NationStates Jolt Archive

Very very important, as no Republican for half a century has won the nomination of the party without winning Florida. Also, Florida on it's own is one of the most important states in the Union when it comes to the election.

Did you watch? What did you think?

I thought Romney did pretty well, and seemed quite presidential. I thought McCain sucked ass and stumbled all over the place, repeating himself and halfway sucking himself off when talking about his record and all his friends. Also, when Ron Paul asked him that complex economic question, McCain hid his head in the sand and had NO IDEA! That was quite amusing! I've never seen anyone look so stupid and stumped. McCain jumped right out of the way of the question and just talked about all his friends who know economics and that he has alot of connections.:rolleyes::D

I also thought Ron Paul did really well, and was VERY well recieved by the audience, as he recieved the loudest cheer, even though cheering was not allowed. He didn't get enough air-time though.

The "winners" from the debate tonight, according to the debate are:
Romney with 41%
Ron Paul with 40%
The other three down there somewhere in dragon numbers that don't matter enough for me to remember.....

And here are MSNBC's results:

Who stood out from the pack? * 12303 responses

Rudy Giuliani 2.4%

Mike Huckabee 8%

John McCain 6.4%

Ron Paul 62%

Mitt Romney 21%

Who showed the most leadership qualities? *12257 responses

Rudy Giuliani 3.2%

Mike Huckabee 7.5%

John McCain 8.9%

Ron Paul 59%

Mitt Romney
22%

Who was the most convincing candidate? * 12206 responses

Rudy Giuliani 2.7%

Mike Huckabee 8.4%

John McCain 7.4%

Ron Paul 61%

Mitt Romney 21%

Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 12134 responses

Rudy Giuliani 14%

Mike Huckabee 11%

John McCain 26%

Ron Paul 6.7%

Mitt Romney 43%

Who avoided the questions? * 12094 responses

Rudy Giuliani 20%

Mike Huckabee 10%

John McCain 44% :D...he REALLY did!:D

Ron Paul 5.8%

Mitt Romney 20%

Who had the best one-liner? * 12057 responses

Rudy Giuliani 3.7%

Mike Huckabee 28%

John McCain 7.1%

Ron Paul 43%

Mitt Romney 19%
----------------------------------------------------

Whoooooo! Go Ron Paul!

I suppose you've never wondered why it is that all the Ron Paul supporters always make such great appearances when they are measured via online surveys, but when phones are used by random calling they can hardly be found? Another question would have to be why do the Ron Paul supporters never show up at the booths when the voting starts?

I suppose you've never wondered why it is that all the Ron Paul supporters always make such great appearances when they are measured via online surveys, but when phones are used by random calling they can hardly be found? Another question would have to be why do the Ron Paul supporters never show up at the booths when the voting starts?
Perhaps it's because Ron Paul supporters are more educated, active and politically aware than the average joe American, who you'll be much more likely to reach on a random phone call. Also, same thing applies to voting....the general population is not as educated, active and politically aware so they just see all the media favorites and just listen to what TV tells them and then they go out to vote...instead of researching candidates.

Perhaps it's because Ron Paul supporters are more educated, active and politically aware than the average joe American, who you'll be much more likely to reach on a random phone call. Also, same thing applies to voting....the general population is not as educated, active and politically aware so they just see all the media favorites and just listen to what TV tells them and then they go out to vote...instead of researching candidates.

:D Ahh the stupid and lazy defense.

Of course it couldn't be that many Ron Paul supporters listen to his one liners and not look in the mans history? ;)

:D Ahh the stupid and lazy defense.

Of course it couldn't be that many Ron Paul supporters listen to his one liners and not look in the mans history? ;)
Or rather...Paul is popular by those who are into the internet, enrolled in universities and generally very politicaly active...

Are you trying to deny that?

Ron Paul is this elections internet fave, he does well in online polls and is popular with the more...extreme factions that populate the net, but utterly fails everywhere else. He's the Howard Dean of this election.

Perhaps it’s because Ron Paul supporters are more educated, active and politically aware than the average joe American...
As opposed to those other educated, active and politically aware folks on the net who see through Paul’s ‘libertarian’ façade?

Perhaps it's because Ron Paul supporters are more educated, active and politically aware than the average joe American,

Dude. I'm more educated, active, and politically aware than the average joe American and I fucking hate RP.

Or rather...Paul is popular by those who are into the internet, enrolled in universities and generally very politicaly active...

Are you trying to deny that?

I debunk. I'm enrolled in a graduate school at the university I graduated from, into the internet and politically active. Guess what? Ron Paul can kiss my damn ass.

Ron Paul's problem(well, one of his problems) is that his supporters don't seem to understand when they really need to vote for him. Here's a hint, guys: They don't hold elections on the internet.

Ron Paul's problem(well, one of his problems) is that his supporters don't seem to understand when they really need to vote for him. Here's a hint, guys: They don't hold elections on the internet.

I think the main problem some of them have is that the act of voting would mean they'd have nullify their secession from the Union......

I refuse to believe that anyone with any kind of education would vote for Ron Paul.

Perhaps it's because Ron Paul supporters are more educated, active and politically aware than the average joe American, .

Hehehehehe, he reminds me of Homer Simpson, when he was put in charge of Springfields garbage....

Its Ill-thought out, self-defeating semi-libertarian dross. Jesus, some of his crap reads like a chain-email.

I think the main problem some of them have is that the act of voting would mean they'd have nullify their secession from the Union......
Or leave their parent's basement.
I refuse to believe that anyone with any kind of education would vote for Ron Paul.

Well there's a subtle difference between receiving an education and being educated, if you catch my drift. To paraphrase something an old teacher of mine often said, you can take a Ron Paul supporter to his record and bigotted pamphlets, but you can't make them read.

I think the main problem some of them have is that the act of voting would mean they’d have nullify their secession from the Union......
It’s a bit like the situation over this side of the Pond, where anti-EU politicians get themselves elected to the EU Parliament (and accept EU salaries, benefits, etc.) in some vain attempt to bring down the institution by propping it up.

Well there's a subtle difference between receiving an education and being educated, if you catch my drift. To paraphrase something an old teacher of mine often said, you can take a Ron Paul supporter to his record and bigotted pamphlets, but you can't make them read.

Well, yeah. I don't actually refuse to believe it. I know plenty of intelligent people who take leave of their senses any time someone says "terrorism/socialism/look a ghost!". I know educated people who voted for Bush (some of them did it twice!). It's depressing how often sensible, rational people will abandon rationality exclusively for politics.

Or rather...Paul is popular by those who are into the internet, enrolled in universities and generally very politicaly active...
So, you accept my political support of multiculturalism, for example, as correct, because I'm a politically active university student on an internet forum?

So, you accept my political support of multiculturalism, for example, as correct, because I'm a politically active university student on an internet forum?

I find this challenge intersting. I suspect I know how TAI will respond, if he does.

I find this challenge intersting. I suspect I know how TAI will respond, if he does.
I'm very interesting.

Ronpaulbots flooding polls does not a fair result make.

At least Guiliani will drop out of the race if he doesn't win Florida - he has been pouring everything he has into it.

Ronpaulbots flooding polls does not a fair result make.

At least Guiliani will drop out of the race if he doesn't win Florida - he has been pouring everything he has into it.

Hell, any poll on the internet itself is about as reliable as a polygraph in court. Throw Paul in the mix, and I assure you that you have skewed results.

