Another Victory For Ron Paul Who Wins 44.9% In California Straw Poll To Perry's 29.3%, Bachmann's 7.7%

Tyler Durden's picture

The Republican presidential candidate whom everyone (at least in the mainstream media, on both the right and left, as they are, after all, funded by the status quo to preserve the status quo) has written off, has won his latest landslide victory, this time in a straw poll in California during its 2011 Fall Convention in downtown LA JW Marriott. The LA Times details what transpired: "One presidential candidate, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, spoke at a dinner on Friday night, and Saturday morning's breakfast featured two more contenders: Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter and Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Paul's fans were out in force both outside the hotel -- awaiting his arrival -- and inside the ticketed Lincoln Clubs Breakfast. He spoke last and was late, allowing McCotter to add a question-and-answer period to his prepared remarks." There was nothing substantially new in Paul's speech which can be summarized as follows: '"You ought to have a right to work hard, and you ought to have a right to keep what you earn." As for the straw poll, "Saturday at the convention also featured a straw poll, conducted between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Pacific, with results announced during an evening banquet. Considering the large numbers of Paul fans who made their way to the Marriott, it's not surprising that he won the poll by a handy margin over second-place finisher Perry. But after the two Texans, the percentages drop precipitously, with Bachmann only managing fourth despite her convention appearance." Something tells us that nothing prevents "large numbers" of other candidate fans from making their way to the Marriott. The results: "Congressman Ron Paul (374, 44.9%); Governor Rick Perry (244, 29.3%); Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%); Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%); Jon Huntsman (17, 2.0%)."

Some more on why while the media may continue to ignore him, Paul remains the single best candidate:

Several breakfasters videotaped portions of Paul's speech, which likely would be familiar to anyone who's heard him the previous two times he ran for president -- in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket and 2008 in the Republican field.


Among some of the lines that got the biggest cheers in the 20-ish minute talk were:


"We have endless wars overseas and endless welfare at home. We can't afford that anymore; we have to change those policies."


"We do need an absolutely thorough audit of the Federal Reserve," Paul added.


"What is the purpose of government and political action? I think the main purpose of our Constitution and political action should be the preservation of liberty."


"It would be nice if we had a lot more respect for the rule of law."


"You ought to have a right to work hard, and you ought to have a right to keep what you earn."


America's role is to have a strong national defense, "not to be the policeman of the world." (That one was particularly popular.)


He ended with "I'm running on peace and prosperity and personal liberty, the U.S. Constitution and the American tradition."


The congressman exited to chants of "President Paul."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
runlevel's picture

RON PAUL 2012!!!

GeneMarchbanks's picture

Bullish!!!   ... for Gold!

spiral_eyes's picture

Ron Paul bitchez!

Those are the kind of numbers that will win him the nomination!

And with a massive market crash coming on the 20th... who knows where his numbers might be this time next year!! 

Ident 7777 economy's picture

Yes, Ron Paul and pass the bong ...

Maniac Researcher's picture

Not surprised. California is full racist assholes - making its reputation as a "liberal" state all the more dubious. Home to the John Birch Society and many white supremacist organizations, these numbers are not at all shocking.

Racists voting for racists. How novel. Don't let me stop you from celebrating -- I'm sure "freedom" and "justice" will prevail.


eisley79's picture

loser looking for loser attention


fail on both accounts, if you want to make dumb people angry and argue with you for attention, try huffington post or



Maniac Researcher's picture

Wow, you really "won" that debate, didn't you? There's plenty of dumb right where you're sitting.

In case you're wondering, you actually have to include content to have a point. What you've said is pointless - and quite typical for a ZH dittohead.

Are you refuting the existence of a large and extreme right-wing sentiment in California? If you are, offer something.

Are you contending that this is not the reason Ron Paul just had a good showing in that particular state? If you are, then offer something.

Are you going to defend the decidedly problematic nature of straw poll metrics? If you are, then..well, you get the point.


Or, you don't. When your ideology informs your reality, your home could be burning around you and you'll still find a way to blame it on boogeymen such as "Keynesianism" or the mythical monolithic "Left" and so on.


As I've stated before, it's the internet - koolaid drinkers of all stripes are going to convene in their little clubhouses and lather each other up. Fine. But don't pretend that there's some sort empirical legitimacy to your assertions. --I'm addressing you, in particular, Tyler-- The sentiments expressed here on ZH are hopes, not analysis.

