Trolling, repetition, chaff, lying and avoidance of the issue is not a substitute for reason Arthur.
The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Trolling, repetition, chaff, lying and avoidance of the issue is not a substitute for reason Arthur.
Ron Paul actually has won Iowa, 16 weeks after the vote!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQ
He also won Minnesota....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQ
He also won Minnesota....
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
RON PAUL on DERIVATIVES 1/2 Looming Economic Collapse
Ron Paul sounds off on Derivatives and the looming economic collapse on Iowa radio show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83qaxj1iOE
Ron Paul sounds off on Derivatives and the looming economic collapse on Iowa radio show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83qaxj1iOE
Who says they are not sober or any less sober than your average Republican/Tea Partier?
GO RON, GO!!! RON PAUL, NEXT POTUS. GO FOR IT RON.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Ok, so its your opinion that Ron Paul doesnt have a chance and so on hes supporters should just stop...supporting ?
Whoah, aint that sound logic, dont support your choice because I say he doesnt have a chance, well, doing as you suggest he certainly wouldnt have a chance, aint that a fine way to support democracy, lol...
I bet you were telling that to Obama supporters too in last elections in this phase of the elections when he was a underdog, right ?
Can you tell me WHY he doesnt have a chance, the article leaves that out...
More childish play, and noticing the habit to pull out Republican/Tea Party bashing when ever its suits ones agenda...
But its understandable, its more fun to be cheerleader in the probable winning team, Go Obama Go...
No, they should stop raising money and so RP can get to work.
Well he's been trying to get the Republican Nomination.
Clearly that isn't going to happen, so yes he should drop out.
No, and I don't recall that this late in the primary that he was ever a significant underdog.
Ron Paul has almost NO support.
Almost no Delegates support him.
http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates/
Encouraging one to run for POTUS is childish and Republican/Tea Party bashing? Sounds all a bit paranoid to me. If Paul wants to run and his supporters want to support him, who are you to say otherwise. Do you want the state to step in and trounce on his rights and the rights of his supporters? I thought you "conservatives" didn't like big government or is their another exception for the Republican/Tea Party?
Ah yes. Remember the Tea Party? All that strutting and fretting, only to be heard no more.
Actually the reason why is regulation. Which is different depending on the State you reside in.
I for example only go DOs. DO is illegal in AU but can perform heart transplant in the US.
So, competance is not the reason - regulation is the reason.
LOL, that was good Michael.
It's not just Michael, Joe, it's a recognized fact that this would happen and always happens. You blame whatever mess the country is in now on the last administration. If Romney gets elected, any problems he has? They will all be Obama's fault. But let's face it, both of these super statist, international banker/corporate shill parties have driven the nation so far into a grave, it is going to take fifteen, twenty years to get the ship on course and extricate the smarmy tentacles of the bureaucracy from every aspect of people's lives. Till then, things will remain a mess. So either by some partial or total collapse, or a willingness to be patient during a complete overhaul, can a new paradigm of political process work. Till then. . . . as Albert Einstein said. . . "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
Who is you? And how old are you? Because it was not always the case.
There is is also a difference between groundless blaming and blaming for real and just cause. Sometimes the blame is righteous.
Even if he doesn't get elected, all ills real and imagined are Obama's fault from the lens of the Republican/Tea Party devotee.
Einstein was quite correct. But illogical, irrational thinking will not improve things either. The real issue as I have said time and time again, is the influence of special interest money on our government. Until we change the way we elect our representatives and change their behaviors, we will continue to be vexed. But until that happens we must choose the better of the two parties in the hope that we will eventually get real reforms in Washington.
Last edited:
You have to remember that for Joe the Democraps are Gods and the Repukelikans are Devils. The Gods make a little mistake every now and again, like Clinton handing over the keys to the economy to his crony Banking backers as he realized labor was a Cattle ranch milked dry (soon to be replaced by Chinese). Obama signs NDAA on New Years eve 2011 and Joe's all like: Yea Obama! Defeat the Terrorists!
It's painfully obvious the NDAA is to be used against US Citizens - us. Not by Obama, he's just the thin edge of the wedge. Did you know that as soon as he bailed out the banks (well, actually Timmy bailed them out without even asking Obama - $7 Trillion... can you imagine, and this guy isn't swinging from the end of a rope?!?!). Obama holds a "speech" to tell the nation he's going to see that "people are held to account". Do you know who didn't show up? ANY of the bankers he'd just bailed out. They won. They wouldn't bother going to his speech if her were the last man on earth talking. Obama's like toilet paper to them (kind of like the USD soon enough). They shit on him and washed their hands of the dirty mess.
