Can't teach pack_bryan new tricks.

3/13/2012 7:15:21 PM

Unless Citizens United is overturned, or unless Ron Paul is willing to give up on his values, I don't see how he ever wins in a world with super PACS.

3/13/2012 9:39:00 PM

One might wonder, with your graph, how santorum is second place, with your prediction that money has to do with winning

3/13/2012 10:02:20 PM

meanwhile in washington: $100 million in super pac ads for obama getting queued up for this summer...

but in reality he doesn't really need them people just need to turn on the news

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM. Reason : k]

3/13/2012 10:22:23 PM

Hey pack_bryan, you'd be awesome if you played devils advocate with yourself and tried to disprove yourself of the things you say.


It will be interesting who would win.

3/13/2012 10:26:08 PM

Quote :

"One might wonder, with your graph, how santorum is second place, with your prediction that money has to do with winning"

Santorum is in second place because the GOP race is a fucking train-wreck. If Romney decided to go on the attack to Santorum, he could bury him with the amount of money he and his campaign has to toss around. The only reason why they are not doing that is because they are afraid of the blowback, which in this case would be his favorability falling due to negative campaigning. Romney's strategy right now is to wear Santorum down and beat him the old fashion way. But if this thing drags on and it looks less and less likely that Romney will have enough delegates come Tampa, you can guarantee that Romney will go on the attack (either through him or a proxy--Ron Paul). Santorum has more than enough skeletons in his closet to be used against him, and his only real strategy to win is to be just irrelevant enough to go unnoticed, which has gotten him surprisingly far.

3/13/2012 10:33:48 PM

GeniuSxBoY what kind of job do you have

3/13/2012 10:37:37 PM

Quote :

"Santorum is in second place because the GOP race is a fucking train-wreck. If Romney decided to go on the attack to Santorum, he could bury him with the amount of money he and his campaign has to toss around. The only reason why they are not doing that is because they are afraid of the blowback, which in this case would be his favorability falling due to negative campaigning. Romney's strategy right now is to wear Santorum down and beat him the old fashion way. But if this thing drags on and it looks less and less likely that Romney will have enough delegates come Tampa, you can guarantee that Romney will go on the attack (either through him or a proxy--Ron Paul). Santorum has more than enough skeletons in his closet to be used against him, and his only real strategy to win is to be just irrelevant enough to go unnoticed, which has gotten him surprisingly far."

You're not even on the same planet as us.

3/13/2012 11:45:29 PM

I'm not on the same planet as people who still think Ron Paul has a legitimate shot at winning? Or people that think there is a massive media conspiracy to ignore voter fraud against Paul in the Virgin Islands? Or the people who think that Paul is an infallible superhero who has all the answers to save the US from spiraling into a dystopian hell-hole? Or people who end every goddamn political argument with "liberty, liberty, constitution, constitution, up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right."

Am I not on the same planet as people who use shitty cell-phone pictures of college rally's as "proof" of rampant popularity? Or on the same planet where political activism is recorded by "likes" and "dislikes" on some unbearable social media site?




Yeah, you're right, I'm not on that same planet. Fuck that planet. That planet sucks.




[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 11:56 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2012 11:48:01 PM

do you have to log in to facebook in order to get access to this planet you speak of?

3/13/2012 11:51:22 PM

You're too far off the beaten path to give you directions to make it back to sanity.

3/13/2012 11:56:04 PM

constitution

3/13/2012 11:58:02 PM

Now what?

3/13/2012 11:58:47 PM

Ron Paul has been one of the most important factors in this race, because he's helped it drag out so that the conservatives can tear each other down so Obama doesn't have to.

Outside of that, he never had much chance at the GOP nom despite how he stacked up against Obama.

It's one of the drawbacks of a majority rule system.

3/14/2012 12:02:15 AM

Quote :

"he never had much chance at the GOP nom "

I'm not sure you understand that our media and the elections have been compromised, yet. They are fake. They're a fraud. A Sham. Of course Ron Paul isn't going to win! I've been saying that the whole since I came out with concrete evidence of election fraud.

Sure you guys don't believe it because you feel like the 25,000,000 people on facebook are negated by old people that you can't even see at rallies or at the voting booths.

You do vote, don't you? I vote and the only old people I see are the people running the polls.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2012 12:07:20 AM

I imagine you're getting a rise out of this behind your laptop, pretending to be unbearably stupid so that others can correct you.