As for the rest of you ZH fans, depending on ideologues for advice is a sure-fire way to fuck yourselves.

Of course, given that you're all such generous, open-minded people, I'll just get out of the way. Kindly continue to go fuck yourselves. :D

eisley79's picture

Sorry lil bitch, you gotta earn the right to argue with me.

Like I said, you just want attention, but the majority of people here are too smart to be sucked in by your pathetic desparate cries for attention.  Go back to Troll School, when your IQ finally breaks into triple digits, and you learn how to make a logical statement instead of a logical fallacy, then and only then, I might MIGHT deem you worthy of a response


Dont let the door hit you on the way out, and take your next soliloquy with you.



Maniac Researcher's picture

Yeah, I'll get right on "earning" the right to "debate" someone who can only speak in memes. I think you might be too daft to notice you left your intellectual credentials behind from your first comment.

Good job, Tyler! I give you "eisley79" - your new and capable defender! I'm sure this individual knows loads about macroeconomics, derivatives, CDS, mortgage-backed securities, or the intricacies of Eurozone politics. The depth of knowledge and analysis should obviously command the respect of *all* those who have experience with such things. Seriously. I mean really. With friends like these...


Eisley -I think you are also too deluded to see that I was making an example of your idiocy in order to communicate a point to the readership here that extends past the vacuum of 4chan-related nonsense you call a cognitive reasoning center.

Not mad. Laughing at you.'s picture

Your cackling does indeed sound quite mad.

Strike Back's picture

Also lonely, and bored.  It takes a really sick individual to sit there and obsessively respond to comments on a website that he supposedly hates.  Maniac's pattern: bait a personal attack by bandying about baseless labeling, counterattack non-arguments with more non-arguments, and ignore those that actually respond to him.

eisley79's picture

@Maniac Researcher

"I'll just get out of the way"-Maniac Researcher

"dont let the door hit you on the way out"-Eisley



Now, when you say you are going to go, but dont and keep flailing away....AND my whole point is that you just want attention and no one is going to bite the bait you are trying fish here, are you helping yourself or proving me right?

as i said before, try huffington post or glenn beck TV


You dont know a thing about me son, talking about 4 chan and memes just shows YOUR age.  I could take you apart on any of the subjects you mentioned, but as I said, you have to earn that right...


you have the charisma of a damp rag, and the apperance of a low grade bank clerk



just walk-a-way, like you said you were going to, you are just making a fool of yourself

Bringin It's picture

Nobody likes Maniac Researcher, a proven fraud and liar.  A shill for the corrupt status quo.

Ask him what his IQ is.  That should be entertaining.

fuu's picture

I just wanted to thank all the shills, trolls, naybobs, and wankers in this thread. Your fear is a motivational juggernaut.


Have a nice day.

eisley79's picture

thanks for coming out, tell your story walking.....

i-dog's picture

"Maniac Researcher, a proven fraud and liar"

That is patently not true. Though I intensely dislike his invective approach and his tarring of the whole of ZH with his one (only!) very wide brush, he is most definitely neither a fraud nor a liar [, IMO].

Bringin It's picture

Re. patently not true?!?

Usually you are right i-dog, but not this time.

Strike Back's picture

Rasmussen national poll has Obama and Paul at neck and neck.  All racists? 

We invest in gold.  How is that fucking ourselves?

Is your only strength condescension and verbosity?  Label throwing?  Laughable assertions that a random straw poll happened to hit every racist in extreme right wing groups in California?

Maniac Researcher's picture

Your interest in Ron Paul most only extend to recent memory. Some of us could read in the 1990s.

Strike Back's picture

You failed to answer any of my arguments and pointed to that tired old newsletter factoid that has been debated and debunked thoroughly elsewhere.  Big words don't mask baseless arguments.

eisley79's picture

he wasnt even born in the 1990s, dont feed the troll...its what he wants, someone, anyone, to argue with him...


Strike Back's picture

Agreed.  I felt a sense of duty to stat quo types that may be reading this site.  I'm like you, but I've made those arguments so many damn times I'm sick of making them.  At this point, the information is out there, and if you don't get it, you dont' get it.

