This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul: "I Don't Fully Endorse Romney For President"
On the 'new' eve of the Republican Convention, it appears all is not well in the Romney-Ryan ranks. In what is quite a stunning admission, though not entirely surprising given his outspoken desire for a change to the status quo, the NY Times is reporting that Ron Paul does not fully endorse Romney for President. Mr. Paul, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined. "It wouldn't be my speech," Mr. Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president." Whether this is Paul playing an admirable 'long-game' and/or standing by his libertarian roots (or angry at his apparent marginalization) is unclear but one thing is for sure; with the dominance of 'young' voters (seeking 'change'?) behind Ron Paul relative to 'old' voters with Romney, this rebuff will not help in the fight against TOTUS. As BigStory reports, Paul is telling his supporters to stand firm because "we will become the tent eventually!"
»
- 24479 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
One thing is certain. President Obamney will win in November.
Why not make it a landslide for Obama by casting your vote directly for Obama?
Do you realize how badly that will demoralize the republican party? Think of the great feeling of satisfaction you will get exacting your revenge on them for treating the Paul crew so badly.
No self respecting Ron Paul supporter will vote directly for Willard. This is a given everyone agrees on.
Bibi wants to attack Iran before the election, meaning that he thinks Obama will win, and needs to force his hand early..
Bibi DOES completely endorse Romney.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32428
Hasten the Collapse....Barry/Mittens 2012
Create a personal future that is independent of all these factors. That's the goal. That's where to collaborate.
Either Gary Johnson or a write-in of Ron Paul. No other choice makes any sense.
You have to be practical.
Mittens will increase the number of libertarian-minded people.
In 4 years, we nominate a more libertarian guy, with a mid-term election to put even more libertarians in.
You can't change it overnight; you have to build momentum.
I can vote for Mittens since if nothing else, he is an actual American person.
We go from there. Activists here are already talking about how we can get some Goldwater/Paul guys to run mid-term in 2014.
If this country had listened to Barry Goldwater (and Dwight Eisenhower for that matter) we'd be in a much better place.
um, the majority are a bunch of people who cannot think critically. The two party system panders to them. It will keep going as it is until it is driven into the dirt. Prepare accordingly.
"Whether this is Paul playing an admirable 'long-game' and/or standing by his libertarian roots (or angry at his apparent marginalization) is unclear..."
Paul is unlikely to throw in 100% behind anybody. Whoring just doesn't come naturally to a Libertarian. If the price is no presidential appointment, then so be it.
"with the dominance of 'young' voters (seeking 'change'?) behind Ron Paul relative to 'old' voters with Romney..."
I think BigKahuna is right: this is not a generational phenomenon. The gap that we see widening daily is between the Informed Moral Minority versus the Clueless Socialized Sleepers. I've met several American expat retirees who seem very knowledgeable about current affairs and have prepared accordingly.
Whether it's Romney/Obama or Algos: JPM39209/GS93049 2012
Why not, since they already rule the market. This old order is now just window dressing.
isn't is funny that when Ron Paul gains the most support and tells few truth on TV, is the year he is "retiring"?
Ron Paul has balls of steel
Why the hell WOULD RP "fully endorse" Romney? Just because he might be marginally better than Obama. Anybody who thought that would happen was batshit crazy. If a guy refuses to nuckle under for his whole life and he's now 77 what would make him start now? Nothing. That's why you gotta love the guy.
If it is your intention to read this comment, please do me the favor of reading the whole comment. I have spent some time writing it.
I have some very bad news for you muppets: The Rabbit Hole is never ending. It is not some great truth or endpoint. It is the path toward building the cognitive skills necessary to see reality.
It is self-actualization and realization of maximum potential. With it you will come to understand that television isn't just lies and propaganda... It's the final solution of Slavery Incorporated.
If you understand the gravity of such a statement, it should come as no shock to you, that those who are entrusted to repeatedly make television appearances, are working for Slavery Inc.!
I speak no blasphemies when I say, Ron Paul isn't what he says he is. He exists to catch the ones who figure out the game ( that's you). He's the dissident calmer and the endgame backup plan.
He doesn't get on the Television for the truth movement's benefit. Why would he be permitted to do so in the first place!? If he were a threat, he would be stonewalled! THINK DAMNIT!!
If Ron Paul, Wikileaks, Jullian Assange, RT, or Anonymous were really the threats we are TOLD they are, they would have NEVER been put on Slavery Inc's, 'Television'.
That which serves as a real threat, would undoubtedly never see the light of a TV crew.
Why would the puppet masters bring up dangerous material (which we would percieve as Ron Paul and/or Anonymous), when the Sheeple already don't know anything...?
I am NOT being corny or dramatic when I say, The real threat would be you - not the puppets trying to lead you.
It's why the U.S. government calls my home regularly to ask specific members of my family what they think of the U.S. government.
It's why the DHS bought 1.2 billion rounds of ammunition.
It's why they are so desperate to get China to start a World War.
They are AFRAID of our potential, but that is all.
I'm sure they rest easy knowing they have bred humanity into pathetic weakness.
Regretably... these words are lost in the clutter of indecision and weakness that are your minds.
You see, there is no hope for humanity: no matter how hard your brains putput along, you'll never understand how to be completely rational and free thinking.
