This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is Ron Paul 2012's Black Swan?
Courtesy of Bill Buckler of The Privateer
The Great Non Debate
For five years, the writing on the wall has been crystal clear. As 2007 began, the US Foreclosure Market Report for 2006 showed that foreclosures for the year had reached 1.2 million, an increase of 42 percent over the 2005 figure. In early February 2007, in the midst of a growing rash of bankruptcies among small US sub-prime mortgage issuers, New Century Financial announced that it was “recalculating” its “profits for the previous three quarters. New Century was one of the three biggest mortgage brokers in the US. In two days, its stock price dropped 40 percent. Six months later, President Bush was calling the now obvious collapse in the US real estate market a “blip” on the US economy. Two months after that, the stock market peaked. A year after that, in September/October 2008, the global economy froze solid and was only thawed by the biggest explosion of money creation in history. Now, here we are at the start of 2012. Nothing has changed. No positive steps have been made. The symptoms have been disguised under an avalanche of palliatives but the disease continues to eat away at the substance of the system on which it feeds. The major effort of government and “mainstream” analysts everywhere has been to avoid, deflect and actively silence any nascent discussion of the root of the problem.
The root of the problem is perfectly illustrated in the fact that since August 1971, the funded debt of the US government has risen from $US 400 Billion to $US 15,236 Billion. The severity of the problem is illustrated by the fact that with Mr Obama having yet to complete his third full year as President, he has presided over $US 4,600 Billion (or almost one-third) of that increase. The root of the problem is the abandonment of money - the final legal connection between Gold and the US Dollar was ended in August 1971. The severity of the problem is the grotesque expansion of what has taken its place.
None of this has been or is being discussed because the establishment in the US and everywhere else does not want it discussed. A REAL “black swan event” - an event that deviates by 180 degrees from what is “normally expected” - would be a political debate over root causes and basic principles. The great merit of Ron Paul - and the great service he is giving to his own and every other nation - is the fact that he is doing everything he can to raise the debate to that level. That makes Dr Paul a unique politician, a man who tells people what most of them DON’T want to hear or understand.
Or at least they don’t think they want to understand it. Dr Paul’s great and merited attractiveness to a growing number of admirers has a very simple source. He is that rarest of creatures - a FREE man. He is beholden to nobody. He has developed his ideas and his convictions over a long and fruitful life of independent thinking. He does not compromise. He homes in on the fundamental issue and principle of any political issue and serves it up without salt or other “seasoning”. He says what he means and he means what he says. He is the living embodiment of the “dream” that most Americans have long since given up on as they saw it slip further and further beyond their grasp. He is the only prominent person who is doing everything he can to turn the non-debate which masquerades as the “mainstream” in the US and global political economy into something of substance. That, far more than the presidency, is his goal.
»
- 31196 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"When Mitt Romney came to Town"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8HHe56rUto&feature=player_embedded
http://www.whatisworking.com/2012/01/when-mitt-romney-came-to-town.html
And this dude wants to create jobs and lift the masses out of the economic slump. What an opportunistic establishment liar...
these videos are like sunshine..
My #1 issue with Romney, that makes him completely unelectable, is you don't know where he stands on the issues. He will do and say anything to get elected. He cannot be trusted. His words mean nothing.
So, when it's between Romney and Obama, you'll vote for the scummy, low-life, dirtball?
Or will you vote for the low-life, scummy, dirtball? Your choice!
Fight organized crime; don't vote.
Agree.
Ron Paul as a candidate would be the only justification to make an exception from this rule.
I couldn't vote for Obummer or McLame last election, I know I won't vote for Obummer or Romney or Gingrich this time around. It's Ron Paul or none of the above for me.
I will continue to prepare for the economic collapse which has been delayed by overt and hidden money printing. The monetary alchemy will fail regardless of who is POTUS, at least with Ron Paul you have someone who will know what to do to fix it.
Ok, so we should not vote for a candidate that fights organized crime? Cognitive dissonance is worth noticing if nothing else to sort the handle delivering this call to inaction.
My #1 issue with Romney is that he comes from a cult religion that issues secret undergarments to its members.
Right now its anyone but Obama for me...
And morons like this are why Americans, once again, will elect another piece of shit. Just as the "anybody but Bush" idiots secured the election for Oblahblah, so will they secure the retards on parade vote for Magical Underpants Mitt.
Congratulations America, you are ruled by shitheads.
Congratulations America, you are ruled by shitheads.
... elected by shitheads.
He prefers to be called "Mittens"
It's the manliest nickname they could reference from the lost golden tablets
Voting 'against' the other party is part of the problem.
When the left hand votes against the right hand, nobody wipes, Muslim or Christian or Jew.
Or Mormon...
Top 5 Contributors - Iowa. Any Questions?
Mitt Romney
Goldman Sachs $367,200 Credit Suisse Group $203,750 Morgan Stanley $199,800 HIG Capital $186,500 Barclays $157,750Source?
You are kidding, right? The name's hyperlinked. And somebody gave you a greenie?
You can up vote yourself as most douchebags with 1 up vote have.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
I'm guessing you have plenty of experience in that regard, junior, but thanks for the informative post.
Oops! My bad, Clockwork. Didn't see blue link on my i-phone.
C.O.,
It's worse than what you've said. For the 2012 election cycle 8 of Romney's top 10 donors are banks and/or financial institutions, 13 of the 20 listed at the link. I think I'm going to puke. But I will look at the other candidates as well. Thank you for the link.
Mitt will keep the ATMs printing whatever paper his buds can short.
Awesome.. so when Obama wins term 2, I can call you up and say "Nice job, fuck face..." ? Stop voting for the sake of voting and make it mean something other than some vendetta.
Repubs like to say that when Romney was gov of Mass, he had to get elected in a liberal state and work with a liberal legislative branch. The majority (democrats) wanted the various liberal policies such as mandatory health care. Romney gave it to them.
Thus, can we count on Romney to do the same as President?