Doña K's picture

Careful guys. "Maniac researcher" may turn you in. He is part of Obummer's report regime critics web site.

malalingua's picture

really?  I thought he was glen beck using a thesaurus. 

Strike Back's picture

Realizing that website was real made my hangover worse.

Maniac Researcher's picture

You know what I love? when my comments break the turgid monotony of group think here on ZH, even for a moment - and then suddenly, others are speaking up, too. I cite the thread below about the folly of the two-party system as evidence of this phenomenon.

You can hurl the bile filled attacks all you like. Paranoid fantasies, speculation about my age, background, or political affiliation - they're all a distraction from my original point. Which, surprise surprise, none of you have engaged. Tyler, you have a pretty weak bunch here. It isn't hard to get them riled, nor is it difficult to expose their hypocrisy and lack of decency.

What was that again? A website with supposedly no political party affiliation or ideological base, actually has one. And an obvious one at that. This makes claims by Tyler and ZH readers that there is useful, nonpartisan empirical data that one can use in order to survive and flourish in an uncertain economic and political climate not only suspect, but frankly, nonsense.

I've noticed the din of hecklers has risen quite enough to draw attention to what I wanted to say. I'll let more eloquent speakers conclude my visit to the dittohead koolaid land..

Have you seen the below before? Have you listened thoroughly? Are you aware of the historical context of this short little speech? Take a listen.

malalingua's picture

You can hurl the bile filled attacks all you like.  YOU started the bile filled attacks in an ealier post calling Californians racist assholes just because Ron Paul won the straw poll.  A bit contrarian to post the speech you posted whilst being so pretentious with your blatant disgust of the only man fighting on behalf of the American people. 

eisley79's picture

@internet researcher

"when my comments break the turgid..."

people would have to read your comments for that to be true, no one cares, go find your attention else where.


just stop calling mikey.....please

Bringin It's picture

malalingua - re. A bit contrarian to post the speech you posted whilst being so pretentious with your blatant disgust of the only man fighting on behalf of the American people.

Understand Maniac R.  Maniac R. is in favor of devouring the American people.  He is therefore opposed to any man willing to fight on their behalf.

Maniac Researcher's picture

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to what Ron Paul has actually said during his long career, have you?

eisley79's picture

like when you read newsletters he didnt write in the 90s?  Do keep loading on the lies, you are trying to buy your way out of bankruptcy with debt...


how long are you going to sit on this page pressing F5 hoping for someone to argue with.

No one cares, as I have said twice now, go troll on the Huffington Post, or Glen Beck TV.  Your garbage will get the reaction and attention you want in places like that.


The party is over, everyone has gone home, time to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and run along...

Hamsterfist's picture

As a fellow liberal I agree and disagree with your posts, especially concerning Dr. Paul.  I AGREE that his 'state rights' arguments are old hat and have been used by racists for ages.  However I also think Paul is the only one telling the truth, or at least a portion of the truth.  So what do I do?  Obama is a failure, am I am sick of rewarding turn coat democrats.  In a way I want to stick it to tptb, and I 'think' Paul is a step in that direction.  Whether he is or not, we can only find out if he actually wins.  Plus I think a Paul/Obama debate would be entertaining as hell, almost as fun as a Bachmann/Obama debate, but in reverse.  

Of course I know I am still participating in a system that is a lie, so maybe this is all for naught.  In someways I feel as if I operate in two different universes.  One in my beliefs and arguments concerning the way our current society ought to be and the other universe knowing that all of that is bullshit.  It just depends on the context of the conversation.  Try telling a firm believer in Republicans/Democrats that it is all fucking crap, and see what kind of response you get.  The conversation will devolve into their utter defense of the status quo, and unfortunately that is what you see on ZH even.  I have noticed the blue pillers come out in full force on the weekends though.

i-dog's picture

"In a way I want to stick it to tptb, and I 'think' Paul is a step in that direction."

Ron Paul is a tool of TPTB ... just like all the others. He is controlled opposition. He is/was a member of the Jesuit-Rockefeller-funded John Birch Society and he is very well connected to the Jesuit-Rockefeller-Hunt-funded and highly secretive Council for National Policy (which was the main source of funding for Rand Paul's senate campaign).

