The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
A ratehr mor esuccinct way of putting it, but an accurate summary all the same.
The implication of "vanity run" is not "does not care about politics."
It is "does not delude himself into thinking he has a shot in hell of winning, and so pursues the run to get more exposure/spotlight, energize his base, and generally promote his politics." Moreover, the specific politics in question depend on being an "outsider" with "radical" stances, so losing a Presidential bid is exactly what he needs. It shows that he's too "principled" for the "Establishment," and so attracts the "rebel freethinkers." To just continue serving in Congress would undermine that whole posture.
Sorry for all the quotes there, but that's what happens when the subject turns to libertarianism.
I don't think that really matters. Most of people that supported him were probably students who organized to win straw polls- like the many he's win already. I don't think its 'representative' of VV voters.
Ron Paul is the last man left standing. No one's going to vote for a Mormon. So, Mitt's out (that goes for Huntsman as well). Dick errr Rick imploded all over himself to the utter joy and delight of Mitt. Whats-her-face is a Whack-a-doodle. Cain's a neophyte and probably too black for most GOP (WASPs make of the backbone of the GOP). That leaves Dr. Ron Paul and The two Weasels Pawlenty and Santorum.
Which, means, it leaves Ron. Social conservatives will just have to live with Libertarianism. Which means no more income tax and no more Fed. No more War on Drugs and War on the World. Americans will have to wipe their own butt poo. Poor babies.
Oh, did anyone notice how we almost went to WAR against Iran today?!? Please refer to the numerous posts where I said, don't cry when Obama calls you up for the draft. There's more than one way to put Americans to work :shrug:
Which, means, it leaves Ron. Social conservatives will just have to live with Libertarianism. Which means no more income tax and no more Fed. No more War on Drugs and War on the World. Americans will have to wipe their own butt poo. Poor babies.
Oh, did anyone notice how we almost went to WAR against Iran today?!? Please refer to the numerous posts where I said, don't cry when Obama calls you up for the draft. There's more than one way to put Americans to work :shrug:
Last edited:
What planet are you on? Romney has the GOP nomination in the bag, barring some huge surprise development. The whole deal was done with weeks ago when Perry imploded and Palin and Christie declined to run.
If you really think Romney won't get the nomination, I recommend you go over to intrade.com and bet on such an outcome heavily. You'll clean up if you're right - the current market puts his chances at almost 70%.
I'm a Democrat and I don't watch TV other than YouTube :shrug:
I voted for Obama, didn't like what I got, this time I'm voting for Ron Paul
What's the worse that could happen? Liberty? I know Paul, unlike most POTUS before him, won't run counter to the Constitution and I'd like to see how many of his ideas play out.You think the GOP base is going to back Romney? Well, anything is possible. If Romney gets the nod, then I'm going to vote Ron Paul
Like I said, I'm not a Republican.
Ron Paul's "Allergies"
Ron Paul's "Allergies"
Ordinarily ... well, I don't know. I mean, it's at least a bit funny, right?
I mean, sure, it's kind of funny, but really it shouldn't be all that big a deal. Except, of course, that this is a presidential race:
And campaign spokesman Jesse Benton simply didn't help matters at all when he dismissed the idea of Ron Paul wearing eyebrow wigs:
Not that such a stupid explanation should reflect badly on Ron Paul. As his supporters have eagerly pointed out, he cannot reasonably be expected to know what his own organization is doing or saying.
Allergies: Has he seen a doctor about those nasty allergies that make his eyebrows do that?
Certainly, it's hardly "Eyebrowgate", or anything, but yeah. Allergies. Right. The candidate himself is a doctor, so we'll all just believe the allergy explanation. And we won't even ask for the literature explaining what allergy does that to one's eyebrows. I mean, that would be stupid and insulting, right? You know, because doubting anything Ron Paul or his staff have to say is obscenely stupid and insulting. Kind of like expecting people to believe it's allergies.
____________________
Notes:
McKinley, Jesse. "Raising Eyebrows". The New York Times. October 12, 2011. NYTimes.com. October 14, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/raising-eyebrows.html
Ron Paul's "Allergies"
Ordinarily ... well, I don't know. I mean, it's at least a bit funny, right?
It wasn't quite the slip-up (or slip-down, as it were) most people expect during a presidential campaign, but whatever happened to Ron Paul's eyebrows at Tuesday night's debate certainly caught some viewers' attention.
For those of you not yet riveted by the Republican race, Mr. Paul, the dark-horse libertarian with equally dusky brows, was a victim of hot lights, faulty adhesive or merely a devilish optical illusion when his right eyebrow seemed to dip toward the stage at Dartmouth College.
Seen on television, Mr. Paul appeared to have a second, thinner brow under the one headed south, creating a delicate X over his right eye.
(McKinley)
For those of you not yet riveted by the Republican race, Mr. Paul, the dark-horse libertarian with equally dusky brows, was a victim of hot lights, faulty adhesive or merely a devilish optical illusion when his right eyebrow seemed to dip toward the stage at Dartmouth College.
Seen on television, Mr. Paul appeared to have a second, thinner brow under the one headed south, creating a delicate X over his right eye.
