Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
But I am sure, you, as a libertarian know that.

I’ve got news for you. No one single ideology is perfect or has all the answers.

In fact, there are some concepts or elements of various ideologies that have value… and they have to compete and/or cooperate in a dynamic way as humanity discovers better ways to effectively deal with increasingly larger populations.

So, keep beating your “one solution fits all” drum while I keep laughing at your singlemindedness.[/quote]

You are an idiot.

The very idea of libertarianism is for the governmet to get out of the way
so that the market can provide hundreds of different solutions for every imaginable problem and not the two or three enforced half-assed measures government employes can think of.

Kudos for the chuzpe to critizice a set of idea you have not understood to the smallest degree while calling yourself a “libertarian.”

So sorry, libertarianism, or the Austrian school takes some fundamental understanding of laws AND economics and how they work together.

Joseph II liked his civil servants smart and that was actually possible with a small government.

Your economic illiteracy and the political naivity that seems to follow is entirely your problem as are your half baked ideas on what constitutes “libertarianism”.

Imbecile.

162

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
vroom wrote:

Yeah, my comment wasn’t really in respect to Ron, who does at times come across as batshit crazy due to his very specific interpretation of issues.

Very well put vroom.

Did you read that Nominal?

I really can’t put it any better.

[/quote]

Some not nearer specified interpretations of not nearer specified issues make Ron Paul appear crazy?

Batshit crazy, no less…

And you could not have said it better?

Not even if you pushed yourself and really, really gave it a try?

163

Paul actually got a few minutes on FOX News over the weekend:

Unfortunately he had to spend his time defending his “blowback” comment from the debate.

165

[quote]orion wrote:
You are an idiot.

The very idea of libertarianism is for the governmet to get out of the way
so that the market can provide hundreds of different solutions for every imaginable problem and not the two or three enforced half-assed measures government employes can think of.
[/quote]

Well, idiot, it is well known in economic circles that businesses perform best in situations where there is a market in what they are providing. There are many things that business cannot or will not be able to do.

So, while I am all for the government being as small as possible, I am not for leaving everything that does not yet have a market to be ignored.

Also, the establishment and enforcement of rules is what makes a modern stable market possible. What rules you ask? Things like transparency and reporting, insider trading restrictions, fraud investigations and finally law enforcement when criminal activities are detected.

Oh no, look, it takes some amount of government to maintain a playing field that allows lawful organizations to have an efficient market! Or are you one of these nuts that thinks everybody is pure, honest and would never fall to the clutches of greed?

[quote]Kudos for the chuzpe to critizice a set of idea you have not understood to the smallest degree while calling yourself a “libertarian.”

So sorry, libertarianism, or the Austrian school takes some fundamental understanding of laws AND economics and how they work together.[/quote]

Strangely, I have studied enough economics to have a degree in it. In fact, I was particularly interested in areas such as “problems that aren’t solved by markets” and “costs that markets don’t reflect appropriately”, such as pollution, and how that might make a market less optimal than naive theory would suggest.

[quote]
Your economic illiteracy and the political naivity that seems to follow is entirely your problem as are your half baked ideas on what constitutes “libertarianism”.

Imbecile.[/quote]

Again, whether you choose to agree or believe it, there are many important concepts of value from various lines of thought. No single one has all of the answers… so freak out and whine about the fact that I’m suggesting your thinking is too narrow if you must.

The theoretical efficiency of markets is wonderful, but real world issues keep getting in the damned way. Go figure.

Finally, I said that every time I take an online political test that I end up in the libertarian quadrant. This does not mean that I am a pure libertarian and I have never suggested thus.

Pure libertarians have blind spots. Boohoo.

166

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.
[/quote]

It’s strange to observe that the reasons for the attack on September 11th, as stated by Bin Laden, are always ignored while political talking points that serve the interests of the political class are continually repeated.

The primary motivations are based on an interventionist US foreign policy, one which unfortunately has continued to create evermore enemies abroad, intentionally or otherwise. The motivations for the 9/11 attack as well as the continued terrorist threat to the US is revealed by the following interviews:

Michael Scheuer - interview [http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_18_scheuer.mp3]

Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Republican Presidential debate held Tuesday May 15, when Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in the 9/11 attacks.