What about the mathematics concerning the complete and total worldwide economic collapse MU?
From the perspective of personal finance, it is a catastrophe we (the awake) must all, collectively or indivifually, plan for.
However, rarely is anything black or white, and therefore this event comes with specific perks.
For thousands of years the aristocracy have looted and pillaged the sheeple for personal profit and laughs. This should not be shocking. However, they must always work in 200-500 year time frames, because the role they play in the world's economy, is that of a leech. They are bottom feeders with immense wealth created through the lack of critical thinking and apathy they sow.
As you would then assume, the aristocracy works in time frames. They must, because eventually, the system of control they create (after every collapse), is still a system of leeching that will inevitably lead to another collapse. Almost comically, they would appear to be unable find a sustainable system of parasitism. Perhaps because the parasite always kills the host...
Today, we are still in the old era of decaying capitalism. Soon we will be in the era of fascist government intervention and purposeful destruction of the economy. Stefbot can explain this more concisely...
Then we will be in the era of the New World Order. This coming is inevitable, because a collapse is inevitable. & while on the surface this moment looks like 100% septic tank grade shit, it still means we do not know, for sure, what the New World will look like.
What would be dangerous to these leeches, is self-actualization. The pursuit of completing everything you can do, now. What would be dangerous is shaping the sheeple's reactions to the hegalian dialectic, by predicting for them, what is to come. By correctly predicting an "Extremistan Event", you will possess more respect and heed more attention, thereby allowing you more room to shape other's reactions. So make your predictions known, and ask the sheeple for special consideration when these events meet with reality. & your advice, through the coming Global Depression, should be the destruction of the system of centralization, whether that be a monopoly on industry, money, control, or information.
During this particular collapse, the sheeple are completely misinformed. It would appear humanity is continually losing ground after every collapse. Nevertheless, information is currently the most important goal. Therefore, a defensive strategy is sounding the alarm in defense of internet freedom. This is particularly effective because the younger generation (long term goal) cares more about the internet, and will begin question governmental controls. However, an offensive, and game winning move, would be to attack misinformation distribution centers. Quite literally, for us to win here and now, we must pull a, "They Live", and end the perversion of the 4th Estate.
(If we make it that far, which we probably won't, centralization must be destroyed entirely, to preserve freedom).
adam & eve had everything but they still wanted one thing they could not have due to human nature of greed.
it is both a blessing and curse as greed has made man master of all animals, yet has made man slave of greed and other man.
world orders, wars, slavery, will be here as long as society rewards greed.
Muppet,
Put the Bong down for a while and learn how to construct coherent sentences before you try to express your stream of consciousness.
I agree with what you tried to write, but it was so poorly written that I wouldn't take your side even if you were saying that stuff in the parking lot of a Grateful Dead concert.
I'm assuming that you've never been to a Show and don't know how cool the parking lot was.
It's easier to understand a chronological flow of ideas, in my opinion, b/c you can see the thought process, in all of its glory and error.
To me, there is only the stream of conciousness. Everything else is riddled with lies and errors. So I speak by way of colon and semicolon. blunt short and to the point.
besides I've been up for 3 days strait. Still worked out every day. & spent 9 hours constructing a new trading desk and setting up my monitors.
But really? who gives a fuck if I narrate something, or if I speak as a single strand of consciousness?
Do you grasp the idea wholly? do you see where I draw conclusions from 1 thing to create my next point? If yes then streaming your thoughts is more productive.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yywTlfWhqa8
Is it my imagination and beers, or is the ZH Fight Club actually so much easier than back in the Blogspot days?
I'm not writing to you, Muppet, it's a general question to other readers; those who would know a semicolon when it jumped up their ass and ate a ham sandwich would know what I'm saying.
the irony of it all is the semicolon, or colon, or dash, or other literary device, is implied, like your sense of self-worth when referring to others. Contrary to my style though, the implication falls short of reality.
When you can climb out of your dirty folding chair in that dirty deadhead parking lot, and your brain comes to after the damage of inhaling helium and nos shots all day, please do try to compete.
Until then, your inflated ego will just be that; a cancerous hinderance like an uncleaned assholed, littered with dingle berries. Maybe one day you'll ascend to lose your ego and super ego, and thus lose the insanity that is humanity in a slave state. But like the chances for the slaves in their fight against the illuminati, I don't see you leaving your pathetic state. GL champ, see you in the futures.
Wow, now I feel sorry for you...
I wish that I could take back all my harsh words. I didn't understand your mental disabilities.
Be strong!
You have a special purpose in life and some day you will find it.
I wish you the best of luck Muppet!
Is what is common place, you, strong and successful? WEll, hows the world doing?
Is what is a person with no ego, me, strong and successful? Well I'll tell you I'm doing a lot better than you.
(btw my prose is perfect. I didn't even end any sentences with prep phrases. Now, how mad are you that you can't read it?
& kid, I already know my purpose. To help people and to make money).
classy I know - jus the way you like it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_yOoGb1UNU
I'm not worried about how it will all turn out. There are millions of Paulbots running around everywhere all over the place and know how to fix it.
