No one is stopping you from posting.

11/8/2007 3:59:53 PM

^^ Ha-ha. Perot did sound funny when he used to say that.

^ Who is that addressed to?

11/8/2007 4:54:53 PM

Quote :

"^ Yes, but the point was that if money made the candidate, Perot would have won--but he didn't. And he was a hell of a lot more popular than Paul is now."

Perot was self-funded and had very little in the area of campaign advisors or management (the two things I'm advocating Paul needs).

He also dropped out of the race mid-stream, made several HUGE blunders in speeches "You people" and picked a pretty terrible running-mate.

Also keep in mind he ran in the general election as an independent, NOT in the primaries. There's a HUGE fundamental difference there. If Paul ran as an independent in the general election, its VERY likely he would also recieve a pretty significant percentage of the vote, though I doubt he would win that way.

11/8/2007 5:54:14 PM

If Ron Paul ran as an independent, he'd have a very good chance of getting more than .47% of the vote this time around. He might even get a million votes.

But the reality is that he's a fringe candidate, and no amount of money is gonna change that. Fringe candidates don't win the presidency.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 6:17 PM. Reason : 2]

11/8/2007 6:16:44 PM

Quote :

"But the reality is that he's a fringe candidate, and no amount of money is gonna change that. Fringe candidates don't win the presidency."

How are you defining fringe?

11/8/2007 6:28:35 PM

Ron Paul fits every definition of a fringe candidate: polarizing, way outside of the mainstream, advocating radical solutions to current problems, driven by ideology, etc.

11/8/2007 6:34:52 PM

You could say EXACTLY the same thing about Hillary Clinton.

Fringe is only relative, and his opponents are war-hawks and tax & spend neocons.

11/8/2007 7:34:56 PM

^^I suppose there's nothing I can say to you that hasn't already been said before. When the constitution becomes "fringe," this country may be beyond help.

11/8/2007 7:41:35 PM

Im tired of supposin and im supposin i'll start a fixin

11/8/2007 7:58:42 PM

Quote :

"When the constitution becomes "fringe," this country may be beyond help. "

You said it.

The very tyranny the Founding Fathers sought to prevent is imposed upon the American people day after day. A tyranny brought not by a king in a foreign land..but by our own elected politicians.

This whole country is on the fringe, Ron Paul is merely trying to pull it back from the edge.

11/8/2007 8:24:02 PM

Even if you don't agree with him on everything (a perfectly sane option btw) you have to appreciate both his message and the manner in which he delivers it.

11/8/2007 8:52:12 PM

Quote :

"When the constitution becomes "fringe," this country may be beyond help."

11/8/2007 9:07:16 PM

So whats Ron's view on education, I've found lots on his support of home schools (which is great if thats your thing). What about on at least post K-12 as well as things like Pell grants.

11/8/2007 9:08:39 PM

Quote :

"you have to appreciate both his message and the manner in which he delivers it."

why exactly?

11/8/2007 9:15:08 PM

^^I'm fairly certain Paul believes that education should be privatized. While this works much better than the current public school system for the middle and upper class, poor urban areas would be in even deeper shit than they are now.

11/8/2007 11:01:08 PM

^no, he just thinks it's a state issue and not a Federal issue. He is all for public education and grants, just not on the federal level.

11/9/2007 1:33:25 AM

^Hmm... excellent. I just figured he would go with Libertarian policy on that one.

Just makes me support him more, actually, this is one of the aspects of Libertarian policy that I disagree most with.

11/9/2007 2:12:27 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul fits every definition of a fringe candidate: polarizing, way outside of the mainstream, advocating radical solutions to current problems, driven by ideology, etc."

Quote :

"You could say EXACTLY the same thing about Hillary Clinton."

Bullshit. Hillary is polarizing, although not as much as she used to be. She is pretty damn moderate nowadays, and her proposed solutions to current problems are very much in line with mainstream politics.

And unlike Ron Paul, she's no ideologue. You can actually see some thought going into her stances beyond "GOVERNMENT BAD! CONSTITUTION GOOD!", even if they are driven more by popularity than any actual convictions on her part.

