[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Wow. Did you quote the wrong post perhaps? [/quote]
The post he was citing to wasn’t even to him - it was to StevenF.
He had the same kind of irrational and hysterical reaction when anyone criticized Ayn Rand. He’s an unserious cipher who doesn’t seem to be any good at anything except throwing tantrums when his views get challenged.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Wow. Did you quote the wrong post perhaps? [/quote]
The post he was citing to wasn’t even to him - it was to StevenF.
He had the same kind of irrational and hysterical reaction when anyone criticized Ayn Rand. He’s an unserious cipher who doesn’t seem to be any good at anything except throwing tantrums when his views get challenged.
[/quote]
Sooo…
You don’t deny the quadrilateral nature of your mom’s vajayjay?
"Ron Paul is back in Iowa today, taking a victory lap around the state before voters head to the caucuses tomorrow night.
Ron Paul Iowa
Image: Business Insider
While his campaign has suffered some serious setbacks over the past few weeks, reports about Paul’s 1990s newsletters and about his penchant for conspiracy theories haven’t dampened enthusiasm here in the Hawkeye State. Paul, campaigning with his son, Sen. Rand Paul, have been greeted like rock stars, with hundreds of supporters turning out to rally in both Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
In truth, Paul has already won. The latest Iowa poll shows the Texas Congressman neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, basically guaranteeing that Paul will take one of the top three spots in the first-in-nation state.
But while Santorum will likely have a hard time carrying momentum past Iowa, the energy of Paul’s rallies today suggest that the Paul Revolution isn’t going away. The broad range of people who make up Paul’s ragtag army ? and the depth of their feeling for the Movement ? suggest that this is a force that the political Establishment will have to contend with sooner or later.
In Des Moines, for example, supporters included a Texas cowboy, a Peruvian-born National Guardsman, and a troop of Iowa homeschoolers, all of whom have taken it upon themselves to promote Paul’s White House bid with virtually no coaxing or coordination from the national campaign.
While a lot of Paul’s fans were reluctant to talk to the media ? more than a few expressed concern about getting put on FBI ‘lists’ ? I talked to several supporters to find out just what it is that makes them so wild for Ron Paul.
How Rick Santorum Helped Pass ObamaCare
Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter… the key Senate vote to pass Obamacare, is becoming a key issue as the Iowa caucuses near…
Santorum’s support of Specter was cited as a key help to the liberal Specter… Santorum’s support for Specter proved crucial in the primary, in which Specter defeated (Pat) Toomey with just 50.8 percent of the vote.
Conservative criticism of Specter appeared justified. Specter backed Obama’s healthcare program - giving him the swing vote to pass the legislation in the Senate.
In 2009, Specter faced likely defeat in the GOP primary, once again challenged by Toomey. Specter decided to leave the Republican Party and ran for re-election as a Democrat. Obama backed him strongly.
Specter was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Joe Sestak, who then lost the general election to Toomey.
Reports NewsMax
Ron Paul speech at Iowa!!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/primary/desmoinesspeech.html
Sorry, that’s Charles Lindbergh. My mistake.
The political and media establishments, who treat a genuine dissident like a man from Mars, are lecturing Iowans that if they choose the wrong person - e.g., someone those establishments haven’t approved for them - they will “discredit” the Iowa caucuses. (These are the same people who pretend to want to “spread democracy” around the world, remember.)
But what would truly discredit the caucuses is a victory for any other candidate. For months and months Ron Paul has been ignored in favor of empty suits who expect to solve the coming fiscal crisis with a few talking points from 1983. The message wasn’t too subtle: we’ll tell you which candidates you may consider, citizen.
It is not the job of Iowans, or anyone else, to rubber-stamp the choices the establishment has told them are acceptable and safe. It is their job to make up their own minds - and if that means telling the establishment to take a flying leap, then so be it.
A Ron Paul victory would prove that Iowans are done with letting the New York Times or Rush Limbaugh do their thinking for them. It would prove that they understand what may be the most important point in all of American politics:
Whenever someone comes along with a wrecking ball he intends to set loose on a political establishment that richly deserves it, the entire spectrum of so-called mainstream opinion - from the New York Times and Meet the Press to Sean Hannity and Mark Levin - goes into Destroy mode. Nothing makes these alleged opponents kiss and make up faster than someone who refuses to play the game.
A Ron Paul victory would mean that more Americans than we could have imagined even five years ago are prepared to tell the establishment to stick it. The more you smear, the more viciously you attack, the more obvious your venom for one particular man, the more we will rally to him. Since this is the only man who truly terrifies the crooks, the flip-floppers, the thought controllers, and the whole range of so-called respectable opinion, he is obviously the one to support.
What a message that would be.
No CNN reporter will be visibly deflated if Mitt Romney wins in Iowa. Or any of the others, for that matter. That’s your tip-off.