I think what most republicans and many of those that call themselves "conservative" (the latest buzz word to be adopted and eventually warped) is that a large segment of the population see all the candidates from both parties as people with no real principles and not trustworthy. Do I want a dumbass that is absolutely honest and truthful and able to admit their mistakes (for the betterment of all) and actually fix it or do I want a genius that is decietful and just a political animal that bends with the wind (and bends the rule of law) for the benefit of only himself, his party or a few friends?
Cant ou say that for all of them except RP? Remember Perry's "FED is Treason" bull shizzle?
Didnt Obama prove to everyone that you really can say anything to get elected and then you just do whatever the puppetmasters told you to?
I'm no Philidelphia lawyer.
But I like Dr. Paul because he's right.
Your mother's smelly asshole.
I remember back in 99 when he predicted that U.S. foreign policy would lead to terrorism on American soil.
I remember in 03 when he predicted the housing bubble.
What's not to like?
Wow...99 huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
Mostly the ignorance.
Mormons are like that.
self edited as potentially distracting the debate from more important issues
Romney is just another empty-suit politician
An empty suit with a fucking fat wallet. And perfect hair.
"Oh, but he just looks so presidential!" says granny GOP lemming.
What we know for sure is that his name is Romney.
Willard Romney.
that's why he's "perfect" for the job
Mittens is definately a waffler. This post speaks directly to the foreclosure crisis and I think Mitt has waffled that he would like to see everyone get kicked out pronto.
Has Ron Paul or Judge Napolitano weighed in on foreclosures?
I pulled this Fed. Court Order from PACER on Jan. 5, 2012. I think it could be a pretty big deal. Paging Macho.
U.S. District Court John J. McConnell ordered a stay on foreclosure cases and has appointed a "Special Master" to mediate the cases.
The Playing Field Has Been Leveled
"Special Master" does sound rather sinister; and being a banker undoubtedly carries a certain stigma. But I say let's give her a chance.
If you read the Judge's Order a couple of things stand out.
"Order the appearance of any persons necessary to settle any claims…".
"Order the appearance of any persons necessary to settle any claims completely and or order the appearance of any non-parties, including but not limited to municipal and other government officials and lien holders, that may be essential for a total resolution of the claims;".
Ok...so if this were simply a matter of failing to dot "i's" and cross "t's" will these alleged lenders be allowed to file Motions for Protective Order like they ALWAYS do?
Doing so makes it look like they trying to hide something.
I think what they are hiding is the fact that third parties via CDS have made them whole (mainly bailout bed-mate AIG); something they CAN legally do not more than once twice, not less than once never, but once. That, my friends, IS what they are hiding and how they have been unjustly enriched.
It has happened to you - whether in default or not. Your grand-children will be paying it back...and no; they won't be bailed out or receive a bonus.
The rubber will meet the road when the time comes to insure the title.
The Unholy Pig Men Alliance has some serious issues to address lest they suffer the lash of a Trial by Jury.
If a settlement takes place mustn't the mortgage must be released at closing by the current mortgage owner (who’s that?) before a new mortgage with title insurance is issued??
Specifically, if the title company is not satisfied that there is a good release on the old mortgage, won't it refuse to insure a new mortgage?
Same applies if paid in cash – still need title insurance with homeowner as named insured. No?
No title insurance means no standing means no foreclosure.
(Obligatory spam warning: Link goes to Foreclosure Hamlet. Advertising is not permitted. If you hate blogs do not click.)
Ron Paul is in the "follow the law" camp. If the banks don't *LEGALLY* have titles to the properties then fuck them. Sue them all.
This could cause an avalanche. They do not want a trial by jury. Ever.
Ugh, can't go with you on Huntsman. He seems like a nice enough guy, but his war/economic views are much closer to the "mainstream" candidates than they are to Ron Paul's views.
Nice try. Or not.
Huntsman is just a carbon copy of Mitt Romney.
Anybody notice that absolutely NO ONE except for Paul is advocating protecting the taxpayer from bailouts? All of the rest of these guys are a bunch of slimebags.
How might you know you may be at a super-giant Robert Precterish top? One hint: the complete lack of liquidationists, save Ron Paul. Liquidationists slowly disappeared after FDR took the helm in 1932. Prior to FDR, and especially prior to Strong's Federal Reserve, liquidationists were mainstream in the US, deflation was viewed as part of the economic cycle (in some cases, desirable).
It's like looking at investor sentiment and seeing 100% bulls and no bears.
No, Huntsman at least tries to convey rationalism...
Edit: Based on 1 to 4 up-down votes, it looks like 80% of Zerohedge are creationists...
I am firmly in the Creationist camp.
After a heavy dinner of chimichangas, rice and beans last night, I just created a large pile of Santorum after sitting on the can --- and now my Romnoids are hurting again. I just newt it was going to happen.
There’re many people rumored about imminent instability of North Korea government these days in micro-blog space in China. Referring the lack of news come out of DPRK on Kim Jong-un’s birthday?Jan 8?. Thought that’s part of “Project China Bear”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/north-korea-coup-rumor...
If North Korea didn't exist, China would need to invent it. Quite unfortunately, China is the worst colonist power so nothing good happens as in their implants into a culture of spiritual domination. Intellectual property denyers live to copy forever and lose their best brains to those that treat them better.
Amen
RP is not a company man, I'll shit my drawers if he can
What can we do to get this man elected? I usually feel like we're preaching to the choir.
Ron Paul's ideas are inevitable because the basic call for justice is something that predates him and is far greater than him. People will wake up. It is our choice if we want to do it now or wait another 1000 years. And so, worry about spreading the ideas of real freedom and justice more than getting him elected.
self-edited
+1
Can he rehypothecate loaves and fishes too?
Or turn junk into AAA?
NO, LLoyd Blankfein does that!
cool, when does the crucifixion start?
Dr. Ron Paul is my choice. But think about this one:
1.Nixon lost the election in 1960. Nixon stands down in 1964 as Goldwater is finally
given his chance.
2.Nixon returns in 1968.
... 3.Reagan wants the nomination in 1976. Stands down for Ford.
4.Reagan is rewarded for being a good soldier with the nomination in 1980. GHWB stands down.
5.GHWB is rewarded for being a good soldier with the nomination in 1988. Dole stands down.
6.Dole is rewarded for being a good soldier with the nomination in 1996.
