Everyone really needs to focus on the issues and rally behind Ron Paul this year.

This isn't the year to fall for a social conservative or a big spending liberal.

The USA simply can not afford it.

If we even make it to November 2012 we are going to need someone who can right the ship immediately, because it's significantly less than 50-50 we make it to 2016 without suffering a major breakdown in our standard of living.

5/8/2011 11:15:12 PM

about as likely to succeed as bitcoin

5/9/2011 8:27:24 AM

^^ Someone's been drinking the apocalypse kool-aid

5/9/2011 1:52:30 PM

Fewer calories than the cynicism kool-aid.

5/9/2011 2:03:11 PM

Someone's been drinking the McRecovery kool aid.

5/9/2011 2:27:35 PM

Quote :

"The time is right. No one has the fund raising ability that Ron Paul does."

Oh come on, you should be cynical enough to realize this isn't true. What kickbacks would Ron Paul ever give the people who REALLY have the money to throw around?

I mean, a few thousand neckbeards can't compete with the Chamber of Commerce.

Quote :

"If being a skeptic is to be discouraged, while being a complacent bonehead that believes anything fed to them by the media is acceptable, then I suppose that's a sad commentary on our society."

Well, it's not like we know each other, but if anyone has reason to distrust certain "trusted" government programs, it's me. Here's a surprise: I voted for the Libertarian candidate in my district last year solely because he was the only candidate against tort reform and liability restrictions. I'm actually VERY libertarian on the issue of product liability. Not since the FDA was taken over by industry. I'd rather have the courts to defend myself than trust them. Unfortunately, North Carolina has decided that pharma constitutes a protected class and they're trying to use the theory that the FDA protects us to trick people into giving away their right to sue.

But Alex Jones is Bat Shit Fucking Stupid.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : x]

5/9/2011 4:06:01 PM

I really should have specified that no one on the GOP side has the fund raising ability of Ron Paul. Some estimates are saying Obama could have a war chest of up to one billion; he has the full support of the banks and powerful corporations that think they have something to gain by keeping him in office. And, you are right that Ron Paul isn't promising to give "kickbacks" to his supporters.

The grassroots network that supports Ron Paul, the "liberty movement" if you will, is what gives him the edge over other GOP contenders. There are hundreds of thousands that are not only willing to donate their time and money to the effort, but are pretty engaged in day to day education that has to happen in order to see any real change take place. Guys like Santorum and Pawlenty have no infrastructure in place like that, because they don't stand for anything. No one supports Ron Paul because he's especially suave or attractive, but because he's one of the only guys willing to be honest about what he believes and what needs to be done.

The one million dollar money bomb that occurred on May 6th is trivial compared to what's coming. Let's see Romney garner that kind of individual donor support.

Quote :

"Well, it's not like we know each other, but if anyone has reason to distrust certain "trusted" government programs, it's me. Here's a surprise: I voted for the Libertarian candidate in my district last year solely because he was the only candidate against tort reform and liability restrictions. I'm actually VERY libertarian on the issue of product liability. Not since the FDA was taken over by industry. I'd rather have the courts to defend myself than trust them. Unfortunately, North Carolina has decided that pharma constitutes a protected class and they're trying to use the theory that the FDA protects us to trick people into giving away their right to sue."

The entire idea that corporations should have limited liability is offensive to me. LLCs are probably the most clear cut example of how corporatism is a mainstay in U.S. law.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2011 4:19:33 PM

So why can't he ever seem to translate that to votes?

I mean, he had all that money last time and got under 10% in New Hampshire of all places.

And there's no poll that puts him up against the rest of the field that has him above around 5%.

It's the same sort of bunker mentality you see in any insurgent movement within a party. The progressive left has the same problem.

There's a country full of people that you probably think are too dumb to see the light the way you are that don't give a shit about doctrinaire Austrian Economics Real Ultimate Liberty that vote GOP and outnumber your people by a lot. They just don't show up to rallies or post on message boards.

5/9/2011 4:27:50 PM

Quote :

"I mean, he had all that money last time and got under 10% in New Hampshire of all places. And there's no poll that puts him up against the rest of the field that has him above around 5%."