Philip Giraldi - interview
[http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_23_giraldi.mp3]

A former CIA officer said last Wednesday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani is “not serious” about terrorism and “ignorant” about the Middle East

Ray McGovern - interview
[http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_25_mcgovern.mp3]
[i]
For the third time this week, a retired CIA officer has told Antiwar Radio that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is the driving force in al Qaeda’s recruitment and motivation for attacking America on September 11th.

Ray McGovern is a 27 year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency
[/i]

[quote]
Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?

“Non-intervention” says we should let him have his way.

“Non-intervention” would have sat out WWII by not giving Japan reason to attack us.

I am sure THAT would have made the world a better place.[/quote]

The tragedy of World War II was inadvertently made possible by the first futile attempt to “make the world safe for democracy”, in this case by the Wilson administration. Wilson’s utopian beliefs and almost messianic perspective dragged the US into the First World War. This act unintentionally caused the events that ultimately led to World War II.

The power vacuum left by the collapse of the European monarchies, particularly in Germany and Russia, were filled by fascist and communist regimes respectively. Keep in mind this wasn’t President Wilson’s intention but it was simply the negative side effects of an interventionist foreign policy.

With an outright Allied victory in Europe the so-called Democratic states of Britain and France effectively carved up the territory that was stripped from the former Ottoman Empire, dividing the territorial spoils between the British and French Empires, further expanding their already extensive colonial empires.

For example, and as is typical of the political class (regardless of nation), the British government made the serious mistake of creating artificially constructed borders in Iraq without regard of ethnicity or religion. It was inevitable that Iraq would require dictatorial rule in order to maintain its political solidarity.

Ironic though it may be, a stalemate in Europe (prevented by US involvement) would have likely prevented the collapse of the monarchical system in Germany, preventing any hope or desire of the German people to support or elect the Nazi Party.

Likewise the latter would have had very little motivation or popular support to achieve anything other than marginal status. In fact it is likely to assume that this party would ever have been organized at all.

This subject is incredibly extensive, therefore space is obviously too limited here to discuss it in extreme detail. That must be left for each individual.

The above information is merely a very general overview of some of the events made possible by a utopian vision of attempting to achieve democratic hegemony throughout the globe.

The Founding Fathers warned of the dangers that an interventionist foreign policy would lead, not to mention their most stern warning of the eventual tyranny it would bring in the domestic arena. It’s unfortunate that these warnings were eventually ignored.


“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
---- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.


“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
---- James Madison (Father of the Constitution)

Additionally the below comment from a former president should also be a stern warning to those that believe the government can spend without end without suffering the deleterious monetary consequences for which it brings.


“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.”
----Dwight D. Eisenhower

167

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He attacked us because the US is preventing him from imposing his tyrannical brand of Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

It’s strange to observe that the reasons for the attack on September 11th, as stated by Bin Laden, are always ignored while political talking points that serve the interests of the political class are continually repeated.

The primary motivations are based on an interventionist US foreign policy, one which unfortunately has continued to create evermore enemies abroad, intentionally or otherwise. The motivations for the 9/11 attack as well as the continued terrorist threat to the US is revealed by the following interviews:

Michael Scheuer - interview [http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_18_scheuer.mp3]

Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Republican Presidential debate held Tuesday May 15, when Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in the 9/11 attacks.

Philip Giraldi - interview
[http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_23_giraldi.mp3]

A former CIA officer said last Wednesday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani is “not serious” about terrorism and “ignorant” about the Middle East

Ray McGovern - interview
[http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_25_mcgovern.mp3]
[i]
For the third time this week, a retired CIA officer has told Antiwar Radio that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is the driving force in al Qaeda’s recruitment and motivation for attacking America on September 11th.

Ray McGovern is a 27 year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency
[/i]

Now that we know why he did it should we let him have his way or should we oppose him?

“Non-intervention” says we should let him have his way.

“Non-intervention” would have sat out WWII by not giving Japan reason to attack us.

I am sure THAT would have made the world a better place.

The tragedy of World War II was inadvertently made possible by the first futile attempt to “make the world safe for democracy”, in this case by the Wilson administration. Wilson’s utopian beliefs and almost messianic perspective dragged the US into the First World War. This act unintentionally caused the events that ultimately led to World War II.

