[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.
Was fun while it lasted.
Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…
[/quote]
But…but…but…I was so looking forward to that third year of his presidency that you promised us!!!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.
Was fun while it lasted.
Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…
Paul doesn’t need to waste his time on a third party. They’re posting racist newsletters over an “Extended” period of time(I believe a 10 year period) with his signature on them. Seems to be more than a "couple of newsletters written over a short period of time by a Ghost-writer. Yep, 3rd party run would just be a waste of time now.
I just found this out today, myself. Oh well, guess I’m stuck twiddling my thumbs this election cycle.
Well…gee…if you feel that way about racist remarks, you may think about retiring Pat Buchanan from your avatar.[/quote]
Pat Buchanan as my avatar is a joke. He’s a grouchy old man that amuses me. Period. I simply got the idea from an Ali G interview with him I saw not too long ago. His politics are completely opposite of mine, in the first place.
I for one, see absolutely no need to put a freeze on legal immigration, temporary or not. Nor, am I a protectionist, but a free trader. Not the fake free trade we’re saddled with now, however. Low to no tarriffs, no subsidizes, no anti-dumping laws. It only harms the consumer.
Unlike him, I do not want the federal government defining marriage. Hell, I don’t think it’s the role of a state government, either! It’s a private matter. The same with laws restricting what sex acts two adults constent to in their own homes.
I am anti-drug prohibition.
Now, I am against subsidizing the defens of other nations on the backs of US citizens. I suppose we’d agree on that. Though I’m sure Israel would be his focus. I however, am sympathetic to the Israel’s position.
Etc. Etc.
He’s Paleoconservative, while I’m more Classical Liberal/libertarian/conservative (yikes!).
Really, the Ali G. interview is good times. If you like cantankerous (and controversial) public figures being led into a discussion about how BLT’s weren’t found in Iraq. I can’t explain, you’d have to watch it. You can find it on you tube.
You know, I thought my reputation here would be enough to make my intent clear. But, I realize some folks might get a little confused, and come to the conclusion that I support his positions on race, economics, and policy. I shall remedy this straight away!
Anyways. Here’s to hoping the Republican party will find it’s way back to fiscal conservatism again. Oh, and if they could at least leave socail issues strictly to the states, it would be a bonus.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You know, I thought my reputation here would be enough to make my intent clear. But, I realize some folks might get a little confused, and come to the conclusion that I support his positions on race, economics, and policy. I shall remedy this straight away![/quote]
So does this current avatar reflect your true colors, so to speak?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You know, I thought my reputation here would be enough to make my intent clear. But, I realize some folks might get a little confused, and come to the conclusion that I support his positions on race, economics, and policy. I shall remedy this straight away!
So does this current avatar reflect your true colors, so to speak?[/quote]
Hehe. Folks, relax! It’s me for goodness sake.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.
Was fun while it lasted.
Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…
But…but…but…I was so looking forward to that third year of his presidency that you promised us!!![/quote]
Sorry champ. He’d have had to do well in Iowa/NH for that to become reality, and I made it clear from the start.
On the pro-Paul sites, they are trying to play it down as if nothing bad happened. I reckon they will be saying “give him another week, he’s sure to catch on” right up until Nomination Day.
Paul had a good run up until December; no one can deny that. Unfortunately, he’s just been decisively defeated in the first two battles of this campaign.
There is simply no way the GOP will nominate him now, even if he were to (hypothetically) win every primary from here on out. The fact that he crashed and burned in IA/NH would still give them reason enough to say, “Well, you did well but you didn’t do THAT well, so we’re giving it to someone else”.
The only possible way for him to win, from the beginning, was to shock the elites by riding a huge wave of grassroots populism straight to the top. Unfortunately, the wave wasn’t large enough, or it came too early. Maybe his campaign didn’t spend enough money - who knows.
Of course, people are now going to treat this as an “educational” campaign. Since I’m already educated, I have no further reason to participate.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
Kind of like when GB left India Pakistan or the SU the East European countries Kosovo …
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…
Thanks for making my point.
Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.
So what is your point?
Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB
[/quote]
Huh? About two million people died. Partition was a fucking disaster. What on earth are you talking about?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.
Was fun while it lasted.
Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…
But…but…but…I was so looking forward to that third year of his presidency that you promised us!!!
Sorry champ. He’d have had to do well in Iowa/NH for that to become reality, and I made it clear from the start.
On the pro-Paul sites, they are trying to play it down as if nothing bad happened. I reckon they will be saying “give him another week, he’s sure to catch on” right up until Nomination Day.
Paul had a good run up until December; no one can deny that. Unfortunately, he’s just been decisively defeated in the first two battles of this campaign.
There is simply no way the GOP will nominate him now, even if he were to (hypothetically) win every primary from here on out. The fact that he crashed and burned in IA/NH would still give them reason enough to say, “Well, you did well but you didn’t do THAT well, so we’re giving it to someone else”.
The only possible way for him to win, from the beginning, was to shock the elites by riding a huge wave of grassroots populism straight to the top. Unfortunately, the wave wasn’t large enough, or it came too early. Maybe his campaign didn’t spend enough money - who knows.
Of course, people are now going to treat this as an “educational” campaign. Since I’m already educated, I have no further reason to participate.[/quote]
Well, I would have thought anyone educated knew this from the start. Paul has almost no chance of being the Republican nominee. That doesn’t mean he isn’t worth supporting.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.
Was fun while it lasted.
Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…
But…but…but…I was so looking forward to that third year of his presidency that you promised us!!!
Sorry champ. He’d have had to do well in Iowa/NH for that to become reality, and I made it clear from the start.
On the pro-Paul sites, they are trying to play it down as if nothing bad happened. I reckon they will be saying “give him another week, he’s sure to catch on” right up until Nomination Day.
Paul had a good run up until December; no one can deny that. Unfortunately, he’s just been decisively defeated in the first two battles of this campaign.
There is simply no way the GOP will nominate him now, even if he were to (hypothetically) win every primary from here on out. The fact that he crashed and burned in IA/NH would still give them reason enough to say, “Well, you did well but you didn’t do THAT well, so we’re giving it to someone else”.
The only possible way for him to win, from the beginning, was to shock the elites by riding a huge wave of grassroots populism straight to the top. Unfortunately, the wave wasn’t large enough, or it came too early. Maybe his campaign didn’t spend enough money - who knows.
Of course, people are now going to treat this as an “educational” campaign. Since I’m already educated, I have no further reason to participate.[/quote]
nominal,
You’ve made basic errors in understanding throughout your paul crusade.
One of the most fundamental is that you seem unable to understand that educated people have rejected ron paul based on his errors in understanding. Further, his aggressive ignorance is a real turn off.
Take this one:
It is pure nonsense. To suggest that the Civil War was just an elaborate Federal Power grab by Lincoln IS INSANE.
Not open to discussion.
It is an insult to the memory of the man. Read this:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
The man wanted to keep the Union intact. One section of the country would rather resort to violence than accept the results of the ballot box.
Further, ron paul’s historical ignorance is once again demonstrated. He doesn’t understand the ongoing fight in Kansas in the 1850’s. He doesn’t understand that slavery was EXPANDING not shrinking leading up to the Civil War.
The slave trade was outlawed. However, everyone (except ron paul, apparently) knows that there still slaves arriving after it was made officially illegal to ship slaves.
If nothing else permeates your brain from this post, let me make it clear: Many people have rejected ron paul because of ron paul.
JeffR
[quote]Mr Independent wrote:
Well, I would have thought anyone educated knew this from the start. Paul has almost no chance of being the Republican nominee. That doesn’t mean he isn’t worth supporting.[/quote]
Mr. Independent,
He isn’t worth supporting because of what he says and does.
It is intellectually lazy to assume that everyone who thinks paul is a kook does so because they are tied to the “establishment.”