Lore is right... Paul is a man of principal and whoring simply isn't part of his M.O. The GOP... it's clear they attempted to "pimp" or bribe Paul by attaching strings to a speaking engagement and tried to put their words in his mouth - Paul doesn't let anyone put anything in his mouth. Lore is correct... what's going on is not generational but more a product of those who are educated on the issues vs those who are ignorant slugs who perform no due dilligence of their own - Obamny simply panders to the majority, the slugs and that my friends wins elections. Paul has opened a lot of eyes and brought a lot of slugs up to speed in many ways... the importance of what he's done and continues to do cannot be understated.
I still like Ike
Ike was a mass murderer.
In a world of far worse mass murderers, yes.
There is only one way to deliver the message : write-in Ron Paul.
And burn the MSM.
Not voting is becoming a viable option. I have always felt an obligation to vote (freedom, history, blood shed, etc...), but some how voting now seems to be validating a corrupt system, with two shitty choices. The Titanic has hit the iceberg, what difference does it make who's captain now?
Voting Gary Johnson, or writing in Paul, is a third non-shitty choice. Sure, whoever you vote for won't win, but if everyone who thinks as you do did it, the staggering number of votes for the non-corrupt people would send more of a message than not voting would.
the very idea that you have the potential to control the outcome by voting is an essential part of the "matrix" of control... voting sends the message that they still have you... a better message is sent when we protest outside of elections, boycotting....
Your argument only works when applied to mainstream candidates. I don't think it applies to votes for third parties, or especially, anti-establishment candidates. The elites allow them on the ballots precisely because they are expected to not win any elections; voting for those candidates is more useful than not voting - and might, once in a blue moon, actually result in the election of someone other than a vampire squid.
i disagree, respectfully. the system is now hopelessy rigged, and voting in the system simply confers credibility that it does not deserve. no real challenge to the corpratist system would ever be permitted anywhere near a ballot. if real change is desired, the system must be first fully exposed as the fraud it is.
Remember when Uma Thurman got her revenge in that movie Kill Bill? That kind of revenge, except without the blood.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
We don't call ZH Fight Club for NOTHING!
In closing;
All I got to say to those people reading ZH on Wall Street;
You better start giving Obama a lot of campaign contributions if you want to buy any king of influence in the future.
Just one more thing;
CNN is now promoting Romney!
CNN is the balance control in the equation.
FOX is an infomercial for the Republicans and MSNBC is an infomercial for the Democrats.
Their mandate is to keep the public perfectly 50/50 divided. It's that whole divide and conker strategy.
Republicans vs Democrats. Left vs Right and everything in between. Their job is to keep it a perfect 50/50 split. But what if we wreck their model?
I now see CNN's role, their there to maintain the balance.
It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Michael, "We don't call ZH Fight Club for NOTHING!"
ok, ok, but with your repeated replies to yourself - aren't you boxing your own face?
It's for the muppets to read tomorrow.
RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD0LlwN-xOg&feature=colike
Move over, Issac. Here comes Paul.
There's a Liberty Hurricane coming, bitches. It doesn't stop for elections.
I'm voting for no one who's currently or has been a professional politician.
No matter what he does someone is not happy
Jewish Democrats slam GOP over planned Ron Paul tribute
We caught them doing this to us, the whole police state thing kicked into high gear by 9/11 for Christ's sake.
It's all documented!
We're at the point at which voting in the national elections is really only for losers and tools, right? Why do it? Spend the time doing something else: reading, learning, or signing on w/NOTA.
If you have to vote, vote third, fourth, or fifth party.
But not voting sends a message, too.
You got it wrong Boyo. (I'm a Clash fan too)
Not voting sends no message at all.
Vote for Ron Paul, Ross Perot, even Winnie the Pooh.
That sends a message!
Not voting, and thinking that there is a "message" conveyed, is like not doing brush strokes with Picasso and thinking that he should attribute you for helping with his painting.
If voting was compulsory, you would have a point.
I'm voting for Ron Paul. Again.
Will he win? That's not why I'm voting.
You've gotta use your freedom of choice! (I'm a Devo fan too)
Just think of how many votes Ron Paul would get if people would vote independently of what they thought others would vote?
You're carrying around way too much burden. Freedom? It's gone. History? Bloodshed? What? You really think all those soldiers died so that we could choose between Nitwit #1 and Nitwit #2? When you vote, you are supporting this whole charade and you're a fool for a day. Free yourself.
Ike murdered POWs when the war was over: http://iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Eisenhower.html
Ike and Patton attacked and set fire to American WW1 vets during the 1930's. See the "Bonus Army" for full story.
A hard call - so we should have let Hitler and Imperial Japan just go for it? I assume this relates to both bombs on Japan and also the bombing campaign promoted by Harris. My view is that 'Bomber' Harris strategy was ineffectual but the total casualties from a land invasion of the Japanese mainland islands would have been even more horrific - for both sides. This still takes nothing from the effects of all these decisions.
I do think Ike should not have held Patton back and just rolled across the East to cramp Stalin's style and also not sold out Chiang Kai-shek. The 90 Million Chinese that died as a result of that nutcase may have a view on this - if they where still around to speak.
Right. Read James Bacque, Other Losses, for some lesser-known details.
Eisenhower's Holocaust - His
Slaughter Of 1.7 Million Germans
Author Unknown
6-22-8
"God, I hate the Germans..." (Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944)
Eisenhower, in his personal letters, did not merely hate the Nazi Regime, and the few who imposed its will down from the top, but that HE HATED THE GERMAN PEOPLE AS A RACE. It was his personal intent to destroy as many of them as he could, and one way was to wipe out as many prisoners of war as possible.
