Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
821

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and you don’t know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

Not again. This has already been covered ad nauseum.

Depends what you mean by ‘minarchism’ - the term is used widely. I’m talking about Ron Paul’s cabal - Rothbard, Rockwell, Dilorenzo etc

See above.

‘Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in.’

[quote]The Constitution says:
Congress can raise an army
[/quote]

etc

822

Rothbard "argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and “a compulsory monopoly of force” prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers.

[quote]Articles of Confederation said:
Congress could request states to pay taxes
[/quote]

[quote]Constitution says:
Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals
[/quote]

[quote]Articles of Confederation said:
Congress could not draft troops
[/quote]

[quote]Constitution says:
Congress can raise an army
[/quote]

etc

823

Ron Paul is the measure of conservatism and Rick Santorum is not a conservative. Yes, it’s true. And neither is Gingrich. Neither was Bachmann or Perry. And Reagan was filth. BTW Santorum is also a “conspiracy theory addict.” Absolutely.

824

How come all the Ron Paul addicts are not posting about how right I was regarding his chances of him becoming President?

Remember many months ago when I said he had no chance?

Remember when I said he’d be doing really good to crack double digits nationally?

Remember when I said his base of support while vocal was far too thin?

Since you guys have been quiet I feel compelled to say…(clears throat)

I TOLD YOU SO!

825

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
^ SM you provided a letter which provides an example of how Dr. Paul talks and respects the dead. Still waiting for the purpose you have in showing me this information. shrug[/quote]

Buckley was one of the greatest conservative thinkers of the 20th century. He was an essential influence on Goldwater and Reagan. He was explaining why he doesn’t like Ron Paul’s movement. I agree with him.[/quote]

Ronald Reagan was the worst President in American history

826

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How come all the Ron Paul addicts are not posting about how right I was regarding his chances of him becoming President?

Remember many months ago when I said he had no chance?

Remember when I said he’d be doing really good to crack double digits nationally?

Remember when I said his base of support while vocal was far too thing?

Since you guys have been quiet I feel compelled to say…(clears throat)

I TOLD YOU SO!

[/quote]

I think Paul is doing the same thing Santorum and Mitt are doing , getting all the free publicity they can . I do not think Paul will win the Republican nomination but in a three race between Romney and Obama he might be victorious

827

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Ronald Reagan was the worst President in American history [/quote]

Dumb as hell.

828

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Ronald Reagan was the worst President in American history [/quote]

Dumb as hell.[/quote]

Wow you are cutting edge original .

829

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Wow you are cutting edge original .[/quote]

Irrelevant. Pick up a history book, and get some new (and coherent) material.

830

I continue to find this fascinating, even as the Paulnuts fall into (predicted) silence over the (eminently predictable) failure of Paul to secure the nomination: why doesn’t the Tea Party like Ron Paul?

[i]A funny thing happened on the campaign trail: Ron Paul, the â??father of the tea party movement, lost the tea party vote.

Big time.

Posted at 06:47 AM ET, 03/01/2012
Why doesnâ??t the tea party like Ron Paul? (Todayâ??s Trail Mix)
By Felicia Sonmez
A funny thing happened on the campaign trail: Ron Paul, the â??father of the tea party movement, lost the tea party vote.

Big time.

In Tuesdayâ??s Arizona Republican primary, Paul won only 6 percent of the vote among tea party supporters. In Michigan, he took only 7 percent.

Whatâ??s even more surprising is that Paul actually fares better among those who arenâ??t tea party supporters. In Arizona, where he took 8 percent of the vote overall, he won 8 percent among those who are neutral about the tea party and 21 percent among those who oppose the movement.[/i]

831

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Wow you are cutting edge original .[/quote]

Irrelevant. Pick up a history book, and get some new (and coherent) material.[/quote]

Live it and get the real story

832

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Live it and get the real story[/quote]

Yes, Pittbull - we all wait with baited breath for the “real story” from you. Hilarious.

833

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Live it and get the real story[/quote]

Yes, Pittbull - we all wait with baited breath for the “real story” from you. Hilarious.[/quote]

Other than union busting what would put Reagan in Goldwater class ?

834

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Other than union busting what would put Reagan in Goldwater class ?[/quote]

You may be surprised to learn that Goldwater was never president - well, I am positive you’d be surprised at that - in any event, if you you think Reagan was worse than Buchanan, Harding, or Andrew Johnson, there’s little left to do except laugh.

835

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How come all the Ron Paul addicts are not posting about how right I was regarding his chances of him becoming President?

Remember many months ago when I said he had no chance?

Remember when I said he’d be doing really good to crack double digits nationally?

Remember when I said his base of support while vocal was far too thin?

