Ron on a Roll

I'm rooting for Palin to win the Republican primary. That would be comedy gold.

But I think the Republican leadership has better sense than that- she's unelectable at the top of the ticket. But I fully expect to see her run again as the vice-presidential candidate... 'cause nobody can bring out the Bubba Vote like Palin. And the Repubs can't win without legions of bubbas going to the polls. As such, I expect them to introduce lots of ballot initiatives on gay marriage, sharia law, and the like. Gotta get them bubbas out to vote.

As for the Dems, I think Obama will drop Biden like a hot brick. He provided a sense of experience and stability in 2008- but only because he wasn't THAT well known on a national level. But now that people 'know' him, he's a liability... really brings nothing to the table.

I expect 2012 to be [insert square-headed white male republican here]/Palin vs. Obama/Clinton. Don't know who the Republicans will run for president- I don't see any front-runners right now with a chance in hell. But unless somebody new steps forward, I expect it to be Romney or Gingrich... either of which will lose.

The news organizations, including Fox, tend to minimize the Ron Paul effect. Sure, he didn't do well in the 2008 primaries, but he was predicting the financial meltdown that happened at the height of the general election campaign that year. Nobody wanted to believe him, but a lot of people have woken up since then. The Ron Paul supporters in 2008 were the forerunners to the T.E.A. Party. That movement has many more registered Republicans than Democrats, and they vote in very large percentages, so it will have a heavy influence on who becomes the Republican nominee.

Sarah Palin won't be on the ticket in 2012, or ever again. If she is, they'll lose.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you actually telling me that you think Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell?

I'm ever amazed at peoples' ability to believe their own bullshit.


As for Palin- I agree that they'll lose if she's on the ticket. But what choice do they have? Going up against Obama/Clinton, the Repubs will be forced to find a 'me too' candidate again. And their non-white-male presidential material is few and far between. They got Palin, maybe Rubio... who else?

And do you really think the Bubba Vote will turn out for a Mexican With a Boat like Rubio? Ain't gonna happen. And we both know that the Republicans have no chance if they can't turn out the Bubba Vote. Palin has a proven track record in that area.

We will get what they feed us. Plain and simple.

Another bland election voting the lesser of the evil.

You gotta quit doing this shit nitro. That makes twice in one evening that you've posted something I agree with. I'm seriously questioning my world view now.

Help us Dr. Ron you are are only hope!!!!!!!!!!

Bighead wrote:

Do I understand you correctly? Are you actually telling me that you think Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell?

I'm ever amazed at peoples' ability to believe their own bullshit.


As for Palin- I agree that they'll lose if she's on the ticket. But what choice do they have? Going up against Obama/Clinton, the Repubs will be forced to find a 'me too' candidate again. And their non-white-male presidential material is few and far between. They got Palin, maybe Rubio... who else?

And do you really think the Bubba Vote will turn out for a Mexican With a Boat like Rubio? Ain't gonna happen. And we both know that the Republicans have no chance if they can't turn out the Bubba Vote. Palin has a proven track record in that area.

Herman Cain gets a lot of Republicans excited. He came in second in the Tea Party straw poll. The reason he is against an audit of the Fed is probably because he is the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City.

Chris Christie gets a lot of support on the talk radio circuit. Bobby Jindal is usually mentioned in discussions, as are Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee.

I think that if there was a one-on-one debate between Ron Paul and Barry Oblahblah, people would see the clear difference and Paul would be the winner.

I read today that the U.S. military is preparing a plan for intervening in Libya at the president's direction, even though 67% of the people want us to stay out.

Bighead wrote:

I'm seriously questioning my world view now.

You might as well. Everyone else does.

Fox news minimizes the Ron Paul effect because he's not a Reagan worshipping poster boy. And the TEA party seems to have become the ultra radical super republican in libertarian drag party. At least everyone I know supporting the TEA party is really a far righter.