Not true. That CNN poll I posted shows Paul and Gingrich tied at 10% (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/).

Paul also polls better against Obama than any other contender. I suspect that this is due to Paul's anti-corporatist/anti-militarist views that may draw votes from liberals.

Don't get me wrong: this isn't going to be easy. Paul is still largely marginalized by Fox News;it was widely broadcast that Herman Cain "won the debate," as determined by Fox News famously unbiased focus groups. The "racist newsletters" will come up again. Should it come out that Ron Paul is on track to become the GOP nominee, some very powerful organizations (read: banking cartel, military industrial complex) will throw their weight behind Obama. They're not trying to see the party come to an end this soon.

5/9/2011 5:11:57 PM

fuck nevermind

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : fake story about ron paul running with ralph nader]

5/9/2011 5:18:56 PM

I don't know if that would work, but it's close to a viable pair. I saw them appear on a show together a couple of months ago and they were very much echoing each other on many of the issues.

5/9/2011 5:53:31 PM

Ron Paul officially launched his campaign today. You can see his announcement here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS10Xap4C9w

As someone whose views mostly align with Ron Paul's, even I am surprised at how bold he has become. He is not skirting around the truth; he is plainly putting it out on the table in a way that anyone can understand it. Momentum has been building since 2008. We cannot afford another Obama term or a GOP establishment guy. The wars have to end now. The endless spending and money creation have to end now. The assault on our personal freedoms have to end now.

5/13/2011 10:51:01 AM

Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid

5/13/2011 11:02:51 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid"

What's your point? It was an extremely risky maneuver. Even administration officials have stated there was a 50-50 chance it would fail. That it (supposedly) succeeded doesn't excuse the fact that we, yet again, performed an illegal assassination in another country, without their consent.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2011 11:06:05 AM

Ron Paul rightly uses the example that, even in the case of Nazi officers that were responsible for the deaths of thousands, we caught them, tried them, and then executed them. The same should have been done with Bin Laden.

The idea that, if someone's crimes are severe enough, we should just skip the judicial process and execute them outright, is completely antithetical to the rule of law.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 11:13:12 AM

my point wasn't that his comment was right or wrong.

but his timing is absurd.

i feel for the guy.

5/13/2011 12:05:48 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul rightly uses the example that, even in the case of Nazi officers that were responsible for the deaths of thousands, we caught them, tried them, and then executed them. The same should have been done with Bin Laden."

And that is a stupid comparison. Those officers surrendered peacefully. Bin Laden began a firefight and refused to cooperate while in hostile territory. It's amazing to me anyone would even try to make that comparison.

5/13/2011 12:55:56 PM

...except Bin Laden didn't start a fire fight. That has been confirmed multiple times by the administration.

5/13/2011 1:22:38 PM

It's pretty obvious this was an assassination mission.

Quote :

"Briefing media on the rules of engagement applied by the US Navy Seals, the aide said: "He would have had to have been naked for them to allow him to surrender.""

5/13/2011 1:24:59 PM

the safety pin on his diaper popping was mistaken for a gunshot.

5/13/2011 1:25:24 PM

Quote :

"...except Bin Laden didn't start a fire fight. That has been confirmed multiple times by the administration."

He was in a compound with armed guards who fired on the Navy SEALs. What exactly do you call that?

Quote :

"It's pretty obvious this was an assassination mission."

It's been stated several times in the media that he refused to surrender as well.

5/13/2011 1:38:09 PM

Quote :

"The idea that, if someone's crimes are severe enough, we should just skip the judicial process and execute them outright, is completely antithetical to the rule of law."

OK, putting aside your assumption that this operation was created as a disguise for an assassination attempt; targeted killing of high-value enemy combatants is fully compliant with the Fourth Geneva Convention. Not even your version of events is illegal.

5/13/2011 2:04:05 PM

^
What does it say about performing said targeted killing in another country without their permission?

5/13/2011 2:08:36 PM

It says look it up yourself.

5/13/2011 2:15:40 PM

Quote :

"He was in a compound with armed guards who fired on the Navy SEALs. What exactly do you call that?"

That was in an entirely different building.

Quote :

"It's been stated several times in the media that he refused to surrender as well."

