[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
I’ve tried searching for actual copies of these newsletters, I haven’t been able to find them.
Do you have any links to the newsletters?
Thanks.[/quote]
Do a search at www.reason.com - I think you can back into them through articles written there.
feel free to go to the site. they even admit he didnt right them. Come on thunderbolt it dint stick in 96, it didnt stick in 2001, or 08.
Still waiting for your candidate, at least Zeb has come out and said he is waiting for the Primary winner to get behind. Care to say who you are backing?
Your good a typing a lot of stuff but saying nothing.
And last time you went this path you got beaten up so bad in it you ended up going full Conspiracy theory on it and blamed Lew Rockwell for writing the underground article in a magazine that was not even endorsed by Ron Paul.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
John S.
Paul got a whopping 46,000 votes when he was reelected to his Congressional seat in 2010. Wow, just think if all of those people turn out to vote for him for President he only needs another 65 million votes and he’s got it in the bag!
This is just one example of why Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency. Now let’s take a quick look at why a Governor has a far better chance to get elected to the highest office in the land. The population of Ohio, for example is over 11 million people. While they have a new Governor there and he’s not likely to run we can look at a smaller state like Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the Governor of that state and there is well over 5 million people who live in Minnesota. And no I’m not a Pawlenty fan, I’m just trying to drive a point home as to why in American history only one Congressman (Garfield 1881) has risen to the highest office in the land. In this post I have not even discussed the age issue or any other of the many liabilities that he has in attempting to get elected to the Presidency.
I am not saying it is wrong to be “pro Paul”. I am only saying it is foolish to think that he has a ghost of a chance of becoming President.
Is any of this sinking in? [/quote]
Before the information age was here you are right, a congressman being elected was almost impossible. Ron Paul’s name is probably more well known then most governors on the national stage now.
I have to wonder tho, would you be worried about someone being a congressman if it was Allen West running?
And lets say you are right and he doesn’t get the nomination, you have to agree the other candidates are going to be picking up his main selling points such as auditing the fed and establishing a sound currency.[/quote]
First of all you make a legitimate point that the media age does change the game somewhat. But the power of having a Governorship is that millions of people have already voted for you and will do so again for President. Now if that particular state is one of the key battle ground states then it is even more important. That’s quite a bit different than a bunch of 20 something’s (no offense) seeing your web site between college classes and getting all excited. Quite a bit different.
And I have no problem with the republican nominee picking up on some of his agenda. While I think that he is naive on some issues like foreign policy, he does make some good points about fiscal conservatism.
Look John the bottom line is for all of us to stand behind a candidate who can espouse some of these views get the nomination and beat Obama. There’s an old sang that my grandfather used to say: A half a loaf is better than none.
Start thinking that way. [/quote]
Is a half piece of shit better then a full piece of shit?
[quote]John S. wrote:
feel free to go to the site. they even admit he didnt right them. Come on thunderbolt it dint stick in 96, it didnt stick in 2001, or 08.[/quote]
It “didn’t stick” because there was nothing to stick to - it was a non-event because his campaign was a non-event. The point is that if Paul ever gained momentum in a national candidacy, it would be derailed by these newsletters.
And no, Paul can’t deflect ownership and responsibility off on “someone else” for writing them. They were his cronies, and he could never outrun it.
Well, I’m not a Republican, and I don’t yet know who is in and who is out. I am not backing anyone yet, but I like what I know of Mitch Daniels (who may not even run).
Of course. Keep trying, junior.
Negative, I never got beat up on that issue, but I’m used to hollow internet bluster. Last I checked, when I raised this issue, you slinked off into silence with no credible answer.
In any event, Rockwell and Rothbard were the primary authors of the letters - and both were cronies in cahoots with Paul. This laughable notion that ole Ron just had no idea these nasty letters were being sent out on his good name is beyond belief.
Your desperation is palpable, but there’s no saving your precious political Messiah from his disgusting flirtation with an ugly and opportunistic racism.
[quote]John S. wrote:
feel free to go to the site. they even admit he didnt right them. Come on thunderbolt it dint stick in 96, it didnt stick in 2001, or 08.