My opinion of the TEA party at this point is a far rightist group who wants the Constitution to back them up and allow them to kill anyone who doesn't go to their church.

Ratzilla wrote:

Fox news minimizes the Ron Paul effect because he's not a Reagan worshipping poster boy. And the TEA party seems to have become the ultra radical super republican in libertarian drag party. At least everyone I know supporting the TEA party is really a far righter.

My opinion of the TEA party at this point is a far rightist group who wants the Constitution to back them up and allow them to kill anyone who doesn't go to their church.

That's funny. The Republican leadership really dislike Ron and Rand.

Ok, I'm going to have to revise my earlier prediction. With Hillary's lack of spotlight-stealing during this recent Bin Laden episode, I'm gonna have to concede that she won't be a vice-presidential candidate in 2012. If that was her plan, we would've seen a lot more of her over the past several days.

I still wonder if Obama will come up with a surprise replacement for Biden (Petraeus??)... but IMO it won't be Hillary. EP is right- she's just too old.

Now a lot can change over the course of a year and a half. But right now Obama's got a BIG boost in the polls, and the Republicans don't yet have a SINGLE viable candidate. Unless the Republicans get their shit together AND Obama's world goes to hell in a handbasket... ya'll are in for another 4 years of our great ObamaNation.


And I bet it just burns your ass.

He got a boost in the polls, but if you remember shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, Bush 41 had an approval rating of 90% and was considered unbeatable. But when it came time for the election, people voted on their wallets and elected someone who wasn't even considered a candidate a year and a half earlier. Clinton's campaign had the main issue right.

It's the economy, stupid!

Hmm yeah I kinda remember. But I was maybe 14 at the time and didn't care a whole lot.

That is a good counter-example, though. Hold onto that if it helps you sleep. But I can name several reasons why the 2012 election won't be a repeat of '92.

First, despite the dearest hopes and prayers of the Republicans- the economy IS recovering (albeit slowly).

Second, in '92 we were finishing up THREE consecutive Republican presidential terms. Rightly or wrongly, people were tired of their (Republicans') shit... and rightly blamed them for the economic downturn.

Thirdly, you gotta admit that Clinton had a very real (if very shallow) charisma. The current crop of GOP front-runners can't claim anything of the sort. Hell, they can't even match Obama in that category.

Bighead wrote:

Hmm yeah I kinda remember. But I was maybe 14 at the time and didn't care a whole lot.

That is a good counter-example, though. Hold onto that if it helps you sleep. But I can name several reasons why the 2012 election won't be a repeat of '92.

First, despite the dearest hopes and prayers of the Republicans- the economy IS recovering (albeit slowly).

Second, in '92 we were finishing up THREE consecutive Republican presidential terms. Rightly or wrongly, people were tired of their (Republicans') shit... and rightly blamed them for the economic downturn.

Thirdly, you gotta admit that Clinton had a very real (if very shallow) charisma. The current crop of GOP front-runners can't claim anything of the sort. Hell, they can't even match Obama in that category.

The economy is headed for the second half of a double-dip recession. They may not be saying or predicting it publicly, but it's coming. And the way money is being printed, there will be inflation that shows up even on their jerry-rigged index. Just compare prices at the grocery store versus a few months ago.

Sorry, but you can't fix the problems of borrowing and spending with more borrowing and spending. If you could, most women would be billionaires.

There is a very good case to be made for this being the third consecutive term of out of control spending, too. Only this term, it has gone into hyper-drive.

As for a candidate with charisma, like I said, Clinton wasn't even on the radar screen in early 1991. And if you listen to the facts instead of the flash, Ron Paul still makes more sense than any of them.

Bignose, tell me what you don't agree with in this clip addressing social issues from last Thursday's debate.

Quote :

The economy is headed for the second half of a double-dip recession. They may not be saying or predicting it publicly, but it's coming. And the way money is being printed, there will be inflation that shows up even on their jerry-rigged index. Just compare prices at the grocery store versus a few months ago.