7.W gets the nomination in 2000. McCain stands down.
8.McCain is rewarded for being a good soldier with the nomination in 2008. Romney stands down.
9.Romney will be awarded for being a good soldier with the nomination in 2012.
Oh well.
>Romney will be awarded for being a good soldier
The fly in your ointment is the fact that Romney never served in the military.
Good soldiers don't make anybody wealthy or powerful
Free RP "r3VOLution" T-shirts. Cover the shipping and it's yours. A deal, after shipping, that can only be rivaled by Old Navy. (Hat Tip Chinese Slave-workers and the USD peg).
http://www.ronpaulmarket.com/Ron_Paul_Revolution_T_Shirt_p/001.htm
int RepublicanPrimaries() {
char shill ;
bool ElectionsStillNecessaryEvil ;
Do {
cout << "Pick a shill: " ;
cin >> shill ;
} while ElectionsStillNecessaryEvil = true);
cout << "No matter what you do, you lose."
return 0;
}
Nice try, here's a version that would actually compile and run:
int RepublicanPrimaries( void )
{
char shill[80] = { 0, };
bool ElectionsStillNecessaryEvil = false;
do {
cout << "Pick a shill: " ;
cin >> shill ;
if (strcmp( shill, "Santorum" ) && strcmp( shill, "Romneylan" ) && strcmp( shill, "Grinch" ))
ElectionsStillNecessaryEvil = true;
} while (ElectionsStillNecessaryEvil == false);
if (strcmp( shill, "Ron Paul" ) == 0)
cout << "Thanx for giving the World a fighting chance!";
else
cout << "Thanks for picking Evil, you Bonehead!";
return 0;
}
Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable ' ElectionsStillNecessaryEvil' was corrupted.
Thanks for the sploit!
(and you could never pick anything but "Ron" with your code...no "Ron Paul" for you)
I'm not sure that code does what you think it does.
Please write out the pseudocode.
In any case, it still returns a big fat zero, which is precisely what we seem to get with every Republican primary cycle.
A Zerohedge PAC?
Paul/Schiff
Paul/Paul 2012
+(e+i squared)^(aleph one)
We are -e ^ i*Pi
He is human. Not very awe inspiring as a speaker.
What he offers is truth, reason and sound logic.
It isn't bullshit charisma wooing the panties off breathless co-eds... It's much more important than any rock star candidate can muster.
Get haircuts at a barber, and suits at a tailor.
Be a little more serious when selecting presidents.
Ron Paul 2012
People say he is not electable, I don't want to throw away my vote. They talk like you get credit or something for voting for "the winner", like it's a game show or dancing with the stars or your favorite football team. Too much TV I guess.
Yeah....most Americans are sycophantic nutless wankers in that regard. They've been programmed by Pavlov to chase after the good looking movie star types....vs....thinking for themselves and reasoning out the issues put forth and substance, rather than who's most attractive in a suit. They know it's a popularity contest and they are voting for the best looking actor....they just can't help themselves....being locked in their low self esteem prisons of Hollywood worship.
The, "I'm not voting for xxxxxxx because he has no chance of winning."
Yes, this is common.
....and stupid.
Don't be duped by that bulls**t.
That is designed propaganda.
Romney (Fed-worshipper, Wall-Street butt-boy) is far worse.
Power in numbers. See my earlier post. They CANNOT win without us.
Don't cower to that garbage MSM Faux tactic. See Mike Kreiger's post from yesterday and you will read all you need to read to muster up the appropriate courage.
Tell him what he's won!
(a clear conscience?)
buckethead those are some nice campaign lines
He wants to cut $1 trillion from the budget next year. What are the odds of that happening? It he could pull something out of his magic bag of tricks to accomplish that, he could just as easily do it as a congressman during the last couple decades. What he says makes sense, but that's about as far as it goes. Even if he cut $2 trillion out of the budget next year, that doesn't mean things would be any better in 5, 10 or 20 years, it just means it'll be bad next year. It'd certainly be a black swan if he refuses to increase the national debt after getting elected.
If you really look at the details of Ron Paul's plan, much or most of the cuts are achieved by downsizing the executive branch and reducing military operating costs. Since the decisions to spread our troops all over the world have been made by the executive branch, they can mostly be unwound by a new president.
How F*k up can you get by cutting government?
For example, if you lay off 23 of the 28+ staffers to Michelle Obama, maybe they would do something that is productive, instead of leaching taxpayers.
Maybe the next Aunt Annies, Cheryl's Cookies, or even Steve Jobs perhaps.
End the lunacy.
The bankers and military contractors aren't likely to be in favor of closing a significant amount of military bases and they own the congressmen that are elected to come up with the military budget. The banks probably like alot of upheveal for plundering. The insurance companies keep us wearing our seatbelts and the banks will keep the bases and wars going, even if Ron Paul would get elected.
That's the rub. In fact, by cutting the federal budget things would be much, much worse for the 20 million Americans that work for our central government, and their families, and all the lower salaried employees that feed off those fat government salaries via trickle down.
But that's really the fundamental debate centered around Ron Paul...do we want to be a centrally planned nation dominated by a massive bureaucracy that is better paid than everyone else? Do we want to live in that sort of regimented, hierarchical system? All signs point to yes. As I am fond of saying, Americans desire material comfort and physical safety, not liberty. A government jobs provides both, first via a nice fat salary with awesome benefits, and second via the psychological notion that you are "part of" the government and therefore have nothing to fear from its ever increasing power.
Not entirely true. If you step back and really parse Paul's plan, it's a lot more humane than you would think based on the headline numbers. It's a different strategy than what was pursued in Japan, but it is well thought out. I'm hoping we get to this part of the debate, because it is the opposite approach to what Krugman and Roubini advocate.
We will never get to that part of the debate as long as people like Stephanopolos (sp) are asking the questions. They mostly try to get the candidates to fight, not to talk about issues or their plans, because fighting makes for better sound bites.