It's painfully obvious the NDAA is to be used against US Citizens - us. Not by Obama, he's just the thin edge of the wedge. Did you know that as soon as he bailed out the banks (well, actually Timmy bailed them out without even asking Obama - $7 Trillion... can you imagine, and this guy isn't swinging from the end of a rope?!?!). Obama holds a "speech" to tell the nation he's going to see that "people are held to account". Do you know who didn't show up? ANY of the bankers he'd just bailed out. They won. They wouldn't bother going to his speech if her were the last man on earth talking. Obama's like toilet paper to them (kind of like the USD soon enough). They shit on him and washed their hands of the dirty mess.
Ron Paul's Supporters ....
Really?
No, really?
Did you even read the article?
The article Adoucette offered proposes that Ron Paul and his supporters ought to consider whether or not persisting as they do will denigrate the Texas congressman's legacy.
American sports fans, actually, see this periodically, when one of our favorite superstars decides to return for one more season, and that season goes horribly. Ken Griffey, Jr., for instance, came home to the Seattle Mariners for his sunset. A career .284 hitter, he only managed .214 in his last full season. He should have retired then; we were glad to have him home, and weren't going to knock the low average. But he came back for one more season, and made it only two months into his final season, hitting all of .184. Those last two seasons dragged down his batting average, though, it is true, only slightly (.287 career average without them); but the last time we saw him swinging the bat, he'd lost the golden glory of a storied career, and opted for retirement instead of finishing the season because his performance was, frankly, embarrassing.
It happens regularly enough that American sports fans are aware of the phenomenon. What Wang is suggesting is that Paul and his supporters can deal with reality and hold their heads high for what they have accomplished in this cycle, or they can embarrass themselves.
It's not a matter of stopping their support for the congressman. It's a matter of not denigrating Paul's legacy by continuing to screw over the GOP and remind what the simple act of voting is really worth in Republican circles.
Democratic supporters generally won't object to what looks like a power play for the convention on Rep. Paul's part. Not only is his campaign exposing the strangeness of the Republican presidential nomination process—which in this cycle has resembled a derogatory and racist phrase that includes the words "fire drill"—it is also starting to look like an attempt to exert heavy influence over the convention and thus the party's platform going into the general election. Scuttlebutt suggesting Ron Paul is actually kid-gloving Romney in hope of getting Rand Paul on the ticket for November started with Rick Santorum and spread, at first, through conservative commentators. A Romney/Paul ticket would be disastrous for Republicans in the general election. It seems more likely, though, that in gathering delegates, Ron Paul is aiming for clout in shaping the platform, and while economic and judicial libertarianism might carry some weight with conservatives and swing bloc "independents" in any given year, this will be a an election in which accentuating those aspects in the platform will do more harm to the Republican result than good.
This is the risk Paul and his supporters face by pressing their campaign.
In the long run, it might well be that he has helped the party; by neutering the voters who came out in primaries, the Ron Paul campaign has thrown a monkey at the wrenches tuning the GOP nomination process. And while Paul and his supporters can argue that they're winning procedurally, that's actually part of the problem.
Paul placed fourth—that is, last—in the Louisiana primary. Rick Santorum won it. Because of the Paul campaign presence at the state caucuses, though, he gets more delegates than Santorum. Though Romney won his home state primary, and Paul placed third, the congressman's campaign wrangling at the Massachusetts GOP caucuses, it appears that Paul might well have won a majority of delegates.
Iowa, Minnesota, and so on.
These are clever and hard-won procedural victories, but the cynical reminder to GOP voters in these states is that it doesn't really matter who you vote for.
The longer Ron Paul relies on procedural maneuvering to gather delegates, and the more chaos he causes in the state parties and at the national convention, the less credibility Republicans will have going forward into the general election.
Think back to 2000. Many Democratic supporters blamed Ralph Nader for peeling off Al Gore's votes (i.e., the Florida issue should not have decided the election). Or in 2004, there are plenty of stupid things to blame for Kerry's loss, such as the Swift Boat lies. But in either case, the Democratic candidates themselves carry the ultimate blame. Neither Gore nor Kerry ran strong campaigns.
And it is true that, in the end, when Mitt Romney loses the general election, he will carry the lion's share of the blame. It's his candidacy, his campaign, and he can't seem to let a day pass without embarrassing himself, unless, of course, he spends that day out of the public eye and out of earshot.
However, the longer analysis will also note that Romney buried himself trying to compete with other candidates to woo the various hardline blocs within the party, thus exacerbating his problems with various demographic blocs in the general electorate. And Ron Paul's campaign only adds to that burden, augments that effect.