Well hope springs eternal, or so I'm told. Keep wishing and hoping, and maybe your wildest gloom & doom dreams will come true. But most of us are going on with our lives... as is the economy.

Quote :

Sorry, but you can't fix the problems of borrowing and spending with more borrowing and spending. If you could, most women would be billionaires.

That's some funny shit.

But actually you can... at least so some unknown extent. Because that's exactly what the U.S. (both government and private) has been doing for the past several decades. Will it crash and burn tomorrow? Or will it go on for the rest of our lives? It's anybody's guess. But one thing is for certain: the solutions offered by the Republicans don't even BEGIN to address the problem. Neither do the Democrats' solutions.

Our choice isn't between fiscal responsibility vs. drunken-sailor spending. Our choice only amounts to what KIND of drunken-sailor spending we prefer. Republicans prefer so-called "defense" spending and wealth-redistribution TO billionaires. Democrats prefer to spend money on social engineering schemes and wealth redistribution to poor people.

IOW, all this fiscal responsibility talk is a moot point. If you're harping on that, then you're being spoon-fed. Not that that's a surprise to anybody who knows you.

Quote :

As for a candidate with charisma, like I said, Clinton wasn't even on the radar screen in early 1991.

Are suggesting that there's some charismatic GOP messiah waiting in the wings? I guess I should admire your optimism... but I couldn't even venture a guess as to who that might be. The problem with the GOP platform these days is that it's tailored to fit cynics and xenophobes. Anybody who can rile up ya'll Tea Partiers is going to alienate some voting blocs that you NEED to win.

Any GOP candidate who won't send the independents & hispanics running to vote for Obama will fail to rile up the tea-bagger base. Ya'll have painted yourselves into a demographic corner, and you're holding out hope for an economic disaster that you might take advantage of. It's sad, really.

Quote :

And if you listen to the facts instead of the flash, Ron Paul still makes more sense than any of them.

Yes, he does. I would even consider voting for him if he has some remote chance of winning (not saying I WOULD vote for him... just that I'd entertain the idea). But Ron Paul as a GOP front-runner... let alone President Ron Paul... is pure fantasy. It will never happen.

The Other One wrote:

Bignose, tell me what you don't agree with in this clip addressing social issues from last Thursday's debate.

Sure, I agree with much of what he says there (though I don't share the GOP's "states-rights" fetish that they inherited indirectly from George Wallace).

Problem is that I can't take him seriously- because we all know he won't get the nomination.

And even if he did- I still have some serious doubts about the guy. He's had some pretty questionable associations in the past. And if you read up on some of his stuff from the 90's, his social views don't sound nearly so 'libertarian'.

Ban the Electoral College. Yet I said that before. Media chooses the President, not the people.

Bighead wrote:

Well hope springs eternal, or so I'm told. Keep wishing and hoping, and maybe your wildest gloom & doom dreams will come true. But most of us are going on with our lives... as is the economy.

Read this from today's news on Yahoo and tell me who's dreaming.

Ron would be my pick. He could make any other candidate look like either a fool, or a crook in a one on one debate. But since Newt is in the game now I expect him to get the republican nomination.

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Well hope springs eternal, or so I'm told. Keep wishing and hoping, and maybe your wildest gloom & doom dreams will come true. But most of us are going on with our lives... as is the economy.

Read this from today's news on Yahoo and tell me who's dreaming.

Um... did you even read the article? Or just the headline? That op-ed is bullish for many of the same reasons I am.

The economy has received a major shock, and has to do some major re-structuring. But we're easily THREE YEARS into the restructuring. Unlike you, my faith in the American People isn't dependent on whatever talking-points are being fed to me at the moment by Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox. We've been through much MUCH worse in the past and always came back stronger than ever. I see no reason why it won't happen again. As the stock market in Oct 2007 demonstrated, the absolute WORST time to get into a market is when it's at a record high. And as the stock market in Feb./March 2009 demonstrated, it pays to be bullish when everybody else is bearish. How's that stock market looking these days? My own investments are nearly back to their Oct. 2007 high. They've out-performed the market- which hasn't done bad, itself.