11/9/2007 4:20:48 PM

Quote :

"You can actually see some thought going into her stances "

yeah, "what can I say to get the most votes", which you acknowledge

Quote :

"even if they are driven more by popularity than any actual convictions on her part. "

which means you must see that as a positive quality in a potential president?

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 4:26:08 PM

I'm not supporting Hillary, I'm just saying that she's mainstream and Ron Paul is a fringe ideologue. Don't spin my post to mean that I'm supporting her.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 4:32 PM. Reason : 2]

11/9/2007 4:27:05 PM

I didn't know the presidents job was to win popularity contests

11/9/2007 4:29:50 PM

How the fuck else are you gonna become president? It's a job requirement, by definition.

11/9/2007 4:33:15 PM

but lying isn't.

11/9/2007 4:37:10 PM

OK

The political reality is that elections are a popularity contest. Dr Paul's message resonates very well with a small portion of the population, and the rest of the country just kind of shrugs and moves on.

He's a sideshow.

11/9/2007 4:50:58 PM

I get your point, and it's nothing that the vast majority of paul supporters don't already know....

which is all the more reason that the level of support his campaign is getting is encouraging

11/9/2007 4:59:18 PM

Quote :

"And unlike Ron Paul, she's no ideologue. You can actually see some thought going into her stances beyond "GOVERNMENT BAD! CONSTITUTION GOOD!", even if they are driven more by popularity than any actual convictions on her part."

This is where your ignorance shows. Hillary is as much an ideologue as Ron Paul. She is socialist, he is libertarian.

Ron Paul has sound, real policy behind his ideological positions. You may not LIKE or AGREE WITH his solutions, but they are sound, researched and historically based. Implementation would not be easy or fast, but that in no way makes the position or belief bad.

11/9/2007 9:15:00 PM

^I agree with your point on Paul having things to back him up, but Hilary is hardly an ideologue. She goes with whatever her party is currently preaching at the time and seems likely to take a stance just to gain better public relations (like husband, like wife, eh?). This is not the kind of thing that someone who bases their actions on an ideology (read: an ideologue) would do.

11/9/2007 9:32:26 PM

Quote :

"Perot had a serious shot until he made a few big mistakes."

yeah, like dropping out of the race

Quote :

"[Hillary] is pretty damn moderate nowadays"

yeah, so she can get elected and then go hard left again.

And how you can say that Ron Paul hasn't thought about his positions is beyond me. Ron Paul is the only candidate who can support his position with anything more than "BE A PATRIOT!!! 9/11!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!" or "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!!" Jeez, man, take off your fucking blinders

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:12:20 PM

^he hit the nail on the head.

Hillary is the ultimate idealogue, she just also happens to be a fucking evil politician. What better way to spew forth your socialist agenda than to tell people whatever the fuck they way to hear to get into a position of power?

11/10/2007 12:13:46 AM

^^ I agree completely

Quote :

"yeah, so she can get elected and then go hard left again."

Not that i am a hillary fan but i think a lot of her "liberal" agenda is just a strategic move to garner votes. I fail to see her acting too far left as president given that her political ideologies are anything like Bill's. Bill after all was very conservative for a democrat. I'd categorize Bill as a "blue dog"

11/12/2007 2:29:08 PM

11/12/2007 2:47:41 PM

^ Nice. I might put my artistic abilities to good use and make some Ron Paul stencils. Anyone got a car I can paint?

11/12/2007 3:23:43 PM

Quote :

"This is where your ignorance shows. Hillary is as much an ideologue as Ron Paul. She is socialist, he is libertarian. "

I like Ron Paul too, but Hillary is by far not a socialist. She's as much a socialist as George W. Bush. (The only socialist running for President is Dennis Kucinich.) She is a Third Way politician from the DLC branch of the Democratic Party, that's the branch that thinks liberals are idiots that will never get elected nationally. The DLC was Joe Lieberman's wing of the party when he was still in (and who the DLC supported in the 2004 Democratic primaries).