Ron Paul has more than adequately made his point within the GOP. Wang is, in this sense, suggesting that the congressman quit while he can still assert pride in this campaign's accomplishments. By pushing on, weakening Romney, and helping bolster President Obama's re-election chances, Paul is denigrating his own legacy, and for the moment, it seems his supporters are cheering that debasement.
Certainly, one can disagree with the analysis. But the idea that it means his supporters should just stop supporting him? That is nowhere in the Wang article, and seeing that twist in your post only reiterates that one of Ron Paul's biggest liabilities is his supporters.
Indeed—
—the question misses the point so widely that it cannot reflect well on his supporters, which in turn reflects poorly on the candidate.
____________________
Notes:
Wang, Andy. "Ron Paul Supporters Need to Sober Up". Yahoo News. April 25, 2012. News.Yahoo.com. May 4, 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-supporters-sober-211200443.html
EyesWideShut said:
Really?
No, really?
Did you even read the article?
.... Paul supporters need to realize that victory is not only improbable now, but downright impossible. The longer they continue to support Paul, the longer his eventual fall from grace and the harder his landing will be. If Paul supporters were really true to their name and loyal to the Congressman, they should be encouraging Paul to drop out instead of continuing his sad swan song.
After decades of service to the country, Paul deserves a round of applause. Although he may be many things, a sellout, turncoat, or flip-flopper are not labels that can applied to the Congressman. As a result, Paul deserves to leave in the same fashion in which he served his constituency; namely, he deserves an honorable and dignified farewell.
Ron Paul supporters need to wake up and drink some coffee as opposed to Kool-Aid, and sober up to the reality that their man is not going to win -- not now, not ever, period. Their goal should now be to convince Paul of the same so that he may ride off into the sunset with his head held high.
(Wang)
After decades of service to the country, Paul deserves a round of applause. Although he may be many things, a sellout, turncoat, or flip-flopper are not labels that can applied to the Congressman. As a result, Paul deserves to leave in the same fashion in which he served his constituency; namely, he deserves an honorable and dignified farewell.
Ron Paul supporters need to wake up and drink some coffee as opposed to Kool-Aid, and sober up to the reality that their man is not going to win -- not now, not ever, period. Their goal should now be to convince Paul of the same so that he may ride off into the sunset with his head held high.
(Wang)
The article Adoucette offered proposes that Ron Paul and his supporters ought to consider whether or not persisting as they do will denigrate the Texas congressman's legacy.
American sports fans, actually, see this periodically, when one of our favorite superstars decides to return for one more season, and that season goes horribly. Ken Griffey, Jr., for instance, came home to the Seattle Mariners for his sunset. A career .284 hitter, he only managed .214 in his last full season. He should have retired then; we were glad to have him home, and weren't going to knock the low average. But he came back for one more season, and made it only two months into his final season, hitting all of .184. Those last two seasons dragged down his batting average, though, it is true, only slightly (.287 career average without them); but the last time we saw him swinging the bat, he'd lost the golden glory of a storied career, and opted for retirement instead of finishing the season because his performance was, frankly, embarrassing.
It happens regularly enough that American sports fans are aware of the phenomenon. What Wang is suggesting is that Paul and his supporters can deal with reality and hold their heads high for what they have accomplished in this cycle, or they can embarrass themselves.
It's not a matter of stopping their support for the congressman. It's a matter of not denigrating Paul's legacy by continuing to screw over the GOP and remind what the simple act of voting is really worth in Republican circles.
Democratic supporters generally won't object to what looks like a power play for the convention on Rep. Paul's part. Not only is his campaign exposing the strangeness of the Republican presidential nomination process—which in this cycle has resembled a derogatory and racist phrase that includes the words "fire drill"—it is also starting to look like an attempt to exert heavy influence over the convention and thus the party's platform going into the general election. Scuttlebutt suggesting Ron Paul is actually kid-gloving Romney in hope of getting Rand Paul on the ticket for November started with Rick Santorum and spread, at first, through conservative commentators. A Romney/Paul ticket would be disastrous for Republicans in the general election. It seems more likely, though, that in gathering delegates, Ron Paul is aiming for clout in shaping the platform, and while economic and judicial libertarianism might carry some weight with conservatives and swing bloc "independents" in any given year, this will be a an election in which accentuating those aspects in the platform will do more harm to the Republican result than good.
This is the risk Paul and his supporters face by pressing their campaign.
In the long run, it might well be that he has helped the party; by neutering the voters who came out in primaries, the Ron Paul campaign has thrown a monkey at the wrenches tuning the GOP nomination process. And while Paul and his supporters can argue that they're winning procedurally, that's actually part of the problem.