So if you want to keep buying the gold that they're pushing during Glen Beck commercial breaks (near it's several-decade high)... that's your business. But I'm telling you that following the crowd (i.e. buying during a high due to hype and selling during a low due to panic) is a losing bet over the long-term.

Ya'll Republicans have essentially shorted the American economy. You're betting it'll go down- in fact you've staked your political futures on it. I think that's a pretty good example of putting ideology over country... and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes come Nov. 2012. Not only will Obama be re-elected, but the Repubicans are gonna lose ground in the House (though they might manage to hold onto it by a slim margin).

Bighead wrote:

We've been through much MUCH worse in the past and always came back stronger than ever. I see no reason why it won't happen again.

Ain't gonna happen this time. America has no stomach to get off it's ass and do anything about it. Sorry to burst your bubble..

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

We've been through much MUCH worse in the past and always came back stronger than ever. I see no reason why it won't happen again.

Ain't gonna happen this time. America has no stomach to get off it's ass and do anything about it. Sorry to burst your bubble..

Why?

You know why, As well as I.

No, not really. What's changed?



It's been my experience that peoples' outlook on the future of their country/society/etc. is largely a reflection of their own (perceived) future prospects. But maybe you have other reasons.

Bighead wrote:

No, not really. What's changed?



It's been my experience that peoples' outlook on the future of their country/society/etc. is largely a reflection of their own (perceived) future prospects. But maybe you have other reasons.

Nothing has changed, only amplified.

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Well hope springs eternal, or so I'm told. Keep wishing and hoping, and maybe your wildest gloom & doom dreams will come true. But most of us are going on with our lives... as is the economy.

Read this from today's news on Yahoo and tell me who's dreaming.

Um... did you even read the article? Or just the headline? That op-ed is bullish for many of the same reasons I am.

The economy has received a major shock, and has to do some major re-structuring. But we're easily THREE YEARS into the restructuring. Unlike you, my faith in the American People isn't dependent on whatever talking-points are being fed to me at the moment by Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox. We've been through much MUCH worse in the past and always came back stronger than ever. I see no reason why it won't happen again. As the stock market in Oct 2007 demonstrated, the absolute WORST time to get into a market is when it's at a record high. And as the stock market in Feb./March 2009 demonstrated, it pays to be bullish when everybody else is bearish. How's that stock market looking these days? My own investments are nearly back to their Oct. 2007 high. They've out-performed the market- which hasn't done bad, itself.

So if you want to keep buying the gold that they're pushing during Glen Beck commercial breaks (near it's several-decade high)... that's your business. But I'm telling you that following the crowd (i.e. buying during a high due to hype and selling during a low due to panic) is a losing bet over the long-term.

Ya'll Republicans have essentially shorted the American economy. You're betting it'll go down- in fact you've staked your political futures on it. I think that's a pretty good example of putting ideology over country... and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes come Nov. 2012. Not only will Obama be re-elected, but the Repubicans are gonna lose ground in the House (though they might manage to hold onto it by a slim margin).

You missed the point entirely. Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly. I think the author is the one who is dreaming. The fact that the housing market keeps going down is just one indication that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. You might disagree, but the fact that you can never be wrong makes you believe the bullshit that you're being fed by the administration and the mainstream media, including the guy who wrote this article.

Time will tell I reckon.

☑ First they ignore you (Pre-2007)
☑ Then they laugh at you (2007-2008)
☑ Then they fight you (2008-2011)
☐ Then you win
Welcome to the Ron Paul Revolution!

Who's fighting you? I think most of us are still in the laughing stage.

I'd have been laughing at both democrats and republicans for decades if their combined idiocy wasn't affecting me.