I agree, that little weasel stephanopolus is nothing but a democratic shill posing as a journalist. His questions were nothing more than thinly veiled political attacks designed to distract and misdirect away from the issues. I wish Paul would have called him out as part of the problem right there in front of everyone. I guess I can take solace in the fact that he sees Paul as a serious threat to his socialist utopia, yeah the one that is 15 trillion in debt with 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The socialists from both parties have brought our once great nation to it's knees. Paul, unlike anyone else up on that stage, stands upon the moral high ground, uncorruptable, un-buyable. He may look a bit frail, but his ideas and courage stand like a tall tree, a tree of liberty that is there for all of us to take. Perhaps we are to far down the road to save, but I am not ready to walk away. The time is now for patriots to lift this man up and take our country back.
You mean George Step-on-all-of-us?
Also a lot more humane that the alternative of bankruptcy and SHFT. We could cut everything across the board by 20% and the pain would not be that great. Useless CD paper pushers making $120,000 being a clerk getting cut by $24,000 a year to $96,000.
Woohoo...let's make the recession worse while still leaving a > $600B deficit.
You're smoking crack if you think any clerk who hasn't been working since the FDR administration makes that kind of coin.
Fiscal discipline requires intelligent cutting not your non-solution, across-the-board stupidity and ass-umptions.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.H. L. Mencken
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken My favourite
Yes, that is a good one. Hoist the black flag, the piracy game needs more competition.
Being tempted is good, the picture is clear; succumbing to it makes you its bitch. All pirates are cannibals in the end; every day is Thanksgiving, but eventually you end up the turkey.
"All signs point to yes". It is depressing but gets to the heart of the matter. Probably by design, politicians keep increasing the level of dependency. This keeps them in power. More than 50% of the country is now dependent on Big Gov for their food, livelihood, etc... It is a terrible sign for liberty. Ron Paul wants to turn this around, but trimming the budget is only part of the challenge. The other part is convincing the dependents that their lives will eventually be more fulfilling by being productive, supporting themsleves, and finding a purpose in life. Dependency can be like an addiction. You get trapped by it. It will be very difficult to change this attitiude in the U.S. While I wouldn't mind seeing Ron Paul as Prez and trying to turn this around, it is more likely we will be stuck with another psycopath, eventual collapse, and revolution. I am afraid it will get ugly.
and why wouldn't they be?
if federal income taxes were abolished it would be the equivalent of a 25%+ pay rise for all working americans.
I could instantly spend another couple grand a month on frivolous things and still save more.
I could send my kids to private school, I could hire private tutors for them.
I could donate more money to charity to help those who need assistance.
Best of all, no middle-man federal bureacrat has to take a slice off the top in between, and I get to say where my money gets spent. And make damn sure that the people I spend it with are providing me with a good service or if its charitable contribution, making damn sure they don't waste that money.
So please explain to me how, if all private sector workers' incomes went up 25% that things we be 'worse'. Sure do-nothing federal employees would be unemployed, but Apple will need more people to sell their iPads since I could buy 4 a month extra.
Spending can also be cut by VETOING every spending bill that Clowngress comes up with UNTIL they really cut spending.
Oh, you don't know they can (and will) override his veto, if necessary, to make the spice flow?
You people really misunderstand what the executive branch can and can't do on their own.
Kennedy was capped for less and they almost managed to oust Clinton for his cock.
How long would Paul last with the "veto everything" routine, jack? C'mon...
This thing's winding down. Romney wraps it up for all intents by South Carolina. "Sealed with kiss" by that hottie Governor...is it Little Nickey?...anywho the so called "right wing" simply devoured itself. It was kinda entertaining actually. The real...shall we call them games?...begin now. And it ain't rhetoric but events that are going to lead this "thing" straight thru to November.
I'll write in Ron Paul's name in my own blood on the ballot if I have to. That'll be the last ballot I ever cast, as an American, anyway.
And Obama will coast to re-election due to 5% of the popular vote going to Ron Paul. Which is irrelevant because Romney would be identical to Obama anyway.
"I'll write in Ron Paul's name in my own blood on the ballot if I have to. That'll be the last ballot I ever cast, as an American, anyway.
And Obama will coast to re-election due to 5% of the popular vote going to Ron Paul. Which is irrelevant because Romney would be identical to Obama anyway."
That is not what Ron Paul or Rand Paul would want Ron's supporters to do. Rand Paul has already said that he doesn't think having Ron Paul run as a 3rd party candidate is a good idea as it is. They certainly don't want to see Obama get elected again.
http://www.alan.com/2012/01/03/rand-paul-says-third-party-run-for-dad-ro...
Hey it's they guy that said RP doesn't have a chance! How you doing, guy?
I do not believe the GOP Establishment will select Ron Paul. I also attached an article from an interview with Rand Paul where he clearly stated that he does not support Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate.
You also wrote in the past that the GOP should not support Paul because he is "not electable"- the main talking point from, everyone.
"You also wrote in the past that the GOP should not support Paul..."
I never told anyone here not to support for Ron Paul in the primary voting process. I would gladly vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I CLEARLY said that I did not believe the GOP Establishment will nominate Ron Paul. I believe that is true.
You wrote that he would not get the vote so if anyone voted for him they were wasting theirs. You wrote about it a lot.
"You wrote that he would not get the vote so if anyone voted for him they were wasting theirs. You wrote about it a lot."
I never told anyone here what to do in the primary season. I originally said I thought the GOP Establishment would embrace Rick Perry, and I soon retracted that on ZH after seeing what a fool Rick Perry made of himself in his campaign. Many people thought early on that Rick Perry could win the nomination. He surged in the polls when he first threw his hat in the ring. Now, he has no realistic chance.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul do not want to see Obama elected gain. I personally think Ron Paul should fight to the end of the primary season to see that his views are aired in a public forum. If he loses the nomination process, I do not believe he will run as a 3rd party candidate. Rand Paul doesn't support a 3rd party candidacy.
Sometimes, yer children can be wrong...
Ron Paul's popularity is despite his and the other party. Who care's if it's Romney or Obama? Paul is the only politician speaking some truth, acting on principles, and avoiding prostitution
Vote up! 0
Vote down! 0
It is a matter of backing somebody WHO CAN WIN! Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee.
So you're saying no matter how bad a voter feels a candidate will be, they should bite shit and vote the way their party tells them?