I suppose you've never wondered why it is that all the Ron Paul supporters always make such great appearances when they are measured via online surveys, but when phones are used by random calling they can hardly be found? Another question would have to be why do the Ron Paul supporters never show up at the booths when the voting starts?

The reason he's winning these informal text polls is simple: Any Democrat who might be watching would easily select him over the other Republicans (since foreign policy is such a big issue right now). His vote count will never correspond with his text-in or online poll performance simply because most of the people who are voting for him in those have no intention of actually voting for him in the election.

It's not that he doesn't have supporters--he seems to have more than Ghouliani and Thompson, but that certainly isn't enough to propel him to front-runner status, especially when the media is paying as little attention to him as they could get away with.

I love the Republican debates. They just verbally bitch slap each other the whole time and dont really give definitive answers on their own policies (more often that not) instead they point out the deficiencies of their opponents record, or in the case of Guilina, extoll the greatness of Regan's policies every chance he gets.



This year, the Democratic Debates are like going to school, they can be tedious at times, but you learn a lot.

The Republican debates are like a cage match. You learn jack shit but theyre a blast to watch.

There are exceptions however, like the last Democratic debate in which only Edwards atually stated policies, and Clinton and Obama fought to the death verbally.


In my mind, Huckster wins every debate, because hes hilarious. If he wins Ill flee the country, but hes still fun to listen to because hes got a great sense of humor.

Pretty sure Paul talks about policy pretty explicitly. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've seen him even mention another candidate in his answers in any one debate. I haven't seen all of them though, so I could be wrong.

Oh, and I wouldn't worry about Huckabee winning. He's barely electable unless you're an Evangelical Christian, and South Carolina showed that a lot of those are getting behind McCain (ugh--but since when have they been on the ball politically?).

Giuliani, I think it was, scared me with his remark which hasn't gotten much coverage that was roughly thus: "I support the right to own a gun...for any reason."

McCain didn't dodge questions. I don't know what these people are thinking. It was the other 3 who did the dodging.

Ron Paul definitely was not given fair time.

The reason Paul doesnt bash any of the other guys is because theyre all rich white men. None of them are black, homosexual, or women;)

Uh...no. It's because he has respect, class, and discipline that others do not have.

Pretty sure Paul talks about policy pretty explicitly. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've seen him even mention another candidate in his answers in any one debate. I haven't seen all of them though, so I could be wrong.

Oh, and I wouldn't worry about Huckabee winning. He's barely electable unless you're an Evangelical Christian, and South Carolina showed that a lot of those are getting behind McCain (ugh--but since when have they been on the ball politically?).


Well, Paul usually talks about the issues, its the other candidates who bicker. Thompson and Rommney were the worst (but the human sloth has now dropped out).

The reason Paul doesnt bash any of the other guys is because theyre all rich white men. None of them are black, homosexual, or women;)

Uh...no. It's because he has respect, class, and discipline that others do not have.

I don't know about respect(for who?) or discipline, but I don't think you can really call the epic bigot that is Ron Paul classy.

I've been curious about this "Ron Paul is a Racist" sentiment that has developed since the New Republic finished dictating your opinions to you guys (apologies if you don't read it, but I never heard "Ron Paul is a racist!" until that article came out). I'm sure I'll be accused of having my fingers far from the pulse of politics, but what is this all about exactly?

I've been curious about this "Ron Paul is a Racist" sentiment that has developed since the New Republic finished dictating your opinions to you guys (apologies if you don't read it, but I never heard "Ron Paul is a racist!" until that article came out). I'm sure I'll be accused of having my fingers far from the pulse of politics, but what is this all about exactly?

Basically a lot of old opinion pieces ghost-written for Paul have been unearthed lately that essentially all show him to be a racist. Those who have studied them can give you more details.

As opposed to those other educated, active and politically aware folks on the net who see through Paul’s ‘libertarian’ façade?
They can hardly even see through the curtain of leftism pulled over their eyes that shields them away from the real world, let alone see through any non-existing facades in Paul.
Dude. I'm more educated, active, and politically aware than the average joe American and I fucking hate RP.
That's because you've held steadfast to the Neo-Conservate platform. I too was part of this but the more I studied it and the more I watched it become applied to the real world, the more I saw how this as an idealogy failed. You just havn't jumped from the sinking ship yet, but you may eventually. You, along with most other Neo-Cons "fucking hate RP" because he represents a danger to the Republican party in the sense that he offers an alternate view to the ideas that the Neo-Conservative platform presents, and threatens the breaking the party into factions....
I refuse to believe that anyone with any kind of education would vote for Ron Paul.
Well, now we're all clear on what you refuse to beleive. Perhaps I should add another thing to that list: Reality.
It’s a bit like the situation over this side of the Pond, where anti-EU politicians get themselves elected to the EU Parliament (and accept EU salaries, benefits, etc.) in some vain attempt to bring down the institution by propping it up.
Or, perhaps they know they can't reform (and eventually eliminate) the EU without bringing it down from the inside, because they know they'd have no power outside of it banging on the doors and screaming obsceneties.
So, you accept my political support of multiculturalism, for example, as correct, because I'm a politically active university student on an internet forum?
Not at all, and I'm suprised you'd even ask me that.

I've been curious about this "Ron Paul is a Racist" sentiment that has developed since the New Republic finished dictating your opinions to you guys (apologies if you don't read it, but I never heard "Ron Paul is a racist!" until that article came out). I'm sure I'll be accused of having my fingers far from the pulse of politics, but what is this all about exactly?

Relevent article (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca)

These articles, combined with other actions (the "I can't be racist, I love MLK" debacle) paint a picture of him being a bigot. Unless you buy his story of "they were ghostwritten." Begging the questions "why did you hire such racist ghostwriters?" and "why allow them to publish such tripe in his name?"

It isn't "dictating our opinions" when it's objectively verifyable, and it's not like he was the most popular candidate before the article came out.

The main reason I think Ron Paul doesn't do well in real elections is because most of his supporters are young adults who don't bother to come out and vote. I did study his positions for a report I did in a collage level U.S. Government class and he holds unorthodox positions on a number of issues. I would like to state that I am a supporter of Senator McCain for President.

I've been curious about this "Ron Paul is a Racist" sentiment that has developed since the New Republic finished dictating your opinions to you guys (apologies if you don't read it, but I never heard "Ron Paul is a racist!" until that article came out). I'm sure I'll be accused of having my fingers far from the pulse of politics, but what is this all about exactly?
There were some articles written under Pauls' name that said some stuff (don't quote me) like it's safe to assume 90% of Blacks in D.C. are criminals because of their prison rate, or talking about racial conflict or something. There was no proof that the articles were actually written by him, because, as many pointed out, they were never held against him when he was re-elected and re-elected again as a Congressman. They are also totally out of character because everyone who knows Ron Paul said that they've never heard him talk like this or even in a similar fashion, and he has never legislated anything along these kind of policies.
I don't know about respect(for who?) or discipline, but I don't think you can really call the epic bigot that is Ron Paul classy.
I love how you guys all just throw shit at him...like some papers that were written under his name decades ago, which don't sound anything like him and totally contradict anything he's ever said, make him an epic old bigot. Growwwww up.
McCain didn't dodge questions. I don't know what these people are thinking. It was the other 3 who did the dodging.
McCain dodged that one when the candidates were allowed to ask each other questions. Dr. Paul asked him about the presidents working group on financial markets and McCain had JUST NO IDEAAAAAAAAA what he was talking about, so just started talking bullshit about how he has such awesome connections of people who understand economics. Also, McCain was called out on a quote that says "Economics is not my strong point" and he totally denied it, yet after the debates the quote was proven.