(McKinley)
I mean, sure, it's kind of funny, but really it shouldn't be all that big a deal. Except, of course, that this is a presidential race:
Not that Mr. Paul would be blamed for trying to keep up with bushy brows like Rick Perry's, whose upper-eye area is full, or Mitt Romney, whose orbital outliers are sometimes speckled with gray. Whatever the cause, eyebrow toupees appear to be a flourishing business. Experts in the field of eyebrow maintenance said that if the falling follicles were artificial, the buck should stop somewhere. Marina Valmy de Haydu, the executive vice president of the Christine Valmy beauty schools, said most glues used to apply false eyebrows were designed to withstand the rigors of stage lights and intense questions about the national debt.
And campaign spokesman Jesse Benton simply didn't help matters at all when he dismissed the idea of Ron Paul wearing eyebrow wigs:
Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman, insisted that Mr. Paul had been the victim of the elements, namely a heavy pollen season in New Hampshire, and called accusations that he'd been artificially enhancing "stupid" and "insulting."
"Dr. Paul's allergies acted up a touch," Mr. Benton said in an explanation that might raise some, you know, questions.
"Dr. Paul's allergies acted up a touch," Mr. Benton said in an explanation that might raise some, you know, questions.
Not that such a stupid explanation should reflect badly on Ron Paul. As his supporters have eagerly pointed out, he cannot reasonably be expected to know what his own organization is doing or saying.
Allergies: Has he seen a doctor about those nasty allergies that make his eyebrows do that?
Certainly, it's hardly "Eyebrowgate", or anything, but yeah. Allergies. Right. The candidate himself is a doctor, so we'll all just believe the allergy explanation. And we won't even ask for the literature explaining what allergy does that to one's eyebrows. I mean, that would be stupid and insulting, right? You know, because doubting anything Ron Paul or his staff have to say is obscenely stupid and insulting. Kind of like expecting people to believe it's allergies.
____________________
Notes:
McKinley, Jesse. "Raising Eyebrows". The New York Times. October 12, 2011. NYTimes.com. October 14, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/raising-eyebrows.html
It is sad that the only candidate with the slightest chance AND who realizes that there is only one party and that democracy in the US is a sham is also a bigot. But have no fears Tiassa, the single ruling party will not let him win. And the supposedly liberal presidents - like the current one who is spending more real dollars on the military than any president since WW2 - and the supposedly conservative ones will continue to play tag team with US citizens, who will magically think that the next election, where both candidates are chosen by the same people in power, will at least slightly improve their situations.
I don't think wearing 'fake eyebrows' makes someone a bigot. I in-fact find nothin' wrong with it. But I don't know why the campaign manager said that though- did he consult with Ron about it? Or was it an answer simply in the heat of questioning- I don't know. But in the scheme of things, this isn't really a votin' issue.
Oh people noticed when Bush Jr. faked WMD it is just no one listened probably because the Dems didn't have the guts to be tagged with the traitor label Republicans were pinning on them at the time for disagreeing with the POTUS.
Joe, most elected Democrats support War, regardless who the POTUS. Hell, Obama just assassinated a American Facebook douche' in Yemen for posting some bullshit on Twitter. Not to mention invaded Libya and Africa.
Have you finally woken up? Are you voting for Ron Paul?
ANONYMOUS for RON PAUL
Where's this from? I mean, what's the name of the movie? I'd like to get the transcript. Also, if Anonymous is anonymous, whose to know if they support him or not????
I would like to see some evidence that most Dems support war. I would also like to see some evidence that Obama assassinated an American for posting stuff on Twitter.
Ron Paul is an interesting character I will give you that. But he knows nothing with respect to monetary & fiscal policy not to mention economics and finance.
Articles of Faith
It's not that he knows nothing. Rather, he yearns for a Golden Age that probably never was, and, generally speaking, never can really be.
The question of "liberty" is always interesting—and proverbially so, at that—in this context: How many people, understanding the implications of Paul's policy outlook, would trade such a dramatic reduction in their quality of life for so subjective and marginal an increase in liberty?
And that is part of why so many people view Paul's supporters as cultish. They seem to believe that if you wreck the government, life suddenly, magically gets better. I say magically, of course, because none of them can explain how the one leads to the other.
They might as well be telling me that if I pray hard enough, Jesus will invite me to Heaven, or maybe if I eat the applesauce, I'll go there tonight.
If they do not understand, and cannot explain, how it works, it is simply an article of faith.
Joepistole said:
It's not that he knows nothing. Rather, he yearns for a Golden Age that probably never was, and, generally speaking, never can really be.
The question of "liberty" is always interesting—and proverbially so, at that—in this context: How many people, understanding the implications of Paul's policy outlook, would trade such a dramatic reduction in their quality of life for so subjective and marginal an increase in liberty?
And that is part of why so many people view Paul's supporters as cultish. They seem to believe that if you wreck the government, life suddenly, magically gets better. I say magically, of course, because none of them can explain how the one leads to the other.
They might as well be telling me that if I pray hard enough, Jesus will invite me to Heaven, or maybe if I eat the applesauce, I'll go there tonight.
If they do not understand, and cannot explain, how it works, it is simply an article of faith.
I think you have described the Republican/Tea Party in a nutshell. It is all an article of faith. And that explains why they prefix any policy discourse with the words, I believe.