At least, I hope that's your shtick. But I dunno, maybe your facebook page is littered with this ron Paul fanaticism, too.

3/14/2012 12:10:05 AM

^^I would have agreed with you a year ago, but they gave Ron Paul his fair shake this time. They put him front and center for lots of debates.

He never gained real traction. From talking to my conservative friends, his "let's actually be NICE to other countries" foreign policy is what sunk him with them.

3/14/2012 12:11:47 AM

I'm sorry your education has failed you.

3/14/2012 12:12:42 AM

Quote :

"I imagine you're getting a rise out of this behind your laptop, pretending to be unbearably stupid so that others can correct you. At least, I hope that's your shtick. But I dunno, maybe your facebook page is littered with this ron Paul fanaticism, too."

This is what's happening. I suggest we ignore and hope he goes away. If you want to have a legitimate conversation about Ron Paul with a rational person just argue with destroyer, otherwise you're wasting your time..

3/14/2012 7:51:36 AM

Ron Paul has won at least three states but hasn't been able to overcome the GOP fraud this year. He's not a GOP candidate so I can understand why they won't let him win their primaries.

Also, you woulnd't expect a libertarian to dowell amongst republicans. If everyone participated in these primaries, Ron Paul would win going away. He might notbeatObama, but hed dominate the independent vote.

3/14/2012 7:55:48 AM

He would crush Obama.

There are former pro-Obama people who are fed up with the promises he has broken since he came into office.

They are tired of his....Bush-it (say it fast).

Ron Paul is about liberty, plain and simple.

If he were ever given the opportunity to go head-to-head with Obama, he would destroy him (figuratively).

Obama would have no where to go, save the old white voters in the liberal base.

Wait...he's doing that now.

3/14/2012 8:40:36 AM

Your post is meaningless.

"If everyone who wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway could vote for Ron Paul instead they would."

3/14/2012 9:06:00 AM

So how many votes did Paul really get in Alabama and Mississippi?

3/14/2012 9:13:06 AM

It's a good thing you clarified your points in parentheses, otherwise I would have never known what to do with your post.

3/14/2012 9:28:21 AM

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I voted for him in the SC primaries.

Do I think that he still got shafted in the media this time around? Yes. I don't think he really got a fair shot in terms of general media coverage. He got more coverage than last time though. Do I think they were actually fixing polls and committing fraud during the primaries? Nah. They didn't have to; the amount of uninformed voters far outweighs those who actually do their homework before going to the polls for any political office.

And, that's not to say that everyone who "does their homework" would have voted for Ron Paul because that is certainly not the case at all as everyone has their own goals and values. All I mean by that is people who go into the polls uninformed are much more likely to just vote for someone like Romney or Santorum. That's really all there is to it. You have people voting for Romney or Santorum because they did their research and want to vote for Romney or Santorum and then you have a large number of uninformed voters voting for Romney or Santorum because they think it's the right thing to do even though they couldn't even describe their proposed tax policies if you asked them.

No one going into the polls uninformed and just going by what they see in their local newspaper or Fox News is going to vote for Ron Paul and that is hard to overcome.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

3/14/2012 9:45:54 AM

tldr; American Electoral System since 1778.

3/14/2012 9:51:15 AM

I'm just saying, even as a Ron Paul supporter, that there are plenty of logical explanations for why he isn't winning any of these states. I'm not so ready to cry foul just because my guy doesn't win.

3/14/2012 10:12:57 AM

Holy shit!

On this page I'm wholeheartedly with JesusHChrist and moron! I must admit that while I admire Ron Paul (the man) I really can't stand his average supporter (which I find to be accurately represented on this page).

You've torpedoed your own candidate with your attitudes and conduct; it has nothing to do with any media conspiracy. Sure you can find numerous video clips where Ron Paul is excluded from any mention of his polling or caucus performances, but nobody cares except his supporters.

Why?

Because you're trolls, plain and simple. You've dominated the internet with your candidate and the saturation of social media was not the success you thought it would be.

Why?

Because folks like GeniuSxBoy are typical of the average Ron Paul supporter, and he's a joke. Everything he talks about here is a joke. He has been suspended on more than one occasion for just being a stupid asshole. Imagine tens of thousands of GeniuSxBoys stampeding across the internet posting something about Ron Paul everytime they see an empty textbox with a "submit" button. Every messageboard in the world has GeniuSxBoys on it and everyone knows who they are, so regardless of what they say it's always mentally filed under "shit."