11/12/2007 4:39:56 PM

^^
I'm gonna order an ink stamper $$ $$


^

Quote :

""The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)] "It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933] "There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war." [Benito Mussolini] "Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position." [Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936] "Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party] "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone] "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993] "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A] "I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" Hillary in 1996. "I think it does take a village to raise a child" Hillary on C-SPAN in 2005. "We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" [Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her health care plan.]"

11/12/2007 6:01:13 PM

Quote :

"If Ron Paul ran as an independent, he'd have a very good chance of getting more than .47% of the vote this time around. He might even get a million votes."

Prawn Star

You're right--and if Paul wants to stay in this, that's what he'll have to do. I mean, he's a RINO anyway.

I have been seeing a lot of Ron Paul bumper stickers around; his support seems to be widespread but thin. Paul could--and likely will--pull a Perot-esque maneuver as the general election nears, though.

11/12/2007 6:09:10 PM

^ Doubtful. He's already ran as a third-party candidate in the 1988 presidential election, and said it's not something he wishes to repeat.

And since when was being small government make one a RINO? If anyone's a RINO, it's President Bush for spending with wreckless abandon and being a don't-tax-and-still-spend fiscal liberal that believes government will solve all problems.

^^^ I can find those types of quotes Hillary said for most any other politician. Doesn't make them a socialist. You're letting your hatred for Hillary get in the way of your common sense. She's not going to be a good president from our point of view, but that doesn't make her a socialist.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 7:02 PM. Reason : /]

11/12/2007 6:43:38 PM

Holy shit this thread has devolved into a libertarian circle-jerk

11/12/2007 8:50:11 PM

Better than a neoconservative knee-jerk, I guess.

11/12/2007 10:38:28 PM

Quote :

"Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks. "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote. Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said. Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." "

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php

Supposedly taken from an article in the Houston Chronicle from 1992. If true, he's pretty fucked. Apparently it led to this:

Quote :

" White Supremacists Rallying Around Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign by: Todd A. Heywood Monday (11/12) at 07:16 AM Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul, whose long-shot campaign has been gaining media attention in recent days, apparently has the support of an unusual constituency -- the white supremacist movement. Stormfront.org, a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul's bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president."

http://michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404

11/12/2007 10:53:12 PM

How do the Libertarians in this thread explain away this christian conservative paranoid psycho-babble from Ron Paul?

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm

Quote :

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that shit came from Pat Robertson. And all this noise about "elitists" and "secularists" sounds suspiciously like the ramblings of Salisburyboy and his globalist paranoia.

11/12/2007 10:55:54 PM

^^Great, so now he has the support of white supremacists along with the 9/11 whackos...

11/13/2007 1:50:13 AM

^^^He's not fucked.

Those comments are taken COMPLETELY out of context. Which, as usual, is how white supremicists fuck shit up.

If you look at Dr. Paul's writings and speeches, he has consistently pointed out how the criminal justice system, as well as social welfare systems both target and repress minorities.

His POINT in your bolded commentary above is, that YES in Metro DC (and many urban areas in the US) blacks, particularly black men commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. That is CAUSED in part by the repression of minorities by social systems, as well as the inequality of the criminal justice system.

Don't forget Dr. Paul is one of the few republican who even showed up to the PBS All-American Presidential Forum, at Morgan State University, hosted by Tavis Smiley. Also, that the ONLY political position he has flip flopped on has been capital punishment, because of the lack of equal representation and fair trials for minorities convicted to death.

^There are tons of wackos that support him, because they are too fucking stupid to understand context or larger themes. Luckily for us, Dr. Paul isn't one of them.

[Edited on November 13, 2007 at 1:59 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2007 1:55:43 AM

Quote :

"I can find those types of quotes Hillary said for most any other politician. Doesn't make them a socialist. You're letting your hatred for Hillary get in the way of your common sense. She's not going to be a good president from our point of view, but that doesn't make her a socialist"

first, you're wrong. "most....other politicians" aren't quoted saying those things.

second, the ones that are don't prove anything except they too, like hitlary, are socialist

third, I don't hate her. did I say that? oh wait, no, you just assumed it because of your political immaturity

lastly, who said that her prospect of not being a "good president from our point of view" makes her socialist?