Of course, that was illegal under International law, so he issued an order on March 10, 1945 and verified by his initials on a cable of that date, that German Prisoners of War be predesignated as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" called in these reports as DEF. He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were not to be fed or given any water or medical attention. The Swiss Red Cross was not to inspect the camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction.
http://rense.com/general46/germ.htm
Rense? LOL...
more germans died (civilians) after the war, than fictional holohoax victims... don't hear much about that do you? go back and read general pattons letters of disgust about how Germans were treated after the war... and know why he was murdered... he figured out who the real enemy was.
Nothing compared to JP Morgue / Goldman Sux combo ...
Rigging the CME, and the price of greens killed more ppl in 10 years then WWs together
But think of all of those poor unemployed munitions makers there would be:(
Hmmm, Red Pill, if this country had listened to Barry Goldwater, we would have nuked Vietnam.
I'm just not sure, at all, how that would have worked out.
I think John Kennedy DID listen to Dwight Eisenhower, until his hearing was damaged in Dallas.
Eisenhower was a Zionist-Luciferian tool.
He "set Kennedy up" with Luciferian CIA appointments and also drafted the theme of Kennedy's famous "Ask what you can do for your country" inauguration speech.
That speech heralded the new statist central government paradigm, in which the government no longer served the people but the people were to serve the ends of the government. Eisenhower was fully on board with all of that, notwithstanding his comments about the "hidden power" in his farewell speech.
"The public sucks, fuck hope"
Carlin 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA
The leaders are always bad.
It's when the general public goes bad that countries fail.
Mittens increase the number of libertarian minded people? You mean because he's so bad they'll turn to the libertarians?
In 2016 things could be much different. If these politico-bankster fucks have their way we might be living in an openly totalitarian democracy instead of having an election. Maybe 2016 will be the end of the road for corporate Amerika and the current crop of political and media moguls. Maybe I'll be around to see how it all goes down.
It's funny what thinking people are willing to settle for at this point--"Well, I hate his fucking policies and he's a bankster, but at least he's an American citizen!"
it is difficult to find such a pathetic wanker like "lakecity55"
"You have to be practical"
The use of this expression would have to demonstratably be the most reprehensibly moral cowardice possible. I listen to to many cowards compromise their thin veneer of moral superiority it makes me sick. Who gives a shit about the practical way as the lesser of two evils is still EVIL. Man up you American Voting Wimps.....vote the moral best. If not Ron Paul then Gary Johnson.
The rest of the world is watching and Don't let US down!!!!!!!!
You assume too much. In 4 years, there may not even be a democracy in the US, if this shit goes on...
Jill Stein.
Why do you hate life on Earth so much?
I'm voting for Gary Johnson and the opposition to every incumbent unless I have a good reason to vote for an incumbent..
Why vote?
It just means you have blood on your hands.
I'm not voting at all! How do you like them apples!
Me either. Fuck the popular vote. I'd be happy if both the popular vote and NYSE volume hit zero.
I see little reason to support Romney Ryan over the existing regime. This is nothing more than '08, two sides of the same coin...
I figure the republican option might cause the ship to sink more slowly but for all intents and purposes the course has already been set.
In fact I'd vote dem just to see it sink as quickly as possible TBH.
I'd do a write-in for RP however...
Actually, I believe the GOP-e option will cause the ship to sink more quickly; to wit: With the Resident elected to a second term, Congress and the Executive will play politics, thereby slowing or perhaps even stopping the federal monster for four years. Just remember ... a vote for Ron Paul or Sarah Palin or Virgil Goode is a vote for Mitt Romney.
The house of cards is coming down, so it might as well fall on Obummer. Obama and Romney are no different so it's all a game of perception now so it might as well come down on the one perceived as being more socialist.
The only hope for real action now is at the state level. Or the individual level. The quickest way to stop theft through inflation is to sell your house and buy silver.
Hasten the Collapse... Gold/Ecuador 2012
Sorry my Fellow Americans, I do not think highly about Ron Paul. He is a phony candidate:
· He is a very old Washington insider
· He betrayed his followers by "partially" endorsing of Romney. R. Paul put buckets of shit all over other Republican Presidential contenders but he never said anything against Romney. Do you think his son endorsed Romney without his father blessing?
· R. Paul was another bogus candidate endorsed by the ruling financial oligarchy to make an appearance that American people have a choice. Well, they don't!
Finally, why is Ron Paul is different from other mainstream candidates? Well, the ruling financial oligarchy and military establishment are not monolithic. Things are not going well for them and their plans. Financial, economic, and military failures in the USA, EU, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran are very painful. Growing economic and/or military confrontations with China, Iran, and Latin America are making the Ruling World Zionist Oligarchy very nervous and breed discontent and disarray amount them. They are not sure anymore in themselves and their present policies. They are frightened and ready to try something news.
As for R. Paul, I will not be surprised if he himself thought that he could make a difference but he never had a chance. The game was rigged from the beginning. As of now, most voters already forgot about Ran Paul. I feel sorry for the old man.
I agree that Ron Paul is total phony. He's nothing more than another example of controlled opposition: the oligarchs fear any and all legitimate (or popular) political movements, so they do their utmost to place their own pawns to capture and ultimately disable them.
