Paul strong in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wildalaska:
Inserted a long while ago for the followers of the good doc
Click to expand...
Yeah, I figured. That's the beauty of this particular abstraction: it can be applied both ways. By the way, level of intelligence is not defined by voting. If it were, early Einstein wouldn't have scored very high.
 
Also, there just ain't enough white flags to go around to support Ron Paul's foreign policy aspirations.
Click to expand...
So you're saying we should borrow $10 billion from China, give it to military dictator Musharraf who overthrew an elected government, in support of our efforts to "promote democracy" in Iraq, then?
 
There's one word to describe Ron Paul and his supporters.

SPOOKY.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel that way.

Also, there just ain't enough white flags to go around to support Ron Paul's foreign policy aspirations.
Click to expand...
So if US politicians start a war on false pretenses, and then we learn of the mistake and the deception behind it, we should continue that fight anyway? Just because we're too proud to say we were wrong?

Pulling out of Iraq wouldn't be surrender. It's only surrender if the enemy forces you to pull out. Clearly the US can stay if it wants to keep bringing troops home injured or dead, running up the national debt, and making more enemies in the world. It's just that doing so is a very poor decision.

No one is claiming that we should just roll over if attacked. (Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan.) But this "preemptive warfare" is a scam that's causing misery and death for thousands of Americans and foreigners. I daresay that's a lot more frightening than a bunch of guys chasing Sean Hannity down the street.
 
The New York Times is still excluding Paul from their "results" page even after his second-place finish in Nevada - see the attached screenshot of http://politics.nytimes.com/election...lts/index.html
Click to expand...

Well that shows he is mainstream, once the NY Times starts lying about you or ignoring you LOL

The NY Times has as much credibilty on anything as the daily Kos. How sad, it was a great paper at one time.

WildnostalgiafinishedcarryonAlaska TM
 
I daresay that's a lot more frightening than a bunch of guys chasing Sean Hannity down the street.
Click to expand...
As is, I submit, the fact that a 3,000 ruble hotel room about a year and a half ago cost around $100, but it's now $122.37.

Ben Franklin described a government that would tax 10% as harsh, how much more harsh is a 22.4% inflation tax that most people don't even notice?
 
A bunch of crazed Paul supporters chased a Fox News employee in Manchester as if they were trying to emulate a Palestinian riot
Click to expand...

Actually, since he was WALKING at the time, it wasn't much of a "chase". They caught up pretty quickly and were yelling slogans as they WALKED along with him, and when they got to a door, they did exactly what you would expect libertarians to do: they stopped, lacking permission to enter. No one was hurt, no property damaged, and Mr. Hannity kept walking unimpeded the entire time. No one even blocked his path.

I didn't realize Palestinian rioters were so well behaved. :rolleyes: A bunch of people walking down a street and yelling at a celebrity as he walks down the street is not the same thing as a crazed mob in a riot chasing someone.
 
how much more harsh is a 22.4% inflation tax
Click to expand...

Our current dollar is worh .07 of a 1950 dollar perhaps less.

Money by fiat is destined to fail.

Watch this video if you don't already know it explains how our monetary system works.

If you point out this fact you are a loony conspiracy theorist to some members on this site.

How did the Orwellian qoute go I saw on another thread
"In a time of universal deciet telling the truth is a revolutionary act" are something to that effect.

Here is a good quote from a revolutionary:

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”- Patrick Henry

It is only a matter of time until enough people wake up and see the truth, then days of our money masters will be numbered.
 
Media control

Is it any wonder that someone who wishes to expose our current corrupt system is shunned by the media?

media-moguls-1200X849.jpg


Owned by the same people who own the banks of the Federal Reserve.

I know how citizens of the former Soviet Union must have felt when they tried to relate truth that was different from what was on TASS(CNN.Fox, et al).
 
There's one word to describe Ron Paul and his supporters.

SPOOKY.

Also, there just ain't enough white flags to go around to support Ron Paul's foreign policy aspirations.
Click to expand...


I prefer the word dangerous.
Click to expand...

Now these are very intelligent comments. Thank you for your concern :rolleyes:
 
Last time I looked, Ron Paul had 4 delegates........needs over 1100.
Click to expand...
No, that's what is needed by any candidate to prevent a brokered convention.

We genuine conservatives, the supporters of Ron Paul, want to prevent an outright win before the convention.

Win, sure, we'd like to do that, but we've always been realistic about strategy.

Below is a bit of graphic information on the severe polling errors in Nevada.
Polling_errors-vi.jpg
 
This thread has taken a turn for the nasty, and I think everyone needs to stop and think about what they are saying.

I urge non-Paul Republicans to try keep the party inclusive. It makes no sense to exclude the Ron Paul supporters (most of whom are normal people, the problems are caused by a minority). We will need them later in the general election against Hillary or Obama. In SC, MI, and NH alone, Ron Paul received about 88,000 votes. This is not an insignificant number, given the closeness of previous presidential elections.

Running off 88,000 voters because of the actions of a few is detrimental to a Republican win in November.
 
Look, it ain't that complicated. There are a whole list of issues where the political establishment figures it has already won, and taken those issues off the table, and here's Paul, trying to put them back on the table. Which creates the possibility that they might unwin them.

Which possibility is inadmissible.

They can't debate Paul on them, because debating him would just precisely do what they don't want: Legitimize thinking about things like giving up on the fiat currency experiment. Which gives us more inflation in the average year than the average century saw before it.

So, what's left when somebody you can't debate starts gaining ground? Intimidation, insults, censorship, and eventually physical assaults.

Fortunately for Paul, the first three are effective enough they're not going to have to have him whacked.

