Interesting. I would find it very, very weird for anybody to decorate their ballot with magic-markers. I find it odd that you don't find it odd, but i find a lot of your thoughts to be odd.

[Edited on October 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2012 2:18:09 PM

You just have to put yourself in their shoes to understand.



1) They believe their vote doesn't count
2) They don't care at this point whether it counts or not because the RNC was fraudulent and a farce and anything left of the election process is tainted either way.

3) They want to attract attention to themselves and to ballot counters that the voters believe the system is rigged. If it's not rigged, they need to do a better job at being transparent and prove to us that elections aren't rigged.

What's the best way to harmlessly and innocently attract attention than to color your ballot?

10/29/2012 2:25:16 PM

That bitch that's censoring Ron Paul supporters can be found here.
Joan Trombetta Clendenin
https://www.facebook.com/joanclendenin

11/8/2012 1:36:56 AM

So?

11/8/2012 10:01:35 AM

...

So is someone going to make the Ron Paul 2016 thread now?

11/8/2012 10:03:29 AM

Ron Paul's career, at least in politics, is over. It was a damn good run.

Rand Paul, his less idealistic (and obviously younger) son, is well positioned for a 2016 run. He endorsed Romney, so he wasn't alienated from the GOP, and he can appeal to the traditional Republican base.

11/8/2012 10:10:46 AM

Doesn't Rand Paul have more of the Tea Party in him than his father does?

11/8/2012 10:14:57 AM

Arguably, Rand Paul started the "tea party" movement. These day, I think "tea party" is a lazy catch all; it isn't a cohesive movement. Politicians associate themselves with the tea party when they think it appeals to voters, but there is no "tea party platform".

Most of the pundits are saying that this is a rejected of the "radical" elements of the Republican party. I might agree, depending on what radical actually is. Unfortunately, I think anyone that so much as suggests current or next year budget cuts, a balanced budget amendment, or anything like that is going to get labeled as radical. You're allowed to support cuts, as long as they're cuts to the projected budget 10 years out.

11/8/2012 10:42:00 AM

On the other hand, Rand Paul is a colossal idiot, so yeah, he'll be a contender in 2016.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 10:55:28 AM

Quote :

"I think anyone that so much as suggests current or next year budget cuts, a balanced budget amendment, or anything like that is going to get labeled as radical. You're allowed to support cuts, as long as they're cuts to the projected budget 10 years out."

A balanced budget amendment is radical as shit and remarkably stupid. When you're trying protect yourself from a bomb, you don't just rip out wires willy-nilly XX% across the board and expect it to quietly defuse. The very idea of it is proof positive of just how fucking little conservatives think about the crap they say, that things just reduce down to "Less spending = better America."

Of course, the normal response from a conservative on this issue is something to the tune of "What? You think there's something WRONG with balancing the budget?" and sidestep my point entirely.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 10:57:05 AM

Ron Paul supporters will never give up Ron Paul's legacy.
We will never forget how we were mistreated and how the party broke it's own rules as created new rules illegally to keep us from winning.


The entire nomination process was a giant show. The entire process was a coronation to Romney than a process to pick a presidential nominee. We knew back in October that Romney was going to be the nominee and ultimately lose to Obama. How did we know? We already got the script!

We were about to overthrow the script using the Republic until the fraud started happening every which way we turned. The justice system even shut the doors on us.

This country is in crazy trouble.

11/8/2012 11:03:24 AM

Quote :

"Of course, the normal response from a conservative on this issue is something to the tune of "What? You think there's something WRONG with balancing the budget?" and sidestep my point entirely. "

Nah. The idea is that the budget will eventually balance itself when foreign demand for U.S. debt drops. Then you have mandatory, draconian cuts. It'd be a lot better to deliberately make the cuts while we can control what stays and what goes.

As much as American liberals (correctly) whine about Republicans not acknowledge facts, they won't acknowledge the facts when it comes to the budget. Even if we were to eliminate 100% of discretionary spending, we'd still be way in the hole. There's no one that is willing to address that fundamental problem.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2012 11:10:49 AM

Quote :

"The very idea of it is proof positive of just how fucking little conservatives think about the crap they say, that things just reduce down to "Less spending = better America.""

Where do the conservatives want to spend less?