JeffR
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Paul has almost no chance of being the Republican nominee. That doesn’t mean he isn’t worth supporting.[/quote]
I think the Republican base probably feels alienated by him. He’s basically stated the party has lost its way and that they are going down in a ball of flames if they don’t change their ways – in other words, the absolute truth. For the conservatives that can’t take honest criticism that stings and they won’t budge.
As for a third party run I am not sure he will do it unless he stays steady at his current support level of about 10%. If he should drop the “R” he might appeal to those democrats that cannot in good conscious support Hillary…the for-sure next “D” presidential nominee.
At least by the time he is ready to make a 3rd party run he will have some name recognition if the MSM decides to give him proper coverage. If Paul makes a third party run who does he steal votes from?
BTW, those racist accusations are such a joke. It makes me wonder if anyone in the media has any credibility when it comes to fact checking. Didn’t the NYT already retract such an accusation?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
Kind of like when GB left India Pakistan or the SU the East European countries Kosovo …
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…
Thanks for making my point.
Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.
So what is your point?
Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB
Huh? About two million people died. Partition was a fucking disaster. What on earth are you talking about?[/quote]
2 million out of how many?
They could have been a giant balcans but they weren`t.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul is done for; it’s official.
Was fun while it lasted.
Now it’s just a matter of time before he goes third party…
But…but…but…I was so looking forward to that third year of his presidency that you promised us!!!
Sorry champ. He’d have had to do well in Iowa/NH for that to become reality, and I made it clear from the start.
On the pro-Paul sites, they are trying to play it down as if nothing bad happened. I reckon they will be saying “give him another week, he’s sure to catch on” right up until Nomination Day.
Paul had a good run up until December; no one can deny that. Unfortunately, he’s just been decisively defeated in the first two battles of this campaign.
There is simply no way the GOP will nominate him now, even if he were to (hypothetically) win every primary from here on out. The fact that he crashed and burned in IA/NH would still give them reason enough to say, “Well, you did well but you didn’t do THAT well, so we’re giving it to someone else”.
The only possible way for him to win, from the beginning, was to shock the elites by riding a huge wave of grassroots populism straight to the top. Unfortunately, the wave wasn’t large enough, or it came too early. Maybe his campaign didn’t spend enough money - who knows.
Of course, people are now going to treat this as an “educational” campaign. Since I’m already educated, I have no further reason to participate.
nominal,
You’ve made basic errors in understanding throughout your paul crusade.
One of the most fundamental is that you seem unable to understand that educated people have rejected ron paul based on his errors in understanding. Further, his aggressive ignorance is a real turn off.
Take this one:
It is pure nonsense. To suggest that the Civil War was just an elaborate Federal Power grab by Lincoln IS INSANE.
Not open to discussion.
It is an insult to the memory of the man. Read this:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
The man wanted to keep the Union intact. One section of the country would rather resort to violence than accept the results of the ballot box.
Further, ron paul’s historical ignorance is once again demonstrated. He doesn’t understand the ongoing fight in Kansas in the 1850’s. He doesn’t understand that slavery was EXPANDING not shrinking leading up to the Civil War.
The slave trade was outlawed. However, everyone (except ron paul, apparently) knows that there still slaves arriving after it was made officially illegal to ship slaves.
If nothing else permeates your brain from this post, let me make it clear: Many people have rejected ron paul because of ron paul.
JeffR
[/quote]
Aren’t you supporting the guy who came in 6th behind Paul in Iowa…? Based on the percentages you’re still supporting a non-electable person too – welcome to the club.
Secondly, you have neither understanding of sovereignty nor secession. Lincoln had no right to force a union on the South. Lincoln cared neither for slaves nor black people and stated he would keep the union in tact with or without slavery.
[quote]
GDollars37 wrote:
Paul has almost no chance of being the Republican nominee. That doesn’t mean he isn’t worth supporting.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think the Republican base probably feels alienated by him. He’s basically stated the party has lost its way and that they are going down in a ball of flames if they don’t change their ways – in other words, the absolute truth. For the conservatives that can’t take honest criticism that stings and they won’t budge.