The power vacuum left by the collapse of the European monarchies, particularly in Germany and Russia, were filled by fascist and communist regimes respectively. Keep in mind this wasn’t President Wilson’s intention but it was simply the negative side effects of an interventionist foreign policy.

With an outright Allied victory in Europe the so-called Democratic states of Britain and France effectively carved up the territory that was stripped from the former Ottoman Empire, dividing the territorial spoils between the British and French Empires, further expanding their already extensive colonial empires.

For example, and as is typical of the political class (regardless of nation), the British government made the serious mistake of creating artificially constructed borders in Iraq without regard of ethnicity or religion. It was inevitable that Iraq would require dictatorial rule in order to maintain its political solidarity.

Ironic though it may be, a stalemate in Europe (prevented by US involvement) would have likely prevented the collapse of the monarchical system in Germany, preventing any hope or desire of the German people to support or elect the Nazi Party.

Likewise the latter would have had very little motivation or popular support to achieve anything other than marginal status. In fact it is likely to assume that this party would ever have been organized at all.

This subject is incredibly extensive, therefore space is obviously too limited here to discuss it in extreme detail. That must be left for each individual.

The above information is merely a very general overview of some of the events made possible by a utopian vision of attempting to achieve democratic hegemony throughout the globe.

The Founding Fathers warned of the dangers that an interventionist foreign policy would lead, not to mention their most stern warning of the eventual tyranny it would bring in the domestic arena. It’s unfortunate that these warnings were eventually ignored.


“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
---- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.


“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
---- James Madison (Father of the Constitution)

Additionally the below comment from a former president should also be a stern warning to those that believe the government can spend without end without suffering the deleterious monetary consequences for which it brings.


“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.”
----Dwight D. Eisenhower
[/quote]

You certainly reinforced my point about Bin Laden’s reasons for attacking us although I do not think that was your intention.

He attacked us because our foreign policy is preventing him from spreading his evil brand of Islam throughout the world. The end.

Blaming the US for WW2 is revisionist history.

If we did not intervene in WW1 it is likely would have ended much the same way, perhaps the Germans would have had a few more concessions but the German military spirit would have been even stronger post WW1. Perhaps WW2 would have started earlier.

The only reason Germany did not start WW3 was because Germany was leveled in WW2.

The only way to have prevented WW2 would have been to have been to destroy Germany in WW1.

This Libertarian isolationism is painfully naive. I am amazed people fall for it and don’t think for themselves.

This is often evidenced by the “cut and paste” arguments and quotations they use.

168

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I’m not trying to offend you. But as you move along in life you are going to find out that not everyone who stands up in front of the people jumping up and down with a few good ideas, and a few shitty ones, is going to lead the next revolution.

This crap has been going on long before you were a gleam in your fathers eye.[/quote]

Don’t worry, you’re far too wrong and conspicuously partisan to offend me. Nothing like this has happened for half a century. You absolutely CANNOT compare ANY independent candidate to Ron Paul.

That is a completely bogus comparison because independents do not and will not become elected in this country - Republicans can and do. That, right there, changes the whole nature of the game. You can throw out everything you just wrote because it has absolutely no merit. Ron Paul is no fool.

He already tried running once as a Libertarian and that didn’t work. He clearly recognizes that the only way to go about this is to run on one of the major party tickets.

This absolutely is a revolution in every aspect. YOU are the one who cannot grasp history - both in the past and in the making!

Ron Paul will go far because there is hardly anyone who can oppose him. All he really needs to do is stay on his present course and beat Romney and Thompson. It’s not an impossible task at all. What’s the most libertarian state in the Union? New Hampshire, easily.

Here you are trying to lecture me about the importance of the primaries, when I have already grasped what you haven’t: Ron Paul is going OWN in New Hampshire. They recognize the importance of doing well and they are putting much of their effort into campaigning in that state.

In terms of fund-raising, they have raised 10 times more money (literally) in the 3 months since the debates transpired. But according to you, those debates as well as all of his TV appearances were worthless and won’t help him at all. That is why you are either an idiot or a partisan hack and will be addressed accordingly.

Ron Paul is founding father material and he has what it takes to be elected at this particular time in the nation’s history. You’re the one who is a dud and whose predictions will soon be proven wrong. No, I’m not going to make any bets with you. From the beginning I have said that Ron Paul will go far. My current stance is that he will go far. Next week my stance will probably be the same: Ron Paul will go far. That’s the only bet I make.