AKA: McCain is a lying, question dodging old tool. And a sucky politician at that.
Ron Paul definitely was not given fair time.
Agreed. Not at all. But notice that when he did get time, he got the loudest cheer, even when cheering was not allowed.
Pretty sure Paul talks about policy pretty explicitly. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've seen him even mention another candidate in his answers in any one debate. I haven't seen all of them though, so I could be wrong.
Because Paul is the only real non-politician guy up there...who just got into government to help REDUCE the government from the inside, to get it out of people's lives. You just can't say the same for anyone else. Paul talks about how our government has failed and what he would do to change that, 24/7. The same cannot be said of the candidates who have to be fake to gain widespread voters across various demographics, and who have to battle each other for the party nomination.

Simply put, Dr. Paul speaks the truth because he doesn't have to worry about the political process, where the others speak what will (they think) will get them elected.

Uh...no. It's because he has respect, class, and discipline that others do not have.


Ha.


Which is why he publishes articles with such classey remarks as "The reason the Los Angelas riots stopped was because all the blacks had to go collect their welfare checks".


I stand by my reasoning mentioned earlier.

combined with other actions (the "I can't be racist, I love MLK" debacle)
he said that he's not racist because he, as a libertarian, sees people as individuals not as groups. In order to be racist, says Paul you have to catagorize and group people, which he does not do.

Not, "I'm not racist cuz I love MLK LOLZ". Stop talking if you don't know what you're talking about.

They can hardly even see through the curtain of leftism pulled over their eyes that shields them away from the real world, let alone see through any non-existance facades in Paul.
Dude, I'm not exactly burdened with a "curtain of leftism", and I don't like Paul either. Not just because his inconsistent stances, but also because I don't like it when people run around giving libertarian ideas a bad name.

And of course because you don't make the state go away by being the guy at the top. He wouldn't get a single one of his ideas through Washington.

"The reason the Los Angelas riots stopped was because all the blacks had to go collect their welfare checks".
lol :D
Ah yes, "teh evi1 lib3ral media!!!!111!!!!11!!!!1!11!".


*sigh* Thank you for proving the point that anyone who is educated would not vote for Ron Paul.
Anyway, back to reality....
Ron Paul is very very popular on a university level, so it's interesting that you would jump to such false absolutes as to say, anyone who is educated would not vote for Dr. Paul."

That's obviously wrong, simply because it's in such absolutes.

They can hardly even see through the curtain of leftism pulled over their eyes that shields them away from the real world, let alone see through any non-existance facades in Paul.




Ah yes, "teh evi1 lib3ral media!!!!111!!!!11!!!!1!11!".


*sigh* Thank you for proving the point that anyone who is educated would not vote for Ron Paul.

And of course because you don't make the state go away by being the guy at the top. He wouldn't get a single one of his ideas through Washington.
He will try, and that's more that I could say for anyone else running. If anything, he will stop pushing this country in the wrong direction, even if Congress doesn't let him pull it into the right one. That's still better than voting someone else who will CONTINUE to push this country in the wrong direction.

Giuliani, I think it was, scared me with his remark which hasn't gotten much coverage that was roughly thus: "I support the right to own a gun...for any reason."


Interestingly enough, Giuliani is the only republican who has gone on record and supported major nationwide gun control.

Of course, that's pales in comparison to Hillary "Ban the Scary looking Guns" Clinton and Barack "Ban everything this side of World War One" Obama.

Relevent article (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca)

These articles, combined with other actions (the "I can't be racist, I love MLK" debacle) paint a picture of him being a bigot. Unless you buy his story of "they were ghostwritten." Begging the questions "why did you hire such racist ghostwriters?" and "why allow them to publish such tripe in his name?"

It isn't "dictating our opinions" when it's objectively verifyable, and it's not like he was the most popular candidate before the article came out.

Okay, linking me to the New Republic bashing an old-school Republican is like sending me to Der Angriff to tell me why Jews are evil and should be done away with (Godwin can go screw himself--if the shoe fits you're going to wear it). I'm not suggesting that it's all useless propaganda (indeed, you usually have to try to get everything wrong, and I'm sure they're not), but they have an agenda and Paul is a political enemy. I wouldn't send you to the National Review to suggest that Mitt Romney is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

On "why would he hire racist ghostwriters," let's channel Occam here and not assume that Paul or anyone else has the ability to read minds.

Unfortunately, it does seem like some racists gravitate towards Paul's policies for one reason or another, and Don whatshisname from Stormfront is a good example. They think the Fed is some kind of Jewish banking conspiracy and should be done away with etc etc. But every philosophy attracts nutcases it doesn't want. Based on what I've seen from Paul, I don't think he's one of them himself. I'm just wondering if anyone has gotten this impression based on anything he himself has said or done (especially lately).

I saw some debate (I forget which one by now) where he summed the situation eloquently--and I can see why the Left doesn't like it: "People don't earn rights because they're Gays or Whites or Blacks or Christians, they gain them because they're individuals..." and so on. I don't see what, exactly, is racist about that but apparently some do. It's like in that episode of South Park where they're talking about hate crimes (Hate Crime legislation is bullshit, by the way) and they come to the realization that you're actually reinforcing cultural and racial barriers by insisting we all be treated differently in the eyes of the law.

they were never held against him when he was re-elected and re-elected again as a Congressman.
Of course not. The bigotry perfectly reflected the bigotry of his constituents, and it was not until he decided to move onto the national stage that he re-positioned himself as anything else. Whether the newsletters reflect the "real" Ron Paul, or a character he was willing to play to get himself elected from rural Texas, either way it reflects very badly on him.

He will try, and that's more that I could say for anyone else running. If anything, he will stop pushing this country in the wrong direction, even if Congress doesn't let him pull it into the right one. That's still better than voting someone else who will CONTINUE to push this country in the wrong direction.
Not that there is any clear definition of what is the "wrong direction". I know that the idea of abandoning the Fed for example might makes sense for a fairly radical libertarian from an ideological point of view - but as far as the economy right here and right now is concerned, it would be a huge catastrophe. I'd consider that the "wrong" direction.

Then there's his fetish with "states' rights". As far as I can gather, he wouldn't mind restrictions on abortions or any other number of socially authoritarian laws to be put in place by state governments, as long as the federal government doesn't get involved. If you get South Carolina throwing women in jail because they wanted an abortion, or they start dying again in backalley butcheries, I'd consider that the "wrong" direction.

I could keep going, but you get the point. As far as I can see, the man has shown the ability to piss off basically anyone in the country with at least one of his widely diverging positions, and it's rather lucky for him that his stances aren't more widely known. Hence I disagree with your idea that Ron Paul supporters are more educated than others. I think it's quite the opposite. It takes an enormous amount of naivety to see him as some sort of anti-government saviour, and very few serious libertarians of any creed would see him as such. So what's left are people who want to see the Fed go (and Melkor pointed out one such group), people who want abortion gone or indeed people who get off whenever anyone asks for "tough action against illegals". You don't need to be particularly educated or involved in politics to hold stances like that...more the other way around, if you ask me.

Unfortunately, it does seem like some racists gravitate towards Paul's policies for one reason or another, and Don whatshisname from Stormfront is a good example. They think the Fed is some kind of Jewish banking conspiracy and should be done away with etc etc. But every philosophy attractts nutcases it doesn't want.
Exactly. I can assure you, that Ron Paul has totally different reasons for reducing the government, other than "we're kicking the Jews out!".
Based on what I've seen from Paul, I don't think he's one of them himself. I'm just wondering if anyone has gotten this impression based on anything he himself has said or done (especially lately).
No! That's the point...he has NEVER EVER said anything or voted for something that would give credibility to those that say that's his opinion.