11/8/2012 11:12:47 AM

There was no script, the emperor has no clothes and never did. You guys were fucking morons who didn't understand the GOP from the beginning. A party in which your types are not welcome shut you down, big fucking surprise.

Seriously, all throughout the primary the GOP was split between Romney and The Crazy Ones (Bachmann, Caine, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich), with Paul never getting more than 10-15%, ever, the entire time.

Did you really think, a former Bachmann supporter would see things Ron Paul's way, where 9/11 was blowback and abortion should be left to the States? Or maybe a Gingrich supporter who's happy to have a new war in Iran, is going to be down with Paul's anti-militarism?

You guys tried to appeal to a party that wanted nothing to do with you, because you stupidly believed that their rhetoric actually represented anything about their behavior. They muscled you out of their own primary process (Nothing illegal about it, sorry, it's intra-party politics and has nothing to do with "The Republic"). I mean, you feel smart now saying the GOP doesn't do what they say they stand for, but the reason we all laughed at you is because liberals have understood this for literally decades.

11/8/2012 11:13:54 AM

Lol, you're a joke just like how you named yourself. Everything you said was taken at an audience's point of view.

11/8/2012 11:15:14 AM

Maybe Ron Paul supporters will realize he is a 3rd party candidate now?

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : i.e. his platform doesn't fit in the GOP's]

11/8/2012 11:15:45 AM

Quote :

"Where do the conservatives want to spend less?"

I'm talking about their rhetoric and their extremists (Who actually would, given power)

Quote :

"As much as American liberals (correctly) whine about Republicans not acknowledge facts, they won't acknowledge the facts when it comes to the budget. Even if we were to eliminate 100% of discretionary spending, we'd still be way in the hole. There's no one that is willing to address that fundamental problem."

Read this back to yourself again, think about the actual human beings who are affected by things like "Eliminating 100% of discretionary spending" and try to understand why a balanced budget amendment would be stupid as hell. What do you think happens to the economy when 2% of GDP suddenly stops being spent? Actions have consequences, and you don't disarm a bomb by just grabbing a fistful of wires and yanking them out.

11/8/2012 11:16:48 AM

Quote :

"What do you think happens to the economy when 2% of GDP suddenly stops being spent?"

Well that's optimistic.

11/8/2012 11:18:10 AM

Quote :

"Maybe Ron Paul supporters will realize he is a 3rd party candidate now? [Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : i.e. his platform doesn't fit in the GOP's]"

Maybe dtownral will do his homework and realize that Ron Paul is the definition of what GOP's original platform was....



fat chance. dtownral will never do his homework.

11/8/2012 11:18:40 AM

Quote :

"Lol, you're a joke just like how you named yourself."

No man, you're a fucking joke. From what I've gathered through the grapevine, you're the ex owner of a failed pizza shop who now spends day and night reading Ron Paul forums and posting on this message board, and believe because of a bunch of shitty youtube videos and catchphrases that special little you is one of the few people on Earth who's got the dirt on the puppet-string-pullers that govern the entire planet secretly. It's a hilariously pathetic defense mechanism that you've probably thrown up because you feel like a largely insignificant, inconsequential, and worthless person, so the only way to give yourself any more self-esteem is to immerse yourself in this delusion of self-importance.

11/8/2012 11:18:58 AM

Sorry, I called you it first.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason : fuck, wait.. YOU CALLED YOURSELF IT FIRST ]

11/8/2012 11:20:17 AM

Quote :

"Maybe dtownral will do his homework and realize that Ron Paul is the definition of what GOP's original platform was...."

The GOP is a club, and the Ron Paul faction got thrown out. You aren't going to be let in. Get over it.

11/8/2012 11:21:30 AM

Quote :

"Well that's optimistic."

Total deficit is somewhere around 9% I believe, but yeah, let's just yank that out of the economy for the sake of a balanced budget amendment. Great fucking idea clearly coming from a level-headed, informed individual with Very Serious concerns about Fiscal Responsibility (serious face).

11/8/2012 11:21:38 AM

Quote :

"The GOP is a club, and the Ron Paul faction got thrown out. You aren't going to be let in. Get over it."

This is ignorant. Why? Because we're still in the party.

11/8/2012 11:23:14 AM

You can actually go out into the world and do something again, GeniusXBoy. You don't have to sit here and derive self worth by telling yourself you're in on the big secret and everyone else are just dumb sheeple. If there's a grand cabal controlling the planet, I have some news for you: Some bumpkin pizza shop ex-owner isn't going to figure it out by casually browsing youtube and webforums.