I guess integrity's not an issue anymore.
"So you're saying no matter how bad a voter feels a candidate will be, they should bite shit and vote the way their party tells them?"
Why do you feel the need to attack what I just wrote? I didn't tell you what to do. I referenced a comment from Rand Paul. Rand Paul was asked if he supports the idea of his father running as a 3rd party candidate. Rand Paul said "no". See for yourself. Rand Paul wants the GOP to win the White House this year. So does Ron Paul. I feel certain Ron Paul will not run as a 3rd party candidate, and Obama IS worse than any GOP candidate. Decide for yourself what you will do.
ok i will
GO FUK YERSELF!!!
there! i followed your advice, even tho you are too <something> to see that rand can NOT say YES to that particular Q while ron is running for the republican nomination
it just doesn't matter what you "feel certain" about!
you may be correct, but under these circumstances, you simply can't take senPaul's answer to some reporter or interviewer so seriously unless you are just a...troll...
"See for yourself." my ass!
you're game is too weak to play, here [and i'm a nader guy] shithead!
Thanks for the laughs... However, I reject your reality and substitute my own.
as hendrix pointed out above, you only pretend to be real, here
i don't expect you to accept that you're game is pitiful
and i'm not trying to be funny; neither do i expect another to accept my reality
i am simply pointing out you are trolling by pretending that rand must be taken @ face value. one or two others are telling you the same thing, you moron. you can "substitute" all night long, but get your head outa yer ass and realize what you are saying about rand makes little sense b/c he had to answer the question yea or nay, so he gave the answer they had reahearsed for the obvious question
you haven't dealt w/ what i said, my point in addressing you, b/c you can't, you ignorant little anti-paul tool for wiping butt
like i said~~weak!
"as hendrix pointed out above, you only pretend to be real, here"
That is pure B.S. Hendrix attempted to attribute comments to me that are not true. I never told anyone that they should not support Ron Paul in the primary process. I did say I didn't think the GOP Establishment will choose him. I don't believe they will. The current polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina and Florida don't portend victory for Ron Paul in the primaries in each of those states.
"i don't expect you to accept that you're game is pitiful"
The only thing I have seen from you is ad hominem attacks and nothing of substantive value. You are consistent in that regard.
"you can "substitute" all night long, but get your head outa yer ass and realize what you are saying about rand makes little sense b/c he had to answer the question yea or nay, so he gave the answer they had reahearsed for the obvious question"
Okay, brainiac. Rand Paul was elected to the Senate as a member of the Republican Party because Tea Party Republicans helped him win the GOP nomination and voted for him in the general election. In case you didn't know, early leaders of the modern Tea Party movement include Ron Paul and Dick Armey (both of whom are Republicans in Texas where I happen to live). Rand Paul's future political career resides in the REPUBLICAN PARTY. There is no way in hell Rand Paul would now support his father as a 3rd party candidate against the GOP nominee in this upcoming election because Rand's career as a GOP member would likely be ruined in the event Obama won. If you do not comprehend that, you are totally daft.
Ron Paul will not likely run as a 3rd party candidate. I believe he will stay in the race to try and influence the GOP party platform even if he believes his chances of winning the nomination are getting slim. If you don't recognize that, you are delusional.
Spare me and this thread from another puerile response. Your insipid ad hominem attacks are a waste of ZH server space.
you were taking rand's "no" to the "3rd party possibility" at face value and using it to try to "prove" (see for yourself) to others and yourself what you "felt certain" about
i pointed out that that is bullshit
now, i'm delusional [if i don't agree w/ something else that recognizes your superior ability to think about ronPaul and about what rand would do if...]
the NH primary is tuesday, the 10th, so we'll know in 72 hours what the NH voters think. and so on... at the polls, not "in" somebody's poll
you pretend to be "innocent" and "rational" here
to me, you are neither
i see you as hyperactively trying to interpret what is happening in a manner that discourages people from supporting or voting for paul in the primaries, and it seems like there is a LOT going on w/ you around this~~denying you are telling people not to vote for paul, while intimating it is wasting one's vote to do so
my sense is that you find ron threatening: to his son [the sen from KY], and to yourself
...not that there's anything wrong with that...
"you pretend to be "innocent" and "rational" here ... to me, you are neither"
I don't pretend to be anything. Any reasonable person here would construe that I have been completely rational. Your failure to construe that is your issue.
"i see you as hyperactively trying to interpret what is happening in a manner that discourages people from supporting or voting for paul in the primaries..."
Perhaps you should learn to see things more clearly.
"my sense is that you find ron threatening: to his son [the sen from KY], and to yourself"
My sense is that after stripping away your ad hominem attacks, you have contributed nothing of substance to this particular dialogue. My sense is that unless you really are a Tyler (and therefore a moderator of this forum), you can kindly keep your jaded views of my clearly stated positions to yourself.
as i said before, maybe you are correct
for the nth time: to determine that rPaul will not attemt to get on the ballot unless it is as the R nomineee based on his son's canned response to the "obvious" question is weak. why? because rPaul did not say it, randPaul said it
now, that is not ad hominem, delusional, insipid, puerile, insubstantial, jaded or whatever, imo
to think that what you "feel certain" about is equivalent to what rPaul may or may not decide is logically weak; please don't take that personally, asswipe; i would apply the same criterion to this "agument" if it had been made by any other toy-boy troll, too!
you remind me of james carville (wrong, party, i know!) by the way you are zooming around here, with what appears to me to be an agenda about presenting rPaul's candidacy and where it must be headed
we're at the end of the first week in january, you styoooopid little wooden-headed puppet! i will agree that you have been pretty clear and maybe you are correct, but your ideas are not based on the candidate's words, but on his son's response which, as i tried to point out to you yesterday, has to be negative and clearly so as long as his dad is campaigning for the R ticket
if ron had made this statement, i would not be in the ridiculous position of trying to point out the obvious to a fuking texan! but he didn't, which is why:
"to determine that rPaul will not attemt to get on the ballot unless it is as the R nomineee based on his son's canned response to the "obvious" question is weak"
No, it is not weak. It has been widely discussed that rPaul's following that route could put Rand Paul's GOP career in jeopardy. If that were not true, Rand Paul would openly endorse his father's right to follow that course of action. He obviously didn't and I believe he will not in the future. I don't need you to theorize why that may be true.