Voting for any one of the current candidates is a vote for TPTB. Either don't vote at all or devote your resources and energy to taking back your state house from TPTB ... or both.

desirdavenir's picture

completely agree on the general part, though I always find it nice to listen to other points of vue. So I don't mind the ideologues, makes me understand why Ron Paul has some support

xiam007's picture

So - who is your candidate for 2012?

Christophe2's picture

My candidate: someone who is NOT a Republican or a Democrat, as obviously the two parties are nothing more than the twin masks used to limit our thinking and make us waste countless time objecting to the massive incoherence that is present on BOTH sides.


I will never again vote Republican or Democrat, and unfortunately pseudo-non-mainstream news sites like ZH refuse to discuss any American candidates that are not part of the 2 pork parties.  Worse yet, all the pseudo-non-mainstream sites spend their time plugging Ron Paul as our savior (ha!), regardless of the obvious falacy of such statements.


ZH minions like to feel so proud and superior thanks to how they are supposedly no longer getting their news from the mainstream, but they sure don't ever dare to venture beyond the sellouts that have been vetted by TPTB.  Don't you get it yet?  Nowadays, all the Republican and Democrat candidates are shills, actors and fakes.  Can't you see the obvious psy-ops wherein one part of the mainstream tells you that other parts of the mainstream are 'ignoring' Ron Paul?  And ZH tries to make us feel lucky that he's wining 'beyond all odds'!  It's pathetic.


Still, to answer your question, even though the Diebold vote fraud machines make voting moot nowadays, and although I don't even know if she is running for pres, I'd pick Cynthia McKinney before Ron Paul or any of those other pukes in a heart-beat: above all, she dared (and dares) to say the truth about 9/11, quite unlike the 'savior' ( ).


And before y'all libertarians discount her for being left-wing, consider the following: it matters far less whether a candidate is left or right, compared to whether or not he/she is a NWO sellout.  You can implement good changes following a libertarian ideology, just like you can implement good changes following most other ideologies.  The devil is in the details, and it's in the details that they keep screwing us!  (When they don't just outright reneg on all their campaign promises).


I simply will not consider anyone who won't speak the truth on 9/11, but I also believe that revolt is the only way we'll ever free ourselves of the Illuminati/NWO.  No politician can fix this on his or her own, president or not.

malalingua's picture

are you by chance eating magic bananas with evil sauce right now?

Christophe2's picture

Wow.  Now there's a fine rebuttal by a Paul-tard if I ever saw one.


Here's my question back to you: is your middle / upper-middle class salary enough to warrant being a troll and sellout for TPTB?  Do you enjoy being their slave?  Or is it that you are so emotionally attached to Ronney-boy that you can't think objectively?  Do my cogent arguments scare you so much you feel a need to steep so low?


What exactly is it that you feel is delusional in what I wrote?  Casting groundless allegations of insanity is one of the most vile and despicable things one can do.  It doesn't affect me one bit, but it sure makes you look like a dickhead.  Too bad you are too weak-minded to think of ways to actually argue against my points, eh?

malalingua's picture

Ser.iou.sly?  Paul-tard?  This is a term of endearment to me used only by neo-con snozzle crockles... I was only asking a question, either a simple yes or no will do. 

Christophe2's picture

I realize you are at best a 'mischievous' troll and that entering into a discussion with you is pointless, but nonetheless I will have a bit more fun at your expense, since you make it so easy, and since you so deserve it, quite frankly.


Because you have no reason for questioning my sanity and no ability to build even the semblance of an argument to supports such a conclusion, your "I was only asking a question" is absurd and still just as self-defeating as before.  Should I ask you if you have blue balls?  Or should I ask if you are dicking around online 'cos you are tired of your mom's company?  I have little reason for asking such questions of you, so if I were to ask them out of the blue, I would just end up looking spiteful and desperate, as you clearly do.  Do you understand?


I guess you aren't smart enough to read between the lines, either, as you already got your answer.  That being said, I know you are just a spiteful troll who thinks he is finding ways to get to me, when in fact your puerile attempts and speech are an embarrassment to your group.  Who wants to be with stupid?


And to bring it all home, let me explain how apt the moniker 'Paul-tard' is in your case:

a) you are a Ron Paul supporter / troll.

b) you are so far from smart in your approach and abilities that you seem retarded.

a+b = Paul-tard.  Do you understand now how, unlike you, I am warranted in giving you an unpleasant label?  Other Ron Paul supporters do not deserve such ridicule, and if I were to use that term widely it would look bad on me.  Are you starting to get it?