The other theme these days is that Ron Paul is “dangerous.” They’ve got that right - he’s dangerous to them. He threatens the whole bipartisan establishment, which has given us the same fiasco of a foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same bankruptcy. To borrow a phrase from Bill Buckley, the propagandists fear Ron Paul for the same reason the baloney fears the slicer.
Calling Ron Paul “out of the mainstream” is a double-edged sword, because it also means he can’t possibly be responsible for the condition of the country today. That responsibility rests on the shoulders of the thought controllers on both left and right who solemnly warn us to choose a hand-picked candidate of the establishment instead of the dastardly Ron Paul, who dares think his own thoughts.
Now if you happen to be speaking for Ron Paul at the caucuses tonight, I’ve recorded a sample two-minute “Case for Ron Paul” you might find useful. You may get even three minutes or more for your speech, but here’s the bare-bones case as effectively and efficiently as I could make it.
These caucus speeches can make a real difference. There are still plenty of undecideds even going into caucus night, and in 2008 caucus meetings that had persuasive speeches for Dr. Paul made a noticeable difference in the results.
Here is my list of dont’s. (My video above is in effect my list of do’s.)
Don't try to explain "blowback" in foreign policy
Don't bring up the drug war
Don't waste precious time on platitudes that might be uttered by any of the other candidates; they're all going to pay lip service to budget cuts and constitutional government, and it's your job to differentiate Ron Paul from the others
I suggest these not because I’m a sellout, but because in a two-to-four minute speech you cannot expect to make radical changes in people’s minds. That’s a longer-term project, and it’s why I write my books, maintain my blog, and make my videos. But on caucus night all we need is for people to vote the right way. Get them 100 percent on board later.
Now of course I want people to vote for Ron Paul for all the good reasons I give in the video. But I’d be nearly as happy if people also voted for him as a way of telling the media establishment that they prefer not to be lectured, talked down to, and intimidated into supporting the establishment’s hand-picked candidates.
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, CNN will put on a brave face. But don’t believe it. They will be deeply alarmed to realize that a large and growing segment of the population - many of them young people, who will be around a long time - has unplugged from them. Despite the worst smears that can be hurled at a political figure, not to mention a massive effort by cable news, some left-progressives, and plenty of fake-conservative talk radio hosts to misrepresent and demonize Ron Paul, he won anyway.
I’d say that kind of cold water in the face is just what CNN and its clones could use.
What say you, Iowa?
January 3, 2012
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Sooo…
You don’t deny the quadrilateral nature of your mom’s vajayjay?[/quote]
If I was more crass, I’d reply:
“I can’t really give you an opinion on my mom’s - however, I am much far better equipped to have a lengthy discussion about your mom’s “vajayjay”, since I have so much more experience with it.”
But I’m generally not that crass. Run along, the adults are talking.
Knee:
The main issue that I have with what Woods wrote is that the RNC has MUCH more to worry about from Paul than CNN.
While Paul may be running in the GOP Primary…he is not a “Party Man”.
It’s interesting; I was just listening to the Chairman of the RNC …and when talking about the President, he is the most animated, aggressive and self-assured person you’ll ever listen too. When asked about Ron Paul, his tone changed dramatically; suggesting that we just need to wait and see how things “work out”.
I think he realizes that “pushing” Paul into a 3rd Party race would be a disaster for the GOP.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Knee:
The main issue that I have with what Woods wrote is that the RNC has MUCH more to worry about from Paul than CNN.
While Paul may be running in the GOP Primary…he is not a “Party Man”.
It’s interesting; I was just listening to the Chairman of the RNC …and when talking about the President, he is the most animated, aggressive and self-assured person you’ll ever listen too. When asked about Ron Paul, his tone changed dramatically; suggesting that we just need to wait and see how things “work out”.
I think he realizes that “pushing” Paul into a 3rd Party race would be a disaster for the GOP.
Mufasa [/quote]
I think he also realizes that dissing what might well become his parties nominee or at least a power broker at his parties convention would not be his wisest career move.
Covering his ass he is.
^^^^
My inner Yoda.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Knee:
The main issue that I have with what Woods wrote is that the RNC has MUCH more to worry about from Paul than CNN.
While Paul may be running in the GOP Primary…he is not a “Party Man”.
It’s interesting; I was just listening to the Chairman of the RNC …and when talking about the President, he is the most animated, aggressive and self-assured person you’ll ever listen too. When asked about Ron Paul, his tone changed dramatically; suggesting that we just need to wait and see how things “work out”.
I think he realizes that “pushing” Paul into a 3rd Party race would be a disaster for the GOP.
[/quote]
I agree, although I think the effect of a third-party candidacy by Paul would not be completely one-sided. Many civil libertarians on the Left are very unhappy with Obama - especially after so much hype and promises made about civil trials for terrorists, Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc. Paul can pull civil libertarians from the Democratic Party into his fold by way of protest votes.
I don’t necessarily think that the effect would balance out a pull from the GOP, but it could be substantial if there is no decent-sized left-wing third party candidate in the mix.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.?