Still waiting for your candidate, at least Zeb has come out and said he is waiting for the Primary winner to get behind. Care to say who you are backing?
Your good a typing a lot of stuff but saying nothing.
And last time you went this path you got beaten up so bad in it you ended up going full Conspiracy theory on it and blamed Lew Rockwell for writing the underground article in a magazine that was not even endorsed by Ron Paul.[/quote]
The race card has become the oldest and most tiresome trick in the book. Could we check his policies or his voting record and see if it matches his rhetoric? I suppose that is too sensible for some.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
John S.
Paul got a whopping 46,000 votes when he was reelected to his Congressional seat in 2010. Wow, just think if all of those people turn out to vote for him for President he only needs another 65 million votes and he’s got it in the bag!
This is just one example of why Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency. Now let’s take a quick look at why a Governor has a far better chance to get elected to the highest office in the land. The population of Ohio, for example is over 11 million people. While they have a new Governor there and he’s not likely to run we can look at a smaller state like Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the Governor of that state and there is well over 5 million people who live in Minnesota. And no I’m not a Pawlenty fan, I’m just trying to drive a point home as to why in American history only one Congressman (Garfield 1881) has risen to the highest office in the land. In this post I have not even discussed the age issue or any other of the many liabilities that he has in attempting to get elected to the Presidency.
I am not saying it is wrong to be “pro Paul”. I am only saying it is foolish to think that he has a ghost of a chance of becoming President.
Is any of this sinking in? [/quote]
Before the information age was here you are right, a congressman being elected was almost impossible. Ron Paul’s name is probably more well known then most governors on the national stage now.
I have to wonder tho, would you be worried about someone being a congressman if it was Allen West running?
And lets say you are right and he doesn’t get the nomination, you have to agree the other candidates are going to be picking up his main selling points such as auditing the fed and establishing a sound currency.[/quote]
First of all you make a legitimate point that the media age does change the game somewhat. But the power of having a Governorship is that millions of people have already voted for you and will do so again for President. Now if that particular state is one of the key battle ground states then it is even more important. That’s quite a bit different than a bunch of 20 something’s (no offense) seeing your web site between college classes and getting all excited. Quite a bit different.
And I have no problem with the republican nominee picking up on some of his agenda. While I think that he is naive on some issues like foreign policy, he does make some good points about fiscal conservatism.
Look John the bottom line is for all of us to stand behind a candidate who can espouse some of these views get the nomination and beat Obama. There’s an old sang that my grandfather used to say: A half a loaf is better than none.
Start thinking that way. [/quote]
Is a half piece of shit better then a full piece of shit?[/quote]
Yes, it stinks half as bad.
Look, we know Obama is a full blown turd. If you think most any of the republicans would be as bad or worse you’re wrong. And in fact we have a good chance of electing someone who will actually be good.
Actually it’s much worse to elect a bad Republican than a Democrat. The Democrat may do more economic damage, but the establishment Republican does something worse: intellectual damage. Because Republicans wrap themselves in the false trappings of small governemnt, their failures are cited as proof that capitalism doesn’t work and used to justify bigger government. At least if the economy crashes while Obama is in office, it will be much more obvious that government is to blame.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Actually it’s much worse to elect a bad Republican than a Democrat. The Democrat may do more economic damage, but the establishment Republican does a worse kind of damage: intellectual damage. Because Republicans wrap themselves in the false trappings of small governemnt, their failures are cited as proof that capitalism doesn’t work and used to justify bigger government. At least if the economy crashes while Obama is in office, it will be clear where to place the blame.[/quote]
That’s a great point. It never ceases to amaze me how people think this most recent crisis was a failure of unbridled capitalism, just because a Republican was in office. The uninformed automatically associate “Republican” with “free markets,” but it is never that simple.