The assault team had guns and armor...Bin Laden didn't. How do you "refuse to surrender" under those circumstances?

5/13/2011 2:56:51 PM

If this were an assassination...

Why wasn't there a consensus among Obama's staff and the military regarding the events?
Why were the administration's responses so utterly haphazard?
Why did the administration voluntarily offer corrections without being prompted?
Why didn't the seals just plant some evidence to make circumstance adhere to a prepared narrative?

Why did this thread get so derailed?

5/13/2011 3:47:43 PM

Quote :

"That was in an entirely different building."

Like I just said, it was in the same compound. Hell the guy had guns right next to him.

Quote :

"The assault team had guns and armor...Bin Laden didn't."

Bullshit. Osama had guns, what you think he sold them all?
When the commandos reach Bin Laden’s room on the third floor, an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol are seen in arm’s reach of Bin Laden.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/asia/abbottabad-map-of-where-osama-bin-laden-was-killed.html

Quote :

"How do you "refuse to surrender" under those circumstances?"

Most people in the world would readily realize that if you are or are in a compound with the world's most wanted terrorist you have an extremely high chance of being killed if you do anything other than immediately lay unarmed face down on the floor. Saddam probably realized this, thus why he was not killed. How is this rocket science or in any way debated? The seals were on dangerous ground and had just crashed a helicopter, they risk their life with every second they are there, if you don't immediately comply, you should expect to be killed.

5/13/2011 6:45:01 PM

It's Osama bin Laden...who gives a shit what the circumstances and details are, as long as he's dead? I don't give a fuck if he was in neutral Switzerland, helping an old lady across the street while on his way to deliver kittens to orphans. Smoke that motherfucker.

5/13/2011 6:48:24 PM

That's an emotionally driven argument. Think about it objectively. The point of the law is that we apply it equally, across the board, even to people charged with the most heinous of crimes. If a domestic terrorist here was confronted by a SWAT team but he was completely unarmed and defenseless, we would expect him to be arrested and tried in a court of law. If that wasn't what was supposed to happen, then we wouldn't bother talking about justice, we'd just have government death squads running around.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 7:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 6:57:04 PM

Osama bin Laden was not a criminal wanted domestically within the United States. He was not an American citizen or subject to the associated protections. Osama bin Laden was an enemy military leader, and rated nothing more than being killed on sight at the earliest opportunity. There was no doubt whatsoever that his actions over the last 2+ decades justified his killing. The CIA had a task force dedicated to hunting this one man for the last 15 years, during which he had continuously slipped away and dodged out attempts to kill him. We had motherfucking Navy warships stationed in place for the purpose of killing this one dude all the way back in the late-90s.

We finally got the chance to take him out; I'll be damned if there was anything wrong about killing OBL in the manner in which we did.

yes, rule of law, i get it, i assure you. The only thing we've done wrong here is not shutting the fuck up about the details of the raid.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 7:05:10 PM

My point is that you question the intentions of those soldiers when you clearly know little about the actual situation they were in, and you also expect them to unnecessarily risk their lives trying to capture an uncooperative terrorist. Navy seals are trained to kill in a situation like that no matter who it is. If you don't cooperate, you die. This is common knowledge for any other human being with any kind of connection to reality, which it seems you lack.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 7:06:34 PM

Even besides that, we have tried to kill him many, many times in the past, even before 9/11. No need to capture him at this point, from a standpoint of bringing him to justice. The only reason to capture him could have been for intelligence exploitation.

5/13/2011 7:11:29 PM

I thought Fridays were news dump days for things that people will overlook while enjoying their weekend or something?

5/13/2011 9:18:33 PM

this is still relevant: http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/

5/13/2011 10:32:54 PM

We could have substantive debate, but you'd rather distract people away from that with non-issues. Why is that? Are you afraid of having a frank discussion about the problems we face as a country and how to deal with them?

5/15/2011 7:25:34 PM

debate? paultards are nothing but RP talking points machines.

