachine]

OMG....

awesome

:gulp:


Yeah, Kwame......take that.

[K-tuna]

OMG....

awesome

:gulp:


Yeah, Kwame......take that.


so......Im guessing youre his pitcher...or catcher?...... not that theres anything wrong with that...

[LoungeMachine]

And we have the standard "you must be a Homo" post already!

Okay, who had 47 posts?

:gulp:


Personally I thought he would have lasted longer....

[knuckleboner]

This thread is about Ron Paul?

:headlights:

only until Dr. Love changes the thread title...;)

[Dr. Love]

man you guys are total buzzkills on my ron paul fervor

[LoungeMachine]

only until Dr. Love changes the thread title...;)

I used to do that......

:gulp:

People bitched.

[LoungeMachine]

man you guys are total buzzkills on my ron paul fervor

Overheard many times on the Warcraft Forums, I bet......

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

so......Im guessing youre his pitcher...or catcher?...... not that theres anything wrong with that...

He's a drummer, he can't have sex.

He's allergic to pepper spray.

:gulp:

[K-tuna]

He's a drummer, he can't have sex.

He's allergic to pepper spray.

:gulp:

Hmmmm.........hmmmmmmm.....I dislike your constant needling.......but i respect your good humor. You Mod with honor.

I'm done.

[Dr. Love]

Overheard many times on the Warcraft Forums, I bet......

:gulp:

pshhhh... I don't play WoW.





I play Eve-online.

[kwame k]

hey Kwame'

yeah I dont have the PMS_NBC Talking points in front of me like you do .

Use your Glen Beck transcripts, then.....pick a date, any date and read that one;)

PMS_NBC is very witty....it must be in your mind, you use it one way or another in every one of your posts:lmao:



Invade and occupy.....really? Having trouble understanding we had cooperation with Iraq?

Yep, they cooperated real good after we bombed the living fuck out of 'em:headlights:


Bush covering for Cheney...I know you have this whole Bush conspiracy thing down, but you're a bit nutty. Especially when the dems went after Libby when they knew they couldn't get Cheney. can you say a TECHNICALITY? Ask PMS-NBC you can get some more talking points.

Yeah, I love a conspiracy theory where everything the dude said, on record, got him convicted....The injustice of it all!

And after the dude lied under oath the President gives him a pardon........I still believe Dubya's pappy was in Dallas when Kennedy was killed:headlights:



Obama didn't liberate Libya...I thought you said we only had 16 troops.... so I guess we did go to war...AH you just lied yourself in a corner.

OMG! OMG! You lied:lmao: I said we bombed them so the people didn't get slaughtered by that madman and only put boots on the ground to rescue downed pilots but we already know about you and comprehension:doh:

BTW, the 16 were there to guard our Embassy.......you're really not good at this:lmao:


And still you can't simply google " muslim brotherhood"...

Yet surprisingly I can Google lesbian threesome with my eyes closed:)


Howsabout Egypt....hows that liberation going? Is it all better now? Funny NOBAMA didn't seem so happy to help when the Iranian people asked them to help?

Amazing you bitch at him for bombing Libya and then bitch at him for not bombing Iran:lmao:

Keep swinging slugger:)


Wheres your respect for the constitution when He and Pelosi tried to "DEEM" Healthcare passed.BTW.

Very outraged and well document by my posts on the subject......I told you, browse the forum but then again, comprehension isn't your strong suit.



Where exactly is all that oil you guys said we went to Iraq for? Oh yeah, Bush Let the IRAQI"S decide a a free government.

Nice of him......lie to us about how the war was going to be funded, so as not to cripple our economy on National TV and then turn around and fuck us......damn, if he could run for a 3rd term....that's his platform right there:lmao:



Sorry, You wanna TRY to school me, you 'll have to go back yourself.

Son, I already have schooled you, you're just too punched drunk to know;)

[Dr. Love]

Overheard many times on the Warcraft Forums, I bet......

:gulp:

I hate to say it, but when I changed the title, I was channeling my inner FORD ... if I were channeling my inner Lounge Machine I'd've just vanished for several months. ;)

[Nitro Express]

http://i.imgur.com/VrobA.jpg

Anything with a pulse can vote in the New Hampshire primary. All you have to do is show up to vote. No ID checks from what I hear. So not the most accurate gauge since it can be manipulated real easy.

[kwame k]

He's a drummer, he can't have sex.

He's allergic to pepper spray.

:gulp:

Bullshit........I use that shit all the time when I'm cooking!

Keeps shit from sticking to the pan:yo:

[Nickdfresh]

Just so you can eat that bs you get from PMS-NBC.

...
and since we're calling BS, .... Mobarak, ousted Pres of Egypt was a douche, but where as he at least kept a moderate luke warm relationship with Israel , now because the instigation of the Muslim brotherhood, we have a breakdown of the egyptian society and most " freedom fighters " and civilians calling for death to israel and are at odds with the military...which were pro-civilan before and because the cops were corrupt.

Don't caught up in the predictable, cliche bullshit. Um, while Hosni and the Egyptian military played lip-service to playing nice with Israel, they were actually deploying most of their U.S. and European procured/donated weapons against Israel (while collecting massive amounts of U.S. military aid). And BTW, the roots of Islamic extremism actually come from the very shitty, illegitimate torture-regimes like Mubarak's was...


sound like Obama is doing so well. actually every country he's helped has seemed to fallen in MORE chaos....not less.

He didn't "help" anything, it was a spontaneous uprising that Obama and the U.S. gov't were very late in endorsing. In fact, there might be a slim chance that Obama just might not be responsible for all of the evil in the world...



But I'm done, i've made the points i wanted to make. You can make all the stupid "Faux News " jokes..i still yet to see anyone prove the PMS-NBC'ers are any better and not nutbag liars.

I prefer "boring."

[Dr. Love]

lol ... Ron Paul took second place in NH in the democratic primary also.

[LoungeMachine]

lol ... Ron Paul took second place in NH in the democratic primary also.

He'd probably take second in the French Elections and my kids' school board as well......

:gulp:

But he'll never, ever be the Nominee of any major party.....ever.

[Pink Spider]

He'd probably take second in the French Elections and my kids' school board as well......

:gulp:

But he'll never, ever be the Nominee of any major party.....ever.

In 2008 I might have agreed. But, not anymore.

When and if most of the GOP candidates drop out, there's no way that Romney even has a fighting chance against Paul... There's a reason that the media only gives Paul 2 minutes out of a 90 minute debate and cuts him off with commercials breaks, he's 50 IQ points above each of the other candidates. Given proper time to speak, he'll destroy Romney.

[Pink Spider]

[flappo]

i think ron paul is a very brave intelligent man

shame we don't have someone similar in uk politics