This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul Defeats Obama In Head To Head Polling

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Here's a chart you won't see anywhere in the mainstream media - not the right, and certainly not the left. According to Rasmussen's 2012 Presidential Election Matchups, which pit Obama against any of the four GOP presidential candidates, while the balance of challengers certainly appear to have no chance of defeating the incumbent (something we touched upon yesterday), today, for the first time, Ron Paul has managed to unseat the standing president, by a thin margin of 43 to 41, for the first time in this series.

Source: Rasmussen Reports (premium subscription required)

On the survey methodology: "Surveys covering three days are of 1,500 Likely Voters and Surveys of Two Days are of 1,000 Likely Voters. All Surveys Have a Margin of Error of +/- 3% ."

Some more from today's Rasmussen blog:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).

 

Just 19% favor increased U.S. involvement in Syria.  The Obama administration receives mixed reviews for handling that situation to date.

 

On the energy front, 58% believe that free market competition is the best way to get gas prices down. Just 27% think government regulations are a better approach. However, 67% believe that oil companies are using bad news to gouge customers.

 

In a possible 2012 matchup, Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts 44%. If Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by three, 46% to 43%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern

What is oddly missing is that Ron Paul earns 43% of the vote, to Obama's 41%.

So on one hand Ron Paul defeats the president head to head, and on the other, the GOP itself tells us he is a distant third to two frontrunners who frankly make one question the sanity of every American voter?

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:43 | Link to Comment SolidSnake961
SolidSnake961's picture

it will be obummer again cuz thats who we deserve

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'm not part of your half.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:04 | Link to Comment Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

This poll forgot to adjust for half of the paul votes that will be deleted. the winner is obummer by a comfortable margin.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:15 | Link to Comment BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Why more people don't see that having black box machines with proprietary software counting votes as a problem never ceases to amaze me about the U.S..

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:21 | Link to Comment Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

I say we all chip-in and get Ron Paul a gift certificate to a finishing school.   With a bit more polish and the insertion of some periods in his sentences, he really could win the damn thing

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:42 | Link to Comment gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Ditto...

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:16 | Link to Comment JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

 

 

The dark horse, underdog, anti-establishment, anti-FED, no news coverage program is paying dividends!

 

unintended consequences! Of Ron Paul winning!

 

Rich people everywhere will no longer have to pay taxes and the poor will have austerity for breakfast, lunch and dinner all year long.. until they die of hunger! Which leads me to the Biggest and Best of the Unintended Consequences! Of Ron Paul Winning! Would be Population Control!

 

No wonder his campaign is so perfectly timed and run.

 

And of course he is like the Manchurian Candidate! He doesn’t even know or understand that he is the top 1%’s wet dream come true! LULZ!!

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:34 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I agree because freedom is bad. It scares me.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:59 | Link to Comment Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

JW in FL:

You're really diggin' on that 74% fatherless-home birth rate for USA blacks, aren't ya? 

Gee, you mean people might die?  May I respectfully suggest you ponder long and hard the subtitle of this blog you joined and seem to adore? 

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:44 | Link to Comment BeerBrewer09
BeerBrewer09's picture

he called that shiny coin money?! ain't no way I can get me two 30 bricks of schafer for that little coin...

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:58 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

but a couple of bricks of Afghan poppy go a long way! Just ask the Central Infiltration Agency!

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihn8ip1Au2M

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:58 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

but a couple of bricks of Afghan poppy go a long way! Just ask the Central Infiltration Agency!

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihn8ip1Au2M

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:58 | Link to Comment CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

RP is old, tired, and his mom dresses him funny.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:42 | Link to Comment Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

obama is young, corrupt to the bone, and his wife dresses him like an ass. oh yeah, i hear he's a pussy, too!

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:59 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President

Media organizations from all political persuasions are seeking admittance to a news conference to be held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz.

The event is tomorrow at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time in Phoenix, 3 p.m. Eastern, and will be live-streamed by WND.

Media finally paying attention to eligibility?   See which major networks plan on covering Cold Case Posse results

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finally-paying-attention-to-eligibility/

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:32 | Link to Comment Magat Guru
Magat Guru's picture

Right! Joe is toast and making last ditch effort to change the subject. What kinda odds might you give me that by November, BO is disqualified AND JA is not underal federal indictment?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 08:46 | Link to Comment j0nx
j0nx's picture

Joe ought to dare the feds to come get him if they try to arrest and indict him. Something tells me he would have quite an army of folks defending him from such a thing. This bullshit of the feds using their authority USSR style to silence people who won't fall in line with their policies needs to end now and someone will eventually take a stand against them. Will it be Joe?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:32 | Link to Comment Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

His ideas are ageless. Your mom keeps you in the basement.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 23:50 | Link to Comment CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Just back to reply to myself. Hmmmm.....16 reds, not bad. Just added another to make 17. 20, anyone?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:19 | Link to Comment grid-b-gone
grid-b-gone's picture

Ron Paul has much in common with the high-voiced, shy Jefferson and the less-educated Truman.

Television gives 3-point free throws to sound bite Ken dolls.

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:19 | Link to Comment Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

I like Ron Paul just the way he is, look what slick talking crooked banker slime have got us so far.........

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 09:03 | Link to Comment Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

You mean we should judge a man by his ideas and his message ... America will  have to think about that.

Meanwhile, how 'bout that Mitt Romney?  The TV says he's the goto guy and he already has plenty of Wall St. experience.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 10:31 | Link to Comment Coldsun
Coldsun's picture

There is the proverbial sand in the gears, Americans will have to think. Most of us would rather be spoon fed what our opinions will be.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:33 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I say we all chip-in and get Ron Paul a gift certificate to a finishing school.   With a bit more polish and the insertion of some periods in his sentences, he really could win the damn thing

 

Ron beats Obama in the cited poll already. Finishing lessons are not the problem. Corruption in the Republican party and the media is the problem. You could transplant Ron's brain into the clone of young Cary Grant and he'd still be written off as an unelectable kook.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:39 | Link to Comment Magat Guru
Magat Guru's picture

And Razzy's historical margin of error is what -- 7% or so?