If the republicans want a snowballs chance against Obama they'll go with Ron. But I still think Newt is more likely who the republican fundamentalists will choose.

Ron is definitely the LEAST heinous of the Republican contendors IMO. But like Romney, the fundamentalist christians will never vote for the guy. And it's a sad fact that as things stand right now, the Republicans simply can't win without the batshit-crazy fundamentalist vote.

And besides, RP's head isn't nearly square enough.

No republican currently in the race stands a chance. Including RP.

Goddamnit Nitro- just when I finally dismiss you as a drooling mouth-breather... you post something that makes sense. Maybe it's just dumb luck.



As for RP- as much as I would LIKE to see him win the Republican primary... it will never happen. And if it DID happen by some miracle, the press would drag his name though the mud. And there's no shortage of material to so it with- the guy has been around a long time, and has had some questionable associations. Here's what they'll start with:

racism?

more recent racism?

Whether or not you agree with the spin that would be put on these two stories is really a moot point. The accusation along with a semi-plausible quote is all that will be required- and those are readily available.

The reason those stories would be damning is because most of America doesn't have a clue. Ron is absolutely right when he says that he couldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he understands Constitutional law.

He said he agreed that desegregation in the public sector was right, and it was. But you cannot tell one man that he must allow another man to access his private property if the owner chooses to prevent someone from entering or making use of it.

Some bars have rules against biker colors. Stores can ask someone to leave if their appearance or behavior is disturbing customers. The "No shoes, no shirt, no service" signs were still in most places well after the Civil Rights era and can still be seen in places today. Dress codes are commonplace in some establishments.

Civil rights applies to the public. You must allow anyone in a public facilty, but privately owned businesses and organizations have the right to choose who they cater to. A bar owner can post a sign that says no longhairs and the Boy Scouts do not have to accept gay scoutmasters.

Ron is not being racist, he just knows the law and is one of the few in this day and age with the balls to tell the truth.

Well I see where you and Ron are coming from, and I wouldn't necessarily call it 'racism'. Nor would I necessarily care if it was. And if this was 1964 I just might agree with you. But times have changed, and the American people have made their choice. The world has moved on... but Ratzilla, Ron, and a few other dinosaurs haven't.

Really it doesn't matter what you, me, or Ron think about it. He may as well have endorsed child porn as far as any national political aspirations are concerned.

it's not the man who can't be beat it's the machine.

Bighead wrote:

The world has moved on... but Ratzilla, Ron, and a few other dinosaurs haven't.

I agree that it is a different world from 1964 and especially since the founders days. But Constitutional law hasn't changed. The public has only been convinced through false propaganda that it has.

And in at least one case, The Supreme Court agreed with Ron too.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-06-28/justice/scotus.gay.boyscouts_1_boy-scouts-gay-troop-scout-law?_s=PM:LAW

Yes, constitutional law HAS changed. Maybe you don't reckon it should; maybe you disagree with the changes. But it has changed. Life moves on whether you do or not.

I don't have a problem with that Scouts ruling as long as they aren't receiving public funds. But that case has nothing to do with the 1964 civil rights act itself- just similar state legislation protecting certain sacred cows.

And I'll reiterate since you seemed to miss my point earlier: it doesn't really matter what you or I think about the civil rights act and related legislation. What matters in this case is public opinion. And as such, Ron Paul has just flushed whatever infinitesimally small presidential chances he ever had down the toilet.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

it's not the man who can't be beat it's the machine.

+2

I didn't miss anything. I understand that millions of dimwits don't know enough to realize Ron is not being racist and the media is wanting to make sure that politics as usual continues and will whip it up good about how evil this fine man is.

And the basics of Constitutional law has not changed. But sadly millions of citizens such as yourself are being gullible enough, or just uncaring enough to allow politicians and their puppet judges to "pretend" it has.

You really believe that there was EVER a single, universally agreed-upon interpretation of the constitution handed down by God or something? Really?