Up to this point, I’ve presented a clear and concise argument for why Ron Paul both SHOULD and COULD be elected. You have replied either by shrugging off my claims without addressing them or just ignoring them completely.

You then follow this up by pretending that I’m the one who is dodging YOUR questions. Know this: I’m well aware of the game you’re playing and have dealt with it countless times on countless message boards. You should know right now that if you choose to ignore what I write I will simply repeat it until you have no choice but to respond. I have no problem using copy and paste. We can start with the question of mine that you ignored in my last post:

Mick28 wrote:
Let’s replace Bush with someone, from either party, or an independent, who has the intelligence, the fortitude and the ideas to do the right thing at the right time.

Pray, tell me, in which of these qualities do you think Mr. Paul is lacking?

Answer it now or spout off with more partisan hackery and have me quote myself in response. It’s your call.

And don’t tell me not to link editorials. I will link anything that contributes to my argument, just the same as anybody else. There are very intelligent, experienced, and educated individuals who support Ron Paul for the same reasons that I do, and the minute you start mouthing off about my support for him being a consequence of “youthful exuberence” or some-such BS, I will start copying and pasting editorials written by economics professors in the Southern US who will be voting for Ron Paul. Then you can lecture THEM about their “inexperience”.

I’m not in the this alone. You cannot dodge my arguments. I will force you to address them.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I just can’t stay out of this thread. It’s just so easy.

Two important points that I saw on the Fox News clip:

  1. "Ron Paul is more popular than McCain on…FACE BOOK! I laughed my ass off over that one.[/quote]

Keep laughing and don’t stop for anything. It might drown out your tears when Ron Paul takes New Hampshire. What you would find amusing about this, I have no idea. The man’s strategy from day 1, from the first press conference that he held, was to use the power of the INTERNET to stir up grassroots support.

So he’s #1 on Facebook? Good, then it’s working. And it’s not just facebook, either. Keep laughing, and meanwhile, he’s getting more donations every day…

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
2. A recent June poll from NBC News and WSJ:

  1. Rudy-29%
  2. Thompson 20%
  3. Romney 14%
  4. McCain 14%
  5. Huckabee 3%
    6. Ron Paul 2%
    [/quote]

The only thing that proves is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  1. Some polls show him near the bottom. Others show him at the very top, like the ones conducted after the debates.

  2. It’s obvious that he doesn’t yet have the national recognition of Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain. That is why he and every other relatively unknown candidate are trailing in the big, nationwide polls.

  3. You are interpretting those results under the presumption that every person who voted was familiar with every single candidate in the lineup and took the time to make a complete assessment of all of them before voting.

That is positively asinine. I can guarantee you that no such thing occured because if I had been called on to fill out that poll, even I wouldn’t have been able to make a complete assessment – and I’m following this campaign much closer than the average person! That poll is nothing more than a barometer of the public awareness of each candidate at the time it was conducted.

There may have 6 candidates listed, but people were really only choosing between the two or three they were familiar with. And the ones that were familiar to the most people just happened to be Rudy McRomney and Thompson. Absolutely nothing surprising about that.

Neither Rudy nor McCain is going to be nominated and neither one of them would become elected in they did become nominated. Any reasonably intelligent political observer can see this. That just goes to show you how little credibility that poll has.

Immediately after the first debate, I told you that Romney would go far among the establishment candidates and Rudy wouldn’t. Now what’s happening? Rudy is slipping in the polls and everyone is talking about Romney. Some things are not that hard to predict. I know the difference between a prediction that could go either way and one that will come true for sure. I’ve made my share of both.

I’m telling you, for sure, that this election is going to be between Fred Thompson, Romney, and Ron Paul. Nobody else matters and nobody else will win.

170

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And I’m telling you “for sure” that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and will barely be remembered by most one year from now.
[/quote]

The above is quite likely. Unfortunately, given the high time-preference society, if you will, Americans have developed extremely short memories. True, Ron Paul has become an internet phenomenon of sorts it’s rather unlikely to properly translate into favorable poll results. Frankly this is what should be expected.