Paul placed fourth—that is, last—in the Louisiana primary. Rick Santorum won it. Because of the Paul campaign presence at the state caucuses, though, he gets more delegates than Santorum. Though Romney won his home state primary, and Paul placed third, the congressman's campaign wrangling at the Massachusetts GOP caucuses, it appears that Paul might well have won a majority of delegates.
Iowa, Minnesota, and so on.
These are clever and hard-won procedural victories, but the cynical reminder to GOP voters in these states is that it doesn't really matter who you vote for.
The longer Ron Paul relies on procedural maneuvering to gather delegates, and the more chaos he causes in the state parties and at the national convention, the less credibility Republicans will have going forward into the general election.
Think back to 2000. Many Democratic supporters blamed Ralph Nader for peeling off Al Gore's votes (i.e., the Florida issue should not have decided the election). Or in 2004, there are plenty of stupid things to blame for Kerry's loss, such as the Swift Boat lies. But in either case, the Democratic candidates themselves carry the ultimate blame. Neither Gore nor Kerry ran strong campaigns.
And it is true that, in the end, when Mitt Romney loses the general election, he will carry the lion's share of the blame. It's his candidacy, his campaign, and he can't seem to let a day pass without embarrassing himself, unless, of course, he spends that day out of the public eye and out of earshot.
However, the longer analysis will also note that Romney buried himself trying to compete with other candidates to woo the various hardline blocs within the party, thus exacerbating his problems with various demographic blocs in the general electorate. And Ron Paul's campaign only adds to that burden, augments that effect.
Ron Paul has more than adequately made his point within the GOP. Wang is, in this sense, suggesting that the congressman quit while he can still assert pride in this campaign's accomplishments. By pushing on, weakening Romney, and helping bolster President Obama's re-election chances, Paul is denigrating his own legacy, and for the moment, it seems his supporters are cheering that debasement.
Certainly, one can disagree with the analysis. But the idea that it means his supporters should just stop supporting him? That is nowhere in the Wang article, and seeing that twist in your post only reiterates that one of Ron Paul's biggest liabilities is his supporters.
Indeed—
"Ok, so its your opinion that Ron Paul doesnt have a chance and so on hes supporters should just stop...supporting?"
—the question misses the point so widely that it cannot reflect well on his supporters, which in turn reflects poorly on the candidate.
____________________
Notes:
Wang, Andy. "Ron Paul Supporters Need to Sober Up". Yahoo News. April 25, 2012. News.Yahoo.com. May 4, 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-supporters-sober-211200443.html
Ron Paul supporters most certainly should NOT vote for Mitt Romney if he isn't the person who represents their views. They should abstain from voting, which is itself a protest vote.
As for Paul, he's doing better now than ever. He's not starting brush-fires, but burning down entire forests When Paul shows up 5000-8000 people pack a stadium. When Mitt shows up, you're talking about maybe 100 people?
Also, the sports analogy makes no sense as Paul never has had this much support and never was a "Sports Hero" version of a Politician. Thus he can't BE a comeback kid. That was Newt/Toad Gingrich - HE was your comeback kid. And a fat one at that!
Instead Paul's always had a small quite very sincere and very supportive base. That base is now growing. It will continue to grow long after Paul is dead and buried.
See, that's how 'real' change happens. Slowly, from decade to decade and from generation to generation at the grassroots level. Parents to Children. Slogans like "Change We Can Believe In" are just that - meaningless Slogans. It's why places like Egypt are just back full circle to where they started.
Lastly, Paul is LOVED by a generation of University students. This one race to the POTUS is merely a step in a long long road to real change. Change they will usher in. Ron Paul will happily ride off into the sunset head held high knowing he set them on the right path.
While people like you may think he lost, the truth is he won. He doesn't care about how his staying in the fight 'reflects' off him (that phrase itself rather esoteric). If you want a jingo then think of Paul as The Great Educator coming from a long line of educators stretching back millennia into pre-history
As for Paul, he's doing better now than ever. He's not starting brush-fires, but burning down entire forests
When Paul shows up 5000-8000 people pack a stadium. When Mitt shows up, you're talking about maybe 100 people? Also, the sports analogy makes no sense as Paul never has had this much support and never was a "Sports Hero" version of a Politician. Thus he can't BE a comeback kid. That was Newt/Toad Gingrich - HE was your comeback kid. And a fat one at that!
Instead Paul's always had a small quite very sincere and very supportive base. That base is now growing. It will continue to grow long after Paul is dead and buried.