In any case, I appologize to the ZH readers for feeding this troll, as it's just a waste of time, as always.  I had a bit of fun with it though, so I can only hope that you will too (I'm not bothering to write all this for the troll, certainly).  malalingua, I bet I'll get another laugh out of your next reply, but since I expect it will be just more of the same, don't expect anything more out of me, kid.

malalingua's picture

Get. Over. Yourself.  I ask you a simple question and you engage into this lengthy diatribe.  The joke is on you btw.  Translate my name mala lingua. (hint, it's latin.) 

If being a troll means having to disagree with you then I take that as a compliment.  Also. If you had fun with this exchange then you have a really boring life. 

Christophe2's picture

You surprised me by actually offering me something I wished to reply to, although evidently it only makes you look incredibly worse, dummy.  It seems like your name means "the language of evil" - a perfect name for a (most likely Zionist) troll like yourself.  You can revel in your evil nastiness if you wish, but the end result is nothing but abject misery for yourself, ultimately.  Being a deceiver means that you waste all your time degrading yourself, when in fact you could be bettering yourself and those around you.  So what if your masters reward you with baubles from time to time, so what if your tricks sometimes work temporarily?  Being cunning innevitably means you are underdeveloped in other areas, hence your never-ending feelings of insufficiency, which ironically lead you to jealously lash out all the more against those with real abilities and real success.  No wonder you are so dumb, if your focus in life is being a nasty little troll.  False person that you are, you will never have more than the appearance of success, and no matter how many you manage to trick, you will always still know, deep down inside, how pathetically far from 'real' your appearance is.


It's also quite telling that your "language of evil" got tons of up-votes from the other psy-ops pukes who pollute this space.  Worse yet, Ron Paul is revealed as the guy who gets support from none other than the "language of evil" - as before, you do nothing more than tarnish that which you hoped to burnish, loser!


Oh, and when did you disagree with anything I said?  You never made a single point, never argued anything remotely coherent, and that's why you are 100% troll.  I guess that's all Ron Paul has going for him, eh?  And of course I had fun stomping a nasty cockroach like yourself.  Are you going to try to argue that you enjoyed miserably failing in everything you attempted, or that you enjoyed having your pathetic psyche revealed to all?  Are you truly such a glutton for embarrassment?  You can try to stand tall, to appear nonchallant, you pathetic faker, but everyone who reads this knows you got schooled.  I wasn't laughing so hard earlier, but now it's getting to be some sweet, sweet schadenfreude!  Honestly: thanks for putting a big smile on my face.  You did a good deed!

malalingua's picture

Cher Christophe mon petit psychoanalyste,

It looks like you might want to brush up on your Latin a smidge.  Malus -a -um is a first and second declension adjective describing the first declension noun lingua, not a genitive singular.

Ride bene, turpicule nasus!




Christophe2's picture

Pauvre petit con.  Essaye donc encore. (Et c'est psychanaliste, en passant.)


Es turpis et sentis maulus!


My source for translating your name:|en|mala%20lingua

-> granted, lame-o google fails miserably to properly translate the Latin I wrote above (from way back in my school days), but I figure they probably do better with a pair of words than with a sentence, and rather tellingly the alternate meanings roughly work for mine, but google offers no alternative meaning for yours - nothing but evil...  You can properly translate my words though, right?  In any case, you remain an evil little troll, undoubtedly.  Don't lose hope though: you can change, dontcha know?  Your life will vastly improve, believe me.




1. bad, evil, wicked, injurious

2. destructive, mischievous, hurtful

3. ill-looking, ugly, deformed

4. evil, unlucky"

-> and the feminine (for lingua) is 'mala'.  Mauvaise langue, tu me fais rire encore! hahaha.

i-dog's picture

Chris: A few days ago you asked me for recommended sources of further background. I think you'll find this a very interesting insight into the last 220 years of American presidents and who of TPTB is most active in day-to-day politics world-wide:

History of Presidential Assassinations (2 hrs interview on YouTube)

PS. Ignore the religious mumbo-jumbo (unless you're that way inclined) and focus on the incredibly well-researched facts and cited references. Phelps' research answered many loose ends for me for which I previously could find no logical or coherent explanation.