You can actually do something with yourself instead of just letting your delusions of grandeur grow. You don't have to be a tremendously stupid pile of shit, you can read books, learn skills, contribute to something.

11/8/2012 11:25:12 AM

My memory is vague, but I'm sure that of all people GeniuSxBoY will know what I'm talking about...

Didn't the Ron Paul delegates at one point actually get physically locked out of the RNC?

When someone kicks you out of their clubhouse they always start fairly amicably, then they get passive-aggressive.

11/8/2012 11:27:04 AM

Quote :

"Read this back to yourself again, think about the actual human beings who are affected by things like "Eliminating 100% of discretionary spending" and try to understand why a balanced budget amendment would be stupid as hell. What do you think happens to the economy when 2% of GDP suddenly stops being spent? Actions have consequences, and you don't disarm a bomb by just grabbing a fistful of wires and yanking them out."

You aren't getting it. I'm saying that even if we cut everything out of the one part of the budget that Congress can actually modify, we'd still be running a massive deficit. That means that the other parts of the budget have to be cut. There's no reform or restructuring of Medicare/SS that allows people to get what they've been getting while also addressing the budget.

This is what happens when you pay for present consumption with debt. Eventually, someone doesn't get something they were promised. Yes, actions have consequences, but issuing debt is an action too.

11/8/2012 11:29:40 AM

Quote :

"My memory is vague, but I'm sure that of all people GeniuSxBoY will know what I'm talking about... Didn't the Ron Paul delegates at one point actually get physically locked out of the RNC? When someone kicks you out of their clubhouse they always start fairly amicably, then they get passive-aggressive."

You make me cry because you are so ignorant.






They shut down the convention for ALL REPUBLICANS because the establishment is BOGUS.

11/8/2012 11:32:06 AM

Quote :

"You aren't getting it. I'm saying that even if we cut everything out of the one part of the budget that Congress can actually modify, we'd still be running a massive deficit."

I get it, you're talking past me because you're trying to shock me with the size of certain numbers that I already fucking know. Okay then, not just discretionary spending, but ALL deficit spending. We're looking then at 9% of GDP disappearing instead of 2%.

Quote :

"This is what happens when you pay for present consumption with debt. Eventually, someone doesn't get something they were promised. "

Sorry, but not really.



Sometimes, you can create a shit load of debt and spend it on things like a manufacturing base, infrastructure, and college educations for veterans, then simply pay it off over time as you reap the economic rewards of the investment.

Quote :

"Yes, actions have consequences, but issuing debt is an action too."

There is absolutely no universe in which sacrificing 9% of GDP in order to balance the budget for ideological purity is a good idea and better for the economy than just running on debt.

Seriously, destroyer, are you trolling or do you literally believe that a balanced budget amendment (Which would chop 9% off GDP if instituted now) would be better for the country than counter-cyclical deficit spending? Seriously. Like, for real, don't troll.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 11:34:50 AM

I understand that your basic premises are "Debt bad, sound money good, balanced budget good" but try for just one moment to connect your mind to the actual world existing in reality around you. You are suggesting a balanced budget amendment in a forum, and someone who is remotely informed is responding to you, this isn't a conversation going on entirely inside your mind, this is real.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 11:39:16 AM

Don't be an Eaton Bush moron, Str8Foolish

I don't want to have to make a thread regarding you like this one:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=632364




You are arguing that the money we your people blew on wars was an investment that we will recieve a return on.
You are arguing that the money we your people blew on the banks was an investment that we will receive a return on.
You are arguing that the money we your people blew on Solyndra and GM and the other failed/failing businesses we will receive a return on.
You are arguing that the money that's lost and gone and we're still in a recession heading for another bubbleburst as something we are going to get a return on.
You are arguing that the FED printing money to pick up the slack of virtually zero interest in foreign countries buying our debt is an investment that we will receive a return on.

11/8/2012 11:43:10 AM

I'm not arguing any of those things actually. Destroyer is arguing for a balanced budget amendment, AKA, all deficit spending is bad. I'm arguing it can sometimes be good, that's not the same as arguing that our current deficit spending is good. I know this is very complicated for you logically, that somebody can support deficit spending without supporting specific deficit spending. Think of it like this: Just because you are a Republican doesn't mean you support the current Republicans.