Not that there is any clear definition of what is the "wrong direction". I know that the idea of abandoning the Fed for example might makes sense for a fairly radical libertarian from an ideological point of view - but as far as the economy right here and right now is concerned, it would be a huge catastrophe. I'd consider that the "wrong" direction.

Okay, something stands out here. Hrm.

Not that there is any clear definition of what is the "wrong direction" is ...but as far as the economy right here and right now is concerned, would be a huge catastrophe. [b]I'd consider that the "wrong" direction.

Moral credibility = zero. This is a common trick of the left, professing that there are no moral absolutes and that everything should be looked at subjectively. Then they turn around and states that something is wrong--depending on the very absolutes they claim don't exist.

I had a snide remark about the Fed here but I decided to axe it and put something in here from which I might derive some actual enjoyment: what good, exactly, has the Fed done for the American economy?

Okay, something stands out here. Hrm.



Moral credibility = zero. This is a common trick of the left, professing that there are no moral absolutes and that everything should be looked at subjectively. Then they turn around and states that something is wrong--depending on the very absolutes they claim don't exist.

I had a snide remark about the Fed here but I decided to axe it and put something in here from which I might derive some actual enjoyment: what good, exactly, has the Fed done for the American economy?
1. Neu Leonstein is most definitely not left-winged.

2. He's talking about something completely different. The first time has nothing to do with morality, and the second has to do with what he would consider personally. That's not a contradiction at all.

3. I forget, edit it back in

EDIT: I meant to quote you, and editted instead. I'll answer when I get back from work. Sorry!

1. Neo Leonstein is most definitely not left-winged.
:D
Crushing statism, authoritarianism, government depedence, and national borders, one Mr. Smith at a time.

http://www.infamousprofile.com/Images/Male_Celebrities/images/matrix-the-neo-5001034.jpg

:D
Crushing statism, authoritarianism, government depedence, and national borders, one Mr. Smith at a time.


Meh, Neo, Neu, same word, different language.

I love how you guys all just throw shit at him...like some papers that were written under his name decades ago, which don't sound anything like him and totally contradict anything he's ever said, make him an epic old bigot. Growwwww up.

If he didn't agree with what was written then why did he allow them to be printed? Why didn't he go on record as soon as he found out about them and state that he had nothing to do with them?

Because Paul is the only real non-politician guy up there...who just got into government to help REDUCE the government from the inside, to get it out of people's lives.


And allow the state governments in to do whatever they want. "We the People Act," look it up.

You just can't say the same for anyone else. Paul talks about how our government has failed and what he would do to change that, 24/7.

Just like every other politician in this race.

Okay, linking me to the New Republic bashing an old-school Republican is like sending me to Der Angriff to tell me why Jews are evil and should be done away with (Godwin can go screw himself--if the shoe fits you're going to wear it).

You mentioned the New Republic article, I linked the New Republic article (Hence the title of "relevent article"). It wasn't solely for your benefit. If you haven't seen it, stands to reason that other's haven't.


On "why would he hire racist ghostwriters," let's channel Occam here and not assume that Paul or anyone else has the ability to read minds.

Of course, but he does have the ability to actually check on what they're writing in his name. You don't hire a ghostwriter and just tell them "go at it and have fun." You supervise and approve what's written. That he allowed these letters to go out with his name speaks either to incompetence or bigotry, take your pick.

Moral credibility = zero. This is a common trick of the left, professing that there are no moral absolutes and that everything should be looked at subjectively. Then they turn around and states that something is wrong--depending on the very absolutes they claim don't exist.

As opposed to the common trick of the right of claiming to have the moral high ground and then doing things like having gay sex with a male hooker and doing meth in a hotel room behind their wife's back?

Or claiming that all life is sacred yet being staunchly pro death penalty?


Ill take "teh 3vil lib3ral's" tactics anyday thankyouverymuch.

No! That's the point...he has NEVER EVER said anything or voted for something that would give credibility to those that say that's his opinion.

Really?

What about his very public opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

His opposition to the provisions of the 14th Amendment?

What about H.R. 4982 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.4982:), H.R. 3863 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:), and H.R. 5842 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:)?

You can cover your eyes and ears and ignore the evidence if you want, but that doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there.

That he allowed these letters to go out with his name speaks either to incompetence or bigotry, take your pick.
Not necessarily: it might speak to political savvy, knowing what would sell in that part of Texas.

What about H.R. 4982 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.4982:), .

Explain this one please. I read the summery but it made no sense to me.

Moral credibility = zero. This is a common trick of the left, professing that there are no moral absolutes and that everything should be looked at subjectively. Then they turn around and states that something is wrong--depending on the very absolutes they claim don't exist.
I was merely illustrating the fact that as far as judging policies is concerned, there are different judgements. Of course my view is superior to his view, but that's not something that has to be reinforced right here and now.

I was just perplexed with the idea that it would be better to have a government that is basically paralysed for at least four years. I'm not necessarily a fan of it, but if we're paying for it, I'd at least want it to be able to do stuff.

I had a snide remark about the Fed here but I decided to axe it and put something in here from which I might derive some actual enjoyment: what good, exactly, has the Fed done for the American economy?
It basically took over from where the gold standard collapsed. It serves the same purpose, and then some. You know, enforcing some level of fiscal responsibility by not allowing the executive or legislature to print money, playing a vital role in balancing the cash- and goods flows in overseas trade and so on.

And then there's the added bonus of being able to engage in macroeconomic stabilisation on one hand, and being able to prevent banking collapses on the other.

But you know these things already, so say what you wanted to say.

They can hardly even see through the curtain of leftism pulled over their eyes that shields them away from the real world, let alone see through any non-existing facades in Paul.
So educated, active and politically aware folks on the net support Ron Paul, unless they don't, in which case they're blinded by 'leftism'?

Laughable.

Explain this one please. I read the summery but it made no sense to me.

It is an attempt to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to order desegregation of schools.

Cute, huh?

It is an attempt to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to order desegregation of schools.

Cute, huh?

Ooooh...I see. So basically the idea is to prevent the feds from interfering, then sit back and see what happens?

I suspect in most states nothing would, but in certain states...:headbang:

I debunk. I'm enrolled in a graduate school at the university I graduated from, into the internet and politically active. Guess what? Ron Paul can kiss my damn ass.

amen brother Corneliu

Ron Paul is a racist nutjob who should be electrocuted or put in a mental hospital, along with guilani

No. That would be resorting to the sort of tactics Ron Paul would allow states to use, which is not only hypocritical, it's downright mean.

he said that he's not racist because he, as a libertarian, sees people as individuals not as groups. In order to be racist, says Paul you have to catagorize and group people, which he does not do.

Not, "I'm not racist cuz I love MLK LOLZ". Stop talking if you don't know what you're talking about.

Ron Paul is a racist nutjob who should be electrocuted or put in a mental hospital, along with guilani

Ron Paul is a racist nutjob who should be electrocuted or put in a mental hospital, along with guilani
Says the man with the racist-nutjob name of Hezballoh, which offers you so much credibility and neutrality....

No. That would be resorting to the sort of tactics Ron Paul would allow states to use, which is not only hypocritical, it's downright mean.

response:
"To be the man, you gotta beat the man!" Ric Flair

Says the man with the racist-nutjob name of Hezballoh, which offers you so much credibility and neutrality....