That being said, RP is saner than Sanctimonium and more honest than Rmoney. So howcum he gets so little respect within his own party? 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 11:19 | Link to Comment monoloco
monoloco's picture

Saying "um" every three seconds didn't keep Obama from being elected.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:55 | Link to Comment whoisjohngalt11
whoisjohngalt11's picture

Romney has the black box thingy down pat in this race...

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:13 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

"Why more people don't see that having black box machines with proprietary software counting votes as a problem never ceases to amaze me about the U.S."

Ah, but we do see it as a huge problem and more and more proof that there is machine vote fraud is coming forth.

Check out this bunch of new info that is being investigated now.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_wWk...

Please share this info around and look into it if you are any kind of expert. This cheating Ron Paul must stop before we go any further into the election process because if is isn't, there is no sense in having an election if they are going to just steal the vote process itself. These evil criminals that are causing this MUST be brought to justice NOW!

Videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZON7RjSxTJg&feature=results_main&playnext...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUs-DoeqI5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBx__69pkpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96vNvsrCT0

 

Pass them on!

 

.

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:29 | Link to Comment fourchan
fourchan's picture

electronic voter fraud with propriotary tabulation code that is 100% non accessabe by investagators.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:42 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Each voter could receive a randomly generated serial number.

A database of election results could be posted online showing the votes cast by each voter anonymized by the random number. Individual voters could check their serial number against the vote record in the database. Folks who like to play with spreadsheets and such could download the entire database and make sure that all the numbers within the database square.

Problem solved.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 03:42 | Link to Comment Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Or ... we could simply mark an X on a paper ballot and allow someone from each camp watch the vote count.

Problem solved.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 09:10 | Link to Comment Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Good idea ... we need to start somewhere, because the current system is a joke.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:58 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

And the hits keep on coming!

Imagine if this is really happening.

What can be done to prove it and shine the light on the corrupted election machines?

A lot of graphs here folks!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on...

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:01 | Link to Comment krispkritter
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 08:02 | Link to Comment cnsteph
cnsteph's picture

There are only two choices on the VA ballot.  None of the others got the signatures required to be put on the ballot. 

Office Jurisdiction Ballot Name Party Web Site President Statewide Ron Paul Republican http://www.ronpaul2012.com President Statewide Mitt Romney Republican http://www.mittromney.com

Hopefully, VA isn't too ignorant to choose the wrong one.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 08:05 | Link to Comment cnsteph
cnsteph's picture

There are only two choices on the VA ballot.  None of the others got the signatures required to be put on the ballot. 

President Statewide Ron Paul Republican

http://www.ronpaul2012.com

President Statewide Mitt Romney Republican http://www.mittromney.com

 

Hopefully, VA isn't too ignorant to choose the wrong one.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 08:52 | Link to Comment j0nx
j0nx's picture

Virginia has become a very liberal state in the past 10 years thanks to multi-culturalism and an influx of radical liberals in the NoVa area. Romney is the GOP wet dream candidate for this state because he is basically a liberal RINO and custom made for the local GOP establishment here. RP stands ZERO chance in Virginia.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:48 | Link to Comment spastic_colon
spastic_colon's picture

partially true.......and if you look at the interesting negative correlation in the chart, it appears that the democrats strategy of pulling in votes for Paul (meaning those Dems who will not vote for Obummer again) to keep them from the other republican candidates is working.  as long as the votes do not go to Romney et. Al. Obummer's camp can still win.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:25 | Link to Comment grekko
grekko's picture

Good point, Comay.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:20 | Link to Comment NoClueSneaker
NoClueSneaker's picture

He neither :-P

bipolar personality disorder  ...

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

I want to see a one on one debate on Constitutional Government between Ron and Barry.

A Teleprompter-free zone.

"Barry, have you actually ever read it before?"

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:55 | Link to Comment UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

A:  "Of course not.  I consider myself a Constitutional Lawyer, afterall...."

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:59 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Negative Liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs

Change bitchez!!!

///////////////////////////////////////

What part of this is no one getting?

He's saying the government should be preeminent to decide the lives of people. To do still more of it's miraculous works.

Like Solyndra. Fast & Furious. LightSquared. Fannie Mae. Energy fucking independence. Removing us from the gold standard. Spend trillions unsupported by any semblance of a tax base.

He's upset/acknowledging that the state is constrained by the Constitution. That burearcrats could do still more...if this "meddlesome parchment" that our entire system of law is based on...wasn't in the way.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:44 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

+1 

Sheeple need a sheep dog.  It would be nice if they had one that wasn't owned by the wolves for a change.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:39 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I don't think people really understand the change they have coming.  Fundamental Transformation Bitchez!  This is no time to be sending "messages" to the republicans.  I'm afraid to imagine where we would be if the people didn't put the brakes on Barry in the 2010 elections.  This election is critical if you expect to ever return to the Constitution and rule of law.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 10:24 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

how'd that "redistribution" work for South Africa, Rhodesia, Zaire (or wtfever it is presently called)?

blacks never built any of the wealth they seek to have redistributed to their pockets.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Now-now trav if you remember back in the day us U-ro-pee-annes landed on their shores and stole their wealth, thats why most african states consist of a port with a road leading to the various resource areas.

Kinda like USA did with the native americans and their land :-)

Zaire's doing great we sold em a 28 million pound air traffic control system that never worked in exchange for a virtual monoply on water rights in their country.

Their govt could of said no but then we would have cutoff food aid to them, like the USA did to get its "allies" on-side for Gulf War 2.0

Same process just different times and places.

 

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:37 | Link to Comment bgilliam83
bgilliam83's picture

You moron.  Obama DID read The Consitution, many times, in order to exploit it. 

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:15 | Link to Comment r00t61
r00t61's picture

Not allowing Telemprompters for politicians sounds unconstitutional to me.

We need an amendment protecting the right of all politicians to have telemprompters.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:53 | Link to Comment Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

Telemprompters are people!

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:11 | Link to Comment Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

The right of a president to use a teleprompter shall not be infringed.