I think that the oligarchs had not counted on the violent reaction that Rand Paul's support for Romney generated (a position that Rand himself declared had been discussed and vetted by his father), so Ron has no choice but to soften the support he can give Romney. If he had any legitimacy whatsoever, Ron Paul would have left the GOP a LONG time ago.
That being said, it does seem to me like TPTB want Obummer to have another term, since Romney simply is not someone whom the majority of the electorate can feel drawn to: after years of bankster and Wall St abuse, we're supposed to elect a corporate raider and tax dodger like Romney? Ron's half-hearted support of Romney seems to work well for that purpose, although ZH readers know full well that anything other than complete denigration of BOTH candidates is nothing more than pure BS.
Anyhow, rather than continuing coverage of the BS main parties and their kabuki theater, how about getting some ZH coverage of legitimate alternate candidates?
I have to disagree with your belief that Paul is "Phony". "They" have total control, now. So when Paul opens the package at the front door and there's a fish with pasted pictures of his grand children on it, I think he does what any devoted grandfather would do.
"he does what any devoted grandfather would do"
-> ie: sell out his fellow man to benefit his family's narrow interests.
=> and you would have us all listen to and follow such a compromised person?
I would respect Ron Paul a lot more if he were just to tell people he quits politics because he fears for his family's well-being. But I guess that would be kind of hard seeing how his political endeavors basically employ the majority of his family...
I LOL'ed at the suggestions below for more money bombs for Ron Paul. What a joke. The guy won't run and actually dares to give 'partial' support to Romney!
No. In a fixed system, he never had a hope in hell. He ran anyway because he saw an opportunity to be a constructive influence. To the extent that he laid fertile ground for waking minds among the electorate, his contribution is priceless and his mission is accomplished.
Your opinions seem simplistic and don't hold water.
I've been screaming this on ZH for a while, but no one seems to pay attention: If RP were worth paying attention, he would be vocally on the side of 911 truth. Any candidate not on the side of 911 truth is not a candidate for the people, period. All of those people in Congress (especially those who have been in as long as RP) have to know that was an inside job. They have to know it. Come on.
And then that Bin Laden killing thing--that hideous story they hoisted onto the American people and the world?
Putting your trust in a Congresscritter who's not speaking out about these obvious lies is butt stupid. Sorry. I call 'em like I see 'em.
Perot....
Well, they didn't do a very good job of "controlled opposition" did they. If there was a controllled opposition they would have brainwashed everyone into supporting the controlled establishment. I'll be writing in RP this election.
Wrong wrong wrong. Paul had the best chance by going Republican. If you can't beat them, change them from within. That has been the whole strategy and its working. GOP establishment is changing on the state level. All it takes is time to change it from within. So keep your divide and conquer attitude, we DONT NEED YOU!
If you ever bothered to listen to his speeches this year you would realize he has a pure heart and cares about people. He is leaps and bounds ahead of the zombie candidates who spout off party rhetoric like we are dumb enough to buy into it. Ron never ever even half supported Romney. How the F do you half support something? Talk about pussy footing around, and that isn't Ron Paul. Its not in his nature to pussy foot around if you would listen to the man. Get a clue twit.
Time to stop being the cynical asshole and start acting on your own beliefs. Or are you just going to bitch from the sidelines every year?
Correct. Correct, correct. Look at Ted Cruz, Dick Lugar, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, et al. In fact, actual, real, measurable, tangible, quantifiable revolt against party elite is coming from Tea Party/Republican/Sarah Palin quarters. Love 'em or hate 'em, they are actual agents of change. (There were another half dozen such examples in Texas alone a few weeks back where Republicans rejected the choices of the party elite.) There is hope, if not for the present and past leaders of the GOP-e, then at least some for the Republican rank and file.
Ron and Rand have their foibles like everyone else, but they are not the controlled opposition.
"Anyhow, rather than continuing coverage of the BS main parties and their kabuki theater, how about getting some ZH coverage of legitimate alternate candidates?"
Hey Dipshit, that's fucking brilliant, you have solved what the Tylers have to grasp with your daunting skills of analysis - let's throw our support behind some obscure honk who agrees with you on every tedious point down to the last detal, but has zero chance of instigating meaningful poiitical change. I never knew pissing in the wind could be so much fun Your political ignorance couldn't be more obvious if you changed your screen name to CAPTAIN DUMBFUCK. Ideological purists to your degree will accomplish jack shit precisely because you don't understand that politics necessarily involves working within existing systems, and a long view to accomplish real change. Paul couldn't have done this outside the GOP. Sure, it would be nice if there wasn't a broken two-party system in the US, but newsflash numbnuts, this is the prevailing paradigm.
The reason why ZH hasn't focused on legitimate alternate candidates is because they are few and far between - maybe Johnson, but even he doesn't have a snowballs chance at shaping the contours of the 2012 election like Paul has. It is pretty fucking amazing that there are so many people enjoying the trail that Paul has blazed throughout his career of frustrating hard work, but will flip the switch on him on the drop of the hat. The liberty movement wouldn't be what it is today without Paul, and it's sanctimouious assholes like you that actually are a drag on the movement b/c you insist that Paul must bow to your every political whim - it's juvinile and short-sighted.