However this doesn’t suggest one should simply give up. In fact one should probably place even greater effort into the politico-intellectual battle. History sometimes unfolds in strange ways many cannot foresee. Given that several factors are playing into the current race that probably hasn’t existed for quite some time perhaps putting effort into an attempted change is worth pursuing? Who knows?

171

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You’re right Ross Perot had a far better chance of being elected President than Paul ever will. Some say if Perot had not dropped out, then reentered he would have beaten both Bush and Clinton.

That’s speculation of course. But he did finish with about 19% of the popular vote/[/quote]

Perot had zero chance of being elected regardless of his popular support because he was a 3rd-party candidate. Third-party candidates do not win in this country, period. Nobody seriously disputes this.

Perot might have won only if he had run as a Republican. The fact that Ron Paul is doing this gives him a better chance from the get-go. No comparison. Yer out.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
He’s not a fool at all. Oh he has some wacky answers to things, but he’s not a fool. The people who think he’s going to win are the foolish ones.[/quote]

He doesn’t have any wacky answers, only the right ones, and he wouldn’t be running if he didn’t think he could win. He stated from the very beginning that this is not going to be a “symbolic” run for him. He is in to win. Guess that makes him a fool in your eyes. I have no problem with that, since I know that you’re a fool and can prove it (which you can’t do about Ron Paul).

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Please let me know one other “revolutionary” candidate that has been elected President in modern times.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure a revolution is unprecedented, by definition. Look it up sometime.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LOL…everyone is able to oppose him. And might I add they do a darn good job keeping him at the 2% level in most polls.[/quote]

Yeah, that or in the lead among all the candidates. My poll is as good as yours.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
All kidding aside, it’s not an impossible task. It’s just highly improbable. I don’t know what the best odds makers would give him. But, in all likelihood it’s not a very good chance. Some would string together colorful pros like “piss poor.”[/quote]

Guess you missed this:

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1

It was only two weeks ago that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul was listed at Sportsbook.com with odds of 200 to 1. In fact, early in the month he was not even offered on the political betting menu. My how things have changed in the past month.

…

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-053107.html[/quote]

I told you I wouldn’t have a problem quoting myself as many times as it takes to get certain things to penetrate your thick skull. His odds are the best odds a libertarian candidate has ever had. His followers understand this and that is why they are pushing so hard. It is really not that difficult to grasp. Keep linking polls if it makes you feel better.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I want you to be specific here. When you say “OWN” do you mean win? Or “own” as in place in the top three?
[/quote]

Sure. I think he’s got a good chance of winning NH.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
In terms of fund-raising, they have raised 10 times more money (literally) in the 3 months since the debates transpired.

3 times more than they had? Or 3 times more than the others had?

Again, let’s be specific.

How much money did Paul actually raise?[/quote]

It wasn’t 3 times more, it was 10 times more. 3 was the number of months that it took him to do it. Surely, that couldn’t have been too difficult to comprehend from my statement. He went from 500 grand in March to nearly 5 million now. That puts him in a position where he can start to compete with the big-name candidates.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192

Read it and weep because there will be plenty more where those came from. At this stage it doesn’t look like he’s going to run out of money. Therefore, he will have circumvented one of the most significant hurdles facing all 3rd-party or relatively unknown candidates. Booya.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Well, the debates brought his numbers up to the astounding 2% level.[/quote]

You mean after he won every call-in and internet poll on all the major networks, right?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You might want to look in the mirror the next time you use the word “idiot”.[/quote]

I just looked, and it’s still you who’s the idiot.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I hope you realize that I’m not ever going to let you live this down. Long after the election is over I’ll be reminding you what a nut case you sounded like right here on this forum.[/quote]

That’s nice. I couldn’t care less.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Let’s see, you think my predictions are wrong right? But, I am willing to bet on them and you’re not willing to bet against them.[/quote]

You are posturing on an internet forum. That is pathetic. “Betting” here wouldn’t mean jack squat, so just drop that nonsense already. I’m doing something far bigger and better than that: I’m constructing solid arguments based on irrefutable facts while you sit there spouting off with childish and asinine remarks. Don’t worry, I won’t let you live it down either.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You say he’ll go far. But of course that’s yet another term that you’re going to have to define.

