[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I think ZEB’s attitude and beliefs are part of the reason why we are where we are today. [/quote]
Yeah, to think it only took a 4% tax on tea to break the camel’s back and move us into revolution. Look at what we take from these elitest POS now.[/quote]
And you’ll keep taking it! How does it feel? 
And do you know why there will be no revolution? I won’t let you sweat this one out Skippy I’ll just tell you flat out. More people gain from the government, as it is right now, than are hurt by it. For every apbt55 that is wet behind the ears and really pissed off there are 1000 people who are fat happy benefitting from the government and couldn’t care less.
So keep talking smack because there isn’t a damn thing you can do about.
Now how does that feel again?
:)[/quote]
Zeb,
I am 45 yrs old. I am married with children. I have a graduate degree in business. I put myself through school with no aid or loans. I am southern Baptist. I make comfortably into the six figures and have for over fifteen years.
I say this not to impress (as there is nothing impressive to it), but only to point out that I am neither young, dumb, naive, lazy, or doe eyed. And yet, I am a Ron Paul supporter. And I find more and more every day that I am not alone.
[/quote]
Perhaps we can offer Zeb a moment of clarity. Mr Krauthammer may be helpful:
If Ron Paul continues to take about 20% of the vote (whether in primary in or in caucus states) he will prevent any of the other “conservatives” from achieving a position from which to challenge Romney.
Mr Paul would then have, as Krauthammer posits, a substantial number of delegates at the convention. He would have sway over platform, a primetime speech, and a half-hearted endorsement of the nominee.
Although Krauthammer captures the essential flavor of Paul and his movement–Dr Paul does not expect to be the nominee, he is running crusade, and the crusade will continue past this election–I disagree with his conclusions. While a radical program is frequently later cooped into party policy, It is not in the nature of the ideologue to be a compromiser, and I do not see Dr Paul quibbling and trading planks in a Republican Party platform, or compromising his crusade simply to give another prime-time speech. His price will be higher, or he may choose to lead his delegates out of the convention.
In that scenario, whether he runs as a third-party candidate or not is unimportant. The movement will continue. In the case of a party split or third party run, it would not matter to Paul that the republic will be dashed on another four years of Obamination. He looks to 2016; he sincerely believes his version of the polity will ultimately triumph. (And I do not yet agree with Krauthammer in his opinion of Rand Paul.)
One may see this as visionary or simply destructive.
It is clear what my bias is; I see progress through cooption and pluralism. Others prefer to gamble on short-term disaster for the purity of the movement of true believers.[/quote]
…[Nothing new, same old posture}… That requires winning.[/quote]
And that statement is the proof of the conjecture.
Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee. He is not going to be President in January 2013. He is not going to win.
If the movement requires him to “win,” the movement will lose.
The question then becomes what will become of his ideas, and what will become of the followers of those ideas.
[/quote]
You should take that crystal ball to the pony track, see how ya do