Pry it from his cold dead hands and all that.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:49 | Link to Comment shuckster
shuckster's picture

Syria has a Constitution too 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:33 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

It's irrelevant, Barry and US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prefer the South African Constitution over all others.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:28 | Link to Comment smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

none of it matters debates, constituiton nothing will ever change and heres why. i will crudely and quickly  try and  asses the problem of why society in any country,  has never and  will never succeed , and i will define" succeed" as a sustainable system with natural growth , trust in people ,sound money and true honest common sense representation for all. this also includes murder, rape, war, etc. so im not implying a utopia by any means. ...however the reason this will never be achieved is because of the structure of mans nature. i believe that the majority of us would like to live under my definition of success..  the problem is the type of man that may  believe in my "succeed" system are by nature live and let live people focused on their lives, not trying to run others lives and respects success..... the  group that "wants" and thats the problem, wants, {thats their nature}, to run things  get split up into 2 groups the... "manipulated"...., who are convinced their rah rah rah i know whats fucking best for the entire planet person,  are used as an army of idiots  by the manipulators. these power people will always have an inherent narcissistic personality. so think of the "wants" as oil and the "succeeders" as water. no matter how many times you shake it ,the oil always settles on top.  i could be wrong...

 

 

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul. This is because their red wing of the War Party is more important to them than the future of the country. They'd rather see a national suicide than relinquish the death grip they have on their ideology.

 

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:05 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul. This is because their red wing of the War Party is more important to them than the future of the country. 

So...when you wrote that...is it because you are captured, apathetic, or just plain fucking stupid?  Really, I'd like to know.  

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:12 | Link to Comment dasein211
dasein211's picture

Uh no. It's because he's right. Seriously. Red commies and red capitalists both can't think for themselves.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:19 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Uh, no...they can think for themselves, within the lazily defined groups the previous poster mentioned...as both are motivated to think via greed.  So my point, for you short bus riders out there, of which there seems to be a bumper crop this evening, is that NO ONE WILL BE WILLINGLY giving up the presidency...as that is the goose that lays the goldend eggs...you dumb fuck.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:37 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You just fucking nailed it.  Most people base their vote solely upon their own simplistic view of their self-interest.  Think Obama is going to buy you a house which you don't have because you don't make enough money?  Vote D.   Think Romney is going to lower your taxes which you don't like paying because you make good money?  Vote R.  Meanwhile, the whole fucking system is completely corrupt and run by oligarchs who are bankrupting us all.  Go Ron.  I hate him for his fuck the poor guy routine but I love him for his destroy the police state and captured democracy routine.  We need to hit the reset button and he's the only game in town for that.  

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:38 | Link to Comment I am a Man I am...
I am a Man I am Forty's picture

is it a "fuck the poor guy routine" or is it a poor guy needs to take care of his mother fucking self routine?.....pretty sure it is the latter

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:40 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Some can, some can't.  Ron doesn't see the difference which is my one big problem with him.   

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:48 | Link to Comment I am a Man I am...
I am a Man I am Forty's picture

right, but RP would argue that this is what all of these tax free charities are for, church on every corner where I live, there is plenty of help out there for those that are truly in need, not sure how you figure that out unless they are mentally or physically disabled

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:54 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

That works great in small towns.  Not in large cities.   And those who are mentally and physically disabled constitute a huge percentage of our population.   Really.  Alzheimers, strokes, h/as, etc.   Also, a large percentage of people over fifty will never survive if you take away the programs they have been paying into their whole lives.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:14 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

Primitive cultures routinely floated their non-productive members down the river or left them to the elements.

OK, so we prospered for a time and cared for ours.  Those days are comming to an end.

Austerity measures in Europe have brought us 'euthanasia vans' where they come to your house and help you die a-la Soylent Green.  I kid you not.  If anyone asks, I'll post a link or two... At present they must be prescibed by a doctor but they are being piloted in the UK and Holland.  Sometimes for simple pensioners in mild pain.  Oh, and they can be prescibed WITHOUT patient consent.  

De-evolution or evolution?

Guess it depends on your level of civility.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:20 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Nice...fucking clutter monkey.  There... my level of civility to you.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:35 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

Did you forget the /IRONY?

Or, do you have to close your World of WarCraft game to go look up the meaning of irony?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:21 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

Here is one:

Trying to find the other... too old to remember where I read it.  Guess that means they are coming for me next.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099089/Go-ahead-worlds-mobile-euthanasia-unit-allow-patients-die-home.html

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:53 | Link to Comment merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

Wonderful.  I love it.  I want to see huge billboards: "Euthanasia: The Noble Choice!" with smiling old folks being wheel-chaired into the clinic by hot, serene nurses.

And put the clinics in every neighborhood, starting with the insufferable yuppies and their emo kids.  No appointment necessary, all ages accepted, optional counseling, disposal, etc.

Get euthanized, bitchez!  >:-D

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 06:08 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

You are aware that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, right? These guys are the ones that made up the story that the EU regulates the curvature of bananas - their version of the truth is ... very spiced up.

Getting your news out of the Daily Mail is a bit like reading the "Journal of the Incredible" for stories of three-headed babies, Giant Eti sightings and bearded women.

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 05:51 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

Funny, I live in the UK and lived previously in The Netherlands and have friends there and yet never heard of "euthanasia vans" in either country. In fact, a quick search in Google.nl, in Dutch, didn't pop-up any results.

Yet, somehow you, probably living deep in the US, maybe even unable to point out The Netherlands in a map (much less tell the difference between Holland and The Netherlands) heard of them.

You must either:

  1. Have spectacular connections
  2. Have a series lack of critical abilities and a below average IQ

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 09:18 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

I lived in Uden

Answer is #1

A quick Google search this morning pulled over a dozen hits by multiple sources (not all as dubious as the Mail).  Did you spell your search terms correctly there genuious?

Stay in your own weight class, I don't want you getting your pretty dress dirty.

Stories like this are seeded.  It's called predictive programming.  Google that.  Or, better yet, read Bernays.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:00 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Charity is great- but enforced altruism is not.