"Anyhow, rather than continuing coverage of the BS main parties and their kabuki theater, how about getting some ZH coverage of legitimate alternate candidates?"
Hey Dipshit, that's fucking brilliant, you have solved what the Tylers have to grasp with your daunting skills of analysis - let's throw our support behind some obscure honk who agrees with you on every tedious point down to the last detal, but has zero chance of instigating meaningful poiitical change. I never knew pissing in the wind could be so much fun Your political ignorance couldn't be more obvious if you changed your screen name to CAPTAIN DUMBFUCK. Ideological purists to your degree will accomplish jack shit precisely because you don't understand that politics necessarily involves working within existing systems, and a long view to accomplish real change. Paul couldn't have done this outside the GOP. Sure, it would be nice if there wasn't a broken two-party system in the US, but newsflash numbnuts, this is the prevailing paradigm.
The reason why ZH hasn't focused on legitimate alternate candidates is because they are few and far between - maybe Johnson, but even he doesn't have a snowballs chance at shaping the contours of the 2012 election like Paul has. It is pretty fucking amazing that there are so many people enjoying the trail that Paul has blazed throughout his career of frustrating hard work, but will flip the switch on him on the drop of the hat. The liberty movement wouldn't be what it is today without Paul, and it's sanctimouious assholes like you that actually are a drag on the movement b/c you insist that Paul must bow to your every political whim - it's juvinile and short-sighted.
Agree, Paul is a phony. He took the benefits of the Republican party (debate exposure for his ideas) and then, when he lost support over his blame American rants, refused to endorsed the overall primary winner.
Even his son Rand saw the light and made a hasty exit from a rapidly rotting campaign.
"Sorry my Fellow Americans, I do not think highly about Ron Paul. He is a phony candidate:
· He is a very old Washington insider"
First, who the fuck are you Mr. "my fellow Americans", the president? Maybe the president of shitty comments. Seriously, if you examine Paul's record over the last 30 years, he has been noting but an outsider in DC. It amazes me the vitriol that Paul has recieved by his former supporters for not attempting to lynch Romney. Most of these people are completely ignorant of the political process, and how Paul has quietly worked away over the last three decades to advance the cause of liberty. He has scored a political win that no-one else has since 1913, namely making a concerted legislative push to have the FED audited, which will go a long way towards exposing it for the sham it is. He has continued to advance libertarian ideals in the GOP long since neo-cons and RINO's have pushed paleoconservatives and libertarians in the party to the margins. Neocons at the behest of Wall St. and the Military Industrial Complex have taken a massive, steaming shit on conservatives, and have been doing so for a long time, Paul has been one of the few voices in the party that has pushed for change.
And, so what if you don't agree with his every move. Maybe you never supported Paul, but Paul's supporters expect the guy to walk on fucking water, and the moment he does something they don't like or understand, they gather the kindling and find the nearest stake to burn him on. I was listening to Alex Jones last week, and he entered the fray, sniveling and claiming he will never have Paul on the show again, because he hadn't yet come out strongly enough against Romney, partially holding him responsible for Rand's endorsement of Romney. News flash, Rand is a grown fucking man, doesn't need to check with daddy to see if he can move politically, and Ron is not identical to his son. Besides, no-one has been privy to Paul's negotiations with Romney and the GOP to see if he may have been able to speak freely at the convention, in which case it would have been foolish to piss in the punch bowl before seeing how the convention was going to shake down.
Paul has done more politically for libertarian/conservative ideals than anyone since Goldwater, and people who don't see that are blind. And those that are expecting a perfect candidate need to grow the fuck up, the best we can ask for is a good one that can tread water in the ocean of disengenuous assholes that litter the political scene today. Paul is a good man, and a good politician, period.
15 Trillion thumbs UP!
neighborhood/dogpark poll says romney down by 12 points in a very republican town....ouch. people dislike obama but fear romney.....ouch. the more the dynamic twins of the republican party pander to the far right loons to turn out some sort of base, that just turns the middle ground completely off. since the launch of the ticket they look more and more like complete bufoons.
BERNANKE YOU FUCKING TRAITOR KEEP PRINTING YOU FUCKTARD AND KEEP THOSE RATES NEGATIVE -- THE MOTHERFUCKING PONZI BUBBLE WILL BLOW THE FUCK UP IN YOUR AND YOUR CABAL'S FACES!
DIMON, JPS, GS, OBUMNEY, DEMS, REPUBS ALL OF YOU ARE ALREADY FUCKING ROTTING!
Bibi has priorities. Small trip to Lebanon is on the schedule. Hassan Nasrallah can't make a hero this time - no way to fetch the ammo. All the water of South Lebanon belongs to Jahve choosen "Spätabfiedler ". ( I mean those with long beards still uncapable to speak hebrew ).
Lebanon Tours still going strong.
I have to agree with you Michael. This was my first instinct after Ron announced limited campaigning.
Voting for Obama will be like ripping off a band aid, quick. A vote for Romney will just prolong the inevitable.
Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch calls Ron Paul an "older David Duke": http://www.davidduke.com/?p=35963
The Koch bridge has more potholes then the former Mayors personality.
koch is an older version of his horse shit self.
We should have a final money bomb on November 5th to set up a "Ron & Carol Paul Foundation" to promote the cause of Liberty and keep spreading the message.