You're smarter than that.

Even the people who WROTE that goddamned piece of paper couldn't agree on what it meant. As such, I just can't take ya'll shithouse lawyers seriously when act like it's some holy law handed down from on high... only to be contaminated by our corrupt modern ideas. Spare me. And read up on a little history.

There have been major disagreements on how the constitution should be interpreted and applied practically since day 1. And our government hasn't even PRETENDED to follow the original intent and structure since the fukcing CIVIL WAR. Go ahead and re-fight that War Against Northern Aggression if that's what floats your boat, but I got better things to do.

There have been disagreements over the Constitution since day one. But aside from added amendments there has never been one change. But apparently the difference between you and I is that you feel it was never more than a sheet of asswipe. And thanks to "modern thinkers" like you, our politicians treat it that way as often as they can get by with.

Bullshit.

Politicians have been wiping their ass with the constitution from day one- particularly during and immediately after the Civil War. There has NEVER been any real consensus on a number of constitutional issues.

You can swallow the conservative line that the One True Meaning of the Holy Constitution of the United States of America™ has been polluted- and it's all the fault of those evil Libruls. Hundreds of millions of dumbasses all over this land would agree with you. But IMO you're being led around by the nose. Because:

1. Conservatives are JUST as guilty of wiping their ass with the constitution as Libruls (they both do it all the time).
2. There never HAS BEEN a single, agreed-upon interpretation of the Goddamned Piece of Paper anyway.
3. If the constitution ever DID have any real meaning, it was lost 150 YEARS AGO. Our country barely even resembles what the framers had in mind- and that's been the case for well over a century.
4. Truth be known, 95% of Americans wouldn't WANT our government to go back to its original form. Unless you reckon women would gladly cede the right to vote and black people would head back to the plantation. Hell, there's a good chance YOU wouldn't get to vote under our country's original configuration.


I personally don't care much about the constitution. It's just a goddamned piece of paper. It IS a damn useful political tool (that's how it's used on all sides). But there is nothing sacred or immutable about it. Sorry to bust your bubble. But it's time to grow up and quit believing in fairy tales.

Two acts of fiction created my man to control man. One chooses freedom, one chooses slavery. Each left to his own device.

Bighead, that Constitution that you so willingly spit on is what this nation is supposed to be about. Amendments can be added giving rights where they didn't exist, but like it or not without that Constitution and it's Bill of Rights for everyone to fight over the past couple centuries we'd have lost things a hell of a lot faster than we have.

That Constitution was argued over a great deal but it finally got enough approval to be accepted. One reason being is that there is no need for interpretation. You just read it and that's all there is to it. I see no riddles or hidden meanings in it. Only losers with a desire to take someone elses rights away think it needs changed or interpreted.

And don't feed me crap about my republican ideas because I'm no republican. I am an independant and I don't recognize either republican or democrat as defenders of the Constitution. They, like you, both consider it something to be obeyed or ignored as it fits their agendas.

Quote :

One reason being is that there is no need for interpretation. You just read it and that's all there is to it. I see no riddles or hidden meanings in it. Only losers with a desire to take someone elses rights away think it needs changed or interpreted.

Wishful thinking or outright ignorance. Maybe a combination of both.


For example: Please tell me the exact words of the constitution that specify whether or not a corporation is legally considered a 'person', and whether a corporation's "speech" is protected by the first amendment.

Don't give me your reasoning (aka "interpretation"). Please QUOTE the where the constitution specifically addresses this question.







And when you can't do it, maybe you'll understand why 'interpretation' is simply unavoidable. It's fukcing stupid to claim otherwise.

So Huckleberry isn't running. Trump isn't running.

Who's it going to be, Bignose? I only ask since you are the self-appointed authority on all matters.

Bighead, I don't have time to read it clear through. Remind me which part of the Constitution discusses the rights of corporations or calls them a person and I'll answer.