Since you guys have been quiet I feel compelled to say…(clears throat)

I TOLD YOU SO!
[/quote]

Would you admit that he gets to pick the president by running as a third party candidate or not? He may be the most powerful person in american politics right now for this reason.

Though he polls at a higher margin of victory vs obama than the rest, so he may draw significantly and less predictably from both sides in a third party bid.

The notion that RP wont be the nominee is a reasonable, yet deeply worrying notion. Should you really be gloating that you think we are assured to be ruled by a tool that will expand govt, expand debt, propagate war, practice crony capitalism, encroach on personal liberties, and lie to us as he does it? Without Paul in the race you have a choice of 1 (but it will come in chocolate or vanilla so simple minded folk can have illusions of “democracy” and “us vs them”).

BTW on another note Reagan presided over the beginning of a period of easy money, debt expansion at all levels and low rates worldwide. If you think the laffer curve and trickle down brought us the booming 80s prosperity that is attributed to it, consider that the money spigot got cranked up and maybe you have been sucked in by GOP mythology and a likable actor at the helm.

836

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Yes I know. He’s a minarchist. Minarchism is totally at odds with the U.S. Constitution. Paul is not a constitutionalist. I’ve already been through all this.[/quote]

All right, jumped the shark.

837

I am delegate for Ron Paul here in Leg. District 20 of Douglas County…Omaha, Nebraska. We had a delegate meeting at a recent restuarant…and so to speak…his turnout was tremendous. Put it this way…Ron Paul hasn’t even campaigned Nebraska…and there was well over 100 people at that meeting, and about 3/4’s of the crowd were registering to be a delegate in Nebraska. Ron is going to have a HUGE influence in the County/State/National conventions. Trust me. I am in the thick of things along with a few of my friends as far as caucus/delegate voting is concerned. IMO, Iowa caucuses were a sham considering 2 truckloads of votes were “lost” in what were considered pro-Ron counties. In addition, South Carolina and Nevada were also quite suspect, especially Nevada considering Ron Paul’s overall public support has doubled, and I may go as far as saying tripled since '08. Now my point is, Ron Paul had an excellent showing in Nevada back in '08, why such the poor showing this year? Now, I am not saying voter fraud ensued…but there is substantial evidence that begs the question. Trust me…Ron will have a strong showing all the way up to the National Convention…however, at the National Convention, if I am not mistaken, votes are electronically balloted, as opposed to the State and County conventions.

838

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Wow you are cutting edge original .[/quote]

Irrelevant. Pick up a history book, and get some new (and coherent) material.[/quote]

I am totally aware of Reagan’s history . The history that he made and the history his foundation is espousing ,which are not the same .

839

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Other than union busting what would put Reagan in Goldwater class ?[/quote]

You may be surprised to learn that Goldwater was never president - well, I am positive you’d be surprised at that - in any event, if you you think Reagan was worse than Buchanan, Harding, or Andrew Johnson, there’s little left to do except laugh.[/quote]

Ron Reagan created a path of poverty in America that runs from Michigan to Pennsylvania lost hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of viable companies

840

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How come all the Ron Paul addicts are not posting about how right I was regarding his chances of him becoming President?

Remember many months ago when I said he had no chance?

Remember when I said he’d be doing really good to crack double digits nationally?

Remember when I said his base of support while vocal was far too thin?

Since you guys have been quiet I feel compelled to say…(clears throat)

I TOLD YOU SO!
[/quote]

Would you admit that he gets to pick the president by running as a third party candidate or not? He may be the most powerful person in american politics right now for this reason.

Though he polls at a higher margin of victory vs obama than the rest, so he may draw significantly and less predictably from both sides in a third party bid.

The notion that RP wont be the nominee is a reasonable, yet deeply worrying notion. Should you really be gloating that you think we are assured to be ruled by a tool that will expand govt, expand debt, propagate war, practice crony capitalism, encroach on personal liberties, and lie to us as he does it? Without Paul in the race you have a choice of 1 (but it will come in chocolate or vanilla so simple minded folk can have illusions of “democracy” and “us vs them”).[/quote]

Ron Paul will NOT run a third party race. I predict this with the same confidence that I predicted he would not win the nomination and be lucky to break into double digits nationally. So pack it in my friend Paul is not a power and will never be a power–JUST AS I SAID!

This thread name should be changed to “Ron Paul Attempt”

[quote]
BTW on another note Reagan presided over the beginning of a period of easy money, debt expansion at all levels and low rates worldwide. If you think the laffer curve and trickle down brought us the booming 80s prosperity that is attributed to it, consider that the money spigot got cranked up and maybe you have been sucked in by GOP mythology and a likable actor at the helm.[/quote]

Yeah, how foolish to think that the Reagan tax breaks that put money into the hands of everyone, including those that start and run businesses could have spurred an economic comeback. We all know that our money is best used when it is given to the government…

(eye roll)