I sure didn't. would you mind telling us who's post to which that was referring?

the reason she is socialist is because she wants to implement socialism.

she advocates socialist "solutions", pushes socialist policies and has a clear anti-individual attitude

she is a socialist. period.

and no, I'm not gonna give examples and argue this because anyone who doesn't recognize it is an idiot




[Edited on November 13, 2007 at 7:33 AM. Reason :

Quote :

"I mean, he's a RINO anyway."

uh, no]

11/13/2007 7:31:10 AM

Quote :

"first, you're wrong. "most....other politicians" aren't quoted saying those things. second, the ones that are don't prove anything except they too, like hitlary, are socialist third, I don't hate her. did I say that? oh wait, no, you just assumed it because of your political immaturity lastly, who said that her prospect of not being a "good president from our point of view" makes her socialist? I sure didn't. would you mind telling us who's post to which that was referring? the reason she is socialist is because she wants to implement socialism. she advocates socialist "solutions", pushes socialist policies and has a clear anti-individual attitude she is a socialist. period. and no, I'm not gonna give examples and argue this because anyone who doesn't recognize it is an idiot"

You're confusing pandering with actual policy. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group on the Democratic Party's rightward wing that has openly stated that left-wingers are out of touch with middle America and will never be elected nationally. The DLC are typical of politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, which practice triangulation more than any type of ideology. There are Democrats out there that despise Hillary because she "is running as a Republican in the Democratic field". Their words, not mine. I don't like Hillary, but she's not a socialist. The only socialist running is Dennis Kucinich. Compare the views of Dennis Kucinich to Hillary Clinton, and there are sharp differences.

If you don't agree with that, so be it, I have better things to do then argue semantics.

[Edited on November 13, 2007 at 7:49 AM. Reason : /]

11/13/2007 7:42:05 AM

Quote :

"Those comments are taken COMPLETELY out of context."

Do you have the original newsletter? Because I was looking for that but only found the Houston Chronicle thing.

Quote :

"Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.""

It's hard to imagine this quote sounding good in any context.

11/13/2007 8:07:45 AM

^ while politically incorrect, it is statistically factual. Sucks that it has to be that way, but those are the sorts of facts that people who genuinely care about reconciliation between the races are going to have to start facing.

Quote :

"Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation "would explain certain mysteries" about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia."

Would anyone in TSB honestly be surprised if WJC did a few lines in the oval office? I wouldn't. I'm not sure I care if he did.

Quote :

"But, hey, Paul's paranoia isn't limited to African-Americans. He fears the Joooooooos, too: Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

Again, not entirely incorrect. Being anti-Zionist is hardly anti-Semetic. Unless you're a neo-conservative who is wholly on board with Israel. You know the kind of guy who would start a blog with: "That blame-America, 18th-century isolationist thinking appeals to a large subset of the voting population, and for the past week we have been treated to an avalanche of paeans to Ron Paul in the blogosphere."

Part of the reason Ron Paul is so popular is that he is out-spoken. I don't for a moment remotely believe that he is electable to the presidency, but he is the only outspoken candidate who is effective in making his voice heard in the debates and doesn't cowtow to the party line. I mean, seriously, if the election comes down to a liberal Republican from New York vs. a "conservative" Democrat from New York, I'll vote RP as a third party just in protest.

11/13/2007 8:23:33 AM

^I did find the "He's against the Jews" argument a bit weak.

11/13/2007 8:25:53 AM

Quote :

"How do the Libertarians in this thread explain away this christian conservative paranoid psycho-babble from Ron Paul?"

Well let's print a little more from the article you used, shall we?

Quote :

"Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration? The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

11/13/2007 10:42:12 AM

Quote :

"Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."

Oh rly? Thats funny Dr. Paul, last time I read the Constitution I couldn't find a single reference to god.

11/13/2007 10:51:45 AM

^

Quote :

"...done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...."

11/13/2007 12:13:24 PM