As for a third party run I am not sure he will do it unless he stays steady at his current support level of about 10%. If he should drop the “R” he might appeal to those democrats that cannot in good conscious support Hillary…the for-sure next “D” presidential nominee.
At least by the time he is ready to make a 3rd party run he will have some name recognition if the MSM decides to give him proper coverage. If Paul makes a third party run who does he steal votes from?
BTW, those racist accusations are such a joke. It makes me wonder if anyone in the media has any credibility when it comes to fact checking. Didn’t the NYT already retract such an accusation?[/quote]
It isn’t unheard of to publish a newsletter containing material you disagree with. But one would think that if there were a pattern of such articles, perhaps there would be an official editorial disclaim any endorsement of those positions, kind of like a newspaper’s editorials vs. the op-ed pieces it publishes.
Additionally, the amount and context of the pieces published leads one to assume that it represented Dr. Paul’s views, at least at the time. Whether Ron Paul wrote the material, endorsed but did not write it, or was simply negligent in allowing it to appear in a newsletter named after him that he published, he has at least some responsibility for it - probably a lot.
Waiting until now, in the middle of a presidential campaign, to make disclaimers means that those disclaimers aren’t very convincing. At the very least, the material in the newsletters seriously calls into question his judgment. He had even served in Congress when this material appeared. He has at worst endorsed, and at best coddled, these ideas. It’s not really so surprising anymore that the American Nazis and various kooks have glommed on to this campaign.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Aren’t you supporting the guy who came in 6th behind Paul in Iowa…? Based on the percentages you’re still supporting a non-electable person too – welcome to the club.[/quote]
lifty, I wasn’t attempting to bait you into this discussion. In fact, I was hoping you’d stay away.
There isn’t any comparison between Rudy’s chances and ron paul. Rudy didn’t campaign much in Iowa nor N.H.
My guess is there will be quite a disparity between Rudy and ron paul starting in Florida.
Oh, I did notice ron paul losing to Rudy in N.H.
Of course, that isn’t saying much.
Again, I’ll wait for nominal to make a comment. However, I’ll leave everyone with the most telling of all lifty comments, “ron paul is the most qualified candidate to ever run for President.”
That statement indicates that you have no understanding of history.
None.
Therefore, this is one of those times where the gulf between me and another poster is too vast to attempt to have a meaningful discussion.
JeffR
The newsletters don’t mean a lot to me because I already made up my mind about other issues.
His habit of making sure his district receives their share of pork and then voting against spending bills knowing they have enough votes to pass with the pork he inserted bothers me.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Waiting until now, in the middle of a presidential campaign, to make disclaimers means that those disclaimers aren’t very convincing. [/quote]
He answered for this 10 years ago when he was re-running for congress. The article (yes, the only one) in question was published in D.C. when Dr. Paul was back practicing medicine in TX. I doubt he had a clue until someone brought it to his attention – when he DID relieve the individual of his ghost-writing privileges. He took moral responsibility for the oversight. This is a done issue.
People who call Dr. Paul a racist clearly don’t understand libertarianism.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
His habit of making sure his district receives their share of pork and then voting against spending bills knowing they have enough votes to pass with the pork he inserted bothers me.[/quote]
Earmarks are already spent money. By earmarking particular funds he is following the constitution by taking budget decisions from the executive branch. Read the constitution. Why should the president get to decide where the money gets spent if it is not clearly stated in the Constitution as one of his duties.
If the DoI is receiving $100 already then he should be able to send the money back that taken from his district in the form of DoI projects that benefit them. He votes against all these spending bills anyway. How is this inconsistent with his congressional duty?
Please get a clue! You’re bothered because you haven’t an understanding of the constitution or how it’s supposed to work.
Here’s the article that touched off the firestorm:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Here’s a link to selections from more than one of his newsletters - significantly more than one - I don’t know if the source had access to a full archive:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129