If he finishes 3rd or 4th, is that a win to you? He’s still a loser at that point.[/quote]

I don’t define the term because I’m not a professional oracle. I make NO claims of being able to predict the future. What I do is study the present as a scientist in order to determine certain probabilities about the future. You are welcome to evaluate the scientific premises for my predictions about the future and disagree with them, if need be.

He’ll be in the top 3 for sure, because he’s only competing against Thompson and Romney. So, while that wouldn’t be enough to make him president, it would be enough to humiliate the flamers and the haters (such as yourself) who made it out as if he was going to be a complete no-name, non-factor candidate. But that’s hypothetical. He’s not running for 3rd place. He’s running to win and he’s got a 1 in 3 or better chance of doing it.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Think he’ll be chosen to run as VP? I’d even bet you on that one.[/quote]

I can positively guarantee you that that won’t happen.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The fact is most of the candidates won’t have anything to do with him.

Do you know why?[/quote]

Yes, I know why. You don’t, however, so I’ll kindly inform you. Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates, is not a member of CFR. He is not part of the establishment. He is, in fact, the greatest threat to the establishment in at least half a century. That’s why he’s not going to be VP for any of the establishment candidates.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Although some of his ideas are good (some lousy) he comes off as a fringe nut ball.[/quote]

He comes off as a reasoned, clear-thinking and honest, doctor-turned-politician. Which is precisely what he is. Bill Maher said of him, “You don’t expect to hear such logic from someone who is actually going to run the country.”

If such statements are being made about him by the left, it’s safe to assume that his widespread perception is not of being a “fringe nutball”. He has his character flaws, as do nearly all the candidates, but he is not on the fringe as far as average Americans are concerned. Neocons are on the fringe. You are wrong once again.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It makes you look like the kid you are. Again, not trying to offend you…oh that’s right I can’t offend you, never mind.[/quote]

Really? You’ve been trying so hard all this time. Could have fooled me.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You give me nothing but vauge predictions and outlandish conclusions based on nonsense.[/quote]

If you think that, then you obviously know nothing about academic debate and you probably aren’t very intelligent. When I make a specific point, you are tasked with refuting that point if you disagree with it. I have done as much in my replies to your posts. You haven’t followed suit, because your argumentation style resembles that of a child’s.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You spend more time on this entire Ron Paul thing than you should. No one will even remember his name one year from today.[/quote]

The more you spout, the more you show how little you know. Like most conservatives, I have already know about Ron Paul for years. How could any political observer NOT know about “the one exception to the gang of 535 on Capitol Hill?” Ron Paul is not new to politics, he is not some no-name candidate crawling out of some backwater territory for an ill-fated run.

Ron Paul is a TEXAS REPUBLICAN well-known on the right for his principled, constitutionalist views. Quick quiz: Who’s in office now? I’ll tell you: A stuttering retard from Texas with a clever smirk. You can go on and on about Ron Paul’s “funny looks”, but let me tell you, our current president has a few of his own. Didn’t stop him from getting elected…twice. Chew on that.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This is fun man, I’m never going to ignore you. I’d like to keep this going until the election. At which time you will be proven to be the worst predictor of election outcomes known to modern man.[/quote]

I fully recognize that you would like to keep this going as long as possible. You are what’s known on the internet as a “troll”. That puts your general worth somewhere between pocket lint and dirty underwear.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Paul does not have the intelligence. If he did he would realize that he has no chance to become President for several reasons.[/quote]

Compared to you, he is a genius of epic proportions. I do not speak in hyperbole. I know that Ron Paul understands certain fundamental economic principles, which you obviously do not. That, alone, makes him the most intelligent person running (naturally, I could elaborate on these principles, but there’s no point because I’m speaking to a dunce).

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You actually think he can win and that’s just inexperience talking. If you had said that you’d “like him to win” or “he has good enough ideas to become President” I might let you up.[/quote]

  1. I’d like him to become President.
  2. He has a fair shot of winning.

The two statements are neither redundant nor mutually exclusive. You DO know what “redundant” means, right? If I DIDN’T want him to become President, he’d still have a fair shot of winning, and if he DIDN’T have a fair shot of winning, I’d still want him to become President.