But please, make a thread for me. I'm sure it will go very, very well for you. You are, after all, a very well respected and generally admired poster, well known for your informed, reasonable, consistent opinions on a variety of topics on which you clearly demonstrate your competence over and over again.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 11:45:34 AM

Quote :

"Maybe dtownral will do his homework and realize that Ron Paul is the definition of what GOP's original platform was.... fat chance. dtownral will never do his homework."

uh, hey genius

part of the whole point is how the party has moved on and left these guys behind. so you keep pointing this out, but we are all way past this point in the discussion. his views are not modern GOP views, these guys are a third party now.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM. Reason : autocorrect]

11/8/2012 11:47:44 AM

The funniest part is how he thinks the party moved on fairly recently, ahahahaha

11/8/2012 11:48:47 AM

Just for shits, GeniusXBoy, why don't you tell us what the GOP's original platform was.

11/8/2012 11:53:05 AM

All debt spending IS bad and risky.

It's not impossible to be successful by going into debt. Heck, I went into debt to buy my business (which I still run and operate and have already paid off) however HAD I failed, I would be the slave to the system probably for the rest of my life.

The only reason I took the path of debt is because it's the only way to get ahead in our system. It would take me 40 years to save enough money at a minimum wage to make the amount that I borrowed. Yet, it only took 4 years to pay off what I borrowed with my business.

This is only possible if you are jewish with your money, which means to skimp whereever possible, reuse whatever you can, don't waste anything, have strict control over your finances.


The complete opposite is true for the United States. We the people have never once audited the Federal Reserve. These people can and HAVE printed money without us knowing about it. We know this is a fact now because of inflation.

11/8/2012 11:53:33 AM

Quote :

"part of the whole point is how the party has moved on and left these guys behind. so you keep pointing this out, but we are all way past this point in the discussion. his views are not modern GOP views, these guys are a third party now. The funniest part is how he thinks the party moved on fairly recently, ahahahaha Just for shits, GeniusXBoy, why don't you tell us what the GOP's original platform was."

Limited Government
Tight Fiscal Control and Discipline
Against all forms of welfare
Free Enterprise
No nation building
No preemptive strikes
Non-interventionists

11/8/2012 12:00:24 PM

... and you don't see how they have moved on from that, how those things are not their core anymore? not even some of those things?

11/8/2012 12:04:13 PM

Quote :

"All debt spending IS bad and risky."

Then every mortgage, every college loan, every business loan, and the entire fucking history of Capitalism itself must be bad and risky. \

Quote :

"It's not impossible to be successful by going into debt. Heck, I went into debt to buy my business"

Stop. We're talking about governments with central banks, not a pizza shop. Going into debt to start a pizza shop has jack shit to do with the role of debt in a national context. I've gone into debt multiple times for my education, paid it off each time using the expanded earnings afterwards, but I'm not trying to justify debt on those grounds, because it's simply a weak analogy. I can't print my own currency, I can't sell bonds.

Quote :

"The complete opposite is true for the United States. We the people have never once audited the Federal Reserve."

Shut up with the "we the people stuff", it only works on other numbskulls like you and not on people who are looking for substance instead of style and catchphrases.

There's a reason we don't audit the Fed: Because as soon as political winds lead to an audit, its credibility on the world market suffers regardless of the outcome of the audit. The entire point of separating the Fed from the government is so it can pursue long-term stability without being jerked back and forth by politics. That's what businessmen, bankers, and regular people want: A monetary regime that you predict the behavior of with some certainty regardless of how the next election goes. This might come as a surprise to you, because everything you know about the Fed comes from youtube videos that feature spooky music playing over video clips of printing presses making dollars.

Quote :

"These people can and HAVE printed money without us knowing about it. We know this is a fact now because of inflation."

How do you know inflation comes from the money they print that we don't know about, rather than the money they print that we do know about? You don't, you're just fucking saying shit because it sounds right-ish to you based on your unfalsifiable conspiratorial worldview.

Once again, we find out GeniusXBoy is in on the big secret money-spending that nobody else knows about except the Fed itself. How does he know? Because the price of corn went up this year, guys!

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 12:05:15 PM

Quote :

"Once again, we find out GeniusXBoy is in on the big secret money-spending that nobody else knows about except the Fed itself. How does he know? Because the price of corn went up this year, guys!"