It's sad-

Sad that Ron Paul doesn't understand why his polling is so good but his real-life performances are so bad. His rallies show good attendance, but they're all trolls. They're all out-and-about taking a break from bombing the blogosphere just to stand around and take cameraphone pictures of one another. Then they run home to frolick in their online playground (posting pictures of thousands of other trolls all holding cameraphones) while poor Ron Paul stands up there pouring his heart out to literally every-one-of-his-supporters.

That's right-

Every single damn one of you shows up at his rallies. Paul has it all wrong; it's not attendance that's killing his numbers, it's just the fact that there aren't many of you. Ron Paul supporters don't sit at home, which I suppose is an admirable trait, but even if your rally outstrips Santorum's (for example), you still can't compete with the number of Santorum followers at home sitting on their asses. Indeed, there are folks in this day and age that only use computers for yahoo and solitaire (they aren't the types that would vote for Ron Paul). Furthermore, if this type of person strays too far into the internetz they are suddenly brought into contact with GeniuSxBoy types for the first time and immediately flee in terror.

In conclusion-

The media acknowledges him as much as we acknowledge you. Yes, occasionally you make good points and sometimes you're somewhat funny; however, we can only take so much of your crescendo of shit before you get suspended. Ron Paul is almost at that point, but it's not because he's a troll, it's because you are.

Bravo.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 10:38 AM. Reason : -]

3/14/2012 10:33:15 AM

Quote :

"Sad that Ron Paul doesn't understand why his polling is so good but his real-life performances are so bad."

I don't agree with this. I think he fully grasps it. He didnt run to win, he ran to get his message out and it's worked better than in past attempts.

You're correct about his Internet fame though..

3/14/2012 10:40:58 AM

You might be right about him just wanting to get his message out, but I'm sure he wants to be President.

Supplanter's video on the previous page seems to indicate he doesn't understand the parity between his rally crowds and vote numbers. I mean, I would guess they match up perfectly!

On the other hand 150 folks come to a Santorum rally, but then tens of thousand of mouth-breathing troglodytes come out on caucus day.

So idk...

I think it's pretty naive in 2012 to assume rallies = votes. Hell, I went to see Obama in Mt. Holly the other day just to people watch. Does that mean some dumb noob took my picture with a cameraphone and later said "Look at all the Obama supporters in Mt. Holly!" Maybe.

GeniuSxBoy is one of the most 2D concrete thinkers I think I've ever seen (besides his hacking/coding the universe spiel).

3/14/2012 10:57:41 AM

I don't think RP would waste his supporters' money if he didn't have a chance at winning or at least shaking up the GOP in a major way. I think he has succeeded with the latter, and frankly we don't know how this is all going to play out until the convention. Ron Paul could have the delegates necessary to win or at least influence the GOP platform.

A lot of Ron Paul supporters are pretty fucking annoying. I know this better than anyone. This is not "Ron Paul specific". How many idiots went crazy over Obama, insisting that they "just knew" he would change this country in a great way? I don't think I need to say anymore. Ron Paul is a political rock star. He draws in a lot of people because his ideas are radical and he points out the glaring flaws in the U.S./global economic and political system. He lacks the bullshit-laced facade that virtually every politician has. People appreciate this, even if their views don't line up 100% or even 80%.

Ron Paul is absolutely hated by the establishment right and the establishment left. The right hates him for obvious reasons. He's actually for smaller government (you're not supposed to really support that ideal, it's just rhetoric to dupe the masses) and understands that endless war is big government's best friend. The left hates him because he's started taking away the young vote. In previous decades, the 18-30 crowd be bought with promises of a grand socialist utopia and endless prosperity purchased with debt. Now more young people are learning the folly of our economic policies, prohibition, and overseas adventurism.

Romney vs. Obama is not a choice. It is the classic Giant Douche versus Turd Sandwich. I'm not playing that game. The libertarian wing of the GOP is actively trying to take over the party. Religious fundamentalists and neo-conservatives can go straight to hell.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

3/14/2012 11:09:39 AM

I admire Ron Paul because of his high level of integrity, views on foreign policy, and knowledge of policy.

