Quote :

"chris cillizza (wapo political dude) mentioned me on twitter. i'm a dork that i'm so excited about it "

i am seriously jealous

1/24/2012 5:01:05 AM

[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2012 1:00:55 AM

To recap:

Health care reform = wasteful government spending
Lunar moon base = A-OK

1/27/2012 1:23:04 AM

Neither of them seemed to really win the debate, but Santorum squeeze in as many references to Romneycare as he possibly could.

1/27/2012 1:36:10 AM

so who's looking forward to Obama's 2nd term? Maybe without the shackles of reelection, he'll be more progressive?

1/27/2012 1:42:07 AM

more progressive? keep dreaming.

he's trying to raise a BILLION fucking dollars for his reelection campaign.

So, whatever you're $5 contribution of a billion dollars is.....that's about how much representation you're gonna get...

[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 1:46 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2012 1:42:49 AM

you don't have to look too hard through his past to see he has a progressive streak in him. Its not that crazy of a dream.

1/27/2012 2:34:32 AM

how many times is he going to spit on your face before you stop excusing him?

I can never understand why so many progressive democrats have battered-wife-syndrome.


Please read these:

http://www.zcommunications.org/note-to-the-left-obama-hates-you-by-paul-street

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/


Obama is about as progressive as I am your lord and savior.


[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 2:50 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2012 2:39:42 AM

what those articles (except the last) are saying is that belief in compromise is a mistake, which is the same things republicans say.

what they are asking for is a more tactical, political leader that knows how to game the system, someone Who can follow Rove's playbook. This is what you get with Romney.

the idea of compromise, even its for the wrong things, IS inline with progressive values more than someone who reeks of the status quo.

1/27/2012 9:54:15 AM

How much of the blame can go to the milquetoast Democratic congressmen and senators? That is, how many progressive bills have Obama vetoed? Is he even getting a chance to act progressively outside of Executive Orders? Granted, he has the bully pulpit and a large part of the impetus to strike compromises on him, but there's a reason congress has a single digit approval rating these days.

[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2012 10:06:35 AM

I'm not going to excuse congress at all. They're bought, so they don't give a shit about progressive principles.

But increasing drone strikes in sovereign nations is not a progressive stance.

Signing defense bills that suspend due process and allow for indefinite detention of american citizens is not a progressive stance.

Putting former Goldman Sachs CEO's in your cabinet during an economic disaster (caused by financial behemoths) is not a progressive stance.

A progressive president would not listen to Rahm Emanuelle when he tells him to "ignore the progressives" on healthcare by dropping the public option, which Obama never supported (look it up, he never wanted a public option. He followed the HERITAGE FOUNDATION for christ's sake- it's no coincidence that healthcare companies saw a huge jump in their stock prices after the bill was signed)

Quote :

"the idea of compromise, even its for the wrong things, IS inline with progressive values more than someone who reeks of the status quo."

You've completely made up this definition of progressivism. Progressivism is about social and economic reform of our politics (especially in the face of staunch conservatism). And the only reason why Obama compromises with the right, is because so-called progressives like you never criticize him when he's wrong. He doesn't have to appease you, because you'll vote for him anyway. So we continue our drift to the far-right.

Obama is not a progressive. Get that through your head. He holds you in contempt precisely because you won't stand up for yourself.

If he knew his base would leave him, he would, *gasp* work to compromise with them in order to secure his reelection. But if you always lie down, even when he tramples on your civil liberties and gives you bullshit "financial reform" that does nothing to address systemic problems of our financial institutions, then he'll continue to compromise with a far-right that is becoming more radical by the day.

For fucks sake, Newt goddamn Gingrich is gaining support by suggesting that poor kids become janitors, palestinians are all terrorists, and suggesting that we execute drug users and arrest judges that he views as "activists." There is no fucking point in trying to compromise with this. NONE. It is maddness, and it should be pushed to the fringe where it fucking belongs.

Our drift to the far-right was not okay under Bush, and it is not okay now. And until you and other progressives hold your leaders accountable and MAKE THEM listen to you, it's just going to continue.




[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2012 7:11:49 PM

^ agreed, if democrats weren't so hardheaded and stupid they'd all be voting for Ron Paul.

This election just proves that they don't care about the issues they claim to care about. They are just partisan hacks just like the Republicans.

