This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul Takes Lead In Iowa

Tyler Durden's picture





 

When we learned on Saturday that the Des Moines Register, owned by Gannett - whose Chairman just happens to be a Private Equity firm head, and worked at Citigroup for most of her career, has endorsed Mitt Romney for president we said that this development "while likely set to provide a very short-term boost to Romney's chances, it is the baseless ongoing accusations against Ron Paul that will likely solidify the groundswell behind the Texan, with such desperate platitudes as "Ron Paul's libertarian ideology would lead to economic chaos and isolationism, neither of which this nation can afford." As it turns out, according to the latest Public Policy Polling data we can skip the kneejerk reaction and go straight to the after effect, because as of the latest polling, Ron Paul has finally taken the lead in Iowa. Granted this is just one of many polling organizations, and potentially it may be biased, but the bottom line is that often time reality (objective and subjective) is self-reinforcing. And when the US public realizes that the only candidate who deserves to be in the White House has a running chance, they will flock to him. Suddenly backing Ron Paul may just become the next cool thing. As for the Gingrich "honeymoon", it was over well before the nth divorce (pardon the pun). At this point we can only hope that the electoral game of reverse American Idol where the poll head is voted off in a week or so stops with Paul. However, with Perry, Bachmann, Romney and Gingrich already having been voted off, the only possible dark horse now remains Huntsman - does he have a running chance against Paul?

From the PPP:

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa.  He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

 

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row.  His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%.  And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

 

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa.  22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa.  Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

 

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest.  Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.  He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters.  Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

now they are saying that the iranians in order to pull of the theft of our spy drone, had to have someone on the inside here in the states, where those things are controlled from.............now i ask you. how is this possible?    i am totally suspicious about this whole episode. i think the iranians had help for whatever reason..........as usual things are not as they seem and at first appear to be illogical...........

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:17 | Link to Comment JohnFrodo
JohnFrodo's picture

Francis Gary Powers

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:36 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

That jew supremacist Michael Weiner Sausage Savage is spreading that crap.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

No, it was the US that videotaped the anal rape of Iraqi children at Abu Graib. Contrary to neocon beliefs this does not make the Iraqis love us or advance their freedom. Why do you want the neocons to provide the same kind of "freedom" to you and yours?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:56 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Slap your grandparents next time you see them for not teaching your father to use rubbers...you truly are your user name.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:15 | Link to Comment marcusfenix
marcusfenix's picture

I thought not.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:03 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Active duty military has contributed more to Paul than to all other GOP candidates combined, and more to Paul than to Obama.

I think you do not understand what national security means.  Paul does, and the military itself knows this. 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:18 | Link to Comment Freegolder
Freegolder's picture

'And when the US public realizes that the only candidate who deserves to be in the White House has a running chance, they will flock to him.'

 

Seems everyone is getting a little carried away. Are the public really ever likely to vote for a man who will force them to confront their economic reality NOW? Hmm, I don't think so. They'll vote for a year or two more of free money from the Govt. instead.

The mainstream media/corporate/GOP cabal will find a way to take him out if need be, either metaphorically, or literally.

I hope he gets elected, as America can take its medicine straight away, and rebuild much quicker. But I don't ever see it happening.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:22 | Link to Comment Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

Great news! White supremacists finally have somebody to latch onto!

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/jules-manson-ron-paul-obama-assassinate/

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:29 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

Ron Paul must be doing well the Fed trolls and their minions at government agencies are out in full force.  

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

Yes! Yes!

Why, that MUST be the case! I have got to be a Fed troll and/or a minion thereof due to my distaste for Ron Paul and his acolytes.

Just as anybody who criticizes Barack Obama is a racist.

Just as anybody who criticized George W. Bush and the "global" "war" on "terror" was un-American and/or loved terrorists.

Just as anybody who criticized the Clintons was part of a "vast" right-wing conspiracy.

Just as...

You get it by now, do you not?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:42 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Yep, back in 2008 they found some whores in a brothel in Nevada who supposedly were big Ron Paul supporters, there is no limit to how far these scumbags will go to smear such an honorable man as Ron Paul!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:23 | Link to Comment iamoneman
iamoneman's picture

Honest Politician? If there is such a thing... Dr. Paul IMO comes as close to that as possible...

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:26 | Link to Comment BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

Every single GOP candidate has to follow the Illuminati agenda - or your getting snuffed out or you wont even get a chance to be on stage. Its that simple.

I dont care who the candiate is - or what they say - they have to follow the agenda of these scum sucking sun-worshippers.

All 44 presidents have ties to the Merovingian bloodline and 'they' think it is there divine right to rule over us 'cattle'

I dont care what they say or tell me, or what they report on the illuminati controlled mass media - but i dont believe any of it.

We are being ruled by satanists. the end.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:59 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Looks like someone picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:27 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

Umm...

I'll be the lone dissenter here...at the risk of receiving many down arrows...

Paul makes great sense when he is limited to talking about the economy, monetary policy and fiscal policy...he is a total fustercluck when it comes to discussing foreign and domestic policy.  This latest move of his attacking Bachmann because she "hates Muslims" (yeah, who doesn't see fanatical Islam as a threat?  Ron Paul!) is just one example.  He basically said in the last debate that it would be a good thing if Iran gets the bomb, because then MAD would ensure the peace.  Really?  Iran is expected to act honorably, hold to the theory of MAD and not extort every power in the oil rich area?!  If Paul got as much scrutiny as the other candidates, he would tank in the polls overnight.

And before people jump on me as being knee-jerk anti-Paul, I am not, I'm just not a PaulBot.  I would love to see him installed as Treas Sec in a new administration.  POTUS is too far above is ability.  If a President only had economic issues to worry about and the rest of the world didn't exist perhaps I would think differently.

Resume regularly scheduled programming...

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

YOu've obviously never listened to a Ron Paul interview, the only thing he needs to be able to do is end federal control of areas they shouldn't be as per the Constitution of the United States of America.  That doesn't take a genius.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:38 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

Umm, I think I have listened, I think you may have missed a thing or two.  An objective approach should not be an unreasonable request.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:52 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If you kick a hornets' nest and the swarm attacks you do you believe that they have done so because 1) you kicked their nest or 2) they hate your freedom. Be objective in your answer.

And yeah, I know that even asking such a question makes me a hornet sympathizer.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:59 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

It's probably #1, but I would quibble at the characterization of "kicking", I knocked politely on the door, what happens after that is what it is...if I was kicking the posting would be longer and filled with colorful language, but as I said, I am not a Paul hater, I just do not see him as POTUS material IMHO.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:32 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

So you equate the US overthrown of Iranian PM Mossadeq and installation of the Shah's terror regime in 1953 with knocking on a door?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:16 | Link to Comment JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Ron Paul has said clearly many times he doesn't want a nuke in Iran. Hello.

 

40 seconds in: 

"I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW9-RRRD14I

 

What do expect a President to do? Should we invade every country on the planet to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? This is ridiculous. "MAD" as you call it, does work and keep the peace. This is proven. With Israel having 300 nukes and Iran one or two or ten, do you think Iran would survive?  

 

WE CAN'T STOP IRAN W/O DESTORYING OR INVADING THEM TO GET A WEAPON. No, not acceptable.  What Ron Paul is really saying is Congress must actually declare war to invade Iran (and the votes are just not there). That's just can't happen with some people who just want to push buttons and kill.