What drives me away is his total lack of ability to compromise, pass real legislation in a real world, and total disregard for the well-being of society as a whole.

What is the best way to increase prosperity as a whole? Is it a grassroots approach to empower the individual? Or is it a top-down approach applied to the whole of society? The answer is neither and both. Empowering individuals will necessarily increase the welfare of society as a whole. But there are also policies that can and should be implemented on the social level that increase the prosperity of individuals. And by individuals I mean the majority of the population who work for a living and do not live off of the capital they have previously earned or inherited.

Ron Paul does not believe this. I recall the debate where he was asked if a sick child whose parents could not afford health care should be covered by the government. He said no. Libertarians talk a lot about morals. Well, I believe that in a society that produces so much wealth and prosperity, it is morally reprehensible to condemn this helpless child to a life of suffering because of the poor decisions (or possibly bad luck) of the parents. This sums up my view of Ron Paul in a microcosm.

While I agree with Ron Paul on many things, I believe he would do more to set us back than bring us forward which is disappointing for me because I think if he was a little more grounded in the reality of the problems we face, he would be a great president and exactly what we need. But he either lacks the ability to see or care about these issues. It's not that I don't know anything about him like his supporters say. It's that I do not agree with him on many issues and that's the same problem most people have with him who don't support him.

Quote :

"The libertarian wing of the GOP is actively trying to take over the party."

You do realize that this is a pipe dream, right? Libertarians would be better off starting their own national party, letting a realignment to the left happen for maybe a decade, and marginalizing the Religious Right out of existence. Then they would be able to pick up all these alienated left voters that certainly exist and put social issues where they belong on the back burner because both sides would agree. Think about how much better our country would be if we didn't have to talk about all the stupid ass social issues the populists want to put into effect. The national debate would be all about the economy and role of government.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ]

3/14/2012 11:38:34 AM

Quote :

"What drives me away is his total lack of ability to compromise, pass real legislation in a real world, and total disregard for the well-being of society as a whole."

So you'd prefer a burglar that wipes his feet at the door over a guy that, you know...doesn't steal your shit.

Passing legislation for the sake of it is not a good thing. Omnibus legislation is killing the country. When there is good legislation, it's loaded up with pork and bad legislation. I don't judge a politician by how much they "get done", I judge them but how much they don't fuck up.

Quote :

"Ron Paul does not believe this. I recall the debate where he was asked if a sick child whose parents could not afford health care should be covered by the government. He said no. Libertarians talk a lot about morals. Well, I believe that in a society that produces so much wealth and prosperity, it is morally reprehensible to condemn this helpless child to a life of suffering because of the poor decisions (or possibly bad luck) of the parents. This sums up my view of Ron Paul in a microcosm."

Humans are riddled with health problems. We are not "God's perfect creation". We're fucked up. Maybe some government could cover children's health care, but why should this be the federal government? Why can't local or state government do it? Why does everything have to do be done at the federal level?

Progressives, for some reason, don't understand how the federal government operates much more inefficiently than smaller government. Why are you so hell bent on paying for other people's healthcare? Do you not realize that obese Alabama residents are going to get more out of the system than you?

Quote :

"You do realize that this is a pipe dream, right? Libertarians would be better off starting their own national party, letting a realignment to the left happen for maybe a decade, and marginalizing the Religious Right out of existence. Then they would be able to pick up all these alienated left voters that certainly exist and put social issues where they belong on the back burner because both sides would agree. Think about how much better our country would be if we didn't have to talk about all the stupid ass social issues the populists want to put into effect. The national debate would be all about the economy and role of government."

It's not a pipe dream. Barry Goldwater was not that long ago. I can't rule out the possibility of a third party winning, but based on...well...all of U.S. history, it's not likely, and we're not going to bank on it. Libertarians already have their own party and it gets no traction.

3/14/2012 12:03:48 PM

Quote :

"and total disregard for the well-being of society as a whole"

1. this is the entire flaw of modern idiotic liberalism. you don't trust human beings and therefore require every form of regulation possible.