You respond to this as opposed to the serious posts? I find this very telling.

Says the man with the racist-nutjob name of Hezballoh, which offers you so much credibility and neutrality....

How is Hezballoh racist?
nutjob yes, i am certifibly crazy
but racist? me? that is just insulting :p

You respond to this as opposed to the serious posts? I find this very telling.
I have been responding to others too, it's just that I'm leaving now and as I was leaving, this one caught my eye....SOME people have a life on Friday nights.

You respond to this as opposed to the serious posts? I find this very telling.
well if you want some one to respond, you must respond to his confusing post, with an insulting one :D

I have been responding to others too, it's just that I'm leaving now and as I was leaving, this one caught my eye....SOME people have a life on Friday nights.

AND some people are home sick, making that a very low blow/cheap shot, which is to be expected for a Paulbot :p

If he didn't agree with what was written then why did he allow them to be printed? Why didn't he go on record as soon as he found out about them and state that he had nothing to do with them?

That doesn't necessarily demonstrate that he's a racist whackjob (though the whackjob part is probably true), however it does shows he's incompetent; after all do we really need a President who is so inept that he can't even control who uses his own name?

Not necessarily: it might speak to political savvy, knowing what would sell in that part of Texas.

Very true, though I'd classify that as speaking to bigotry myself. Willing to manipulate the bigotry of others to further your own ends isn't my better than being a bigot yourself.

So, is there a debate for every Primary pre-Super Tuesday?

On "why would he hire racist ghostwriters," let's channel Occam here and not assume that Paul or anyone else has the ability to read minds.

Reading minds? No. But apparently he didn't read The Ron Paul Newsletter either. For 10+ years.

Very convenient. I wish I could publish my own newsletter and disavow myself of all of it's content.

Not at all, and I'm suprised you'd even ask me that.
You make my point for me so well.

Not necessarily: it might speak to political savvy, knowing what would sell in that part of Texas.

I disagree. While one thing might play well in Texas, it may not play so well somewhere else. To assume that only bigoted Texans will read your newsletter tailored to get the bigoted Texan vote is a very big mistake.

I have been responding to others too, it's just that I'm leaving now and as I was leaving, this one caught my eye....SOME people have a life on Friday nights.



And some people like to avoid taking cheap shots at people without knowing their reasoning for being here, for example.


How very telling. However I expect nothing less from one of the Ron Paul collective.

I don't know about respect(for who?) or discipline, but I don't think you can really call the epic bigot that is Ron Paul classy.

Respect for the other candidates. HE's not an epic bigot. That's a smear campaign.

Respect for the other candidates. HE's not an epic bigot. That's a smear campaign.


It may be a smear campaign, but its a very accurate smear campaign.

You mentioned the New Republic article, I linked the New Republic article (Hence the title of "relevent article"). It wasn't solely for your benefit. If you haven't seen it, stands to reason that other's haven't.
Oh, okay. I thought "Relevant Article" was meant to elucidate me on the "why do you think Paul is a racist?" question. I've seen the article, and misinterpretted your reason for posting it.

Of course, but he does have the ability to actually check on what they're writing in his name. You don't hire a ghostwriter and just tell them "go at it and have fun." You supervise and approve what's written. That he allowed these letters to go out with his name speaks either to incompetence or bigotry, take your pick.

Sure sounds like there's some pretty juicy stuff in this newsletter. But Paul has acknowledged a moral responsibility for its contents and has said himself exactly what you just told me. I've never actually read one of these letters, but I don't think there's another politician in this race that would so candidly take responsiblity for this. The others would likely insist that it was taken out of context, fabricated, etc etc.

Also, people (Cat-Tribe, I'm looking at you) are running away with this "I dont like the Civil Rights Act of 1964" act garbage. My best friend is a black man. No one who has spoken to me for five minutes could possibly assert that I am a racist. I am opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also. You see, people tend to stop listening after that last line. No one acknowledges the possiblity that he was opposed to it because it put too much power in the hands of the Fed. Nope: it's gotta be racism--that way the Left can get away with ignoring his entire platform. "It's okay, you don't have to listen to him--he's a racist." It's the ultimate political cop out. Why? Because it's the worst non-criminal accusation you can level against an opponent in an American political contest. People can't devise lucid counters to his arguments, so they write articles about decades-old (to my understanding) ghostwritten newsletters.

Also, "Knights of Liberty" said something which I believe deserves a response:

As opposed to the common trick of the right of claiming to have the moral high ground and then doing things like having gay sex with a male hooker and doing meth in a hotel room behind their wife's back?

Or claiming that all life is sacred yet being staunchly pro death penalty?
You may be making the mistake here in assuming that becasue I have contempt for the moral tactics deployed by the Left, I endorse the tactics used by the right: this couldn't be further from the truth. I have as much contempt for the American Right as I do for the American Left but for entirely different reasons. I don't believe either side is consistent with morality or even their own platform. As a general rule, I agree with Democrats on Social policy (let people lead their own lives, encourage diversity etc etc) but Republicans on Economic policy (personal responsibility, low/no taxes, etc etc). I believe that the division between personal and economic liberties is an illegitimate dichotomy. I see no reason to restrict one and promote the other.

You may be making the mistake here in assuming that becasue I have contempt for the moral tactics deployed by the Left, I endorse the tactics used by the right: this couldn't be further from the truth. I have as much contempt for the American Right as I do for the American Left but for entirely different reasons. I don't believe either side is consistent with morality or even their own platform. As a general rule, I agree with Democrats on Social policy (let people lead their own lives, encourage diversity etc etc) but Republicans on Economic policy (personal responsibility, low/no taxes, etc etc). I believe that the division between personal and economic liberties is an illegitimate dichotomy. I see no reason to restrict one and promote the other.

You can say this as much as you want, but in the end, most of the people on this forum just won't get it. Or they do get it, but have their heads so far up their own asses that they just won't admit it.

That said, you need to post more often. Where the hell have you been? More Guild Wars, I presume?

Oh, believe me. I know. I'm just a glutton for punishment. :D



Actually, lately I've been playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I'm in a clan and everything--I'm even #1 in the world with the heavy MG by a very wide margin.

I used to be (I doubt you've forgotten), but I burned myself out, needless to say. I'm now going through a stage of self-involvement and political apathy.

Heavy MG? If I had Quake Wars, I'd back you up with my trusty sniper rifle... I just love pissing people off that way. And that trickjump glitch is the best shit ever.

You can say this as much as you want, but in the end, most of the people on this forum just won't get it. Or they do get it, but have their heads so far up their own asses that they just won't admit it.
Oh, believe me. I know. I'm just a glutton for punishment. :D

That said, you need to post more often. Where the hell have you been? More Guild Wars, I presume?

Actually, lately I've been playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I'm in a clan and everything. I've only been at it for about 4 or so months, but I already found a hilarious trickjump (http://www.stage6.com/user/dommafia/video/2108810/Quake-Wars-Crazy-Armadillo-Jump) and I'm #1 with the heavy MG (http://stats.enemyterritory.com/leaders/weapons/xp?filter=gpmg) by a very wide margin.

Oh, believe me. I know. I'm just a glutton for punishment. :D



Actually, lately I've been playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I'm in a clan and everything. I've only been at it for about 4 or so months, but I already found a hilarious trickjump (http://www.stage6.com/user/dommafia/video/2108810/Quake-Wars-Crazy-Armadillo-Jump) and I'm #1 with the heavy MG (http://stats.enemyterritory.com/leaders/weapons/xp?filter=gpmg) by a very wide margin.