Do you really think that it somehow benefits our society and the human race as a whole if we not only provide for, but actually encourage those who are mentally, physically or morally flawed to breed?  Every dollar that you take from me is a dollar I cannot spend to help those who I feel deserve my help- and in times like these, when food and gasoline costs are skyrocketing, you are actually taking from my children, who are able-bodied and mentally capable to support those who are not.  

While it "feels good" to believe that you are helping others by encouraging this attitude of enforced equality and safety nets for the less fortunate, the reality is that you are stealing from those who can actually produce the information and products required to create a surplus that makes charity possible to create a reverse-eugenic situation that makes more and more people absolutely dependant on a system that produces less each year.

Sometimes Justice is ugly, but it is necessary.  Virtue and productivity must be rewarded, not theivery and scabs, if you want to live in a world that does not resemble a back alley in hell.  There will be wailing and moaning when the SNAP cards stop working and the free shit train stops rolling into town- but people will adjust to their natural levels in time, and they will actually feel better for it.  We've got a lady where I work that got hired for a very low-level position about eight months ago, who had previously been wholely dependant on the system to support herself and her daughter.  She is not intellegent, or in possession of any obvious physical charms- but she shows up every day and does her job.  According to her, even though she no longer receives SNAP benefits, and does not have free health insurance, she is still happier than she has ever been- because she has a purpose and a reason to get up in the morning.

People like you just do your damnedest to steal that simple virtue and reward from people like that.  Very few are willing to give things up to report to work, because they don't understand the fundimental link between having some reason to exist and basic happiness.  Instead, they're constantly given cheap shit bought with money stolen from their neighbors and hooked on mind-altering drugs that fuck up my drinking water.

Let those who will not work die.  Give those who are willing to work something to do, and suppliment that as necessary.  I know you don't agree- but I am not willing to concede that your opinion gives you the right to steal from myself and my family.  This has been pushed to the point that sooner or later, one of us is going to end up danging from a gallows- pray for your children's sake that it is you, and not me.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 03:49 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

 

"a dollar I cannot spend to help those who I feel deserve my help"

Therein lies the nub of the problem for the liberals/fabians: Their self-worth is so low that they believe nobody will help them to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

No matter how many charities there are on their block (there are plenty now - and would be many more if families could return to the days of one working to bring home the bacon, while the spouse is doing voluntary charitable work between dropping the kids at school and picking them up again), the fabians want more than just a helping hand ... they want what you've got.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 06:03 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

The purpose of a so called "social safety net" is to provide a baseline below which people are not allowed to fall.

Other people benefit from this through reduced criminality, better control of contagious diseases, more economic growth (from people who fall on bad times and quickly go back to being productive citizens thanks to that social safety net), the increased social stability that comes from reduced inequality and some people even enjoy the knowledge that nobody will be left behind.

Even without the ethical and moral angles, it is actually positive for everybody in a society to have some kind of "social safety net".

The problem around the "social safety net" is that some of those on it are parasites that relly on it and never try to become productive members of society even though they could. The problem are the parasites, not the "social safety net".

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 11:08 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

How many people who depend on the safety net don't own a television or cellphone? I'll bet most have cable or satellite tv. I bet that at least half eat in a restaurant more than once a month. How many own cars?

We reward laziness and penalize hard work and saving.

Just like the solution to the problem of borrowing too much cannot be achieved by borrowing more. The problems caused by rewarding the non-productive through stealing from the productive cannot be solved by stealing MORE from the productive in order to reward the non-productive.

ESPECIALLY when you consider how many government "jobs" ( which produce NOTHING and cost plenty ) and their associated costs are needed to perpetuate and carry out this madness.

Have we fucked this country up beyond repair yet?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 10:47 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

P418.. Going out on a limb here assuming you are not from California. Am I right?

They steal from us to take care of the poor and needy is bullshit.

They steal from us in order to give themselves a job, and use the poor and needy as their justification.

Somewhere along the way, driving past somebody and not stopping to feed them, became a bigger crime than stealing money from me to feed them.

The libtards look at this as altruistic, and buy right in.

You and I see it for what it is and so do the scum that perpetuate it.
The irony is:

The people who try to help the "poor" in this way end up making all of us poorer so that they get to keep their job. How altruistic...ahem selfish and greedy. In the long run, this system will fail, and those who collect " gib me dats" are going to suffer much worse than if they had learned a trade besides playing "poor me" to the gubmint.

Those who have saved and learned trades and are able to take care of their family will do very well once this libtard madness ends.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:58 | Link to Comment Likstane
Likstane's picture

So they die...

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:38 | Link to Comment David Wooten
David Wooten's picture

"NO ONE WILL BE WILLINGLY giving up the presidency...as that is the goose that lays the goldend eggs...you dumb fuck."

That is not correct.  Much of the GOP hierarchy would rather lose the Presidency than see 'their' party taken over by Paul. 

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:44 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Maybe no one in your life has had the courage to say it to you yet.  Fear not...Cdad is here for you.  You are a MORON if you actually believe what you just wrote.

Self-esteem is NOT something that is learned in a classroom.  It is earned through the trials of life, and failures as well as successes.  You have just FAILED.  Try to learn from it.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finally-paying-attention-to-eligibility/

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:09 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You are the one without courage my Red Tribe friend.  Ron Paul would take a LOT of Blue Tribe votes.  He would likely beat the big O in an election.  ORomney may win, but Paul is more likely to win and ORomney won't change much.   I voted for the big O, and whatever change you think you see is coming from talk radio.  Really.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:18 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

What the fuck are you talking about?  You are trying [uselessly] to flame me...while MAKING MY COUNTER POINT!  That is not bright.  Of course you confess that you voted for President Zero, confirming your utter lack of sense.  

Look...I get that some repubs hate RP.  I get it.  My point is...they only hate him so much.  I'll add...RP would probably draw a shocking amount of DEMOCRAT support in the General.

As for RP beating President Zero in an election...we AGREE.  So why you are striking out at me...well...it is quite a mystery.  I leave you, Scooby, and the Mystery Van to figure out what your actual point is...which is utterly unclear...as in not apparent within the context of my counter argument.