 

 

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:36 | Link to Comment Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

Agreed,  he doesn't take the world wide threat of Islam seriously.  Unellectable IMO.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And he's not afraid of the dark, either.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

You really do have a very superficial misunderstanding of foreign policy and history. You have obviously been drinking the Koolaid and listening to far too much Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Neocon talk radio is nothing but propaganda - a reflection of the sad state of corporate fascism that exists in America today.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

Wrong, I do not listen to Hannity and Levin I hear infrequently.

The MFM is filled with propaganda, the Obongo Regime is filled with propaganda, and I do not see corporate facism, I see government facism and weakling corporations unwilling to take it on and the rest are crony capitalist whores deserving to be crushed into oblivion...like MFG, Solyndra etc!

And thanks for not offering evidence to the contrary to the points I made, I always love (to ridicule) blind criticism!

; )

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:50 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

The Soviets had 40,000 nuclear weapons - and perhaps you've heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The crazy Korean who just died has nukes.

Pakistan has nukes.

Iran can't even refine it's own gasoline - and we are supposed to be terrified?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:20 | Link to Comment JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

No, we're just supposed to invade them because the War People said so.

Rob Paul's position is very clear. Only Congress can declare War, not the President.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:51 | Link to Comment iamoneman
iamoneman's picture

When was the last time IRAN actually attacked something outside of their borders? anyone? Even in the Iraq/iran war it was Iraq that attacked (BTW that was when the USA supported sadam)... When will people realize that they (in the middle east) hate us BECAUSE of our involvment... Which is why Paul is right, Let them figure out how to live with one another... Frankly we have enough problems of our own... 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:58 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

This is the warmonger position, kralizec: when in doubt attack with full force wiping out the cities and the villages and then take stock and rebuild if necessary. Ron Paul’s position is that there is ample proof of how the war in Iraq happened, why it was a mistake and how the current propaganda is leading to a similar war on Iran.

Frankly, his foreign policy credentials are one of his strongest areas and would ensure a peaceful world rather than a world of death, hatred and continuous war.

BTW, it is inaccurate to say Ron Paul said it "would be a good thing if Iran had the bomb."

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:19 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

OK, I am a warmonger, damn, feels good!

/

Seriously, go back and look what he said...he basically said it's our fault the Muslims are pissed off and he disputes any evidence Iran is getting or wants the bomb is BS on one hand and is no big deal on the other.  Did you even see the last debate?

UFB...

And I'm the one drinking kool aid?

LOL!

ETA - Here, form the transcript -

Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran, included those added by the Obama administration. So, to be clear, GOP nominee Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?

Ron Paul

But I'd be running with the American people, because it would be a much better policy. For you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it.

There's no U.N. evidence of that happening. Clapper at the -- in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. It's no different than it was in 2003. You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming. There's war propaganda going on.

(APPLAUSE)

And we're arguing -- to me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb Iran. And the sentiment is very mixed. It's -- it's very mixed even in Israel. You know, there -- the -- a head of the security for Israel, who just recently retired, said that it wouldn't make sense to do this, to take -- to take them out, because they might be having a weapon. So I would say that the greatest danger is overreacting. There is no evidence that they have it. And it would make more sense -- if we lived through the Cold War, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

Moderator

Congressman Paul, the -- the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence, you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul, and yet you still at that point would -- would pull back U.S. sanctions and again, as a GOP nominee, would be running left of President Obama on this issue?

Ron Paul

Yes. All we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. Ehud Barak, the defense minister for Israel, said that -- that, if he were in -- in Iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon, too, because they're surrounded, for geopolitical reasons. So that's an understanding.

So the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire. And how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them. We talked them out of their nuclear weapon. And then we killed them.

So, it makes more sense to work with people. And the whole thing is that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan, India, Israel has 300 of them. We have our ships there. We've got to get it in a proper context. We don't need another war.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

Moderator

Understood. And you make that point quite a lot. I'm going to -- I'll try one more time. Iran is reportedly running exercises on closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage, as you know, for global trade. Now what should the U.S. response be if Iran were to take that dramatic step?

Ron Paul

This is -- the plans are on the book. All they talk about is, when are we, the West, going to bomb Iran? So why wouldn't they talk about -- they don't have a weapon, they don't have a nuclear weapon, why wouldn't they try to send out some information there and say, you know, if you come and bomb us, we might close the Straits of Hormuz down.

So already the president, and I think he is wisely backing off on the sanctions, because it's going to be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of Europe. So I think that makes sense.

He knows these sanctions are overreaching. Sanctions are an act of war when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. We need to approach this a little differently. We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/2012-presidential-debates/republican-primary-debate-december-15-2011/

He thinks Iran doesn't have the bomb, he thinks it's OK if Iran has the bomb, and if they get the bomb its our fault for being against them getting the bomb, and he thinks (like the fool Obama!) he can sit down and talk to these batshit fucking crazy SOB's!

That is unsane.  Call me warmonger, all I hear is "not wrong about Paul"!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:37 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

TLDR

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:38 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Okay, you’re a warmonger. We’ve established that. And we have established that Ron Paul is not a warmonger. We have also established that you have misrepresented Ron Paul's words by saying that he would be glad if Iran got the bomb. That is not only highly destructive to the process of trying to determine the truth but that is the very propaganda that leads to war.

Your words: He thinks Iran doesn’t have the bomb. Correct. He thinks it okay that Iran has the bomb. False.  And if they get the bomb, it’s our fault…also incorrect; perhaps you were thinking of Israel.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:54 | Link to Comment catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

Let's break-out your premises here so that you can see the fallicy of your argument.

1) "He thinks Iran doesnt' have the bomb" - They DON'T! If they did, the US wouldn't treat them like backwater bitches.

2) "He thinks it's OK if Iran has the bomb"- Having nuclear weapons does not instantly make one a super-power. India, Pakistan (who HATE each other), Isreal, former soviet bloc countries, all have nuclear weapons and NO ONE, other than the US, has used one. They know that they would be wiped off the face of the planet if they did. The Mullahs may advocate martyrdom, but that's for their followers, not them. They know that attacking Isreal (or anyone else) with nuclear weapons would be a death sentence for them. And sometimes, dialog is what is needed when at the brink of nuclear war (Kennedy and Kruschev). And, in fact, at the time the US and Soviets were having a war of words, much like now with US and Iran.

3) "If they get the bomb its our fault for being against them getting the bomb"- Dr. Paul recounted how the West 'talked' Libya out of their nuclear aspirations. Once Libya went outside of the mainstream and against TPTB on oil, a 'revolution' was built up, NATO bombed the shit of the country (not exactly a no-fly zone), and ultimately Khadaffi was killed. If you were the leader of a totalitarian country, which route would you take? Nukes or no nukes?

4) "he thinks (like the fool Obama!) he can sit down and talk to these batshit fucking crazy SOB's"- Iran is not run by batshit Ahmdinjad;lakjd;fkha;. It is run by the clerics. The big issue isn't 'talking' to Iran, its a matter of losing face to Iran, and the US will not do that (see Larry Ellison for lessons on that).

I have to run, so take a look at that and consider who is doing any actual critical thinking on this subject. History is a bitch.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 18:38 | Link to Comment my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Excellent post grounded in real facts!