[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Actually it’s much worse to elect a bad Republican than a Democrat. The Democrat may do more economic damage, but the establishment Republican does a worse kind of damage: intellectual damage. Because Republicans wrap themselves in the false trappings of small governemnt, their failures are cited as proof that capitalism doesn’t work and used to justify bigger government. At least if the economy crashes while Obama is in office, it will be clear where to place the blame.[/quote]
That’s a great point. It never ceases to amaze me how people think this most recent crisis was a failure of unbridled capitalism, just because a Republican was in office. The uninformed automatically associate “Republican” with “free markets,” but it is never that simple.[/quote]
That conflation happens because those on the left see only the people associated with an idea, not the idea itself.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Actually it’s much worse to elect a bad Republican than a Democrat. The Democrat may do more economic damage, but the establishment Republican does something worse: intellectual damage. Because Republicans wrap themselves in the false trappings of small governemnt, their failures are cited as proof that capitalism doesn’t work and used to justify bigger government. At least if the economy crashes while Obama is in office, it will be much more obvious that government is to blame.[/quote]
Well, we are getting that now with Elstinko in office. Certainly a democrat is not going to lead us to smaller government so at some point we must elect a republican to actually fix the problem, or try at least.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.[/quote]
I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, over and over - and then you write something like this.
Conservative Democrats would not vote for Ron Paul - for at least one reason: he ain’t a conservative or a moderate.
Independents would not vote for Paul - independents tend to be pragmatic, non-ideological and conservative reformers (conservative in the procedural sense here - slow methodical change versus upheaval). Paul is the opposite of all those qualities - he is radically ideological, tunnel-visioned, and not pragmatic.
The vast majority of Republicans would not vote for him - not in the primaries, and under the fictional event he was the national candidate, Republicans would leave him in droves.
Paul couldn’t unite ants around a fallen ice cream cone.
And, you continue to sweep Paul’s unsavory connections to his newsletters under the rug - mainstream America would never validate such a vile man and such vile practices.[/quote]
Great post. Especially in regards to garnering the independent voters.
I just love this thread , we truly have many experts that are so confident they for go their opinion and go straight for fact. I am in AWE
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
feel free to go to the site. they even admit he didnt right them. Come on thunderbolt it dint stick in 96, it didnt stick in 2001, or 08.[/quote]
It “didn’t stick” because there was nothing to stick to - it was a non-event because his campaign was a non-event. The point is that if Paul ever gained momentum in a national candidacy, it would be derailed by these newsletters.
And no, Paul can’t deflect ownership and responsibility off on “someone else” for writing them. They were his cronies, and he could never outrun it.
Well, I’m not a Republican, and I don’t yet know who is in and who is out. I am not backing anyone yet, but I like what I know of Mitch Daniels (who may not even run).
Of course. Keep trying, junior.
Negative, I never got beat up on that issue, but I’m used to hollow internet bluster. Last I checked, when I raised this issue, you slinked off into silence with no credible answer.
In any event, Rockwell and Rothbard were the primary authors of the letters - and both were cronies in cahoots with Paul. This laughable notion that ole Ron just had no idea these nasty letters were being sent out on his good name is beyond belief.
Your desperation is palpable, but there’s no saving your precious political Messiah from his disgusting flirtation with an ugly and opportunistic racism.[/quote]
LOL I left the thread after Dustin handed you your ass. And prove it was Lew Rockwell that wrote the magazine. Even CNN backed off this issue when they couldn’t even find out who published the underground “newsletter”.
Oh that’s right, unnamed inside staffers said it. I saw more credible witness testimony to Obama being born outside the united states then this load of shit.
Let’s Check Ron Pauls voting record against what was said, lets check Lew Rockwell’s writing style against what was written, oh wait that’s right they both don’t match at all.
And Rothbard… Really?
Back up what you say or gtfo. Provide the staffers in their own words with names or get the hell out of my thread.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I just love this thread , we truly have many experts that are so confident they for go their opinion and go straight for fact. I am in AWE [/quote]
This made me LOL.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Back up what you say or gtfo. Provide the staffers in their own words with names or get the hell out of my thread.[/quote]
He won’t because he can’t. Pulling the race card is a refuge of a scoundrel and a coward with no evidence.