"to think that what you "feel certain" about is equivalent to what rPaul may or may not decide is logically weak;"
This is such a ridiculous assertion that is hardly merits a reply. I stated my OPINION and nothing more. This is an open forum for people to express their OPINIONS. You are free to agree or disagree with my OPINION. Your telling me in such an insulting fashion that you think my OPINION lacks gravity is puerile and not worthy of further discussion. You are not the moderator of this forum.
"you remind me of james carville (wrong, party, i know!) by the way you are zooming around here, with what appears to me to be an agenda about presenting rPaul's candidacy and where it must be headed"
I don't care who I remind you of. You remind me of a spoiled brat who thinks someone else can't play in the sandbox because he doesn't share your OPINION.
"but your ideas are not based on the candidate's words, but on his son's response which, as i tried to point out to you yesterday, has to be negative and clearly so as long as his dad is campaigning for the R ticket"
You didn't inform me re. this. I knew when Rand Paul was asked the question that he would not openly endorse the notion of rPaul runing as 3rd party candidate. I provided a clip of the interview. Rand Paul stated his reasons and they are logically sound.
1. My reasononing is not weak
2. Yes, I may be wrong
3. I have no motives here other than exchanging opinions... and your infantile tactics are beneath the process
4. That is your jaded opinion
5. You talk boldy for someone sitting behind a PC screen
Do yourself a favor and stop trying to save face here. You have demonstrated a lack of maturity and cognitive capabilities.
ok, well, you're certainly entitled to your "opinion" aren't you?
which i why i jumped on what you were doing
listen: is rPaul just another tweedle dee/dum party hack? your analysis, background, and defense of your opinion seems to indicate that you think he is
so, logically, your "opinion" will tend to "turn off" potential rPaul supporters from what he says when you present them w/ your "opinion" of who he IS
ok, we had a good fight, J_Llivres so i hope you enjoyed it as much as i did, and thanks to tyler for letting us openly conject about what kindsa mothers must have spawned such degenerate swine L0L!!!
so, that is what i have been hoping to get, all along: that IF what you are opining so well is riiight, THEN he is just another worthless piece0'shite texas R pol
many of tyler's readers, like myself, may have this very question abt drPaul at this point; you were around last summer over that debt ceiling fiatsco, and i hope you recall my repeated analyses of rPaul's conduct and leadership at that time, around this very question
what i do think we've all learned since then is that
listen: i think you opinion has mucho gravity, especially as it relates to what is possibly the most important Q and issue for voters in rPaul's campaign right here and now, fellow fringe-blogger: how badly does this man want to lead the nation according to his ideas?
if your opinion is correct, rPaul is dead in the water, right now, isn't he? i understand that you have not taken the logic of your opinion to this "extreme" J_L, but what you seem to be implying from your analysis of his role in the GOP is that drPaul isn't really presidential material
he's just a fringe candidate backed by a fringe blog, and bill buckler is pissing into the wind, too... nothing to see here... move along, please...
again, you may well be correct, and you're not telling people what to do, or who to support and vote for, are you? i just wanted to make sure that your "see for yourself" opinion gets properly presented, here, logically, for what it is, not only as an "innocent fact" but also functionally as a statement by a texan about the GOP and rPaul's ongoing career as a party hack
as tyler says: everybody's got an agenda!
slewie the pi-rat,
I have observed many rPaul supporters on various forums claim there is no real difference between some (if not all) of the other major GOP candidates and Obama. I have observed plenty of rPaul supporters claim they will only vote for Ron Paul (even if he loses the nomination). Ponder these points: If rPaul's and Rand Paul's political ideology is superior to the GOP itself, why has each man only ever run for Congress as a member of the GOP? Why didn't rPaul ever run for Congress as a member of the Libertarian Party? For that matter, why didn't Rand Paul run for the Senate as a member of the Libertarian Party? The only time I am aware that rPaul ever actually filed to run as a Libertarian Party member was in the 1988 presidential campaign. He then amassed a whopping 0.5% of the popular vote. You and I and every member of this forum know why rPaul and Rand Paul have only ever run for Congress as members of the GOP... because they knew it was their best chance to get ELECTED. There is no way in hell that Rand Paul will openly endorse rPaul as a 3rd party candidate now because it could ruin his own chances for a career in the GOP if Obama wins. rPaul is 76 years old. He knows his window of opportunity is closing fast. If rPaul loses the nomination and bows out, his best chance for his values and his political ideology to live on at the national level may reside with Rand Paul. Rand Paul is not going to ruin his own career in the GOP now by endorsing a 3rd party candidacy that could cost the GOP the election. That is perfectly sound reasoning on my part, and plenty of pundits agree. If you do not, that is your issue.
As far as my ideology goes, I said long ago that I was a Pat Buchanan supporter since the 1980s. Pat is who I wanted to follow Ronald Reagan into the White House. On that score, feel free to do some DD and see who RON PAUL publically endorsed and campaigned for and served as a political advisor for in 1992 during the Republican presidential primary season. It was... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... PAT BUCHANAN. I have been well acquainted with Ron Paul and Dick Armey and their politics decades before the modern Tea Party movement and long before some of the neophytes on ZH ever heard of either of them. I also saw exactly how the GOP Establishment treated Pat Buchanan after he won the 1996 New Hampshire Primary. That is exactly what I feared would happen to Ron Paul if he won in Iowa (or if he wins New Hampshire). The GOP Establishment didn't want Pat Buchanan and it doesn't want Ron Paul.
There is nothing more that needs to be said between us on this subject. Don't trial me any further. Vote you own conscience and I will vote mine.
ok, no sweat; what else we gonna do, here?
i hear ya abt "the establishment", J_L! so we'll let drPaul respond according to his own conscience and ideals to the GOP regularArmy, ok?
ralphNader has his own site, and Counterpunch also carries/publishes his essays. mrNader has had a lot of positive stuff about rPaul's run and ideas, so far; he has also been on the ballot in all 50 states for the last 2 prez elections i voted for him w/ Peace&FreedomParty against prez0 back when it mattered and FYI i don't feel i "wasted" my vote...
if you take what rand said & develop what rand might do by not considering it a canned situ, that is pretty different, and doesn't reflect upon ronPaul's "path" and also keeps it separate from his son's which is probably healthy, too
L0L!!! thxz for putting up w/ me! you take care
vote early & vote often, BiCheZ!!!