Remind me to never get into a game with you.

I disagree. While one thing might play well in Texas, it may not play so well somewhere else. To assume that only bigoted Texans will read your newsletter tailored to get the bigoted Texan vote is a very big mistake.

He wasn't planning on any national campaigns when he published that newsletter. When extreme statements from the newsletter were brought up in earlier campaigns (1996, 1998) he didn't disavow them back then, but defended them and explained what he meant, in terms that he would also like to run from now that he's gone national.

Also, people (Cat-Tribe, I'm looking at you) are running away with this "I dont like the Civil Rights Act of 1964" act garbage. My best friend is a black man. No one who has spoken to me for five minutes could possibly assert that I am a racist. I am opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also. You see, people tend to stop listening after that last line. No one acknowledges the possiblity that he was opposed to it because it put too much power in the hands of the Fed. Nope: it's gotta be racism--that way the Left can get away with ignoring his entire platform. "It's okay, you don't have to listen to him--he's a racist." It's the ultimate political cop out. Why? Because it's the worst non-criminal accusation you can level against an opponent in an American political contest. People can't devise lucid counters to his arguments, so they write articles about decades-old (to my understanding) ghostwritten newsletters.


Well, gee whiz, Melkor. I mean you couldn't possibly have a view that is racist or aids and abets racism and you say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bad, so I must be wrong in saying that Ron Paul is a racist based solely on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hold on ..... hrm. Was that what I was saying? Or was it that faced with evidence of rampant racist screeds published in Ron Paul's name, you and TAI were reassuring each other that Ron Paul has NEVER EVER said or done anything that could possibly show a racist agenda until I popped in with 5 examples essentially off the top of my head?

Gee, I think it was the latter.

So your strange appeal to authority aside, you haven't answered my point.

And if you did your homework you'd discover in these forums that posters such as Dempublicents and myself have devised more than lucid counters to Ron Paul's candidacy that have nothing to do with his racism. His racism looks bad, yes, but I'm more concerned about his opposition to equality and individual liberty. Little things like his scorn for the separation of church and state, for example.

I've been curious about this "Ron Paul is a Racist" sentiment that has developed since the New Republic finished dictating your opinions to you guys (apologies if you don't read it, but I never heard "Ron Paul is a racist!" until that article came out). I'm sure I'll be accused of having my fingers far from the pulse of politics, but what is this all about exactly?

i called him one before that article came out, and was actually going to go track down his old newsletters this past summer after i found out that they had some in madison. ron paul doesn't just coincidentally have the support of your various and sundry racist and fascist groups, ya know. he, along with a significant portion of usian-style 'libertarians' more generally, explicitly went after the racist and fascist vote starting decades ago. he speaks their language and goes to their conventions. the fact that he keeps his more public persona slightly less dirty (but only slightly) doesn't mean shit.

Ron Paul, no matter what you say about him, is probably the least of evils in this race. Think about it. Even exclude the rumors about Obama, Paul is simply the best choice.

Even exclude the rumors about Obama...

rumors?

Ron Paul, no matter what you say about him, is probably the least of evils in this race. Think about it. Even exclude the rumors about Obama, Paul is simply the best choice.Nope.

rumors?

Probably referring to that chain email "exposing" details about his past. The one that claims to have been verified by Snopes when in reality they debunk all of it.

*edit: Relevent Snopes Article (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)

Sure sounds like there's some pretty juicy stuff in this newsletter. But Paul has acknowledged a moral responsibility for its contents and has said himself exactly what you just told me. I've never actually read one of these letters, but I don't think there's another politician in this race that would so candidly take responsiblity for this. The others would likely insist that it was taken out of context, fabricated, etc etc.


That's a quite incredible response. Akin to saying a rapist who pleads guilty is morally superior to a non rapist who would plead not guilty.

Perhaps it's because Ron Paul supporters are more educated, active and politically aware than the average joe American, who you'll be much more likely to reach on a random phone call. Also, same thing applies to voting....the general population is not as educated, active and politically aware so they just see all the media favorites and just listen to what TV tells them and then they go out to vote...instead of researching candidates.

Very true.

Equally, I can't pretend to know an awful lot about any of the Republican candidates, having decided previously that whoever the democrats elect will win anyway. However, I am intruiged as to who Ron Paul is, and why he attracts such opprobrium.

I suppose you've never wondered why it is that all the Ron Paul supporters always make such great appearances when they are measured via online surveys, but when phones are used by random calling they can hardly be found? Another question would have to be why do the Ron Paul supporters never show up at the booths when the voting starts?

hell, they can't even make a showing in online polls that don't allow for repeat voting.

Based on what I've seen from Paul, I don't think he's one of them himself. I'm just wondering if anyone has gotten this impression based on anything he himself has said or done (especially lately).

No! That's the point...he has NEVER EVER said anything or voted for something that would give credibility to those that say that's his opinion.

Really?

What about his very public opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

His opposition to the provisions of the 14th Amendment?

What about H.R. 4982 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.4982:), H.R. 3863 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:), and H.R. 5842 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:)?

You can cover your eyes and ears and ignore the evidence if you want, but that doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there.

Also, people (Cat-Tribe, I'm looking at you) are running away with this "I dont like the Civil Rights Act of 1964" act garbage. My best friend is a black man. No one who has spoken to me for five minutes could possibly assert that I am a racist. I am opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also. You see, people tend to stop listening after that last line. No one acknowledges the possiblity that he was opposed to it because it put too much power in the hands of the Fed. Nope: it's gotta be racism--that way the Left can get away with ignoring his entire platform. "It's okay, you don't have to listen to him--he's a racist." It's the ultimate political cop out. Why? Because it's the worst non-criminal accusation you can level against an opponent in an American political contest. People can't devise lucid counters to his arguments, so they write articles about decades-old (to my understanding) ghostwritten newsletters.


Well, gee whiz, Melkor. I mean you couldn't possibly have a view that is racist or aids and abets racism and you say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bad, so I must be wrong in saying that Ron Paul is a racist based solely on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hold on ..... hrm. Was that what I was saying? Or was it that faced with evidence of rampant racist screeds published in Ron Paul's name, you and TAI were reassuring each other that Ron Paul has NEVER EVER said or done anything that could possibly show a racist agenda until I popped in with 5 examples essentially off the top of my head?

Gee, I think it was the latter.

So your strange appeal to authority aside, you haven't answered my point.

And if you did your homework you'd discover in these forums that posters such as Dempublicents and myself have devised more than lucid counters to Ron Paul's candidacy that have nothing to do with his racism. His racism looks bad, yes, but I'm more concerned about his opposition to equality and individual liberty. Little things like his scorn for the separation of church and state, for example.

And then there was deafening silence ........

Very very important, as no Republican for half a century has won the nomination of the party without winning Florida. Also, Florida on it's own is one of the most important states in the Union when it comes to the election.

Did you watch? What did you think?

I thought Romney did pretty well, and seemed quite presidential. I thought McCain sucked ass and stumbled all over the place, repeating himself and halfway sucking himself off when talking about his record and all his friends. Also, when Ron Paul asked him that complex economic question, McCain hid his head in the sand and had NO IDEA! That was quite amusing! I've never seen anyone look so stupid and stumped. McCain jumped right out of the way of the question and just talked about all his friends who know economics and that he has alot of connections.:rolleyes::D

I also thought Ron Paul did really well, and was VERY well recieved by the audience, as he recieved the loudest cheer, even though cheering was not allowed. He didn't get enough air-time though.