You will NOT be getting coal in your stocking for that one!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:15 | Link to Comment JohnFrodo
JohnFrodo's picture

The US did just fine between 1776 and 1914 without policing the world. Time to go back to the future.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:03 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

frodo land and middle kingdom.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:16 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

I guess we at ZH will be the ones to let you know: Systemic corruption has now trumped all other issues.  Yes, even the important other issues.

We have to break the grip of corporate fascism or no other issues will matter.  Much of the debate here is over whether it is too late already.

Please consider supporting Dr. Paul and letting your other matters wait a few years in order to save the Republic and any hope of a decent standard of living for our children.

Other issues will still be here.  If we make it through the next five or so with democracy intact.

I say this as a generally socially progressive AND pro-market person (i.e. I have some discipline of thought).  I love certain liberals quite a bit, and most of the conservatives and Republicans I admire are from the 1950s (Eisenhower, Stevenson and the like).  I love the environment but distrust the nanny state.  I think regulators should imagine all regulations applied to their own garages before implementing them.

And under our present duress, I think important priorities, like energy R&D....may have to wait a while.  The magic words, whether for millionaire tax cuts, new weapons, or solar panels, are: "Those are nice but we CAN'T AFFORD THEM at the moment."

We need a serious sock in the gut, a major intervention in our political solar plexus.  Is Ron Paul problematic?  Sure. Is it worth the risk?  Yes, because of all the goddamn traitors who have put any reasonable economic or fiscal policy 'off the table' (mark to market, bond haircuts, debt restructuring) and thus are attempting to doom us to 30 years of Japanification.  All to line their pockets and escape liability. 

We are ruled by psychopaths.  Ron Paul is no fascist.  You got something better, well, frankly I read a lot so I seriously doubt it.

Best of luck, and consider what you find here on ZH carefully.  Look past the potty talk and sniping.  This is real and you are part of the choice we are making as a society.  The corruption will sink the boat--what, exactly, are you going to do about it?

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:10 | Link to Comment Amused2Death
Amused2Death's picture

When was the last time Iran attacked a neighbor?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:32 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

those bashing the mormons ,, should see what the other christian faith did ,

makes a person wonder why folks in glass house throw stones..

the long history of the christian crusades , the catholic church and the abuser of boys .. the complete shallow ness of the churches and the scripture throwers who have not a lick of understanding of the bible and the spiritual texts of thousands of years ,

yet they quote some verse that a bible pumper idiolog screams on a sunday morning from a drive up window leave the cash . world wide TV crusade .  and you will be healed and prosper . While driving their big smile of hy"pox"risy

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:19 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

It is a ploy as old as Methuselah, from the Communist to the present humanists and atheists. They charge Christianity with hypocrisy, intolerance and warmongering when those are their own motives. True followers of Christ have none of those motives. The advance of individualism and freedom in Western Civilization is directly attributed to the principles of Christianity; war and human bondage and collectivism are directly attributable to the principles of Marxist atheism and World Order greed.

 “In November, Lenin led the second Russian revolution of 1917, this time against Kerensky and his Mensheviks…

“Thus began the bloodiest dictatorship in modern European history and the establishment of a ‘government’ whose leaders had vowed to destroy property rights and Christianity while enslaving the people in barbaric bondage. They had created a demonic dictatorship devoid of the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity.

“The irony is that while Lenin and Trotsky were establishing their violently anti-Christian government in Russia with the financial backing of some New York bankers, revolutionaries in New York were establishing an American Communist Party with the financial backing of Dr. Julius Hammer, a wealthy New York City pharmaceutical manufacturer from Odessa, Russia.

“A strange and mysterious pattern had been established whereby certain wealthy capitalists, bankers, industrialists, philanthropists…financed communist revolutionary activities and their ensuing atheistic communist governments.” –Robert Goldsborough

Tragically, this partnership remains today…as globalism rushes to reap vast profits with the “bloody butchers of Beijing” and the NWO conspirators who finance both Communist revolution and Socialist legislation—a financial power group that is gaining, according to Dr. Carroll Quigley, the necessary economic and political power to seize the human and natural resources of the entire world.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:31 | Link to Comment BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

I like Ron Paul as everyone else on here - They put him there for a bit of comedy relief' for a lack of better words - to make it seem like a more of a variety.'

But thats it.

You need to have ties to the bloodline descendant - or your not getting in. No chance.

As smart as everyone on here is technically, you are a bit clueless in how they operate.

Sacred geometrey... numerology... and asrtology is what the Illuminati follow.

Once you recognize these 3 main things - they will stick out like a sore thumb and easy to follow.

Romney vs Obama = both on same side. So it dones matter.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:33 | Link to Comment John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

Here is some interesting perspective re. what the GOP Establishment might do if Ron Paul wins in Iowa:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-will-take-gloves-...

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:42 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

That's the RINO/Ruling Class/Establishment element of the party, the Rovian Machiavellians...they hate Paul, but perhaps not as much as they hate Bachmann or Santorum or anybody truly conservative with an originalist view of the constitution and a proponent of smaller not bigger government.  The only thing seperating Paul from the conservatives is social and foregin policy, but the originalist principles of either pose a clear and present danger to the Ruling Class elite.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:56 | Link to Comment John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

"they hate Paul, but perhaps not as much as they hate Bachmann or Santorum or anybody truly conservative with an originalist view of the constitution and a proponent of smaller not bigger government."

I remember very well how the GOP Establishment treated Pat Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire Primary in the 1996 campaign.  It was B-R-U-T-A-L.  It forever changed my view of politics.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:36 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

alcoholic

 

AL-QAEDA

you mean the toilet .. a made up slogan for the mentally challenged , and still clinging to the third tower myth ,

they hate us for our non freedoms lol

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:46 | Link to Comment boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture
 Origins of the FIRST American Civil War

The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, competing understandings of federalism, party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, tariffs, and economics. After the Mexican-American War, the issue of slavery in the new territories led to the Compromise of 1850. While the compromise averted an immediate political crisis, it did not permanently resolve the issue of The Slave Power (the power of slaveholders to control the national government).

Amid the emergence of increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in national politics, the collapse of the old Second Party System in the 1850s hampered efforts of the politicians to reach yet another compromise. The result was the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which alienated Northerners and Southerners alike. With the rise of the Republican Party, which appealled to both Northeast and Western states, the industrializing North and agrarian Midwest became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism.

 

HMMM   FREE   LABOR  INDUSTRIAL   CAITALISM

[edit] Nominations
Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:46 | Link to Comment zebra
zebra's picture

if Ron Paul become the president, he needs to double or triple his guards.. the dark force is too strong.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:47 | Link to Comment FreeNewEnergy
FreeNewEnergy's picture

One New Yorker for Ron Paul. (My friends think I'm crazy, but, hey, I make more than they do working for myself.)

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

The great dream of every Rothschild and Rockefeller is not a global police state, but a universal "free trade" arrangement overseen by a global body. One where national borders proliferate but every national protection - every wage or price standard, regulation, subsidy, tariff or currency control - is removed, where every nation is brought to the lowest common denominator, and where all economic surplus flows to usury, drugs, entertainment, war and other imperial franchises. 

A global government of the "free market" and a global currency based not on political considerations but upon an arbitrary resource (like gold) that can be controlled by the Wall Street / industrial cartel complex.