BTW, I haven't a fucking clue what this means:

ORomney may win, but Paul is more likely to win and ORomney won't change much.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:32 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Many in the Red Tribe vote for ORomney because they don't like Paul's anti-war stance, even though they know Paul is more likely to win.  

My vote for O over McCain did not exhibit a lack of sense though I fully admit it was a bad idea.  It was the result of a lack of real choice and I hated McCain more than I hated the version of O sold to me by the media.  They were both equal douches.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:33 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

If....then you SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO VOTE.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:36 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

That is the first (to me) reasonable response by you, in this thread. Totally right - don't betray your conscience just because you get offered no better option in a rigged game. Actually, if EVERYTHING ELSE fails, run amok on the bastards, and selfdestruct.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:38 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

No, I should have voted for someone else.  If we all did that, we would not have this problem.  The obvious problem is douchebags who tell us to pick one of the assclowns on the red or blue ticket, or to go home if we don't like assclowns.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:46 | Link to Comment Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Leave him alone CDAD, he was a VICTIM of the media...LOL, what a shock

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:59 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Not really a victim of the media.  A victim of not doing enough of my own research to realize that O was part of the same machine that spawned Kissinger.  I made a judgment call that he would be different.  I was wrong.  Fool me once.  P.S.  I voted for Ross Perot over W Sr. and Cigar guy.  

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:16 | Link to Comment buckethead
buckethead's picture

LTER is kicking someone's ass, and it isn't mine.

WND links say a mouthful.

Get you some Daily Paul and let Rush go golfing. One month of independent thought can change the world. Give it a try, c.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:02 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

So, you ignored yer principles and voted for Obamatron?  No one feels sorry for you.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 07:39 | Link to Comment hamurobby
hamurobby's picture

Not many here can say the last person they voted for president was Ross Perot.

I gave up after that, until Ron Paul.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:30 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Hint: Party poplitics > politics of party members

And: Lobby influence > party politics.

The D's and R's are owned. Why would one even START running under their flag, besides of being just another puppet? Publicity. That is all.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 07:42 | Link to Comment hamurobby
hamurobby's picture

Number one answer?

$$$

#2

Air time on TV. Ron Paul would be on youtube only if he were not in the primaries.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:56 | Link to Comment shuckster
shuckster's picture

Corruption 101 - kill your enemies or make them kill themselves. RP will not take over the Republican Party any more than Franky Three Fingers will get away with not paying Don the Jeweler for that loan he took out on his gambling habbit. This is mafia, NWO style. Calling it anything else is childish

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:38 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Uh, that has little to do with "red", unless you associate "centralized fascism" and in general "ponzi" to the color "red".

Whenever you lazily succumb to associating the current issues with "collectivist" or "individualist".... remember: In the current system, neither most individuals, nor the collective matters... what matters, is the ponzi.

P.S.: Err, after some reading, it may be that there is a bit of "lost in translation here". Background: In most western nations, the color "red" is associated with the hard left.... but at least in USA politics, the association is exactly the other way around.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:03 | Link to Comment grid-b-gone
grid-b-gone's picture

With liberty and freedom comes personal responsibility.

Well-connected chickenhawk R capitalists enjoy the fruits of laws hewn in their favor, while the children of others provide the first line of defense for their families' safety. Their idea of freedom is too often freedom from full-on competition provided by a highly-evolved system that maintains advantages for the entrenched.

On the D. side, the highly-evolved entrenched safety net favors the individual. Its supporting orginizations include unions and public-sector jobs, again favoring safety, stability, and guarantees. Taxpayer realities become irrelevant to fulfilling the promises and institutions like the Federal Reserve delay the need to address reality. Though some public-sector workers perform honorably and at a very high level for their entire careers, seniority allows some to receive standard rewards for average or even sub-par performance.   

Ron Paul confronts the reality that the pendulum for both D. and R. approaches has swung way past equilibrium. He promises only the inconvenience he himself has endured - serving when he could have avoided serving - absorbing Medicare payments in his practice that he could have transferred to the government - voting against overspending when 'being a team player' would have been much easier.

A Ron Paul presidency means our children will have to compete more equally against groups and countries that were not a significant factor, or were not allowed to be a significant factor, during the previous century.

Equality, liberty, and freedom are not exactly siren songs to the average, and certainly not to the advantaged. Working harder, smarter, and longer as equals to preserve these United States is easily dismissed by 'deficits don't matter' and similar untruths.

For Republicans, polls show he may have the best chance of unseating President Obama in 2012. For Democrats, Ron Paul is the candidate most likely to preserve personal freedoms, even the ones is personally rejects. For America, a Ron Paul presidency is the best chance to evoke the change most of us say the country desperately needs.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:29 | Link to Comment PeaceLover
PeaceLover's picture

Grid-b-gone.

Your a little hard to follow on the above but your right..

Obama wet on almost everything he promised.

And everyone except Ron Paul.. seem to be playing the fear card.. and if you take the time check them out they all seem to be lacking..

 

I see guys in this ZH room that seem to have more integrity than the guys that want to sell anything to lead.

1984 is here and about the only guy that may stand up against it is Ron Paul..

Killing in the name of  ???? God  Jesus.. big disconnect.. going on.. seems to me.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:42 | Link to Comment Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

"Obama wet on almost everything he promised."

 

Wet? How about either shit, puked, jacked off on, blow torched, dumped, cigared, yanked, flushed, or mooned? 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 03:19 | Link to Comment PeaceLover
PeaceLover's picture

I try to keep my four letter words to what his kids may someday read..

I have a hope that someday.. The Big O gets the same treatment the Big Trickle down guy(Reagan) gets from his kids..blood kids.
and if the words are too coarse they may not get a chance to read them.
Most with a I .Q get that he wasn't a true man of Courage integrity..
Watch the HBO special On Reagan.... may open the eyes of some..

 

I should have said something more to the facts.

That he seems so much into politics and winning again, that he can claim to his girls that he has done more intentional killing, and stealing from the poor than anyone that promised the exact opposite. And He can claim am so good at NLP and talking that they will vote for me again when I didn't do anything that caused change.. In fact I am a closet conservative. and the left will vote for me because the right can see how I take care of them.