1/28/2012 12:34:27 PM

Obama is faux-gressive

1/28/2012 3:22:00 PM

^^ I agree, Ron Paul's main points should not divide along party lines at all.

should not

1/28/2012 3:43:25 PM

Ron paul is going to be our next president whether wall-street likes it or not. Mark my words.

1/28/2012 5:01:18 PM

Care to put money on that?

1/28/2012 5:04:10 PM

Yes.

1/28/2012 5:04:40 PM

Seriously? Cause I'll put my life savings on it that Ron Paul will not be the next president. There is no way he'll get the Republican nod, and if he runs as a third part candidate, I see him matching Perot's numbers, and that's about it.

[Edited on January 28, 2012 at 5:18 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2012 5:12:37 PM

Paul won't run as a third party - it would screw over Rand

1/28/2012 5:27:35 PM

there's no chance in hell ron paul is the next president.

and no one likes him more than i do.

1/28/2012 6:44:34 PM

It's either get ron paul in office and diffuse a new world order, or else.

it's up to you.


If I lose this bet, then we pretty much lose everything that matters anyway.

1/28/2012 7:04:14 PM

Either Ron Paul wins in 2012, or Rand Paul wins in 2016. We don't have til 2020 to sort this shit out, and mainstream Democrats/Republicans ain't gonna cut it.

1/28/2012 8:47:47 PM

1/28/2012 9:37:42 PM

These are the people who are controlling the political discourse in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XubpOWD1o9A&feature=sh_e_se&list=SL


You can't compromise with this, because it's a system that is corporately backed and financed, and the people who participate in it are religious zealots who don't even realize that they are pushing forth a corporate agenda that is actively working against their own economic self-interests.

[Edited on January 28, 2012 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2012 10:14:26 PM

^yeh good points man

i gather from your posts that you really hate anglo saxons and any of their religions.

1/28/2012 10:57:26 PM

Quote :

"Seriously? Cause I'll put my life savings on it that Ron Paul will not be the next president. There is no way he'll get the Republican nod, and if he runs as a third part candidate, I see him matching Perot's numbers, and that's about it."

For two months (June and July) in the '92 campaign season, Perot polled significantly higher than both Clinton and Bush. In debates, he held his own with the mainstream candidates and many analysts would often judge him the winner. If voting had held true to polling in those months, then Perot would have been President. However, his numbers fell dramatically due to a series of crazy old-man moments that depicted him as unfit to lead.

I'm just saying that Perot's general election vote count doesn't tell the whole story, and 3rd parties are not necessarily a wasted vote.

1/29/2012 2:10:16 AM

Your life savings won't be worth anything anyway if Ron Paul loses. Sound money pwnt.

1/29/2012 2:40:26 AM

there is no such thing as a wasted vote in a primary

1/29/2012 1:18:50 PM

We vote but we have no say.. Our votes dont count...


The voting system and the people running it have no checks and balances. The American people are shut out of ensuring the votes are counted accurately. By law of human nature, you can ensure that the votes are being manipulated.

It became apparent of the manipulation when what we see on TV and election outcomes do not match those of the majority opinion.

Ron Paul will make history if he loses, for he is the majority favored opinion. It will never be clearer, in the history of the United States, that the voting system has been compromised without uncertainty.

1/29/2012 2:05:26 PM

^you have no idea what the majority opinion is, or exactly how many people favor who.

saying shit like that only perpetuates sterotypes about ron paul supporters.

ron paul should win. but he won't. This is because people are misguided on his policies or flat-out don't agree with them, not because the system is completely rigged.

1/29/2012 2:13:08 PM

^^ Show one major poll with Ron Paul leading. Just because the vocal members of the internet community love him does not mean majority.

[Edited on January 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ^]

1/29/2012 2:13:16 PM

1/29/2012 2:14:50 PM

Quote :

"Show one major poll with Ron Paul leading. Just because the vocal members of the internet community love him does not mean majority."

Too easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGykVPZtzUI



This is what you see in every state:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151193984565215

(this particular video is from florida)

[Edited on January 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2012 2:21:27 PM

Quote :

"you have no idea what the majority opinion is, or exactly how many people favor who. "

I have an idea. It's all around you in the real world.


Hey, don't take my word for it. Get out there and look for yourself.