2. btw i also like ron paul for his integrity. but the point is made. paul would create a lot of harm before he got things to where he wanted them. (foreign relationships abruptly crushed, huge economic reform without stress tests for not only business but also social welfare programs that people are addicted too) it's no surprise that most people reject that route and that's why he won't ever have more than 8% of the vote.


in that regard he's the true-est republican there is right now. but the country is what it is.

as symbolic example... he wants to take windows vista and convert it to linux.(paul) obama wants to revert vista into XP, and romney wants to upgrade vista to 8 with more 'mac' like UI.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason : -]

3/14/2012 12:13:24 PM

Quote :

"1. this is the entire flaw of modern idiotic liberalism. you don't trust human beings and therefore require every form of regulation possible."

A)This is hyperbole of course.
B)Businesses have demonstrated what they are capable of sans regulation. Regulations didn't just appear out of a vacuum.

Quote :

"as symbolic example... he wants to take windows vista and convert it to linux.(paul) obama wants to revert vista into XP, and romney wants to upgrade vista to 8 with more 'mac' like UI"

XP is superior to vista so I'm not sure why you would make this analogy.

[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason : plurality]

3/14/2012 12:29:01 PM

A) the only hyperbole is your mind believing what it actually makes up otherwise
B) therefore regulate everything and remove all privatization of goods/services


2000-2007 our economy was in XP mode (spending like motherfuckers though)

2008-now our economy is in Vista (shit mode)

Romney -> upgrade economy and get rid of pork barrel retarded projects that govt has no need to enforce
Paul -> 2x what Romney plans to do and entirely restructure our relationship with the world
Obama -> revert to 2000-2007 spending levels (much much more actually) and pretend it's fixed


[Edited on March 14, 2012 at 1:11 PM. Reason : ,]

3/14/2012 12:58:25 PM

Quote :

"So you'd prefer a burglar that wipes his feet at the door over a guy that, you know...doesn't steal your shit. Passing legislation for the sake of it is not a good thing. Omnibus legislation is killing the country. When there is good legislation, it's loaded up with pork and bad legislation. I don't judge a politician by how much they "get done", I judge them but how much they don't fuck up."

Again, your total failure to understand any position in the middle ground. Political victories are rarely won in totality. They're won over time. Perhaps if Paul had spent more time compromising and passing legislation that was more in line with his thinking than no legislation at all, the country would be better off. But he would rather spend his time harping on how things ought to be instead of moving the country in the direction in which many people agree with him. Even your iconic Barry Goldwater preached the need for compromise in government. I agree with the omnibus point though. Legislation should pertain to the matter in which it is dealing with and no other issues.

Quote :

"Humans are riddled with health problems. We are not "God's perfect creation". We're fucked up. Maybe some government could cover children's health care, but why should this be the federal government? Why can't local or state government do it? Why does everything have to do be done at the federal level? Progressives, for some reason, don't understand how the federal government operates much more inefficiently than smaller government. Why are you so hell bent on paying for other people's healthcare? Do you not realize that obese Alabama residents are going to get more out of the system than you?"

I understand how large bureaucracies create exponentially greater inefficiencies, in government or otherwise. That's a point I will concede. The point I try to make is that the economic cost of performing these social actions is worth the social benefit gained from doing so. Do not take that to mean that I am for large scale, across the board welfare programs though. I think it makes sense that providing economic incentives for welfare dependency will increase welfare dependency. It's basic cause and effect and I think most progressives would agree with that. I like the way Michael Steele put it when he was on the Bill Maher show recently though. We shouldn't think of welfare as a safety net, we should think of it as a trampoline in that it empowers people to maintain control of their own lives in times of ill fortune. Individuals should not be condemned to a life of despair because of one bad decision or a stroke of bad luck. I believe that, if correctly implemented, it is possible to create a system to aid in times of need while providing a net economic benefit to society as a whole. Is it easy? Of course not, but many things that are worth doing are not easy.

What if a particular state chooses not to take care of a its children? Should they be condemned to death in that case? I think the individual state argument is attractive in theory, but again it fails the real world test. Perhaps the child is stuck in a systemic cycle of poverty over which it has no control. Real world situations are rarely as black and white as libertarians would like to believe.

Quote :

"It's not a pipe dream. Barry Goldwater was not that long ago. I can't rule out the possibility of a third party winning, but based on...well...all of U.S. history, it's not likely, and we're not going to bank on it. Libertarians already have their own party and it gets no traction."