Wall Street is richer. we are spending more on the the war machine than when I got elected.

We have more drones and more goverment. and the people that really count (the owners of the country are richer than ever)

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:25 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

He's right Cdad. Try listening to Rushbo's opinion (if you can stomach it) on Paul and it's very clear. Most war-hawks in the Republican party would rather have Barry than Ron. Of course the elections are rigged anyway so it really doesn't fucking matter...

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:34 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

So you are saying that hardcore, far right members of the GOP are...wait for it...going to vote for President Obama?  Okay, that is so stupid on it's face it does not even deserve a response...but I'll give you one anyway.  When arguing a point, it is best not to make a stand that a point is relevant...and then declare it irrelevant in the very next sentence.

K?

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:45 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

I don't care who shows up for the rigged fucking election. All I'm saying is there are a lot of people (that identify themselves as Republicans) who'd like to see a war with Iran.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:46 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Nice.  Tried and true.  Deflect.  The issue is WILL angry, far right members of the GOP vote for President Zero instead of Ron Paul.  The answer to that absurd question is...no...no they won't.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:58 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

I don't believe I or TheFourthStooge-ing said anything about "far right members of the GOP" showing up to vote for Obama. My guess is they wouldn't show up at all. But, as I've said three times now, it doesn't matter anyhow.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:05 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

From above:

When arguing a point, it is best not to make a stand that a point is relevant...and then declare it irrelevant in the very next sentence.


Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:16 | Link to Comment NeoRandian
NeoRandian's picture

Cdad, I think you are wildly missing the point. These guys are saying that when voting for the GOP nominee, they will pick Romney over Paul, even though Paul may have a better chance of beating Obama. No GOP voters are going to vote for Obama no matter who is the candidate. But Paul may have a better chance of stealing Democrat and Independent votes than Romney may have. However, GOP would rather vote Romney as the nominee and risk losing to Obama than to vote Paul as the nominee and beat Obama.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:24 | Link to Comment buckethead
buckethead's picture

I will not vote for Romney or Santorum.

I will write in RP even if it is a de facto vote for Obama.

Two elections voting with the red team has shown me how futile it is to vote anything but ones conscience. Winning??? My ass.
As others have pointed out, voting might be an excersise in futility simply due to fraud.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 05:11 | Link to Comment Likstane
Likstane's picture

I'll do the same.  I voted my conscience last go; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party.   I'll write in RP this time even if it's a rigged vote. 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:26 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

No...I don't think I am missing anything.  The orginal, relevant comment was:

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency... 

My contention is that this is a borderline mentally retarded comment.  You see, when you begin with an absolutely stupid premise, well you can say anything you like after that...and it does not matter.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:43 | Link to Comment PeaceLover
PeaceLover's picture

Well I  agree with you.. there is not any chance of stopping the wars unless Paul Wins

Obama is farther Right than Bush..

I am with you on getting O out.

:-)

I mean what kind of USA leader of a country founded on laws.. Kills US citizen's with out a trial???
I don't think a true hero does!
A true hero has the courage to stand for something.

PL :-)

PS you in the Military, Defense contractor or just passionate?

By the way I don't think Paul will stop Defense or Military.

But sensless killing I am betting  on Paul to stop :-)

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:54 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

That's funny, as your reply to me has nothing to do with the comment thread...nothing at all.  Nice little clutter monkey.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:16 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

That stick up your ass is poking your brain. I'll go 2 steps further and tell you they would rather die than vote for Ron Paul against Barry Zer-0. The latter offers more of the same (albeit with slightly different and more eloquent rhetoric), more easy fiat, but most importantly the very good possibility of a war with Iran - for that alone a good chunk of the far Right would gladly accept 4 more years of Roe vs. Wade and just about any other utterly irrelevant Leftist policy they claim to detest. On an implicit and subconscious level they know there's no substantial difference between either party. Paul offends their vitriolic hatred of Islam, their love of war and blind patriotism, they're beloved "tradition", their neo-con heritage, and their "AMERICA IS #1"/"god is on OUR side" mentality.

Which guy's speeches will leave you feeling more morally righteous and superior, patriotic, fearful of boogie men wearing turbans, jingoist, traditionalist, entitled, and of course a citizen of the best country EVER(!)?

Spoiling presidential elections has quite a history in our country, perhaps you should learn it.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:48 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

...feeling more morally righteous and superior, patriotic, fearful of boogie men wearing turbans, jingoist, traditionalist, entitled, and of course a citizen of the best country EVER(!)?

Not sure.  Maybe you could include even more clutter?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:34 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Stop polluting the thread, troll.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:26 | Link to Comment PeaceLover
PeaceLover's picture

LOL didn't even know what a clutter monkey was..

But I read a few posts..

Learning is aways good.

PL

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:52 | Link to Comment Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

+1 my friend. I hear you loud and clear...

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:58 | Link to Comment Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Yup, those far right Republicans have a history of starting wars:

 

There was WWI under Wilson, WW2 under Roosevelt, The Korean War under Truman, the Vietnam war under Kennedy, escalated by that weirdo republican Johnson and finally ended by the great democrat Nixon.

 

Oh, there was Grenada under Reagan, Kosovo under Clinton, Iraq and Afganastan under Bush and Bush, and finally Iraq and Afganistan under Obozo.   Lybia under that nasty republican Obozo ... And wait for it, war is being bantied about and staged again by Obozo and her royal thighness Clinton.

 

Yup, those randy war-mongering right wing republicans.   

 

Get your history from the back of beer cans?

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:06 | Link to Comment shuckster
shuckster's picture

The hard rights are going to vote for Santorum or they're going to stand on the sidewalk and throw shit at passerbys thus giving the moral high ground to Obama, and getting him elected

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:31 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Cdad, after getting high sniffing the flatulence of partisan politics, grunted:

So...when you wrote that...is it because you are captured, apathetic, or just plain fucking stupid?  Really, I'd like to know

So...when you wrote that...is it because you didn't read the article, didn't agree with it, or just plain didn't fucking understand it? Really, I'd like to know.


Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:51 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Sad.  The problem with our Eastern friends is...that they lack imagination...in argument and in insults.

Everything I have said within this thread is in response to the stupidity of the notion that, faced with the choice of RP or President 0, repubs would defect to the latter...which is a flight of fancy...and a perfectly stupid flight at that.  The notion is a "fishing expedition"...an expedition seeking stupid people...

So have at it, stooging.  Go for it.  Flesh out your argument.  Take it further.  Reveal yourself.  In the end, it will be futile, as the premise is asinine.  You can struggle against that all you like, swim against that rip tide all night long.  Just be sure to discard your user name when you are all finished.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:19 | Link to Comment NeoRandian
NeoRandian's picture

Cdad, I don't know where anyone ever made the point that repubs would vote for Presiden O over RP. The point was that repubs would (and are) voting for Romney over RP in the Primary, even though RP appears to have a better chance of winning the General Election.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:25 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency... 


Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:55 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

forfeit: to lose or be liable to lose in consequence of a mistake, fault, etc.

Synonyms: surrender, yield, relinquish, forgo, waive

 

defect: to desert one's country, cause, allegiance, etc, esp in order to join the opposing forces.

Learn the difference.

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:46 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Cdad fails reading comprehension once again:

Everything I have said within this thread is in response to the stupidity of the notion that, faced with the choice of RP or President 0, repubs would defect to the latter...which is a flight of fancy...and a perfectly stupid flight at that.

Guess what? That's not even the point that I made. Let me try it again, using small words and short sentences. Per the article, the poll shows that Ron Paul can beat Obama. Willard "the Rat" Romney can't. Frothy Santorum can't. Newt Gangrenerich can't. Knowing this, the GOP (pay attention here - this is the point) will still nominate one of the loser trifecta. (Yes, if you're still confused, that was the point.)

If you want to continue propping up and knocking down your "repubs would defect to Obama" strawman, go right ahead. I know that they wouldn't defect to Obama, because their rigid dogma won't even let them defect to Ron Paul, which, again, is the point that I'm making.

So have at it, stooging.  Go for it.  Flesh out your argument.  Take it further.  Reveal yourself.  In the end, it will be futile, as the premise is asinine.  You can struggle against that all you like, swim against that rip tide all night long.  Just be sure to discard your user name when you are all finished.

Seriously, dude, you make more sense when you're posting as Freddie.

 

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:12 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

This is what you said:

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul. This is because their red wing of the War Party is more important to them than the future of the country. They'd rather see a national suicide than relinquish the death grip they have on their ideology.

Now...translation is tough because such statements as "...their [?] red wing of the war party is more important to them [?] than the future of the country."  Here, your pronouns are utterly ambiguous.  This causes your reader to revert to something, anything that is definitive, such as "Most in the GOP party would gladly forfeit the presidency"...even though the following words yet again clutter your meaning, those words being "to the blue wing of the War Party"...because...and I am presuming...Red is the War party to which you refer....and blue being the peace element of the party, you see.

It isn't a problem with my ability to comprehend, but rather your ability to communicate.

Moving on, the assumption that ideologs prefer national suicide...while clear...is also stupid.  If you are talking about "captured" party elements, their primary motivation is power/greed...and suicide is not profitable to the status quo.

But go ahead, keep revising and reiterating your argument.  Swiming against a rip tide of your own creation, you are.

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency...

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:36 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

You think collective ideological party suicide is impossible?

Please come to germany, because it is what enabled the current economic structure of the EMU!

Totally different to the USA you say?

I beg to differ. To put it really simpe and bogstandard: Partiy policies are just a shell, and their actual implementations, are sold to the highest bidder, which in the current world order is: The bankster agenda.

Of course, parties won't do that without guarantees.... they'll for in a given election doing selfdestruction, will reguest compensation in the future. Which they will easily get: What is easier, than two fake ideologies actually being the same thing from two different POVs, being mutually replacable whenever the circumstances require it, by just modifying the propaganda?

Ponzi-whores and ponzi-whores? Sounds awefully mutually replacable, while telling the population a nice fiction about the "why" of the current "party swap".

Bottom line: There IS NO DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.... there are only two general multi-purpose parties, programmable by the ponzi, playing whatever role is currently demanded by the "sponsor".... as long as frequent switches betweeen both "parties for hire" are guaranteed..... which is trivial when both are pretty much inter-exchangable anyways.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:49 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Classic clutter and agenda pushing:

1.  I did not say, "You think collective ideological party suicide is impossible?"

2. I did not say, "Totally different to the USA you say?"  Germany was not part of the conversation, at all.

As for "both [parties] are pretty much inter-exchangable anyways"...this is true in fiscal matters, but on social matters, the Rs and the Ds are polar opposites.  It is not as absolute or as simple as you suggest.  And of course, voters are deeply tied to those social issues, as well.



Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:08 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

If they in terms of "social matters" are polar opposites, and supposedly not interchangable in a "split-personality" kind of way....

...then WHY ARE THE DEMOCRACTS CURRENTLY SOCIALLY DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS THE REPUBLICANS BEFOREHAND?

And to get back to that "germany is not the USA.... OH RLY?"

In germany, the "left" was responsible for axing most of the existing "socialist"-programmes.... when the population got pissed and elected the centre-right wing.... which.... umm... BUILT UPON just that!"

And in the USA? Are you gonna tell me, that a totally inefficicient kind of healthcare, that helps pharma more than citicizens.... bankster bailouts.... megacorp tax-excemption continuation.... more wars.... and a bunch of rethorics that have no effect on actual policies... makes the current D-regime any different than the previous R-regime?

Yeah, and pigs can fly! And the easter-bunny actually really exists!

Do both parties have purely aesthetically opposite ideologies? Yes, they do, but you see.... they are nothing more than.... well, aesthetics..... similiar to a megacorp reinventing itself, with different marketing, and no change in actual behaviour.

So for practical purposes:

R == D == R == D

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 05:16 | Link to Comment Likstane
Likstane's picture

Damn dude, let it go. You're bleeding from both ears.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 02:37 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Damn, you're thick as a brick.

This is what you said:

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul.