Give Ron Paul 100%of you support if you feel led to do so. If he doesn't win the GOP nomination and if he doesn't run on a 3rd party ticket, I hope you will consider the importance of your vote in November. As much as you may dislike the remainder of the GOP field, would you REALLY want Obama to win another term?
God bless you, slewie. You have a sharp eye for spotting shills and partisan buttwipe tools.
I declare shenanigans on John Law Lives for being a shill and a GOP operative.
This declaration of shenanigans is based on the following statements made by John Law Lives in the comments for this article:
Actually, John Law Lives wants the GOP to win the White House this year.
Argument by assertion. Aside from Ron Paul, how is any GOP candidate different from Obama?
As you can see, John Law Lives places more importance on political careers than on what is best for the nation. This attitude is typical for political operatives from both the democratic and republican wings of the War Party.
Even more emphasis on political careers. John Law Lives, being a partisan hack, can't comprehend that, unless Ron Paul is elected and can turn this country around, career politicians are facing a retirement plan consisting of a one-way trip to the gallows.
Except for Ron Paul, a cardboard figure cut in the likeness of any GOP candidate is better than any GOP candidate. This is because the rest of the GOP candidates are identical to Obama, who is essentially a third term for Chimpy Bush.
BULLSHIT! At best, lip service would be paid to Ron Paul and his supporters until the day after the election, at which time they'd be jettisoned like the Constitution they support.
Except for Ron Paul, the GOP candidates and Obama must go. Yes, they are as bad as it gets in this election.
...until the election is over. Then it's back to business as usual for president Mitt Robama.
...until the election is over, at which point the invertebrate GOP will disavow Ron Paul and this radical Constitution thing he's always talking about.
Obama and his GOP clones would not likely adopt ANY view of Ron Paul. Obama and his GOP clones must go.
Shenanigans! Everyone grab a broom!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/150844/south-park-calls-shenanigans
well, we just had a good go-around and i'll give him the benefit of any doubt at this point, along w/ my respect
Thank you.
I was active with Buchanan too - what citry do you live in?
"You have a sharp eye for spotting shills and partisan buttwipe tools." - TheFourthStooge-ing
That is pure B.S. I have long stated my affiliation and support of Pat Buchanan's political ideology. I also clearly noted that Ron Paul endorsed Pat Buchanan and served as a political advisor and campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.
"As you can see, John Law Lives places more importance on political careers than on what is best for the nation." - TheFourthStooge-ing
You are completely delusional. Ron Paul has had a lengthy career in politics. Rand Paul seeks a career in politics. Both men ran as members of the GOP in every race they conducted for Congress. I clearly enumerated the fact in my previous post (which you didn't mention). The GOP served them in their pursuit of getting themselves elected.
"Obama and his GOP clones would not likely adopt ANY view of Ron Paul. Obama and his GOP clones must go." - TheFourthStooge-ing
This is ridiculous. If you believe Ron Paul can not influence Obama supporters or mainstream GOP voters... and if Ron Paul fails to win the GOP nomination, how will he put together a coalition to win the general election as a 3rd party candidate? Rand Paul aluded to this very scenario as to why he believes a 3rd party candidacy is not a good idea.
I give credit to slewie for now acknowledging the soundness of my statements. You, on the other hand, have added nothing of value to this dialogue. You are wasting server space with your ad hominem attacks, and your childish tactics are not worthy of further response. Let them and you be anathema.
Thus spoke John Law Lives:
I didn't mention your previous post because my dad called while I was responding to your other posts and I didn't see your previous post until I had posted the response I was composing (my dad can be a bit long winded).
I give credit to slewie as well. It took quite a bit of effort on his part for you to finally get around to making some sense. Guess what? I'm big enough to concede when I'm wrong. I no longer think you're a GOP shill, and I withdraw my declaration of shenanigans.
Can you understand how I was misled by your initial comments? Your belief that the GOP candidates (ex-Ron Paul) are somehow different than Obama is something I find incomprehensible. (This is not an ad hominem attack on you, merely a statement of my viewpoint.) Thus your espousal of "anyone but Obama" appeared to present an incongruity. Combine that with the naive notion that the GOP would ever embrace any of Ron Paul's pro-constitution ideals beyond election day, and it appeared to me that you were a GOP shill. I stand corrected.
If you should decide to respond to this, I only ask that you answer one question for me, and I ask this with complete sincerity. Aside from positions on political wedge issues, what genuine differences do you see between the GOP candidates (ex-Ron Paul) and Obama?
this is like trying to talk to carville!
he's right! i said that!
and so are you!
Ahoy, matey. I thought we had just battened down the hatches and were starting to break the ice...
Argh!
"I give credit to slewie as well. It took quite a bit of effort on his part for you to finally get around to making some sense." - TheFourthStooge-ing
I think slewie jumped to the same conclusion that you did re. my intentions. I have high regard for Ron Paul and I always have. Search my old posts on ZH and you will see that was true since the first time I mentioned him. Yes, I thought early on that Rick Perry would win the GOP nomination. I never thought Perry was equal to Ron Paul re. ideology. I just thought he would raise big $$$ and be embraced by the GOP. Many people did... until Perry opened his mouth and proved what a lousy candidate he really is. Perry is finished.
"Aside from positions on political wedge issues, what genuine differences do you see between the GOP candidates (ex-Ron Paul) and Obama?" - TheFourthStooge-ing
You ask a fair question and you will get an honest response. Aside from Ron Paul, I honestly do not like ANY of the other main GOP contenders. I don't like Mitt or Newt or Rick Santorum. No need to mention Rick Perry or Jon Huntsman since they are both considered lightweights who will probably drop out soon. There is not one of them aside from Ron Paul that inspires me. However, if you want an important issue to me, I would like to believe that at least a few of them would stand against sweeping amnesty for illegals. Obama would make that the law of the land if he were Dictator for a day. He is so hated in Texas that he may not even show up once to campaign. It would be a waste of time.
Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are much closer in their true conservative ideology than any other two candidates in the GOP field have been in a long time. I was very active in Pat's campaigns. I gave him $$$ and time and effort and plenty of support. I met Pat at a big $$$ fundraiser personally hosted by Thomas Monaghan (a big supporter of Pat who also owned and ran Domino's Pizza, Inc. at the time). I wanted Pat to beat the GOP Establishment every bit as much as you want Ron Paul to win today. The reason I cautioned Ron Paul supporters in the first place is because I saw how the GOP treated Pat Buchanan when he seriously challenged them in 1996 by winning the New Hampshire Primary. There may be some Ron Paul supporters here who may be a bit young to remember how that went down ~16 years ago. It was uglier than people might imagine. I fear the same thing would happen to Ron Paul today if he won an early primary.
I am not trying to discourage people from supporting their candidate of choice. However, if Ron Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination and doesn't run as a 3rd party candidate, I hope they will consider another GOP candidate. I know it is very distasteful to consider having to choose between what you consider "bad" and "worse", but Obama is the worst of the worst. I can not honestly say anything good about him. If he wins again and the Democrats were to get a majority in the House and Senate... well, I pray to God that doesn't happen... and I will vote against him no matter who runs on the GOP ticket.
Give Ron your 100%. If he is not on the ticket in November, please consider your decision in November. The fact that the other GOP candidates are lousy candidates doesn't make them as bad as Obama. He is the absolute bottom of the barrel.
Peace, out!
Fair enough, and thanks for the response. I owe you a cold beer and/or a toke on a jay.
I voted for Ron Paul in 88, so I'm old enough to remember Buchanan winning NH in 96. You're right about the self-defeating mentality of the GOP; they chose to hand the election to Clinton rather than nominate an outsider. They'll probably repeat that mistake this year and hand the election to Obama.
You are welcome. I appreciate the offer on that cold beer. I am personally a single malt scotch guy myself. Talisker 10-year. Strong. Nice.
Rand will change when RP runs third party. What dio you expect him to say at this point when Ron is still in the running?
I voted for McCain last time and look what that got us, he strongly supported the NDAA and its abrogation of the 6th amendment of the United States constitution. A declaration of war against the American people by our government if ever I saw one.
No thanks. Ron Paul or who-gives-a-fuck-they're-all-the-same. Hell, I'd vote for Obama on my way out the door over Romney just out of sheer spite.
McCain was a terrible candidate. McCain was every bit as bad a candidate as Bob Dole was. Sadly, that is what the GOP Establishment produced. Losers.
Romney was a terrible candidate. Romney was every bit as bad a candidate as John McCain was every bit as bad a candidate as Bob Dole was. Sadly, that is what the GOP Establishment produced. Losers.
Fixed.
I am not endorsing Mitt Romney. I don't think much of him at all. However, I do not accept the notion that Mitt Romney is as bad as Obama. A cardboard figure cut in the likeness of any GOP candidate is better than Obama. There is ZERO chance than Rand Paul or Ron Paul would tell Ron's supporters to cast their vote in the general election in any way that would lead to an Obama victory.
I see ZERO difference between Romney and Obongo. ZERO. That is why Romney wins the nomination and loses the election.
I mean really, the entire country is fixated on anger and hatred toward who? BANKERS! And you think a, wait for it, wait for it, A BANKER is going to win the election!??
Really?
Not an empty suit puppet of the bankers, but an actual, honest to goodness, real life WALL STREET BANKER. That's who you expect the American sheeple to elect? A WALL STREET BANKER?
"That's who you expect the American sheeple to elect?"
I don't give a damn about Mitt Romney. I never said one word towards an endorsement of him. Ron Paul and his supporters have leverage to influence whoever wins the GOP nomination. That is a victory in itself even if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination. Obama must go. Yes, he is as bad as it gets in this election.
You should give a damn about Romney, because Romney on the ticket means Obongo STAYS. Do you understand this? And Romney winning the nomination does absolutely nothing to advance the ideas and values of Paul. Romney is the establishment nomination and they are never going to embrace anything that challenges the status quo. A Romney win GUARANTEES an Obongo second term.
"You should give a damn about Romney, because Romney on the ticket means Obongo STAYS. Do you understand this?"
I don't believe Romney is guaranteed to lose to Obumble.
"And Romney winning the nomination does absolutely nothing to advance the ideas and values of Paul."
I don't believe that. Romney knows Ron Paul has a substantial following, and he will court those voters. That is why I expect Ron Paul to stay in the fight until the convention.
Ron Paul must stay in the race until the end. He's got a concrete base that can only grow where support for the other fools can dissipate on one bad sound byte. I would imagine that close to 100% of those who support him in the GOP race will vote for him as an independent and just as new Paul supporters are being born each day, 10 months is plenty of time for him to garner enough support to win the whole shebang.
10 months is also enough time for the masses to see how ridiculous voting for Obama or Romney is.
you gotta get over this team thing before you even begin to fix this country
Another four years of Obama could leave a country with issues beyond fixing. Yes, he is that bad.
And the Romnoid is NO better in any way --- nor distinguishable in any meaningful way from George Bush III.
You are one of the better anti-Paul trolls here, I will grant you that, but from reading all of your comments, your disdain for Ron Paul is clear, as is your implicit message that a vote for Ron Paul, at any stage of the process, is a wasted vote. But please continue with your defeatist, spineless, follow-the-herd strategy (such as it is), and your mindless, divisive, and utterly pointless red team/blue team cheerleading, and we Ron Paul supporters will continue to support him, vote for him, and laugh at you.
"You are one of the better anti-Paul trolls here, I will grant you that, but from reading all of your comments, your disdain for Ron Paul is clear, as is your implicit message that a vote for Ron Paul, at any stage of the process, is a wasted vote."
Not so. My ideology is more closely attached to Pat Buchanan's than Ron Paul's, but I do not have disdain for Ron Paul. I have disdain for Obama.