I guess calling him a nut could be considered an act of kindness in that sense...
 
Good analysis, Brett. Most troubling are the individuals who respond so viscerally, as well. Those so heavily invested in the system, that they actually share the institutional viewpoint, toward change.

Others, I'm afraid, are the toxic type personalities who simply enjoy throwing stones, for its own sake; not the slightest attempt at true dialog. Easilyidentified.
 
Hammer4nc and Mr. Bellmore, good analysis and observations.

Here's one from James Ostrowski, a lawyer and Ron Paul supporter in Buffalo, New York.

January 19, 2008
A Great Night for the Revolution!
Posted by James Ostrowski at January 19, 2008 08:29 PM

It was a great night for Ron Paul.

Clarity has once again descended upon the presidential race, the same clarity that led me to say last January that Ron Paul is "Hillary's worst nightmare.” I viewed the entrance of Ron Paul into the race from the perspective of my prior prediction of a Hillary-McCain race with Hillary winning. Ron Paul disrupted that calculus entirely: he could outflank Hillary from the left and the right simultaneously! With McCain in the race, Hillary is the peace candidate and the nation wants peace. Enter Ron Paul and he becomes the peace candidate.

The nation is not going to elect George Bush's third term, John McCain. He has no chance to beat Hillary in November.

So, I know my optimism about the Revolution has made many chuckle--because they missed my point. (Many also chuckled when I said in September: “I think it’s too early to write off McCain. He’s still in double digits nationally and he’s a tough old bird with a compelling personal story and lingering media support.”) It was always about who could beat Hillary. Hillary Clinton would be a catastrophe for the United States. She must be beaten. Ron Paul is the only one who can do so. His fiscal conservatism and conservative stances on life and immigration will hold the base while his opposition to the war and support for civil liberties and true economic populism will outflank Hillary from the left. His background in medicine will neutralize Hillary's key domestic issue.

Now, what happened tonight?

I feel like Michael Corleone at the end of Godfather I: Fred Thompson’s dead; Rudy Giuliani’s dead; Huckabee's dead and Romney's on life support. Mitt, the more people hear about you, the less they like you. He's only won states where he had the home field advantage. If Huckabee can't win South Carolina, he's finished.

Now, the Republican establishment and MSM will start to sell McCain as the nominee.

Hillary won tonight in a state that Obama hotly contested and had considerable labor support.

So, right now, the stark choice I saw a year ago can now be presented to the Republican rank and file. Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Nominee. McCain is the favorite for the Republican nomination. McCain cannot beat Hillary but Ron Paul can.

Would you rather have Hillary or Ron Paul in the White House is the point.

That was always the point.
Click to expand...

There's at least one person that posts in this forum that has stated he'd vote for Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul, I suspect there are others, but a distinct minority.

The Republicans nominated Bob Dole with predictable results, will they do this again with McCain, or will they nominate the only candidate in the race that can beat Hillary?
 
I urge non-Paul Republicans to try keep the party inclusive.
Click to expand...

Come on, Unregistered. Many of the Paul supporters here claim no ties to the Republican Party.

In fact, many of the talking points referenced on this page are straight from Move-on.org.

It's strange...even some that claim a level of intelligence and normalcy are talking about a media conspiracy when they know their candidate lives at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to delegates. I hear very little about Giuilani anymore for instance, but I hear lots about McCain, Huckabee, and Romney.

The reason is simple: One of them will be the nominee. My opinion is that our discussion should revolve around which of these real choices is best for liberty.

I've said this all along. It's why I look at Paul supporters with a bit of mirth. Yes, we said he couldn't win. That was (and is) the point.

I think, if anything, the media has given the Paul campaign plenty of attention. Unfortunately, that attention is devoted to his supporters.

I can only give personal examples: My sister claimed Paul was on her short list. This changed yesterday after she ran into some Paul supporters. My sister rarely curses, but her description of Paul supporters had to be made after the kids were sent to their rooms.

And as for me? I supported Paul back in '98. As I've mentioned before, I've had dinner with the man. After reading invective here, and seeing supporters around town making nutball claims? No chance. You people made a staunch enemy out of a possible supporter.

Gun rights activists are part of the core of the Republican Party. Yet, as SteelCore's diatribe graphically illustrates, some of you people have no qualms about alienating us. Spectacularly so, as responses to Paul supporters prove. Don't think we don't notice most of your join dates. Pissing off gun owners will never be the path to the Republican Primary, especially when your candidate's stance should earn him gun votes. You blew it.

Explain this inclusiveness thing to me again, Unregistered.
 
Voting for Dr. Ron Paul at this point is like shooting a BB gun at the moon.

I think Ron Paul would make a great President; but he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. So I wont be wasting my vote on him to allow Romney to get the nomination. At this point we need to ensure that Romney who has already signed into Law an AWB when he was governor doesn't get the nomination.

If you still think Ron Paul will win the nomination let's put a friendly wager on it.
 
Many of the Paul supporters here claim no ties to the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Have you seen the latest figures on party identification? The eventual Republican nominee gets only votes from people who claim ties to the Republican party, and he'll lose. A blowout of historical margins!

So go on thinking the GOP can afford to drive off people who "claim no ties to the Republican party". The sooner the GOP goes the way of the Whigs, the sooner we can replace it with something more than a "me too!" version of the Democratic party.
 
You're missing the point...I think some of these guys will vote for the Dem candidate. Their primary focus seems to be on a lack of foreign involvement and the Dems cater widely to this topic.

We already know how some of them feel about the gun issue.

I received one (negative) answer when I asked who thought Paul would get the nomination.

Does anyone here think Ron Paul will win the Republican Nomination for President?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top