5/15/2011 9:19:26 PM

^^sorry d00d, but as soon as I learned that PRON HAUL was a racist (even opposing the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks as frivolous spending and against her "spirit," even though the real Rosa Parks testified before congress that she was fine with it, and even though the cost of production was more than made back by the sale of replicas) who believed the Constitution established a Christian nation, opposed free-trade agreements, and asked for already-appropriated funds to be siphoned over to his district while claiming to have never requested an earmark...I got over him

it also didn't help that he was endorsed by numerous white-supremacist groups

5/15/2011 9:41:48 PM

I don't think that Ron Paul is a racist or an opponent of free trade.

5/15/2011 9:45:02 PM

Funny, I think he is a racist and it's ironically the only value he has that he's willing to compromise for political gain.

5/15/2011 11:58:55 PM

I'm glad you dislike racists. I guess you are going to renounce Castro and the Soviets too?

5/16/2011 12:24:59 AM

Quote :

"even opposing the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks as frivolous spending and against her "spirit," even though the real Rosa Parks testified before congress that she was fine with it, and even though the cost of production was more than made back by the sale of replicas"

Do you not get what it means to be a principled constitutionalist? It means not voting for legislation that is unconstitutional, even if it's well intentioned. The point of him voting against that medal was not to devalue her efforts; Congress is not given the authority to issue medals.

Quote :

"who believed the Constitution established a Christian nation"

You're making this up. Remember that the founders wanted a secular nation. Ron Paul may very well have some values that don't line up with mine, but his entire platform is to have the federal government doing much, much less.

Quote :

"opposed free-trade agreements"

Surely you understand the difference between free trade and free trade agreements? Free trade doesn't require legislation. Free trade agreements are typically packed with protectionist or mercantilist measures.

Quote :

"asked for already-appropriated funds to be siphoned over to his district while claiming to have never requested an earmark"

His goal is to bring as much money back to his district as possible, but he'd rather so much not be taken by force to begin with.

Quote :

"it also didn't help that he was endorsed by numerous white-supremacist groups"

I'm sure we could find some pretty questionable people that supported Obama, as well. How can you judge a person based on a tiny fraction of their supporters?

5/16/2011 1:08:19 AM

Quote :

"I'm glad you dislike racists. I guess you are going to renounce Castro and the Soviets too?"

Whoa there, I said I dislike ONE racist, I didn't say anything about all racists. Some of my best friends are racists!

But regardless, my opinion of racists has nothing to do with Ron Paul being one.

5/16/2011 9:57:01 AM

^I just finished his book. I wish he had a real chance of winning.

Kris, after just finishing Paul's book, it seems he favors INDIVIDUAL rights over GROUP rights. And no one group should have preference by the govt or in law. It is hard to not agree with that statement. With what we have now, the govt rewards some groups who lobby them for benefits that are provided by others. Which violates ones rights. But it also creates tension between groups as they see themselves as missing out on the giveaways. I was listening to a radio show and people were calling in complaining about Tricare rates going up. People were saying our govt was choosing to pay for illegals vs old service member. No one called in to represent the taxpayer though.

5/16/2011 10:51:59 AM

Its a shame he is so old, he really has no chance. If he was 30 years younger......

5/16/2011 2:39:42 PM

i love the forgot about Dre. reference above

Quote :

"Osama had guns, what you think he sold them all?"

Quote :

"Now you wanna run around and talk about guns like I ain't got none, what, do you think I sold them all?"

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 3:52 PM. Reason : quote]

5/16/2011 3:51:54 PM

^^ ...he would still have no chance.

5/16/2011 5:16:01 PM

Don't listen to the haters in the media. Ron is up to 10% in the latest poll, and if you remove palin he is a close 2nd to romney. Cain and bachmann supporters are ultimately potential Paul voters too.

Paul polls closer to Obama than any other conservative. He is truly the great white hope!

5/26/2011 9:08:05 AM

So my choices are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin?

/shoots self in head.

5/26/2011 10:27:28 AM

There's always Obama, he's not crazy, a mormon, or a psycho bitch.

5/26/2011 11:24:30 AM

If Obama isn't crazy, he's at least incompetent or a victim of mass delusion - sort of like you.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM. Reason : HEY GUISE, U.S. BONDS ARE AS GOOD AS GOLD - YOU KNOW WE'RE GOOD FOR IT LOL]

5/26/2011 11:30:57 AM