To me that so called racist comment read more like a dig at the criminal justice system. People always only quote the second half.[/quote]
What’s disturbing to me is no one even talks about the content of the letters but says they are supposedly racist. They can only find 4 sentences in approximately 60 thousand that even have a racial content. None of it in context was racist in my opinion. This above example was a tongue and cheek jibe at the DC justice system because of how blacks in DC are disproportionately jailed versus whites.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Knee:
The main issue that I have with what Woods wrote is that the RNC has MUCH more to worry about from Paul than CNN.
While Paul may be running in the GOP Primary…he is not a “Party Man”.
It’s interesting; I was just listening to the Chairman of the RNC …and when talking about the President, he is the most animated, aggressive and self-assured person you’ll ever listen too. When asked about Ron Paul, his tone changed dramatically; suggesting that we just need to wait and see how things “work out”.
I think he realizes that “pushing” Paul into a 3rd Party race would be a disaster for the GOP.
[/quote]
I agree, although I think the effect of a third-party candidacy by Paul would not be completely one-sided. Many civil libertarians on the Left are very unhappy with Obama - especially after so much hype and promises made about civil trials for terrorists, Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc. Paul can pull civil libertarians from the Democratic Party into his fold by way of protest votes.
I don’t necessarily think that the effect would balance out a pull from the GOP, but it could be substantial if there is no decent-sized left-wing third party candidate in the mix.[/quote]
One reason the left is unhappy with Obama is that he is the moderate conservative as Knee dragger said back a few posts ago the Republicans have to quit letting Rush Limpdick think for them
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Knee:
The main issue that I have with what Woods wrote is that the RNC has MUCH more to worry about from Paul than CNN.
While Paul may be running in the GOP Primary…he is not a “Party Man”.
It’s interesting; I was just listening to the Chairman of the RNC …and when talking about the President, he is the most animated, aggressive and self-assured person you’ll ever listen too. When asked about Ron Paul, his tone changed dramatically; suggesting that we just need to wait and see how things “work out”.
I think he realizes that “pushing” Paul into a 3rd Party race would be a disaster for the GOP.
[/quote]
I agree, although I think the effect of a third-party candidacy by Paul would not be completely one-sided. Many civil libertarians on the Left are very unhappy with Obama - especially after so much hype and promises made about civil trials for terrorists, Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc. Paul can pull civil libertarians from the Democratic Party into his fold by way of protest votes.
I don’t necessarily think that the effect would balance out a pull from the GOP, but it could be substantial if there is no decent-sized left-wing third party candidate in the mix.[/quote]
One reason the left is unhappy with Obama is that he is the moderate conservative as Knee dragger said back a few posts ago the Republicans have to quit letting Rush Limpdick think for them
[/quote]
Um, Glenn Greenwald has a whole article on this.
His basic point is that progressives have more of an issue with Ron Paul than Republicans because he exposes their blatant hypocrisy.
Now there is someone who opposes what they supposedly stand for, end the war on drugs, end the wars, end the surveillance state and so further and so on and yet, their own messiah is to the right of Ron Paul on those issues.
What can they do BUT attack Ron Pauls character and I must admit reading the comment section in some articles they started out by jumping the shark.
Thatâ??s fairly remarkable: hereâ??s the Publisher of The Nation praising Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (â??ending preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensusâ?? on foreign policy), and going even further and expressing general happiness that heâ??s in the presidential race. Despite this observation, Katrina vanden Heuvel â?? needless to say â?? does not support and will never vote for Ron Paul (indeed, in subsequent tweets, she condemned his newsletters as â??despicableâ??). But the point that sheâ??s making is important, if not too subtle for the with-us-or-against-us ethos that dominates the protracted presidential campaign: even though I donâ??t support him for President, Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.
Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform â?? certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party â?? who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote â?? Barack Obama â?? advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘Once the bubble begins to deflate in earnest, the gold bugs are not likely to fare any better than Miami condo speculators or dot-com true believers.’
http://www.investorplace.com/2011/09/gold-bubble-gold-prices-george-soros-donald-trump/[/quote]
Wait! The Donald accepts gold bullion as payment and you’re suggesting there is a gold bubble? You think he’s hoping to lose out in this transaction?
Over speculating on demand is one thing but suggesting it would bottom out over paper currency…?
That’s lunacy.
Agree.
This would be a MUCH different 3rd Party run than Perot’s.
While the figure’s vary; what’s not disputed is that Perot pulled a large number of GOP and Independent Voter’s at the time.
Mufasa
I would almost positivly vote for him as an independent. I would have huge reservations if he runs as a republican
It’s worth repeating:
Paul’s follower’s are very loyal to him (and visa-versa).
If his supporter’s want him to run as a Third Party Candidate, I think he will.
First things first…tonight (the Iowa Caucuses) should be very interesting!
Mufasa
He won’t run as independent. He’s already been exposed as a racist looney, now. It’ll just keep building from here. He’s old and tired, and doesn’t think he really has any chance. This is a parting finale before riding off into the sunset.