 In a fenced feudal plantation, the oligarchs will have total control over who is being fattened and who is led to the slaughter.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:50 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

My husband is currently a shrink, and used to be a Russian Interpreter in Military Intelligence, listening in on the Ruskies while stationed in Germany. Before he was elected, I asked his opinion on Obama. He shocked me and he said he was Narcisistic with delusions of Grandeur. Strong words from a shrink. My husband is not one for drama or hyperbole. Ended up he was so right.

Two days ago, I asked him his thoughts on Ron Paul. He shocked me again.

"He's the Republican's version of Jimmy Carter."

He believes Ron has integrity, believes what he says, and that the system will not let him get anything done. It will be a Carter term if he wins.

My husband, after his stint in the Military, knowing the stuff he knows from behind the scenes (top secret security clearance, watching what is in the paper and on the news vs. knowing what is really happening [tracked a kidnapped US General being moved across the landscape, it was never in the news; tracked a helicopter being shot down, the US papers called it agression, he and others knew damn well we flew into their airspace "testing"]) choses not to vote. He does not think it matters who is president. He knows that the levers are pulled from a very different place than the presidency. I trust him, I trust his judgement and experience. 

I wish I could join the Ron Paul parade. I really like the guy. I don't like to be a wet rag and really wish I could be sold that getting him in the White House could matter. I don't think it will. Except to maybe give TPTB a scapegoat to let the whole thing fall on.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:59 | Link to Comment Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

your husband sounds like a very intelligent man, who will he be voting for?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

I believe we have to try.  Low odds beats no odds.  Besides, Carter was a decent President at a lousy time.  We could do a lot lot loooooooot worse.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 17:46 | Link to Comment au_bayitch
au_bayitch's picture

@Jim in MN; We have.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:28 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

what brand of vodka does hubby drink; and please, don'y tell me he is kosher! and never touches alcohol, or I'll advise you to go see another shrink who has greater stretch, I am referring to his tolerance span....

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:34 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

He is drinking some new polish stuff, don't remember the name. Says it's real smooth, better than Stoli.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:58 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

Tovarich! and Skol; Hope it gives him the urge...to eat....beluga, when its not polluted. Without the interpreter! All named Natasha, were blonde, beautiful and worked for the other side...explosive stuff, so cliché!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:30 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

Sobieski is the brand.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:40 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

best polish ones : U'luvka and Chopin. U'luvka has sexy bottle. Impresses the women. Nice Freudian touch. Chopin is very classic.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:32 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Defeatist? You? Nooooooooooo.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:42 | Link to Comment Vergeltung
Vergeltung's picture

MsCreant, your post frightens me. I'm serious.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:23 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

It should, it frightens me. I put out what is real for me, today. I meant what I said, I would love to be talked into it that it might matter. I posted in order to help myself, but maybe there are others here who feel the same. Maybe the supporters could stop by a moment and help folks like me hash this out. My husband does not vote, but I have been.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:36 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Believing we are powerless to alter any outcome is exactly what TPTB want. That sinking feeling of hopelessness is their only real weapon. Fear. You are afraid that nothing will work, that nothing will change, that nothing will matter. It's insidious. It turns your mind from finding solutions. Fear, the great paralyser.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:44 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

I agree with you in a general kind of way. Can you see how the elections are a form of entertainment/distraction that keeps hope and energy for change focused on this one event and not on what counts? It's like football or NASCAR but worse. At least those are bracketed as entertainment, not too many have delusions that much more than that is going on there. Elections focus us on the event, and then we walk away and assume we have done our job. We haven't, we just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is in the walking away from the election, thinking we have done our part, that "they" really win. 

I am not typically one who "gives up."  If you knew me, you'd really know that. I may vote for Dr. Paul anyway, to cover my bases, "just in case it does matter."

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 17:43 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

"It is in the walking away from the election, thinking we have done our part, that "they" really win."

No it is the convincing people of conscience that their actions don't matter that is the real win. Look at your post. See the defeat already there. They have managed to convince you that you are powerless.

Too bad really. It's like you went back to sleep.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:08 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

I like women who agree in a general kind of way, provided they all lead to the same place. Tovarich! As to giving its not a problem, its to receiving; the entry ticket gets sometimes lost!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:09 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Not following your logic, MsCreant. Ron Paul is the only hope that anything will change, there is no hope that any of the others will change anything.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:16 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Your husband’s career is outstanding and extremely interesting. But your story arrives at a suspicious time. For at this moment, all the news is carrying the rising poll numbers of Ron Paul, and on this blog and others every imaginable detraction has begun to surface – from Democrats, Cass Sunstein troll operatives, and fervent supporters of GOP contenders opposing Ron Paul. First, it will be a list of Ron Paul’s unpopular votes. Then it will be a “Ron Paul supporter” who likes everything about him except he’s only strong in economic issues and that won’t be enough to get him elected. And then there are the Romney Rockefeller Republicans happy with the status quo who want to assume a seamless transition to continue empire.

But now we have the heartfelt tribute to one’s spouse and the surprise revelation that Ron Paul is only a peanut farmer who will have no success in persuading the powerful men of Washington to change their ways...  It’s not likely to be enough to stop him.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:28 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

JR,

You and I have both been around a long time. We have had some good exchanges in the past. I am saying what is real for me. I am putting myself out there to be kicked around, so that this can get worked out. If you block me out as a shill, the conversation is done because you are going to write me off. That is okay, but I'm working over here, if you know it or not. My experience says that open communication will, usually, get the job done. I am not posting to persuade, but to be persuaded. I think I am not alone in my feelings. I can be attacked and alienated, or I can be worked with. 

What chu got lil bro? (reference to our ZH ages).

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:15 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Thanks for your courteous reply, MsCreant. I’m glad that you’re a blogger on ZH, and one of the best goes without saying. You know my feelings; why’d ya have to go and get married? I will accept as your opinion, based on your husband’s insight, that we agree to disagree. But on the basis that you’ve always had an open mind, I’m hoping to eventually see you alongside me in the Ron Paul parade. :) 

As ever, JR.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:32 | Link to Comment FreeNewEnergy
FreeNewEnergy's picture

MsCreant, I believe what your husband says about power in the US Capitol, but you have to understand that Ron Paul is our last hope and nobody can accurately predict the future.

That Dr. Paul, if elected president, would have a difficult time with congress is not surprising. He advocates for many values not currently in line with public policy, like no wars and real money, fair taxes and maybe, hopefully, an end to the entitlement/welfare state. Both sides of the aisle will be equally against him, but you have to be like him, a happy warrior.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:44 | Link to Comment cramers_tears
cramers_tears's picture

He wouldn't have a hard time with the Uniparty Legislature if we all VOTED THE BASTARDS OUT.  NO INCUMBENTS - NO MERCY!  Oh wait... I forgot about the rigged elections.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:48 | Link to Comment MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

This is my other problem, we do not have paper ballots in our voting booths where I am, all touchscreen. They can do anything they want to in our elections. If we needed a recount, how the hell could we even do it?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:30 | Link to Comment therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Agreed.  I have  many friends who are leftists,a buddhist monk, another a commy, socialists, republican haters....the majority of them say they agree with about 95% of what Paul has to say.  If we can get a turn from some of the kool-aid drinkers, as this article indicates is the case, plus the independents, and the young, AND IF, Republicans are not TOO STOOPID to not support the republican nominee, should it be Paul, this could be good.  A lot of ifs I know...but as said above, he's our only chance to change it.   Besides, he can start pulling 'Obamas' and issuing executive orders to eliminate this department, that department, bring the military home, etc.   There is HOPE....albeit very little by the time the media and especially the republican party, gets done with him. 