Ron Paul 2012 "The High Tide" HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhyaiOZhpSg
I'd say it is time to stage a counter-party convention. Let RP schedule a talk for the night of the Mittens talk. I'd be watching that instead!
Is debt, interest rates, and currency creation that hard to understand? The debt is simply unpayable.
It's time for a shadow government.
What do you think we have?
This is like that game Stratego and Risk combined.
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP5QnU72a6w3sY7cgDKOsdbTLFJrlStWUJsaLl1MPmY_M0Mgqu
Dup
It's tempting. But I'd rather do a write in campaign just so the PTB can see how many Paul supporters there are.
I guess we've agreed twice today. TPTB count protest votes for the other guy exactly the same as they count sincere votes (to the extent the machine even counts them). So long as the sheep are voting for one or the other puppet, the puppet masters won.
Just for you, I am going to cast a write-in vote for Ayn Rand.
Do what you think is best but I'm heading off to Tampa to see the Willard.
I'm off to see The Willard
The Wonderful Willard of Flaws...
(Hey, he's got a dancing pony you know...)
I like it. I'll vote for Ayn Rand too.
A vote for Ayn Rand is a vote for Romney. Well, half a vote, anyway.
It's definitely not a vote for Romney. I might rather see Obama win so the currency collapse comes on Obama's watch.
If LTER would ever answer a simple question (regarding her latest meme) I might have some new found respect for her.
It concerns selfishness and who in her opinion is more selfish...one who works expecting to keep a large majority of their own earnings or one who uses the police power of the state to take anothers earnngs.
She refuses to answer for some reason ;-)
I don't think you're quite as opposed as you think you are.
And seriously: Ayn Rand is fucking boring.
Even if she was right.
And I'm not saying she was.
Or wasn't.
I don't think LTER can define selfishness as a rational person would describe it, as she uses it to bash her perception of it.
She avoids my query whenever I pose it.
Can you?
Your question begins with a false premise that it is "selfish" to desire an elected government instead of warlords and thugs running things (the reality of Rand's model were it implemented). Desiring a better humanity is not "selfish" by any definition I use. Rand tries to paint her philosophy as having the same goal, e.g., a better humanity, but that is just cover for the truth. Rand was a narcissist. Her religion is nothing more than a tool to justify purely self-interested behavior by those who benefit from current society but who do not want to contribute to it. If there were any merit to the Rand religion beyond pure self-interested behavior of individuals, then its devotees such as Alan Greenspan would not openly abandon the other tenents of the religion when it becomes inconvenient to follow them. And its author would not have engaged in open hypocrisy such as supporting the military industrial complex or the war on drugs.
Why is it religious to believe that a man who has first hand knowledge of his own situation is in the best position to make decisions regarding his own life but it is not religious to believe that man is a fundamentally flawed creation who must appeal to the esoteric knowledge of an elite class for a lifetime of guidance?
Your question assumes positions I do not take, e.g., appealing to the esoteric knowledge of an elite class. I take exactly the opposite position. Your model, on the other hand, would naturally lead to an "elite class" running things, but they would unelected industrialists ruling from boardrooms. In any event, like nmewn it seems you can only advance your position by reframing the debate and ascribing false positions to me that you can knock down and declare victory. You guys carry on with your Rand-love-fest. I'm done for the night.
So all of a sudden you don't believe that government must unleash its tender mercies upon us for our own edification and protection? Glad that I could change your mind. Now you can stop worshiping at the marble temples of the select few and actually make decisions for yourself.
Isn't it embarassing that you up arrow yourself like that? That or someone is just waiting for you to post and up arrow you within seconds, again and again. I suppose anything is possible.
Isn't embarrassing to have to base your criticisms on false assumptions rather than demonstrable facts?
But back to business -- do you or do you not believe that man can not rule himself and so he must live under the compulsory power of an elite class?
Ayn Rand "debates" are so fun.
In 50 years, nothing new has been said about Ayn Rand. Nothing.
Ayn Rand was a pop philospher; it's an important distinction. Dr. Phil is also a pop philosopher. So is Kim Kardashian.
It would be much more entertaining to argue about Nietsche, but really nothing new has been said about him in a hundred years.
Personally, I don't debate, I just mock.
Carry on!
@LTER,
"Your question begins with a false premise that it is "selfish" to desire an elected government instead of warlords and thugs running things (the reality of Rand's model were it implemented)."
No it doesn't.
You run around these boards with your hair on fire saying anyone who opposes another trillion dollars being spent on "bridges & roads" is being selfish. You don't think companies and the people who run them, who build roads and bridges might have an interest in seeing something like that pass again? Isn't that thuggish & warlordish?
It ain't me, babe,
No! No! No! No! No!
It ain't me yer lookin' for - babe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18DhD7N6oCw
I'll take LTER over someone who belives the official story of 911 any day. Any day. Clear rational skills are important.
"Just for you, I am going to cast a write-in vote for Ayn Rand."
Good one.
Are you a self respecting Ron Paul supporter or are you just a dissembling Obama supporter? Just wondering.
Your first intinct always is right.
My first instinct was that anyone telling me to vote for Obama is not a Ron Paul supporter.