Yes, that is what I said. I'll try to make this as simple as I can, since reading comprehension is a skill that you haven't yet mastered.

War Party = the one-party political system in the United States which masquerades as two parties in order to cultivate the illusion of choice.

red wing = War Party faction which calls themselves republican.

blue wing = War Party faction which calls themselves democrat.

In this context, red and blue are used to designate these two factions, as used in terms like red state and blue state. Ask an adult to explain this to you if you still don't understand.

Again, what I said, with the words you find confusing in bold text:

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul.

The verb "forfeit", which I used, is not equivalent to the verb "defect", which is what you mistakenly interpreted it as. The verb "nominate", in this context, is the process by which the republican faction will select their candidate for the November election. The republican faction will not nominate Obama as their choice to run in the presidential election against the democratic faction's candidate. This means that, in the nomination process, none of them will defect to Obama.

Now...translation is tough because such statements as "...their [?] red wing of the war party is more important to them [?] than the future of the country."  Here, your pronouns are utterly ambiguous.

Since you're having problems, I'll reword it for you in Special English:

Most in the republican faction of the War Party would gladly forfeit (or surrender, or relinquish) the presidency to the democratic faction of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul. This is because their (their being the republican faction of the War Party, the subject of the previous sentence) republican faction of the War Party is more important to them (them being the republican faction of the War Party, the subject of the previous sentence) than the future of the country. They'd rather see a national suicide than relinquish the death grip they have on their ideology.

It isn't a problem with my ability to comprehend, but rather your ability to communicate.

Others in this comment thread were able to discern the intended meaning of my comment. Nevertheless, and as AnAnonymous would say is typical of US citizenism, you must blame others for your failings, as you cannot bring yourself to admit to a simple error of misinterpretation.

But go ahead, keep revising and reiterating your argument.

Sorry, dude, but if you still can't figure out what I said, I'm not going to take the time to reword it at a Dr. Seuss level for you.

Swiming against a rip tide of your own creation, you are.

Whatever you say, Yoda.

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency...

Made me laugh. Typical eternal nature of US citizenism to provide some data, link or evidence to prove the statement and not provide more than half truth. You've been US citizened. Are facts only opinions that US citizens want to be facts. But hey, it is self justifying. (Sorry, folks, I couldn't resist, being a US citizenism citizen.)

And  now, the rest of the sentence, which you conveniently leave out:

...rather than nominate Ron Paul.

Now, go ahead and keep digging yourself deeper, rather than concede that you made a simple mistake. Hell, I make mistakes all the time, and it's no big deal. I'm not worried that some big facade that I've built up around myself is going to crumble and fall away if I admit to error. You can't bring yourself to accept the possibility that you might have been wrong, though, so you'll need to have the last word. Have at it. I'm satisfied that my words can stand on their own merit, so I have no nagging compulsion to get the last word in. Go ahead, consider it my gift to you; I know you'll gladly accept it.


Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:12 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

I tried to give you +10, but was only allowed to give +1. :)

Note to Cdad: The majority of us watching this thread -- who couldn't give a fuck who wins this particular sham election to lead the Central Planning War Cabinet of America -- think you are making a complete ass of yourself. Just thought you'd like to know ... if your friends won't tell you, then who will?!

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 04:30 | Link to Comment grekko
grekko's picture

"Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul."

 

I believe him to be correct.  They won't let go of their seats until the bottom drops out. Actually, they don't have to let go of their seats because there are too many sleeping idiots that will keep voting for more of the same.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:11 | Link to Comment AgShaman
AgShaman's picture

Illustrates the need for another Civil War...."Loyalists" and traitors need to get 'Retired'

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:59 | Link to Comment spastic_colon
spastic_colon's picture

careful what you wish for...this may ultimately be the plan to rebuild America to save the economy....from within!

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:18 | Link to Comment AgShaman
AgShaman's picture

dupe

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:24 | Link to Comment NoClueSneaker
NoClueSneaker's picture

Let's simplyfy ... The hoes don't need to forfeit anything ... Unified Party Of GS & Lock*Mart ...

The most expensive traitors money can buy :-P

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment zebra
zebra's picture

IMHO, that would be true if Ron Paul is not on the ballot.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:32 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Bumma is Toast. Period.

A pig with lipstick, or a fascist pig with lipstick regards Romney, could beat that Trotsky Turd

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:56 | Link to Comment RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

 

 

I'll vote for RP if I have to write his name on the ballot with my own blood.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:44 | Link to Comment zebra
zebra's picture

If Ron Paul runs as an independent, this will be the first time that I am going to vote meaningfully.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:49 | Link to Comment lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Obama will get reelected and the GOP will implode if he does... might be a good thing.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:14 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

You mean appointed, not elected.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:54 | Link to Comment baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

Ron Paul WILL run thrid party. There is a reason he is not seeking re-election in the house. He will quit at a strategic time to announce his resignation from the Republican party and his bid for independent canidacy. This will also give him more room to select a non-republican, someone like Jesse Ventura, as a running mate. Again, why would Ron Paul make it crystal clear he will not seek re-election to the house? The answer is quite clear to me.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 21:57 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

the only way out of this mess is for the people to abandon both parties.

 Why not? they abandoned us

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:01 | Link to Comment JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

You dont want Jesse Ventura.  Trust me.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 00:21 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Amen.

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 01:08 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Agreed.  Ventura is a crazy person.  

That being said, I would still prefer full-on balls to the wall crazy to what we've got now.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:07 | Link to Comment FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

No chance. I'm a big RP supporter and he's much more concerned with his ideas winning than any ego trip personally. Things are moving in his direction and his son and other supporters have been elected recently to carry on the reemergence of the Taft wing of the Republican party. No chance he will set the movement back by electing Obama for a second term. If that happens it it will be blamed on Romney and the country club neo- con republicans, not RP. The guy's going to be 77 in a few months and has been running full time for president for a year and a half, he's earned a few years of retirement.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 22:08 | Link to Comment SuperVillain
SuperVillain's picture

Judge Nap

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 23:37 | Link to Comment lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Superb VP choice!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!