This man is our only chance to change anything.   And, if anything is true, it is that the media will go with whomever is in power at the time.   And, if we the people make a big enough shit pile on the carpet, the carpet will be cleaned.   Ultimately, if they see that TV and newspapers can't control us, they will begin to follow.   The bumper sticker, I think is true, "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."   In this case, if Paul wins, and the people support him strongly, the congress will follow the people, because it will keep them in power.  

Vote Paul.   Tell your friends to vote Paul.   Tell you enemies to vote Paul. 

*knock knock knock*....excuse me people, I think the FBI is at my door...

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:56 | Link to Comment weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

The problem is branding.  The Republic Party brand is like toxic waste to most people.  The Dems may be utterly incompetent, but voting R is like voting for junior Nazis.  The stench of that brand stinks up Mr. Paul quite a bit.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:36 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

I think a lot more people are coming to understand how completely FALSE are all the claims of BOTH political parties.  NOBODY, not one single individual on earth, believes that Obama deserves a "Nobel PEACE prize", or that "Democrat" == "Pro-Peace".

Yes, "republican" is a black mark.
Yes, "democrat" is a black mark.

Yes, RonPaul is a big huge positive mark.  And given the fact that EVERY other republican disagrees with RonPaul about almost everything, I think "people get it" when it comes to "RonPaul isn't a normal republican".  ALL the other republicans say so quite clearly, and so does the mainstream media.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:32 | Link to Comment TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Ms. Creant, no disrespect, but your husband should stick to psycho babble and leave the politics to those who at least understand the basics.

Comparing Ron Paul to "the Republican's version of Jimmy Carter" is ASS BACKWARDS.

Carter, regardless of his integrity or lack of integrity (that's moot for the purpose of my point), was a dyed-in-the-wool big Liberal, who thought that throwing money at problems can fix them, and that the expansion of government programs was the answer to all of society's ills.

Now, do you know that this meshed well with the Democratic Party Establishment groupthink at the time?

Contrast this with Ron Paul.

He's, at the most basic level, an advocate for the the republican form of democracy, also known as Jeffersonianism or anti-federalism, whereby the federal government is constrained to its proper constitutional role whereby it mainly defends the borders of the United States and (contrary to many false claims about what Ron Paul is "for" or "against") negotiates trade relations with other sovereign nations, and whereby the individual states can either repel or attract residents by way of their own policies (or in many cases of "live free or die," absence of regulatory and red tape hell - small businesses love this).

Now, how does this mesh with the current GOP, and its massive FEDERAL government inclinations (the GOP establishment wants massive government, just like Democrats - think PATRIOT Act, Bank Bailouts, huge extraction of private wealth to support a GARGANTUAN Military-Industrial-Financial complex)?.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:20 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

It will matter. He will veto any legislation that attempts to further strip your liberties away (Patriot Act, NDAA, etc, etc).

As commander-in-chief he can end the wars and bring the troops home.

Of course it would matter if he were in the White House. 

What is the alternative? To just install another corporatist bankster puppet?

 

 

 

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:27 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

If you believe your life will be the same whether RonPaul or one of the other predators is elected, then you are delusional beyond belief.  Having said that, none of us believes RonPaul alone can turn the tide and return us towards the good life.  However, absent a president RonPaul, the entire planet WILL become a permanent slave planet.  We NEED a chance to reverse the trend.  Help us do so, unless you are truly stupid enough to believe the fallacy your husband uttered.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:51 | Link to Comment guasilas
guasilas's picture

Ron Paul Ahead! It will be fascinating to see how the New York Times manages not to mention it.  They already managed to continue writing about Gingrich and Romney when Paul was second in that poll as if he did not exist. It will require a bigger effort now. Or maybe it's news that'is not fit to print.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:58 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/666369/ron_paul_wasn't_joking_about_letting_uninsured_people_die_--_his_uninsured_staffer_died_of_pneumonia/

 

to let you know a little about paul and his ideologies............his ron paul campaign chief of staff died in 2008 and ron paul didn't lift a finger to help him........he died penniless and paul even said he was the greatest asset to his campaign you can imagine. when asked why he didn't help him, he said, well it wasn't his job............so one can get a brief glimpse of what a paul presidency would be like.   if you fall down, nobody will come to your aid , at least not from the government , that is for sure.   a severe and horrible change to many lemmings in this country. the leftist and the anarchist who support paul because is is hip to do so etc, have no idea.............ha ha ha 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:32 | Link to Comment eblair
eblair's picture

Do you know how desperate you look?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:24 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

How many people have you known in your life who had serious medical problems?  How many times have you liquidated all your assets and handed it to those people?  None?  Then shut up.  NONE of us has any obligation to give away our life savings to help unfortunates.  SOME of us will voluntarily give some modest portion of our assets to help others, especially people we know to be good.  Individualism is about being responsible for ourselves.  What you want is the world to become YOUR SLAVE and hand you whatever you claim you "need".  People have a perfect right to make tradeoffs for themselves, including whether to purchase health insurance.  If they do NOT purchase health insurance, they have made a decision for themselves.  They may win this bet, or they may lose this bet, whichever way they choose.

I do not want the government to "come to my aid".  That is my worst nightmare!!!  And I am not kidding about that, either.  Because if THEY come to my aid, then THEY will decide what constitutes "aid", and I already know their intention - to destroy us all.

Listen up.  ALL of you who wish to enter into some massive contract to pool your wealth, then fight with each other to determine who, why and when some of you should draw from that account... FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

Leave the rest of us OUT of your scam!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:59 | Link to Comment famousamos
famousamos's picture

FOX News: Among the early voting states, the hacking concerns have most spooked officials in Iowa: "If a hacker gets in and messes it all up, we can reconstruct (the results)," he said. "It would take a little while. It might take a day or two, but we can do it." ***Reconstructing the results*** Nice.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:10 | Link to Comment GrinandBearit
GrinandBearit's picture

There should be no doubt the that media is 100% controlled by TPTB.  It's the most blatent it ever has been. 

You can almost smell the fear.  You can hear it in their voices and see it on their faces.  I love it!

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:05 | Link to Comment Geruda
Geruda's picture

Here are some cherry pickings about ideas and things Ron Paul is having that will be making peoples who are having necks that are red be having uncomfortablenesses in their stomachs.

 

 

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

We’re worse off than in 2000, due to Bush & Congress. (Jan 2008)

Dollar crashing due to trillions spent on maintaining empire. (Jan 2008)

Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)

We can’t afford a trillion-dollar war in Iraq. (Jan 2006)

The longer the Fed delays recession, the worse the recession. (Jan 2008)

Government is totally unnecessary for gay marriage laws. (May 2011)

National ID card is part of fear-based government. (Feb 2008)

Against ID for immigrants; it leads to national ID card. (Dec 2007)

Tamper-proof I.D. for immigrants is a bad idea. (Jan 2006)

In times of war, our freedoms are threatened at home. (Dec 1987)

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)

Constitution even protects terrorists, not just citizens. (Apr 2011)

Eliminate ultimate penalty & incarcerate for life. (Apr 2011)

Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)

Cancel the drug war, and cancel its violence. (Nov 2011)

Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)

We don't need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)

Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis. (Jan 2009)

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

Stop enforcing No Child Left Behind; allow opt-out of system. (Sep 2011)

Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God. (Apr 2011)

We're endangered as a result of our foreign policy. (Apr 2011)

We manufactured fear about Saddam, Al Qaeda, & Ahmadinejad. 