Christophe2's picture

Thanks, i-dog!  Good to see you again.  The video is very interesting, and I particularly liked the stuff about Japan (although the start was slow and far too rainbow'y).  As for the religious parts, I'm with you on that, but I don't hold it against the presenters.  They are clearly well intentioned and sincere, and in any case the rest holds together quite well.


They do seem a bit too focused on the Jesuit order though, as I doubt they played such a central role in everything: IMO they are but another limb of the chimera, a part of a larger whole.  (To be honest though, I skipped some parts though and intend to watch it again more carefully when I have time).  Do you think the Jesuits are still significant today?  I rather doubt it.  It's more the Zionists than anyone else, nowadays, although the Vatican surely plays a significant role when and where it can...  (In a similar vein to your movie: )

i-dog's picture

"Do you think the Jesuits are still significant today?"

I most certainly do! Phelps does see everything as Jesuit-controlled, but they are indeed an equal partner with the Sabbateans (what most here would call "the joos", without realising that they are Luciferians and have often also converted to Catholicism or Christianity through marriage or for social acceptance) in such gatherings as Bohemian Grove, the CFR and the upper reaches of American and European politics.

The political power of the Jesuits has waxed and waned somewhat over the centuries but, in my opinion, their power and influence is at a high point now, with Ratzinger as Pope and Knights of Malta scattered in leadership positions around the world. Those at the very top of the power pyramid are able to use both the Jesuit- and Sabbatean-controlled members of the various secret societews (including Skull & Bones, CIA, CFR, CNP, Bilderberg, Heritage, etc) to full effect in attempting to steer us into One World Feudalism.

PS. You must separate Zionists into two groups: Sabbatean/Labour (Luciferian) Zionists and religious Jewish Zionists. Barry Chamish has some good interviews (including one with Eric Phelps) on YouTube that describe the obvious differences. The Labour Zionists would like to see all religious Jews eliminated from Israel.

You must also not confuse Jesuits with Roman Catholics. Jesuits are Luciferians and are quite distinct from the Vatican, the Pope, the Roman Catholic clergy and believers. Jesuits may gain some of those positions from time to time (eg. Ratzinger), but they are a separate organisation with their own Black Pope (Jesuit General) and their own belief system that merely appears to overlap with Romanism. They have been banned by the Roman Catholic Church in the past (usually resulting in the offending Pope being poisoned, their favourite method of disposing of obstacles) but are usually quickly reinstated after flexing their considerable political muscle.

Even I get confused sometimes.

Nothing To See Here's picture

It's funny how those anti-Paul retards are flocking over here nowadays.

My two-cents : neo-cons like to make money and they heard they could find a hint or two at ZH so they get over here. They don't understand WHY the ZH community calls the good shots on the economy (like the good doctor) and they are not even interested in knowing WHY. They just want to know the hints and they bring their arrogance with them.

I just got one word about these scum whose only interest is to make a buck and who just don't care about understanding how the world works : pathetic.

It wouldnt actually bug me if it wasnt that these scum will vote Mitt Perry in, thinking it's gonna make a difference, and then cry that "politicians don't walk the talk" as if they did not expect it in this specific instance.

Christophe2's picture

It doesn't seem like you bothered to read any of what I wrote, or at least tried to argue against any of it, instead inventing reasonable-seeming talking points.  I explicitly did not suggest Mitt Perry instead of RP (or Obamma, for that matter).  So the rest of the mainstream is far worse than Ron Paul: then why can't you look past the mainstream parties?  We're here on ZH, a supposedly non-mainstream site, yet it seems we aren't allowed to consider anything else than the pukes from the mainstream parties.  Why is that?


I suggested Cynthia McKinney as one alternative, so how on earth can you call me a neo-con?  Although I will confess that I am not inherently drawn to libertarianism, I can still see logic and good from much of what it proposes, especially given our monstrously overgrown current government.  I would have no problem with voting for a libertarian, a Pirate (I wish we had such a party in the US!), or anyone else who might have a chance, so long as they were real.


Ron Paul, supposed enemy of the Federal Reserve, has done practically nothing to get in their way since getting his chairmanship of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee.  How is that real?  Just being better than Mitt Romney is NOT GOOD ENOUGH!