Your instinct is correct. True libertarian will never vote for Marxist Obama (why, for example, not to vote for Gary Johnston if you do not like Romney?). Do not forget many people who pretend to be libertarians in fact depend on government support and the idea that Romney wins and start bringing fiscal house in order terrifies them. People who say that there is no difference between Obama and Romney are either total idiots or , in fact, Obama supporters.
While I agree with Ron Paul on many things, one should clearly understand that he has a common point with Obama: his pacifist ideas potentially threaten to weaken US and eliminate Dollar as the world reserve currency. That will have devastating consequences for America and Americans. Unless, of course, people are ready to accept Chinese living standards just for the sake of total fairness.
While it would be important, the loss of the US Dollar's reserve status would not result in Americans having to accept current Chinese living standards.
There isn't any line from here to there.
If Dollar would not be a world reserve currency, taking into account the total US debt and unfunded obligations plus lack of military power, there would not be much difference between America and Greece. On top of that the best minds would run from America with the speed of light. Here are three "whales" on which American prosperity is based: Military power, Human resources (mostly through ability of attracting the best world-wide) and correspondingly the leading edge in science and technology and the world-wide dominance of US corporations. That determines the role of Dollar as world reserve currency. Remove that and there is no difference between America and Greece.
Big of you to admit that we have a sham economy.
His "pacifist ideas" have the added benefit of keeping people alive. The dollars hegemony is not based on sound fundamentals anyways, so it is a bubble that must correct. Ron Paul brings reality to the front stage, something that many neo-cons hate to address.
Why do you suggest that we would revert back to Chinese living standards? Nonsense.
"People who say that there is no difference between Obama and Romney are either total idiots" Why don't you outline the differences for those idiots. You will find much more in common than different. Both are for bigger government, more wars, less civil liberties and less freedom.
Obama a pacifist???? Better take those blinders off, buddy.
The whole post was so cliche that I question if it was really written by a human.
^^^ that guy watches too much TV. These are not the droids we are looking for.
Warmonger Obama a pacifist? What have you been smoking? US forces are in Syria now in case you hadn't heard thru big, bought msm.
Pacifist??? You really mischaracterize Ron Paul! He isn't a pacifist, he just isn't an imperialist. He doesn't initiate aggression either. He's easily capable of confronting it with US military strength when necessary, though. There is a difference you know. In the long run, I expect that Ron would have strenghtened the dollar as he eliminated the central bankster and turned loose the free market to discipline the TBTFs and chopped government size/agencies/roles/expenditures/subsidized parasites and let the public keep more of its own moolah. The rest of the world will decide whether the $ stays the global reserve currency and as currently configured, it doesn't look bright, especially as the Fed is killing the middle class to making a work force of pissants to compete with coolies.
Incidentally, Joy on Maui is right on. Obama is no pacifist, he just doesn't necessarily agree with the current menu of fights to pick and is selecting others. He likes nation building (perverting?).
"his pacifist ideas potentially threaten to weaken US and eliminate Dollar as the world reserve currency."
Incorrect. Bypassing the SWIFT system is a reaction, not a cause, and RP's position on foreign policy is clear if you bother to read, which you clearly have not.
No, No this is incorrect. Consider the following:
1. If working within the two party system will continue to be the path to being elected in the future, we Libertarians are best a fit to work within the Republican Party. The Tea Party has shown that it is possible.
2. If Romney wins, this will just reinforce the status quo in the Republican Party. Everything he stands for needs to be destroyed first, before the Republicans are left soul searching about the future. Think the Democrats after defeats in 1984 and 1988 with the same worn out New Deal candidates and ideas. A new group, I think it was called the Democratic Leadership Conference, headed by Bill Clinton, was formed to try to bring in party candidates with more centrist views. This worked out well for them.
3. Once the Romney clap trap is discredited history, then it is up to the Libertarians organized in the 2012 primaries to step up and become an important voice and force in the Republican Party. The Tea Party did this after 2008, and I strongly believe that our positions are far more attractive to the vast majority of intelligent Americans.
4. The fact that Obama wins is of no relevance to the future -- the next four years will be equally dismal under Romney (GWB II) and a highly partisan gridlocked Congress. The 2012 election is over and done with for people who consider themselves Libertarians, including me. Now is the time to lay the groundwork for 2016 and beyond. Romney would just be constipation in the process.
I could not agree with you more. Wish others could see what you so clearly, plainly state. I can't even get my wife to see this. (She just hates Obama - but not as much as me.) The only thing worse for this country than an Obama win would be a Romney win. Does this nation really want to turn over absolute, unchecked, unquestioned control to the likes of Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell? Seriously?
A disaster. You think things are bad now after four years of Obama? At least Congress had to pretend to play politics with him. Does anyone, anyone at all, actually believe that the federal government under the control of Mittens, Mitch, and John are going to do even one single thing to right this nation? You really think UAVs will be outlawed? Muslim terrorists banished from our shores? The federal reserve brought under control? Anything? Anything at all?
I don't. And for good reason. The rest of you are, well, delusional.
"Are you a self respecting Ron Paul supporter or are you just a dissembling Obama supporter?"
lol...hammer that nail.
My vote has only to do with revenge at this point.
is that you barry?
If you really want to screw them over, don't vote at all.
Any vote for Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson, or John Galt, or even Ayn Rand will be counted as a hanging chad vote for Mittens by the Diebold machines.