Avoid double standard--follow international law. 

Interventionism perpetuated by politician’s false patriotism.

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China.

Allow Americans to travel to Cuba.

Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo.

Trade sanctions never worked on Cuba, and won't work on Iran. (Aug 2011)

China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. 

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.

People shouldn't be able to vote to take away others' rights. 

We are drifting rather rapidly into a totalitarian state. 

Conservatives support big government war policies. 

Our government routinely lies to us. 

Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.

Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. 

Not government’s role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. 

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. 

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide.

The Patriot Act is unpatriotic; it undermines our liberty. (Nov 2011)

Waterboarding is torture: illegal, uncivilized, and immoral. (Nov 2011)

Enhance national security by slashing military spending. 

Assassination policy targeting citizens is unconstitutional.

Military spending is not necessarily defense spending. 

Hated for freedom? No, hated for invading their countries!

Protect against terrorism by understanding their motivations.

We’d be as furious as Muslims are, if our land was occupied.

Neither Dems nor GOP will cut one nickel from militarism. 

9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)

Pre-emptive war policy is a grave mistake. (Jun 2007)

Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)

Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense.

Data banks for illegal aliens keep track of us too. 

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior.

Contract with America was a toothless cop out. 

The Republicans don’t act like Republicans anymore. (Jan 2008)

Reagan ran on limited government, but increased its size. (Dec 2007)

Neocons hijacked our foreign policy to invade Iraq. (Sep 2007)

Iraq war is illegal; undeclared wars never end & we lose. (Aug 2007)

Neocons promoted Iraq war for years; not about Al Qaida. 

Called Bush 41 a “bum”; didn’t vote for Bush 43.

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.

Bush’s faith-based initiative is “a neocon project”.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:08 | Link to Comment Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

As I noted up thread, this fool takes marching orders from Al-Qaeda.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:54 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Most all of these bullets have to do with states’ rights; Ron Paul doesn’t believe the Federal government should be involved in activities reserved to the states..

Now that you’ve come up with this list, which looks like a talking point package for Bachmann and Perry in Iowa, most items on the list relate to Paul’s opposition to Federal programs trumping states’ rights. This is the worst kind of hit piece on Ron Paul and serves Obama Information Czar Cass Sunstein’s preemptive strikes against Ron Paul as a possible contender to Romney or Obama.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Geruda
Geruda's picture

JR - I am not having you to be seeing the list as a hitting piece.  Unless you mean it is being a hitting piece that is having peoples who would not be having votes for Ron Paul any hows.  What I am having liking for about Ron Paul is the kind of thinks in my piece you are calling hitting.   That is to me what I was having peoples understand when I said it would be having bad feelings make happen to peoples whose necks are red which must be the kind of necks you are having to be making angry reactions to the words I have been showing you about how Ron Paul is thinking.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:37 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Geruda, this is a hit piece not because it’s a hit piece but because it inaccurately hits Ron Paul as well as being out of context; it provides the opponents of Ron Paul, such as Bachmann, erroneous talking points; none will explain the truth or the intent of his positions. They do it all the time. When Arizona’s law to protect its border is upheld, Paul will support it. It’s the Federal government that is stopping Arizona from exercising its state’s rights, not Ron Paul. If you’re one of the walkers for Bachmann in Iowa this week, this would be a handy list…

You’ve presented a list that you assume is accurate.  But it isn’t.  For instance, according to About.com Immigration Issues. “Ron Paul has a simple, straightforward plan for securing U.S. borders: Bring all the nation’s military troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and then station as many as needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Continues the article: “’A nation without borders is no nation at all,’ he says. ‘It doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.’

“During a 2011 debate in Iowa, Paul said the government should ‘pay a lot less attention to the borders between Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and protect our borders. Why do we protect our borders overseas when we don’t protect our borders at home?’”

http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/a/Ron-Paul-On-Immigration.htm

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 18:25 | Link to Comment my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

JR:  the man whose necks are red....lol

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 23:52 | Link to Comment Geruda
Geruda's picture

JR, you are having ideas in your head that are mistaken when you are saying the listing I am doing is not having accurateness.   When first I was posting the list I was telling you it was like picking cherries.  The cherries were coming from a list that Ron Paul is having on his own website so if he is having things in the list that are not being true it means Ron Paul is not having truth on his listing that he is having on his own self.

 

MAYBE i was being mistaken when I was saying the list is from Ron Paul's website.  Here is where it was coming from 

 

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:05 | Link to Comment catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

Wow, you just listed all of the reasons I'll be voting FOR Paul.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:10 | Link to Comment Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

Lame Stream Media Headline After Iowa:  Gingrich Defeats Romney and Gains Second Place! Of course there will be no mention of Ron Paul winning by 8-10%.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:22 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

If I was RP I would run for pres.  At that age I would figure I have nothing to lose. 

If I get elected and I'm successful at any of the changes I want to make in America. so much the better. 

If I get offed / whacked / etc trying to make those changes, no problem, my life was nearly over anyway, and I'd be remembered as a martyr for constitutional principles.

If TPTB let the system crash during my term, no problem, it needed to crash anyway.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:25 | Link to Comment xela2200
xela2200's picture

If Ron Paul wins, the best we can hope for is a dead locked government. Very doubtful he will find any support in today's political environment.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>dead locked government

That sounds better than the debt increasing from $10 trillion to $15 trillion in only 3 years.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:30 | Link to Comment cdskiller
cdskiller's picture

Does Ron Paul support state Attorneys General investigations and lawsuits against banks for fraudulently created MBS? Closing down MERS? Does he support overturning the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000? A return to Glass-Steagall separation of banking activity? 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:43 | Link to Comment digalert
digalert's picture

For those questioning Pauls foreign policy (IRAN). What are our troops doing in Afghanistan? Planting, growing, harvesting, distributing and protecting Poppies! That's right, our soldiers are aiding in the cultivation of Opium Poppies for Heroin to help the poor Afghan economy. Bring our troops home.

U.S. Seeds New Crops-Poppies

http://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opium-poppy-field...

 

 

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

This is very good news. Dr.Paul has this rare ability to bring people together way beyond the frozen infantility of bipartisan politics, whilst every other politician use the tricks of their trade to emote, incite, divert, and divide people in every which way possible. He will make a truly heroic and revolutionary president in these uncertain times. He is what every foreigner has dreamed American presidents to be, before waking up to the reality.

 

To say that the future does not look good for many of us is the understatement of the decade, regardless of the outcome of the elections. And the prospects for implementing Dr.Paul's vision of peace and prosperity do look very grim against the background of the military industrial complex which will not give up its multi-trillion dollar perks without a fight. This is beyond wrath-of-god province in terms of power and money which the federal govt and tptb enjoy today. Wars, genocide, and tortures have occurred throughout history for much less. If he does become POTUS, I hope, despite his aversion to intrusive acts committed by the government, he has the wisdom to order the secret service to monitor every warmongering SOB in government for the past 20yrs for signs of (another act of false flag) treason. He can rest assured that they are not "People", but leeches who have fed far too long on the blood of young Americans, and blameless people all over the world. 