The "winners" from the debate tonight, according to the debate are:
Romney with 41%
Ron Paul with 40%
The other three down there somewhere in dragon numbers that don't matter enough for me to remember.....

And here are MSNBC's results:

Who stood out from the pack? * 12303 responses

Rudy Giuliani 2.4%

Mike Huckabee 8%

John McCain 6.4%

Ron Paul 62%

Mitt Romney 21%

Who showed the most leadership qualities? *12257 responses

Rudy Giuliani 3.2%

Mike Huckabee 7.5%

John McCain 8.9%

Ron Paul 59%

Mitt Romney
22%

Who was the most convincing candidate? * 12206 responses

Rudy Giuliani 2.7%

Mike Huckabee 8.4%

John McCain 7.4%

Ron Paul 61%

Mitt Romney 21%

Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 12134 responses

Rudy Giuliani 14%

Mike Huckabee 11%

John McCain 26%

Ron Paul 6.7%

Mitt Romney 43%

Who avoided the questions? * 12094 responses

Rudy Giuliani 20%

Mike Huckabee 10%

John McCain 44% :D...he REALLY did!:D

Ron Paul 5.8%

Mitt Romney 20%

Who had the best one-liner? * 12057 responses

Rudy Giuliani 3.7%

Mike Huckabee 28%

John McCain 7.1%

Ron Paul 43%

Mitt Romney 19%
----------------------------------------------------

Whoooooo! Go Ron Paul!

These numbers are especially funny in light of the vote today.

McCain won handily. Giuliani placed third.

Paul came in a distant fifth with 3%. WHOOOOOO!!!!

TCT, I think I pointed it out to you before, but one of my complaints of ron paul, in addition to the rampant racism, two faced nature, poor economic policies and flawed foreign policy, is this 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.

Now, maybe I missed this in my own constitutional law class, so perhaps you caught it in yours, if the constitution is replete with references to God, can you point out one for me?

These numbers are especially funny in light of the vote today.

McCain won handily. Giuliani placed third.

Paul came in a distant fifth with 3%. WHOOOOOO!!!!
That's because most of our population is ignorant and apathetic and votes for media favorites without any actual information on candidates. Most people didn't even watch the debates....:rolleyes: Most of my friends were too busy watching "The Real World" or whatever the fuck was on....

For people who actually really follow politics, Paul does well. In the general population where people just watch TV and see McCain, Clinton, Obama!...he does not.

That's because most of our population is ignorant and apathetic and votes for media favorites without any actual information on candidates. Most people didn't even watch the debates....:rolleyes: Most of my friends were too busy watching "The Real World" or whatever the fuck was on....

Aww! Is someone sore that his idiot candidate failed miserably in Florida? You call those who oppose a racist/anti-federalist/ant-constitutional candidate as ignorant but yet the only ignorance I see is the above post.

For people who actually really follow politics, Paul does well. In the general population where people just watch TV and see McCain, Clinton, Obama!...he does not.

Back it up.

That's because most of our population is ignorant and apathetic and votes for media favorites without any actual information on candidates. Most people didn't even watch the debates....:rolleyes: Most of my friends were too busy watching "The Real World" or whatever the fuck was on....

For people who actually really follow politics, Paul does well. In the general population where people just watch TV and see McCain, Clinton, Obama!...he does not.

Because the internet community is well educated.:rolleyes:

Now, maybe I missed this in my own constitutional law class, so perhaps you caught it in yours, if the constitution is replete with references to God, can you point out one for me?



There is one. They date it "in the year of our Lord". Which really doesnt count, because even athiest history professor's do that. Its just academics.

Ron Paul has never read the Constitution.

That's because most of our population is ignorant and apathetic and votes for media favorites without any actual information on candidates. Most people didn't even watch the debates....:rolleyes: Most of my friends were too busy watching "The Real World" or whatever the fuck was on....

For people who actually really follow politics, Paul does well. In the general population where people just watch TV and see McCain, Clinton, Obama!...he does not.



I was going to hammer you for constantly saying that the educated votes for paul and the idiots vote for everyone else, but looks like 2 otherrs beat me to it.


Get over it. Paul is an idiot, and even the average American can see it.

Only an idiot would support such anti-federalist and isolationist policies this day and age.

That's because most of our population is ignorant and apathetic and votes for media favorites without any actual information on candidates. Most people didn't even watch the debates....:rolleyes: Most of my friends were too busy watching "The Real World" or whatever the fuck was on....

For people who actually really follow politics, Paul does well. In the general population where people just watch TV and see McCain, Clinton, Obama!...he does not.

Given that most people oppose the things that Ron Paul supports why do you suspose that with "actual information" avaible on him, he would be more popular?

Ron paul is to conservative for the people who consider themselves very conservative. The only person I know that supports ron paul is a neo nazi at my school.
His views are to radical. He is an internet phenonom( i know i didn't spell that right). In the end it is going to be hillary edwards vs. mccain huckabee and mccain huckabee will win.

knights of liberty said it all about ron paul
his views are out of date for the world.
maybe if he had been born in 1850 he would have done okay at the turn of the century... the turn of the 20th century. ya know imperialism vs. isolationism

These numbers are especially funny in light of the vote today.

McCain won handily. Giuliani placed third.

Paul came in a distant fifth with 3%. WHOOOOOO!!!!
Like I said, the Paulbots know how to vote in droves, they just don't know when to vote in droves.
Click Stand;13410708']Because the internet community is well educated.:rolleyes:

We don't need no education, we have wikipedia.

Given that most people oppose the things that Ron Paul supports why do you suspose that with "actual information" avaible on him, he would be more popular?
Oh yes...because most Americans support the Iraq war, want more taxes, want more war, want a larger government, and want another fake politician who only says what will get him elected instead of speaking his mind. Also, most Americans are happy with the way this country has been going and want us to continue along this path.

Oh wait...no they don't!
Aww! Is someone sore that his idiot candidate failed miserably in Florida? You call those who oppose a racist/anti-federalist/ant-constitutional candidate as ignorant but yet the only ignorance I see is the above post.
Racist? No proof. Anti-Federalist...no...he wants a balance of powers between states and fed...not a complete federation, but just more power back to the states than they currently have. Anti-constitutionalist? Really? I thought he was A constitutionalist...explain to me how he's not and how everyone else running is more of a constitutionalist than him.

Most Americans are ignorant and apathetic, do you honestly not beleive that?


Back it up.
Paul does well voting where only people who follow politics are to vote and Paul does well in universities....
Click Stand;13410708']Because the internet community is well educated.:rolleyes:
Uh...yeah, actually....
Ron Paul has never read the Constitution.
Prove it.
Get over it. Paul is an idiot, and even the average American can see it.
Really? Well..if the average American beleives Paul is an idiot, that just makes me think Paul is even more correct...because the average American is stupid, ignorant, apathetic and misinformed by the brainwashing he recieves from the very little time he spends listening to the media telling him what to think....
Only an idiot would support such anti-federalist and isolationist policies this day and age.
He wants more rights to go to the states..but not a complete confederation...also he's not isolationist he's non-interventionist...for instance, he voted for Afghanastan.

Racist? No proof.

Actually, there has been an abundance of proof. That you choose to ignore it doesnt mean it isnt there.

Support the Iraq War

Really? Not in any polls Ive seen lately.

...want more taxes...

Actually, the average American wants less taxes. People dont like paying taxes. Why do you think politicians who preach tax cuts do so well?

Paul does well voting where only people who follow politics are to vote and Paul does well in universities....