Yet, I don’t think he has a fair shot of becoming President BECAUSE I’d like him to be. That would be committing a logical fallacy, which would mean that I was operating in your domain. Thankfully, I’ll never stoop that low.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And keep in mind it doesn’t end with the election…I think we can get far more mileage out of this, don’t you?[/quote]

Yeah, except that you’re going to disappear back to wherever you came from after this thread runs it’s course, whereas I will continue to post on this forum and share my views as I always have. Remember: You’re the troll, not me.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You have to stop comparing how Paul is doing to how Paul has done. That’s the frist mistake of a novice.

In the real world he has to beat the other guys, not what he did in prior months. While that might be a short term barometer it’s not what counts for very long.[/quote]

There is validity in both comparisons and I don’t hide from either of them. The numbers you asked for are linked above.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
There is a difference between how someone thought a candidate did in a debate and if that same person would vote for that candidate.[/quote]

Getting technical now, are we? You’re absolutely right about that. And I was absolutely right when I told you that the people voting in the poll in which Ron Paul got 2% were not actually choosing any other candidate over him – they were merely defaulting to the only candidates they knew. Thus, we are both correct and the score is reset to zero. My polls are STILL just as good as yours.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If you had the background you would realize that debates rarely change someones opinion of who they might vote for. And this is true in Pauls case. His hard poll numbers moved only marginally. And that’s because before the debate most people didn’t know a man by the name of Ron Paul existed. Now they know and about 98% of them are not impressed.[/quote]

If you had the grey matter, you would realize that people can’t possibly vote for someone they don’t know. Therefore, the debates are absolutely CRITICAL to a candidate like Ron Paul. He was in the lead among all the candidates on the major network polls and has increased his funds 10 times over. If that’s not a clear-cut win in that aspect of the process, I don’t know what is.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

  1. Money, more than the others is best, but at least close to the others will do.[/quote]

Which, by all indications he’s getting.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
2. Lots of charisma[/quote]

Charisma is subjective.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
3. A detailed plan which impresses those who are currently interested.[/quote]

He has a detailed plan. He will secure the border better than any other candidate and get out of the Middle East ASAP. That is a clear-cut plan.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
What makes you think that the average American voter actually does a complete assessment prior to picking a candidate to vote for? Not that that would help Paul any.[/quote]

What makes me think the average American does a complete assessment prior to picking a candidate to vote for, is the fact that in the actual ELECTION, there are only TWO candidates to choose from, rather than 8 on each side, and their differences are clearly highlighted thanks to copious media exposure.

The average American may be dumb and lazy, but they DO know the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The point being, in case you can’t figure it out, that these early polls that you are jumping up and down about don’t mean SHIT because there are too many damn names in the ring at this stage in the game.

Wait until the no-names start dropping out, then people will actually know who Ron Paul is and start evaluating him against the other candidates. Nobody can be bothered to do that now.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I don’t know who will be nominated, but don’t count Rudy out. he’s organized has money behind him and like the scum that he is, is milking 9-11 for all he can. And the people so far are gobbling it up.[/quote]

Listen, the Republican base isn’t going to nominate a pro-choice candidate when there are 7 others who are pro-life and have mostly the same stances on every other issue. It isn’t going to happen, period. He is already slipping in the polls. Your inexperience is showing.

172

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
And I’m telling you “for sure” that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and will barely be remembered by most one year from now.

The above is quite likely. Unfortunately, given the high time-preference society, if you will, Americans have developed extremely short memories. True, Ron Paul has become an internet phenomenon of sorts it’s rather unlikely to properly translate into favorable poll results. Frankly this is what should be expected.

However this doesn’t suggest one should simply give up. In fact one should probably place even greater effort into the politico-intellectual battle. History sometimes unfolds in strange ways many cannot foresee. Given that several factors are playing into the current race that probably hasn’t existed for quite some time perhaps putting effort into an attempted change is worth pursuing? Who knows?[/quote]

Dude, if there are only two candidates in the race, then everybody is going to know who those candidates are. If Ron Paul’s “internet popularity” is enough to get him the nomination, or at least win in New Hampshire, then sooner or later the MSM will be forced to cover him and more people will know who he is as a result. This is not a prediction, it is a fact, because it is happening already.

You are acting as if, on election day 2008, the American public will still be faced with 18 different candidates to choose from. If that was the case, then I’d certainly agree with you that Ron Paul’s chances of “breaking out” would be pretty slim. But guess what: That’s not how it works. As candidates drop out or become eliminated, the coverage that they had been receiving is shifted to the remaining candidates.