See, that's how 'real' change happens. Slowly, from decade to decade and from generation to generation at the grassroots level. Parents to Children. Slogans like "Change We Can Believe In" are just that - meaningless Slogans. It's why places like Egypt are just back full circle to where they started.
Lastly, Paul is LOVED by a generation of University students. This one race to the POTUS is merely a step in a long long road to real change. Change they will usher in. Ron Paul will happily ride off into the sunset head held high knowing he set them on the right path.
While people like you may think he lost, the truth is he won. He doesn't care about how his staying in the fight 'reflects' off him (that phrase itself rather esoteric). If you want a jingo then think of Paul as The Great Educator coming from a long line of educators stretching back millennia into pre-history
Last edited:
The reason Paul is still in the race, is the same reason this thread is the longest thread on any American political candidate in America, including the POTUS.
Because next to Obama, the man who really has the most firm political support in the nation of the people, is Ron Paul. The polls confirm it. Against Obama, he does better than any other candidate. He has, theoretically, more power and support of the people, than any other man. . . except maybe the president. It certainly inspires more attention and controversy.
I think this is a much more accurate analysis of the situation than that establishment statist commentary from Yahoo, Mr. Andy Wang. Really? The writing and thinking are so similar, maybe Tiassa posted it to Yahoo. (ha ha)
Ron Paul’s Last Hurrah
Because next to Obama, the man who really has the most firm political support in the nation of the people, is Ron Paul. The polls confirm it. Against Obama, he does better than any other candidate. He has, theoretically, more power and support of the people, than any other man. . . except maybe the president. It certainly inspires more attention and controversy.
I think this is a much more accurate analysis of the situation than that establishment statist commentary from Yahoo, Mr. Andy Wang. Really? The writing and thinking are so similar, maybe Tiassa posted it to Yahoo. (ha ha)
Ron Paul’s Last Hurrah
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Lets reflect the article...
Ron Paul Supporters Need to Sober Up
(Indicates that Paul Suppoters are drunk and not touch with reality)
And then there were two, sort of. With Rick Santorum suspending his campaign roughly two weeks ago and Newt Gingrich's recent announcement that he too will be dropping out, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only competitors still standing … that is, if you consider Ron Paul's stubbornness and steadfast refusal to admit defeat in the face of impossible odds to be "standing."
(Paul has to beat only one opponent but some how Romney is so all powerfull that Paul should just roll over and die, why is so ?)
In actuality, Mitt Romney became the de facto Republican nominee for president when Santorum exited the race.
(Stating opinion as a fact, again why is Romney so all mighty ?)
But for some completely unapparent reason, Ron Paul and his campaign have refused to acknowledge what should be common and logical sense.
(And again stating opinion as a fact with no explanation)
Instead, they march onward with their futile and meaningless campaign while continuing to immorally solicit donations from their similarly blinded supporters.
(nothing but slamming down Paul supporters)
With Romney sweeping the latest primaries and Paul having yet to win a single one, another nail has been hammered into the Paul campaign's coffin. Paul supporters need to realize that victory is not only improbable now, but downright impossible. The longer they continue to support Paul, the longer his eventual fall from grace and the harder his landing will be. If Paul supporters were really true to their name and loyal to the Congressman, they should be encouraging Paul to drop out instead of continuing his sad swan song.
(What a pandering pile of twisted logic, almost makes you puke... Wanna be loyal to your candidate, go home and dont disgrace your candidate with defeat, lol, sad swan song and all that, again just opinions flavored with "I know better than you" patronizing tone)
After decades of service to the country, Paul deserves a round of applause. Although he may be many things, a sellout, turncoat, or flip-flopper are not labels that can applied to the Congressman. As a result, Paul deserves to leave in the same fashion in which he served his constituency; namely, he deserves an honorable and dignified farewell.
(Using hes good name against him, unbelievable horse shit, because he has been fighting the good fight in honorable manner in same style he should go out, but how is just stopping the fight honorable , its not, it would be betrayal ?)
Ron Paul supporters need to wake up and drink some coffee as opposed to Kool-Aid, and sober up to the reality that their man is not going to win -- not now, not ever, period. Their goal should now be to convince Paul of the same so that he may ride off into the sunset with his head held high.
(Again gearing up the same bullshit twisted logic, pointing out hes own opinion as a fact with no backing)
Yes, no kidding, lol
First, the question was aimed to Adoucette as why he offers that one huge pile of horse shit, opinion based propanda, to this conversation, but thanks for the "analysis" anyway...
And for your comment about missing the point;
prop·a·gan·da
[prop-uh-gan-duh]
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
Ron Paul is the last remaining "Not Romney" candidate still in the game. Go Paul!