Prove it. What universities? Lets see some stats. I can claim the sky is purple. Doesnt make it so.

He certanly doesnt do well at my university. But maybe we're just all ignorant:rolleyes:

Prove it.

To claim that the constitution has many references to God shows that one has never read the constitution, because it really has none.

Really? Well..if the average American beleives Paul is an idiot, that just makes me think Paul is even more correct...because the average American is stupid, ignorant, apathetic and misinformed by the brainwashing he recieves from the very little time he spends listening to the media telling him what to think....

Prove it. Just because the average American doesnt vote for your precious Dr. Paul isnt proof enough.

He wants more rights to go to the states..but not a complete confederation

Yeah, and he wants to ban every Government "department of..." and let the states decide. Like with Education for instance. So that we can have Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennesse teaching Creationism as scientific fact and that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That sounds like a solid idea to me:rolleyes:

he voted for Afghanistan

Thats because to vote against it would have been political suicide. Even he's not that thick.

Racist? No proof.

Really?

What about his very public opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

His opposition to the provisions of the 14th Amendment?

What about H.R. 4982, H.R. 3863, and H.R. 5842?

You can cover your eyes and ears and ignore the evidence if you want, but that doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there.


Anti-Federalist...no...he wants a balance of powers between states and fed...not a complete federation, but just more power back to the states than they currently have.

Like the power to legislate whom you can sleep with, where you can go to school, where to can get a job...We The People Act, again, look it up.


Anti-constitutionalist? Really? I thought he was A constitutionalist...explain to me how he's not and how everyone else running is more of a constitutionalist than him.

Because they've actually read the 14th amendment...


Most Americans are ignorant and apathetic, do you honestly not beleive that?


No, I believe it. The fact that someone like Ron Paul can gather support only proves it.


Paul does well voting where only people who follow politics are to vote and Paul does well in universities....

Even though 18-25 has historically had the lowest voter turnout until this election where they've mostly voted for Obama...


Really? Well..if the average American beleives Paul is an idiot, that just makes me think Paul is even more correct...because the average American is stupid, ignorant, apathetic and misinformed by the brainwashing he recieves from the very little time he spends listening to the media telling him what to think....

Hurray for generalizations!

Actually, there has been an abundance of proof. That you choose to ignore it doesnt mean it isnt there.

Shh, you'll give away his uber-secret debate-winning tactic!

I do have to admit one thing. I do admire a single thing about Ron Paul. He has managed to get the vast majority of people united under one thing, be they black, white, female, male, Midwestern, West Coastites, Republican, Democrat, or whathaveyou, he's managed to get us to agree on one thing:


we all think he's fucking nuts.

Oh yes...because most Americans support the Iraq war, want more taxes, want more war, want a larger government, and want another fake politician who only says what will get him elected instead of speaking his mind. Also, most Americans are happy with the way this country has been going and want us to continue along this path.

Oh wait...no they don't!
Then Ron Paul would be doing well in the Republican primaries. Oh, wait, he isn't!

Actually, there has been an abundance of proof. That you choose to ignore it doesnt mean it isnt there.
No..there were some articles written by someone using his name years ago...the fact that many many people, of various races came out and spoke about it and said that Ron Paul is not a man like that, mixed with the fact that Ron Paul has never said anything like that, mixed with the fact that we lived in L.A. during the riots and my family heard waaaaaaaaaaaaay worse things said, makes me just ":rolleyes:" at it.

Around the time of the riots, in L.A., the general feeling was that Whites were angry at Blacks and Blacks were angry at Whites. Nice? Not at all? How it was? You bet your ass.


Really? Not in any polls Ive seen lately.



Actually, the average American wants less taxes. People dont like paying taxes. Why do you think politicians who preach tax cuts do so well?
Ugh, fool. Go back and read what I said again.:rolleyes: You took it the complete wrong way.


Prove it. What universities? Lets see some stats. I can claim the sky is purple. Doesnt make it so.
Because he is very popular with idealistic college level kids....? How is that news? You never heard that before?:rolleyes:


To claim that the constitution has many references to God shows that one has never read the constitution, because it really has none.
It doesn't..and I didn't say that it did, by the way...but the declaration of independence does...which also showed to outline this nation and what it beleives in. For instance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'm not talking about Jesus..just a God.

Prove it. Just because the average American doesnt vote for your precious Dr. Paul isnt proof enough.
Again..it's common knowledge that Americans are generally apathetic and ignorant....do you really not know this? Answer me honestly...


Yeah, and he wants to ban every Government "department of..." and let the states decide.
Not every..just:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Thats because to vote against it would have been political suicide. Even he's not that thick.
Wrong again. It's because he supports letters of marque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque) instead of nation building and occupation....

You didnt prove or disprove any of the accusations made. You just spouted Paulbot rhetoric.

No..there were some articles written by someone using his name years ago...the fact that many many people, of various races came out and spoke about it and said that Ron Paul is not a man like that, mixed with the fact that Ron Paul has never said anything like that, mixed with the fact that we lived in L.A. during the riots and my family heard waaaaaaaaaaaaay worse things said, makes me just ":rolleyes:" at it.




*heavy sigh*


For the 5th and hopefully last time:

Really?

What about his very public opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

His opposition to the provisions of the 14th Amendment?

What about H.R. 4982 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.4982:), H.R. 3863 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:), and H.R. 5842 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:)?

You can cover your eyes and ears and ignore the evidence if you want, but that doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there.

Then Ron Paul would be doing well in the Republican primaries. Oh, wait, he isn't!

Na, because Americans don't bother to research the candidates and are fed selected info by the media because they are all drivelling morons.

- But don't most Americans oppose Ron Paul's beliefs?

No, they agree with Ron Paul's beliefs. Just like I do.

- Which Americans?

The drivelling morons.

Because he is very popular with idealistic college level kids....? How is that news? You never heard that before?:rolleyes:

PROVE it. Just because a few idealistic college kids like him doesnt mean his popular with people at universities and the educated!

Again, just saying it doesnt make it so.

It doesn't..and I didn't say that it did, by the way...but the declaration of independence does...which also showed to outline this nation and what it beleives in. For instance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Creator != God. Further:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Want that first bit again?
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Enjoy your secular nation.

No..there were some articles written by someone using his name years ago

His newsletter. His name. Apparently, he nor anyone on his staff was aware of the articles? Even though he owns and publishes it. Nope, ten years go by, no one was aware...

lol

Apparently you DO think Americans are stupid... if you expect anyone to believe that raging bullshit you're spewing.

...the fact that many many people, of various races came out and spoke about it and said that Ron Paul is not a man like that

Only a little leavening is needed to leaven the whole loaf. The fact that he hired some idiots to come testify that he's a fucking saint after the fact is not persuasive.

, mixed with the fact that Ron Paul has never said anything like that

No, just published it.

, mixed with the fact that we lived in L.A. during the riots and my family heard waaaaaaaaaaaaay worse things

Big deal. "It is possible to be more racist than Ron Paul" doesn't count towards Ron Paul not being racist.

Ugh, fool.

Wouldn't be a TAI post without an ad hominem. As usual, a completely stupid one.


Wrong again. It's because he supports letters of marque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque) instead of nation building and occupation....

OK, so he's not only racist, he's a fucking nutcase. That's why he lost, and will continue to lose. He's too fucked-up even for Americans. Except you, but as you can see, you're now in an unimportant fringe-yokel minority.

Because he is very popular with idealistic college level kids....? How is that news? You never heard that before?:rolleyes:
Yeah, but Gore actually won the popular vote.