Ron Paul’s task is NOT to try and stand out among all the candidates at this point in time. His task is to stick around long enough to be one of the few remaining candidates at the end of the race, at which point he will stand out by default. Get it?

This is common sense. Think about it.

[Ron Paul’s chances literally increase every minute he stays in the race]

174

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Dude, if there are only two candidates in the race, then everybody is going to know who those candidates are. If Ron Paul’s “internet popularity” is enough to get him the nomination, or at least win in New Hampshire, then sooner or later the MSM will be forced to cover him and more people will know who he is as a result. This is not a prediction, it is a fact, because it is happening already.

You are acting as if, on election day 2008, the American public will still be faced with 18 different candidates to choose from. If that was the case, then I’d certainly agree with you that Ron Paul’s chances of “breaking out” would be pretty slim. But guess what: That’s not how it works. As candidates drop out or become eliminated, the coverage that they had been receiving is shifted to the remaining candidates.

Ron Paul’s task is NOT to try and stand out among all the candidates at this point in time. His task is to stick around long enough to be one of the few remaining candidates at the end of the race, at which point he will stand out by default. Get it?

This is common sense. Think about it.

[Ron Paul’s chances literally increase every minute he stays in the race]
[/quote]

Please don’t misunderstand me, as a staunch Ron Paul myself I do indeed hope you’re correct. It is also true that Mr. Paul’s popularity has vastly exceeded my expectations beyond what I thought possible given the stage in the electoral process.

Honestly speaking. I’m making no predictions on the outcome of the process. While there are genuinely positive aspects to his already increasing campaign success in some respects my trust in the system is essentially nil.

Perhaps most disappointingly, as previously noted, American memories are unfortunately extremely short. Many have already seem to have forgotten the original proclamations the present administration before the invasion of Iraq.

History has a strange way of throwing one a curve ball. So again, who knows? Time will tell.

Perhaps so. Predicting the future is often times a practice in futility. Supporters of Ron Paul, or any candidate for that matter, would do well to spend their energies explicating their respective candidates name and message while also spending their efforts in endorsing his campaign.

If too much attention is focused on making predictions as to the outcome of a given candidates name this is, at least in my opinion, time not devoted to spreading the word.

175

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

This Libertarian isolationism is painfully naive. I am amazed people fall for it and don’t think for themselves.

This is often evidenced by the “cut and paste” arguments and quotations they use.[/quote]

Our “cut and paste” arguments?

Um, okay, whatever you say…

US interventon is a good thing, allways, and they hate you for your freedom…

USA, USA, complimentory flag waving…

177

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This Libertarian isolationism is painfully naive. I am amazed people fall for it and don’t think for themselves.

This is often evidenced by the “cut and paste” arguments and quotations they use.

Our “cut and paste” arguments?
…[/quote]

When someone uses 5 quotes in a row I assume they cut and pasted them as well as most of the rest of their post.

It is pretty obvious because they rarely if ever address the question on a hand and go off on a tangent.

I will give you credit that your brand of insanity is all you.

178

[quote]mickey wrote:

Why don’t you count out Rudy?

He is going to bill himself as the only candidate that can beat Hillary, because of the New York factor. But in my opinion he is probably the only candidate who cannot beat Hillary.

Write back soon, it’s Saturday and there isn’t much to do around here.

:)[/quote]

mickey,

You were doing so well until this point. You were receiving my approbation (which means you were right) until this last part.

Once the bloom goes off of Thompson, you’ll see Rudy do his thing.

He really is the only serious candidate (McCain is done) with cross over appeal.

I’m praying for hillary and trusting in Rudy.

JeffR

179

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This Libertarian isolationism is painfully naive. I am amazed people fall for it and don’t think for themselves.

This is often evidenced by the “cut and paste” arguments and quotations they use.

Our “cut and paste” arguments?
…

When someone uses 5 quotes in a row I assume they cut and pasted them as well as most of the rest of their post.

It is pretty obvious because they rarely if ever address the question on a hand and go off on a tangent.

I will give you credit that your brand of insanity is all you.[/quote]

Thank God…

Imagine to live with my kind of insanity and discover to swim with the masses…

Brrr…