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 05:47 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Good take.  Ron Paul himself is likely far too meek to go after the 10s or 100s of thousands of thugs in the federal government.  Hopefully he hires someone for Attorney General who is very aggressive against past acts of treason, because that would put virtually the entire government of the past 2 decades behind bars or hanging from trees.

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 09:29 | Link to Comment YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

Thanks honest. It's been a long time since we shared a thread, but I do remember that you gave me really good advice on PMs last time. Cheers.

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 23:27 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Yes, I do remember.  And now is time to back up the truck and buy more.  :-)

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:35 | Link to Comment Carbon Penguin
Carbon Penguin's picture

Neocons must be shitting themselves right now; bullish on Fruit of the Loom...

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:38 | Link to Comment PLove
PLove's picture

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson works for me.

So long as they fly in different airplanes.

 

Only differene between good and evil is marksmanship.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:48 | Link to Comment jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

He's the best candidate out there, but again he is still a monetarist, who will run a monetarist economic program, based off bullshit, and thus it's hard to thread a needle when one doesn't know they are sewing.

Monetarism is the problem, it's anti-american, and both Keynesians and Austrians are monetarists.  Both are dogmatic ideologies of bullshit.  One IS killing us.  The other can as well.  Once Keynesian bullshit is defeated, Austrian will be as well.  I'd rather skip it and just ditch MONETARISM alltogether, since this anti-american monetarism (i.e. explicitly against our founding fathers...hey Ron...why don't you wake up to this REALITY) will also lead to a suboptimal path at the expense of progress and people.

The monetarists love Keynesian on the way up, as they ride the inflation up.  Then switch to Austrian to keep their inflated ill gotten gains on the way down.   Ron Paul is an idiot economically and anti-american in this respect.  THIS IS REALITY.  Our founding fathers were not MONETARISTS, they were ANTI-MONETARISTS, and what was Austrian idiocy made to preserve? Hint, not the people.  When was it? Hint not the 1700's. 

But at least he isn't a Keynesian.  Just like a Keynesian, he knows jack shit about economics.  Just dogma monetarism and what it is 'supposed' to be under their 'rules'. 

In reality, all the candidates but Ron Paul on a ten point scale are ZEROS.  Ron Paul is just a one, maybe a two.  If he ditches idiot anti-American Austrian monetarism, then he has a good shot at raising that number.  But he is as tied to dogma as any Keynesian.  The grass isn't greener with him economically.  But at least in other areas he'd be more American.

So in essence Ron Paul is better than any other candidate running for office, including obviously NerObama, but still sucks himself.  People that suck his cock, will be made to look just as foolish as Obama supporters are looking, because monetarism is in BOTH of their blood.  Someone save Ron Paul from himself, and his idiot Austrain oligarchical dogma, and he'd be a candidate worthy of supporter.  As of now, in reality, he is the best tasting bowl of shit.  But still shit.

Impeach Obama

Glass-Steagall

American Credit System

...not MONETARISM of whatever idiot flavor Keynesian or Austrian.  Someone get that to Ron ASAFP.  In the meantime good luck Ron, as being the best bowl of shit, you should be the one absent someone with a real clue jumping in. 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 21:59 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

You are simply wrong on the facts.  I personally heard Ron Paul criticise monetarism, so you clearly need to do your homework.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:58 | Link to Comment Ellesmere
Ellesmere's picture

Go Ron Paul ....all the way from Canada !!!

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:18 | Link to Comment marcusfenix
marcusfenix's picture

so ten years into this "war on terror" and I have yet to hear any politician explain, in common sense terms, exactly how it is we are going to win this war. 

ten years, trillions of dollars and 5,000 US causalities later and there are still, according to much of DC, terrorists lurking in every shadow, around every corner, under every rock. they are now not only brown skinned turban wearing savages from places with a lot of sand and oil, but according to the DHS, they also might possibly be grandmas with shampoo bottles, old men with catheters, little eight year old autistic children, vets, bloggers, libertarians, environmentalists, people who drive around in cars with bumper stickers, people who pay cash for their hotel rooms, people who park illegally or leave there bags unattended anywhere you happen to be. I've seen the training videos the DHS puts out for the private sector, according to them anybody and everybody is a potential terrorist and they are everywhere.

the way the Washington and the DHS presents it the terrorist business is booming, hence the reason we need to have provisions such as those in the NDAA bill that allow for the indefinite detention of US citizens with out any regard for due process, because if not those terrorists will get us.

so how do you win a war against terrorists who have no nation and no flag, no military to defeat, no infrastructure to destroy, no capital to conquer? kill one, a dozen more raise up to take his place, accidentally kill innocent civilians in a drone strike and you create a thousand more. kill uniformed soldiers of another country while violating their sovereign air space and you have created an entire nation of potential hostiles. can you really expect to "win hearts and minds" with tanks and bombs?

so tell me what's the strategy here? what is the measure of victory? when does the war end?

It doesn't, because there will always be those willing and able to take advantage of the poor and downtrodden, those without hope, give them a manufactured cause and somebody to blame for their ills and send them off to do their part for Ali, the homeland or whatever. you see the US and the middle east are much the same, two cultures ruled by fear being played upon by the PTB's in order to further solidify there rule over the surfs. so short of a pogrom, the systemic eradication of every human who is or could possibly be a threat, a terrorist, this war is impossible to win.

and it will never end until those prosecuting it are bankrupt and unable to continue, which is exactly where we are headed.

I believe Ron Paul at least understands the fallacy of this "war" and the very dark road it is taking down and that alone is reason to support him.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

For failures, the ten year 'War on Terror' has nothing on the 40 year 'War on Drugs'.

After 40 years the results are in; America has the highest per-capita prison population, Mexico is a battleground and most of Central and South America is corrupted, SWAT teams are breaking down doors and shooting people, Trillions of taxpayers dollars down the hole. For what? To piss on the Constitution?

Thirty years ago when I was in High School, it was easier to buy drugs than to get Beer and (according to my nephew) it's the same today. They can't even keep drugs out of prisons.

Vote for Ron Paul! End the failed War on (Drugs) Liberty

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 20:18 | Link to Comment dcb
dcb's picture

re read 1984. you aren't intended to win the war.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:19 | Link to Comment BLOTTO
BLOTTO's picture

The creek is polluted downstream. And you think votes make a difference.

David Livingstone, 41, author of "Terrorism and the Illuminati- A Three Thousand Year History" (2007) says Cabalists determined to be God have hijacked mankind.

Livingstone says that all occult movements originate in the Cabala (which dates to 6th century B.C. Babylon.) Cabalism is a Jewish heresy because it does not uphold the universal moral standards enunciated by Moses. (This is the Judaism I identify with.)

Livingstone maintains that most Illuminati bloodlines, including European royalty, are heretical Jews, crypto Jews and wannabe Jews. ("Crypto Jews" are Jews who pretend they are Christians, Muslims or other religions or ethnic backgrounds. John Kerry or Madelaine Albright are examples.)