[Edited on January 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2012 2:25:47 PM

^^ An internet poll on foxnews.com is hardly reliable. Hell TWW skews polls all the time. And that video is not a poll, again, just vocal supporters. Hell, if Stephen Colbert managed to get invited to a debate he'd get the same reaction.

1/29/2012 2:58:28 PM

And this one?

http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/12/06/ron-paul-polls-strongest-against-obama/

[Edited on January 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2012 10:09:53 PM

That shows nothing. Republicans will typically always vote along party lines, so if given the choice between Paul and Obama, they choose Paul. All that poll shows, and mind you, it's an Iowa poll only, is that Iowa independents/democrats/undecideds like Paul more than another other Republican candidate.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now your only evidence of massive election rigging is a Iowa poll saying Paul would do best against Obama and a video of people super excited to see Ron Paul. You got to do better.

[Edited on January 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM. Reason : a]

1/29/2012 10:23:37 PM

Let's face it, you'll have an excuse for everything. If you want to stay in denial, stay in denial. I really don't care.

1/30/2012 12:57:56 AM

It's not that you are wrong. It's just that Ron Paul isn't the "majority favored opinion"

1/30/2012 1:26:19 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20pjeeQ611s


This shit should not be mainstream political discussion. Jesus fucking goddamit shitballs. Fuck.



[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 1:53 AM. Reason : what the fuck is wrong with this group?]

1/30/2012 1:52:32 AM

Quote :

" It's not that you are wrong. It's just that Ron Paul isn't the "majority favored opinion""

This is true and only true if you watch or read the news; the news which is involved in a proven media blackout of Ron Paul.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 1:53:53 AM

They've been giving him his fair shake recently.

It's the conservatives that are to blame. They booed Paul talking about the golden rule. They booed a war vet because he was gay. They cheer newts philandering while cheering his family values claims, all on national tv.

Mob rule isn't too far off.

1/30/2012 3:11:32 AM

Quote :

"Let's face it, you'll have an excuse for everything. If you want to stay in denial, stay in denial. I really don't care."

Bahah, really? You present two piss poor arguments with shit evidence and I'm the one in denial?

1/30/2012 8:09:25 AM

Quote :

"This is true and only true if you watch or read the news; the news which is involved in a proven media blackout of Ron Paul."

The media "blackout" of Paul is entirely predictable and expected, no conspiracy is necessary whatsoever to explain it. Again, media is a for-profit enterprise and Paul is not profitable to report. Despite running this campaign for months, his primary nomination support has barely deviated more than 2 or 3 percent from its initial level the entire time. He's had no surge, not even a fantastic downfall, nothing. He's remained steady at 12% or so this entire fucking time.

He is not newsworthy, period. If he gets a surge and jumps to 25%, you better believe he'll be all over the news. Until then, all he is is the favored candidate of about 12% of voters who seems completely incapable of capturing anyone outside of that. A niche market that Fox, MSNBC, CNN are not interested in.

Just get it through your skulls that the media is for-profit, and it's not profitable to report on a fringe candidate with a fringe base whose support neither rises nor falls and has zero hope of winning the thing.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 12:31:28 PM

Quote :

"They've been giving him his fair shake recently."

I don't know that I'd go that far. For the most part, the media only mentions Ron Paul to say that he doesn't have a chance or isn't going to win. I wouldn't call that a "fair shake"


^ Paul has been at 25% and still didn't get coverage. Hell, he was at 25% in the New Hampshire primary, for crying out loud, and still the blackout persists. Moreover, continually reporting on a guy as "not going to win" whenever you do actually report him certainly has an effect on the results, wouldn't you think? I mean, if the media doesn't even mention the guy except to insult him, surely that would influence the minds of voters.

1/30/2012 4:20:42 PM

Listen, he's done this before. He's try to suggest that Ron Paul not being reported on is a result of our free market capitalist (lol) system.

1/30/2012 4:35:28 PM

well, it kind of is. just not the way that he's saying, though.

1/30/2012 4:52:23 PM

Does Ron Paul have a super pac that can drop 10+ mil in states like this? If not, he's running in the elections of yore while Romney is running in the Citizens United era.

1/31/2012 8:53:08 PM

The American people are Ron Pauls Super PAC

1/31/2012 9:01:41 PM

Hahaha...Newt, pullin' out all the stops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rTPSmA-QPQ

1/31/2012 9:20:59 PM