Yes. let’s forget his voting record to see whether or not it matches his rhetoric. Let’s forget him predicting the economic crash back in 2003. His positions and policies mean nothing right? Let’s just falsely accuse him of being a racist. Well the accusers must be right, after all the television says so. LOL! Please.
[quote]John S. wrote:
LOL I left the thread after Dustin handed you your ass. And prove it was Lew Rockwell that wrote the magazine. Even CNN backed off this issue when they couldn’t even find out who published the underground “newsletter”. [/quote]
Horseshit - no such thing occurred, and Dustin couldn’t hand me my ass on this subject if I gave to him with directions to my house.
[quote]Oh that’s right, unnamed inside staffers said it. I saw more credible witness testimony to Obama being born outside the united states then this load of shit.
Let’s Check Ron Pauls voting record against what was said, lets check Lew Rockwell’s writing style against what was written, oh wait that’s right they both don’t match at all.
And Rothbard… Really?
Back up what you say or gtfo. Provide the staffers in their own words with names or get the hell out of my thread.[/quote]
Already done. You’ve shown yourself nothing but a bush-leaguer and an imbecile.
Use common sense, John, I dare you - if Ron Paul ever had any national tranjectory, these letters would derail any chance he ever had with mainstream America. They have his name on them and were an instrument of his little “paleolibertarian” movement with Rothbard and Rockwell (his buddy and staffer).
Do you honestly think that a radical like Paul could convince mainstream America that he had no hand in those letters?
If you think so, then there’s no help for you.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
He won’t because he can’t. Pulling the race card is a refuge of a scoundrel and a coward with no evidence.
Yes. let’s forget his voting record to see whether or not it matches his rhetoric. Let’s forget him predicting the economic crash back in 2003. His positions and policies mean nothing right? Let’s just falsely accuse him of being a racist. Well the accusers must be right, after all the television says so. LOL! Please.[/quote]
I usually skip over your posts - what with their faux-intellectual arrogance and lack of anything interesting - but again, use common sense (I know, a difficult request for a libertarian to fulfill). Mainstream America could never be convinced that Paul had no hand in those letters.
That was my point all along - to suggest that the letters compromise Paul’s electability. And they do. Do I think he had a hand in those letters? Of course. But all that matters is the association with them.
More to the point - this issue was essentially uncovered by…wait for it…other libertarian outfits.
Enough. Between you and John S., I can see the future of Ron Paul is dimmer than ever. Stop wasting everyone’s time with goofball assertions to the contrary.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I just love this thread , we truly have many experts that are so confident they for go their opinion and go straight for fact. I am in AWE [/quote]
This made me LOL.[/quote]
Can’t you just sense the Authority 
And just for a recap, read the whole thing:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
LOL I left the thread after Dustin handed you your ass. And prove it was Lew Rockwell that wrote the magazine. Even CNN backed off this issue when they couldn’t even find out who published the underground “newsletter”. [/quote]
Horseshit - no such thing occurred, and Dustin couldn’t hand me my ass on this subject if I gave to him with directions to my house.
[quote]Oh that’s right, unnamed inside staffers said it. I saw more credible witness testimony to Obama being born outside the united states then this load of shit.
Let’s Check Ron Pauls voting record against what was said, lets check Lew Rockwell’s writing style against what was written, oh wait that’s right they both don’t match at all.
And Rothbard… Really?
Back up what you say or gtfo. Provide the staffers in their own words with names or get the hell out of my thread.[/quote]
Already done. You’ve shown yourself nothing but a bush-leaguer and an imbecile.
Use common sense, John, I dare you - if Ron Paul ever had any national tranjectory, these letters would derail any chance he ever had with mainstream America. They have his name on them and were an instrument of his little “paleolibertarian” movement with Rothbard and Rockwell (his buddy and staffer).
Do you honestly think that a radical like Paul could convince mainstream America that he had no hand in those letters?
If you think so, then there’s no help for you.[/quote]
Again I ask you to prove Lew Rockwell and Rothbard wrote the things, even Reason doesn’t go that far.
But tonight is not the night to continue bickering. Lets agree to disagree and lets have a beer for the troops!