Wow, what a small mind.

11/8/2012 12:06:21 PM

Quote :

"Limited Government Tight Fiscal Control and Discipline Against all forms of welfare Free Enterprise No nation building No preemptive strikes Non-interventionists"

You're describing the GOP when Bush ran in 2000. I'm asking what you think their original platform. Hint to get you started: The GOP started in the 1800's.

11/8/2012 12:06:46 PM

but, but... party platforms don't change!

11/8/2012 12:07:34 PM

Quote :

"dtownral All American 1748 Posts user info edit post ... and you don't see how they have moved on from that, how those things are not their core anymore? not even some of those things? "

One does not merely "move on" from that in a two party system. There are two parties in this country that act like one on every issue. The system is owned.

11/8/2012 12:09:53 PM

Quote :

"Wow, what a small mind."

The mind of a delusional person such as yourself is as large as it needs to be, so it can reach any conclusion that makes you briefly feel empowered.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 12:10:20 PM

... so then you do recognize that Ron Paul has been left behind and does not fit in the GOP? You do understand that in all reality he is a third party candidate? Because you make statements where this is the only conclusion, but then your response to my statement makes no sense.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason : or do you have another random youtube video to explain your position?]

11/8/2012 12:11:40 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes, you can create a shit load of debt and spend it on things like a manufacturing base, infrastructure, and college educations for veterans, then simply pay it off over time as you reap the economic rewards of the investment. "

You mean the economic rewards of a staggering drop in private output? The WWII argument doesn't make the case you think it does. Yes, the U.S. government went into a bunch of debt to pay for military expenses, but standard of living for people went down significantly. These were not good times.

If we were to take a similar Keynesian approach today, but instead spend the money on "good" things, it would still be a hard sell. I'm sure we would have great bridges, roads, and a bunch of new schools, but I doubt the people would think it was worth the massive drop in private output leading to higher prices and reduced standard of living.

Quote :

"Seriously, destroyer, are you trolling or do you literally believe that a balanced budget amendment (Which would chop 9% off GDP if instituted now) would be better for the country than counter-cyclical deficit spending? Seriously. Like, for real, don't troll."

I don't see a good outcome either way. I think the balanced budget amendments are posturing - no one really believes that they would ever be passed. The point is to address the budget problems in some meaningful way and to convince the people holding U.S. debt that we actually plan to make good on promises. If foreign investors start to believe that the political process here will prevent any real changes from taking place, and if they take note of dwindling returns on U.S. investment, we're headed in a direction where budget cuts are severe and mandatory.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2012 12:12:32 PM

^^Im sorry, can you please rephrase the question. I can't speak sheep.

11/8/2012 12:13:40 PM

here, let me try it this way for you:
this

Quote :

"Maybe dtownral will do his homework and realize that Ron Paul is the definition of what GOP's original platform was...."

does in no way counter

Quote :

"Maybe Ron Paul supporters will realize he is a 3rd party candidate now? [Edited on November 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : i.e. his platform doesn't fit in the GOP's]"

on account of

Quote :

"part of the whole point is how the party has moved on and left these guys behind. so you keep pointing this out, but we are all way past this point in the discussion. his views are not modern GOP views, these guys are a third party now."

which you seem to aknowledge with a conspiracy twist with

Quote :

"One does not merely "move on" from that in a two party system. There are two parties in this country that act like one on every issue. The system is owned."

which then makes your first statement very confusing, because

Quote :

"... so then you do recognize that Ron Paul has been left behind and does not fit in the GOP? You do understand that in all reality he is a third party candidate? Because you make statements where this is the only conclusion, but then your response to my statement makes no sense."

...
is that easier?

11/8/2012 12:20:09 PM

No, it makes it stupider.


We aren't interested in your third party bullshit. We want our Republican name back.

11/8/2012 12:23:03 PM

Quote :

"... so then you do recognize that Ron Paul has been left behind and does not fit in the GOP? You do understand that in all reality he is a third party candidate? "

and I'll add
...you just want to get back to what it was at the point in time when you agreed with it?

Because that is all still based on the assumption that you recognize he no longer fits in the party and has been left behind.

so its confusing why you take offense when i point out that currently, as it stands, he is basically a third party candidate.

11/8/2012 12:24:50 PM