Really? Is this honestly what you believe? You really think the Republican Party has a libertarian base when the frontrunners for president are Romney and Santorum? In the past, this may have been so. But once again, your vision of reality does not coincide with what is actually taking place. The Republican Party is lost. You can either dump it and create change faster or engage in a long and protracted war for its soul in which the time it takes to win would prove a Pyrrhic victory. There is no good option, you have to [compromise and] take the best option. This is the most fundamental essence of politics.

3/14/2012 1:03:21 PM

Quote :

"Again, your total failure to understand any position in the middle ground. Political victories are rarely won in totality. They're won over time. Perhaps if Paul had spent more time compromising and passing legislation that was more in line with his thinking than no legislation at all, the country would be better off. But he would rather spend his time harping on how things ought to be instead of moving the country in the direction in which many people agree with him. Even your iconic Barry Goldwater preached the need for compromise in government. I agree with the omnibus point though. Legislation should pertain to the matter in which it is dealing with and no other issues."

He could have been one of thousands of nameless representatives that "got stuff done" by passing some bullshit legislation. Instead, he's been principled, and has influenced an entire movement. Yes, victories are won over time, and Ron Paul understands that.

Quote :

"What if a particular state chooses not to take care of a its children? Should they be condemned to death in that case? I think the individual state argument is attractive in theory, but again it fails the real world test. Perhaps the child is stuck in a systemic cycle of poverty over which it has no control. Real world situations are rarely as black and white as libertarians would like to believe."

What if another country fails to take care of its children? Why shouldn't we be forced to pay for them, too?

You're not going to prevent suffering everywhere. Your best bet is to start at the local level, then proceed to the state level. Make what changes you can around you. A federal mandate coming from Washington demanding that some far away state take better care of their children is pointless.

The topic is federal office. The federal government has overseen some of the biggest blunders of the century so far. I'm not hopeful that its performance is going to improve. We need bottom up solutions, not top down mandates.

Quote :

"Really? Is this honestly what you believe? You really think the Republican Party has a libertarian base when the frontrunners for president are Romney and Santorum? In the past, this may have been so. But once again, your vision of reality does not coincide with what is actually taking place. The Republican Party is lost. You can either dump it and create change faster or engage in a long and protracted war for its soul in which the time it takes to win would prove a Pyrrhic victory. There is no good option, you have to [compromise and] take the best option. This is the most fundamental essence of politics."

Running third party is not a compromise, it's defeat. We lived under a flawed system. It is a two party system. I don't think that's going to change.

3/14/2012 1:12:44 PM

the only thing flawed about our 'system' is that republican ideas are constantly vetted and demonized in the arena of the public while liberal ideas are kept out of the spotlight and 'trusted' (look at pelosi passing obama care before even 1 of the 2700 pages of it was even read)

but i digress

3/14/2012 2:29:51 PM

I don't even...

3/14/2012 2:39:30 PM

the Republican Party is long gone, holmes. You ain't never getting that party back. The mega-rich have completed taken that party, and they're using the religious right as political pawns to further their corporate agenda and consolidate power. They're driving that bus as fast as they can to the right, and they've cut the brakes. Please believe that.

3/14/2012 3:33:54 PM

Quote :

"He lacks the bullshit-laced facade that virtually every politician has."

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-hypocrisy-earmarks-pork-barrel-spending-012000440.html

3/14/2012 3:35:43 PM

Quote :

"the Republican Party is long gone, holmes. You ain't never getting that party back. The mega-rich have completed taken that party, and they're using the religious right as political pawns to further their corporate agenda and consolidate power. They're driving that bus as fast as they can to the right, and they've cut the brakes. Please believe that."

Democratic party isn't any better, unfortunately. Different rhetoric, same ultimate agenda. The Democratic party will not accept free market economics, they want a top down command economy. So, one of the parties has to be infiltrated and transformed. The GOP is the better option in this case.

Quote :

"http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-hypocrisy-earmarks-pork-barrel-spending-012000440.html"

I know that this has been covered before.

Ron Paul's position is that all funds should be earmarked. Once the money is appropriated, it has to be split up somehow. That which isn't earmarked goes to the Executive branch, which obviously Ron Paul does not want.

Another reasonable position (I have no idea if RP has this position) is that the states are having money taken from them, so a representative has a responsibility to get as much as they can for their constituents. This is in no way hypocritical.

3/14/2012 4:07:17 PM

Quote :

"the only thing flawed about our 'system' is that republican ideas are constantly vetted and demonized in the arena of the public while liberal ideas are kept out of the spotlight and 'trusted' (look at pelosi passing obama care before even 1 of the 2700 pages of it was even read)"

Aahahaha, yes, the problem is that Republican ideas get vetted.