In his book, Livingstone traces the genealogies of these Khazar bloodlines, which include the Rothschilds, the Hapsburgs, the Sinclairs, the Stuarts, the Merovingians, the Lusignans, and the Windsors.

"The great secret of history is this story of the ascent of heretical Cabalists to world power," says Livingstone. "Ordinary Jews and people in general have no idea how they are being manipulated."

"These Cabalists believe Lucifer is the true God. They care nothing for their own nations. Their whole aim in life is to humiliate and degrade mankind, and prove to God that the human experiment is a failure. They are gradually achieving this goal through their control of the economy, education, media and government

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

RON PAUL EATS SHIT.

He will not only lose Iowa, he will lose BIG. Public Policy Polling has as much legitimacy as the NY Times, which is to say NONE. You may as well survey the opinions of a pack of crackheads dumpster diving in Harlem.

Ron Paul is a pacifist, pure and simple. He is an American Neville Chamberlain. He is a deluded fool wishing for an unattainable Utopia.

His isolationist ideology is not only short-sighted and ignorant, it is dangerous to this country and would invite aggression from radical extremists.

The political contribution money you send to Ron Paul would be just as well spent by sending  Get Well cards with donations to Kim Jong Ill.

Ron Paul endorsing a nuclear-armed Iran would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

FUCK RON PAUL.  HE IS A CUR.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:54 | Link to Comment Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

Is that you, Newt?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 21:54 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

You are one incredibly sad dude.  Clearly you hate yourself as well as everything and everyone else.  Either that, or you are indeed a campaign worker for Adolph Hitler or one of the modern Republican/Democrat equivalents.  Plus, you just flat out lie.  Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, which is just about opposite of an isolationist.  Ron Paul never endorsed a nuclear-armed Iran.  In fact, he wishes there were vastly fewer nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon armed countries.  He does, however, understand why a country surrounded by nuclear-weapon toting countries (Iran) might have reasons to want a few themselves (as a deterrent).  Ron Paul is not a pacifist.  If any country was to attack the USA, he would nuke them without a second thought.  And that's a fact.  Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that defense of the USA is the most important function of the USA.

You are simply one sick, deluded liar... and apologist for modern-day nuclear-armed Adolph wannabees.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:50 | Link to Comment therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Fox News just reported that a "Tea Party' Straw Poll has Ron Paul ranked 4th at 3%, behind Gingrich (38%), Bachmann (22%) and Romney (18%).  It flashed by so I'm not quite sure on those numbers, but that is the order and about the percents associated with each.   The Paul percent is accurate as to what they reported.  

 

WHY WOULD THE TEA PARTY SUPPORT GINGRICH OR ROMNEY?  

 

They are lying, we all knew this, but I found it funny that just flashed on the screen given this thread...

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 17:35 | Link to Comment mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

They wouldn't endorse Gingrich or Romney.  With Cain out and Palin never in, the Tea Party would support Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman, and possibly Santorum.  The Tea Party splits on Paul, however, because of how some view his position on defence and that some Tea Partiers view libertarianism as incompatible with the theological underpinnings of the Constitution.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:44 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

The Tea Party has been taken over by neocons, that poll means nothing.

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:53 | Link to Comment mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Infiltrated, but not taken over.  The true Tea Party, if subject to too much infiltration, will simply break away again (it already has in many respects, but not in the public eye).

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 09:47 | Link to Comment therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Thanks for that analysis MK...it helps.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 17:41 | Link to Comment sudzee
sudzee's picture

Ron Paul talked about today in Canadian news as the new frontrunner.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 19:30 | Link to Comment PLove
PLove's picture

Tea Party Patriots have no office, no bank account, no chain-of-command, and no leaders.

And no polls.

That said, Tea Party Patriots clearly favor Ron Paul and Gary Johnson ... by significant margins.

 

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 19:34 | Link to Comment americanspirit
americanspirit's picture

I think you're missing one - Sarah Palin. When she puts on the lip gloss, winks at the camera, and implicitly offers every guy watching the best blow job of his life ( those jaw muscles do seem like they could provide some impressive suction) my guess is that she would be a walk-away winner. I'm not sure even Ron Paul could overcome such a powerful fantasy.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:54 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

she looks about as good coming as she does going.  i mean a hot president?  when was the last time we had one of those?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 20:13 | Link to Comment dcb
dcb's picture

yeah, I posted that cun-s history who endorssed romney in the huff post. pointing out she has managed to move up to the highest levels in firsm that got government bailouts.  as usual that endorsement rprsents all that is wrong with america. a person with a long history of assiciated failures moves into a position of pwer, and of course will back someone who also supports that crony cpaitialism. that's ZH.

I must say the attck by Krugman, then what this bitch woman had to say really got me backing paul.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:47 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

krugman is a lib democrat.  that is all he is, and all he will ever be.....he loves his fiat and his fed and his people.......

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:46 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32

 

if i was one of you paulistas, i would be highly suspicious about this kind of talk. seems to me they are going to hijack the vote in iowa and blame it on anonymous...........you know what this means. ron paul will get the hose........

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 22:50 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-amish-community-stunned-by-girls-shooting-death-txt,0,4175223.story

 

this makes no sense..........but it does........problem , reaction, solution.   remember , we are all terrorist now...........

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 23:10 | Link to Comment gnomon
gnomon's picture

Ron Paul as President would be spread-eagled and neutered by the Axis of Evil before his first year was out.  You Ron Paul guys have a screw loose.  

You would rather that this nation go down in flames as punishment for its past errors.  That is why you voted for Obama.  And that is why you are voting for Ron Paul.  Yes, indeed, the old one-two punch will do it.  We will not live to fight another day, if you vote this fatally flawed man into office.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 23:21 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

the axis of evil is amerika, great britain, israholle and nato..........

 

what the hell are you talking about?

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 23:31 | Link to Comment gnomon
gnomon's picture

As I said, "a screw loose", ipso facto.

You better stick with the gangs are not putting their people into Gulags.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 23:35 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

whatever you say pal. maybe it would be a good idea if you shut up while you are ahead.  you obviously don't know shit........

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 00:50 | Link to Comment gnomon
gnomon's picture

I know that I will temporarily accept the "lesser of evils" in order that I might live to see another year or five years from now.  The first battle is national security.  It is the fight against totalitarian and truly fascist states that would dearly like to see us in The West all DEAD.

The second battle is to secure Liberty here and beat back the recent encroachments.  But the second battle can not take place without fighting the first battle.  And both battles have to be fought simultaneously.

We who love Liberty are fighting a two-front war.  That is what you Ron Paul guys can not get through your head.  You so hate America as it exists now that in your heart of hearts you would rather see us all dead, if the utopia you envision can not be immediately instituted.

You Ron Paul guys have a masochistic streak a mile long.  It must be in your DNA. But don't ask the rest of the U.S. to sign up for a suicide mission with Ron Paul cackling as he noses us into the ground at terminal speed.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 23:49 | Link to Comment Shadowsil
Shadowsil's picture

Haha dont these fucking Media Cunts realize that the Paul supporters OWN the fucking internet.

Just hit about 10 different Mainstream media sites/tv or paper all blasting the news that Paul was last in new polls as of sunday and or is not being supported by the tea party or not mentioned at all..

What a disgrace they are.

We shall see...

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