3/14/2012 4:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Another reasonable position (I have no idea if RP has this position) is that the states are having money taken from them, so a representative has a responsibility to get as much as they can for their constituents. This is in no way hypocritical."

I didn't realize he was using it to refund his constituents' taxes.

3/14/2012 4:26:29 PM

Quote :

"Democratic party isn't any better, unfortunately. Different rhetoric, same ultimate agenda. The Democratic party will not accept free market economics, they want a top down command economy. So, one of the parties has to be infiltrated and transformed. The GOP is the better option in this case."

Two things:

1) I'm no fan of the Democratic Party. I'm a progressive, they are not. They have completely turned their backs on the working class of America and have sold their souls to Wall Street and the banks (whereas the Republicans are bought and paid for mostly by Big Oil, Big Defense, and Big Detention). There are maybe 5 people in the Senate that actually give a damn about the population on the Democratic side, tops.

2) The discussion isn't about Democrats. It's about Republicans. And you cannot seriously believe that the Grand Ole Party -- the party that IS THE ESTABLISHMENT -- is susceptible to transformation. That type of thinking is approaching lunacy. Republicans are not conservative. They don't give a damn about the size of government as long as their corporate sponsors are getting taxes moved directly to their corporate coffers. They don't give a damn about the free market, so long as they can manipulate regulation for their own gain. I know you know this. Honestly, it's borderline retarded thinking to think that you can sway opinion in a party that is deeply entrenched in the status quo of the corporate state.

The mere fact that social issues are gaining traction (like abortion -- an issue that was settled 40 fucking years ago, or gay marriage, or islamophobia) should be an indicator that the GOP has no intention of ceding power to their libertarian supporters. NONE. They are perfectly happy manipulating emotional and wedge issues to continue the ruse of an open society.


Give it up, dawg. It ain't happening. There will be no change from within the system. Disgruntled Obama supporters should understand this better than most. Libertarians need to flee the GOP and let it rot away. Liberals and Progressives should probably do the same with the Democratic party.

I may not agree with libertarians on about 60% of the issues, but at least they're willing to discuss the issues. Republicans would rather theorize on the sanctity of a woman's vagina than discuss any meaningful topics.

3/14/2012 4:38:58 PM

I don't know what other approach to take, man. I don't like the "let it all burn and we'll figure it out afterwards" approach, because history shows that chaos generally lends itself to totalitarianism.

3/14/2012 4:49:26 PM

haha.... be real, son. You are most often the person here who states "the system is broken beyond repair." You may not like it, but that's often your opinion on the matter. I guess that's what makes your unconditional support of Paul so irritating at times, because you're getting washed up in the hero worship. You of all people (and people like you) should be leading the charge for Paul to leave the GOP and to try to legitimize the Libertarian Party. Lord knows his supporters would follow him. That would actually be the kind of long term progress you should be trying to accomplish. Instead, you're just passively pushing along the same corporate agenda that's been in place -- and will continue to be in place, after Paul is no longer around to carry the libertarian mantel.

3/14/2012 5:07:07 PM

I mean, it probably is broken beyond repair, but I don't know that for sure. It could be worth not scrapping the entire thing, but my opinion on this depends on how optimistic I'm feeling that day. Ron Paul would have gotten zero attention this election cycle if running as a Libertarian candidate. At least this way, the media was forced to let him speak.

Imagine the national debate if Ron Paul wasn't involved. It would be more fabricated "debates" on 9/11 mosques or whatever the distraction of the day is. Ron Paul forces the candidates and the media to talk about the wars, prohibition, corporate, welfare, et cetera.

3/14/2012 5:12:51 PM

I'm a lot more willing to give credit to OWS -- an actual movement outside of party politics -- credit for bringing critical topics to the debate than Ron Paul.

As long as he is trying to work within the establishment framework, he'll be viewed by many (fairly, or unfairly) as an establishment candidate. Running as a Republican only endears him to young conservatives and some independents. It's time for him to drop out (he can't get the delegates, anyway). He's gotten the supporters he's gonna get. The fact that he's staying in the race makes me think that he's still playing politics, possibly to help the career of his son.

3/14/2012 5:19:29 PM