It's perfectly rational and reasonable for the GOP to decide that the evils of their candidate(s) are outweighed by the evils of Ron Paul.

Just another way of putting that.

I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this. Before Paul announced his candidacy, I expressed hope in an Out Magazine profile that Gary Johnson would run for President and be the standard-bearer for these views,"

I've been saying that for some time. Paul should've declined to run and endorsed Johnson instead. Instead the most important issues, the increasing power of the Surveillance/National security state, won't be addressed by either of the major candidates, given that Paul won't get the nomination.

This article is based on the false premise that American liberals (such as myself) are hostile to Ron Paul. Not true. I'm almost as liberal as they come on this site. I welcome his message of ending our foreign adventures in countries in which we have no crucial interest and slashing the military budget. Fuck off rightwing idiots who try to frame the positions of leftwingers whom they have no understanding of.

"I'm almost as liberal as they come on this site. "

You're a liberal, all right. In other words, a weasel, not a leftist.

I'm almost as liberal as they come on this site.

#3 | Posted by moder8

Nice to see you openly drop the "moderate" pretense. You may change your moniker anytime you like, it never suited you, anyhoo.

Not so much as hostile to Ron Paul, but blindly loyal to Obama despite all his broken promises and constitutional transgressions, mod. The fact that the guy has 45% approval, from the same people who called Bush a war criminal and called for impeachment, allows for that generalization.

To my way of thinking, there is no contradiction between being a moderate and being a liberal in the current political environment. The rightwing has gone so far off the cliff in terms of rational public policy that at this point the most "moderate" of thinkers are considered liberal.

Unfortunately ROn Paul has no chance of getting the nomination given the main stream GOP effort to marginalize him.

As a proud liberal, obama has disappointed me to the point I am seriously considering not voting for him (him taking on the power to kill US citizens was the straw). Paul is the only candidate I would consider, because of his progressive and honorable positions on many subjects.

Fuck off rightwing idiots who try to frame the positions of leftwingers whom they have no understanding of.

I would hardly call Glenn Greenwald a liberal.

Of course, anecdotal evidence isn't worth shit, but I know plenty of democrats out there that love what Ron Paul says, more closely align their philosophy on the role of Government with Ron Paul than Obama, and still will not vote for Ron Paul.

The reason for that is usually "I could never vote for anyone other than a democrat" or one of the reasons mentioned in the article (in my experience, usually relating to RP being pro-life or wanting to end all Social Security and starve children to death).

Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for exposing so-called thoughtful democrats.

TH: I really respect your opinion. But I disagree with you when opine about somehow not supporting President Obama in '12. Since 1776 no POTUS has faced a more hostile or more obstructionist Congress than B.O. over the past three years. In spite of that he has accomplished so much. Obviously he has not done all that people such as you and I hoped for. But the alternatives are a nightmare to consider. It still amazes that people who at one point supported GWB still somehow believe that any other GOP alternative might somehow be superior. Keep the faith brother.

I would love to see Moveon.org sponsor a debate between paul and obama

In national security obama is no better than bush, worse in many ways.

the HNC is a disaster from my perspective, a handout to the insurance companies who are at fault for much of our health care problems.

and he has constantly bent over to the repukes.

perhaps anotehr 4 years of repuke disaster could wake people up

It still amazes that people who at one point supported GWB still somehow believe that any other GOP alternative might somehow be superior.

Statements like these are exactly what I'm talking about.

Y'see Bukkake, I could vote for someone other that Obama. I would just have to believe that they genuinely had a snowball's chance of winning.

perhaps anotehr 4 years of repuke disaster could wake people up

#12 | Posted by truthhurts

Wouldn't be so bad. Clear the field of the Obamas and Clintons and run a real progressive in 2016.

No "real" progressive would ever stand a chance of winning a general election. Just as no "real" uber rightwinger such as Santorum or Bachman could ever stand a chance. imo...

I could vote for someone other that Obama. I would just have to believe that they genuinely had a snowball's chance of winning.

Ok. Why does he not have a snowballs chance of winning? You think he's completely incapable of being electable, or you think that TPTB would assassinate him before he could ever take office?

No "real" progressive would ever stand a chance of winning a general election. Just as no "real" uber rightwinger such as Santorum or Bachman could ever stand a chance. imo...

So if all the candidates that do have a chance of being elected are terrible and all the alternative candidates you refuse to vote for because they have no chance of winning, what is the point of voting for the President?

Mitigation. Two steps forward one step back. That is how I would define President Obama's term thus far in a nutshell.

To say Congress has anything, at all, to do with Obama's foreign policy and executive power grabs is a joke. He is CiC. Congress isn't the one forcing him to sign NDAA, to order drone strikes on American citizen teenagers, or torture prisoners. Moder8, your naive belief that supporting him is still the lesser of two evils only brings us to the end at a slower pace, while stopping any potential of an actual change. Draw the line and say "no I won't vote for Dems any more, even if it means the Repubs getting elected" then they'll stop trying to get away with this exact shit you're allowing them to.

"Two steps forward one step back. That is how I would define President Obama's term thus far in a nutshell."

With today's signing of the NDAA? More like one step back. Or maybe two steps back.

Okay. All bullshit aside. I don't know how the NDAA will play out. But neither do you. I am not naive enough to glob onto it as some ultimate evil just because a bunch of skeptics and media types choose to do so. Let's see how it plays out before pronouncing the end of modern American jurisprudence.

"Congress isn't the one forcing him to sign NDAA..."

Who wrote that, anyway?

no modera8 it is indisputably another step down the road, putting into law things that should be anethema to the US.

If this law ever made it to the SC, even a radical conservative judiciary like we have now would have to knock it down, but it never will get there as the judiciary will hide from it as "national security"

I can imagine ACLU will fight this law. I am also interested to see if Alawki's family files a wronful death lawsuit.

it has to stop sometime

I don't know how the NDAA will play out. But neither do you.

But we do know that over the past hundred years, this government has been moving in the direction towards totalitarianism. What no one knows is where it will stop or what will stop it.

TH, I am not so certain that any of us yet know what we are talking about when it comes to the NDAA. Seriously. I acknowledge that in the abstract it sounds like something we should all oppose. Let's see how it is actually implemented. For all the cynicism, Obama is no Bush or Cheney. His desire to set rational limits on authoritarian power thus far has remained intact. Patience.

moder8, obama targeted and killed a US citizen whose only supposed crime was speech that inspired terrorism. that is chilling.

he went and killed another us citizen a teenager.

even bush didnt do that shit

what will the next president do?

obama has expanded a program of bombing another country, engaged us in a civil war and now has the power to disregard the BoR, even if he doesnt use that power, what is next using that law as a precedent.

I for one want to take a stand and one way I have is my vote

"His desire to set rational limits on authoritarian power thus far has remained intact. Patience."

Patriot Act.

Let's see how it is actually implemented.

Yeah sure. Liberty retreats in baby steps. That's the kind of attitude that encourages these pathological criminals.

Methinks M8 ignores the dangers of centralized political power, because he loves the taste of power.

TH: To claim that Al Alwaki was somehow only engaged in benign speech is fallacious. He actively was encouraging terrorist attacks against Americans. There was nothing benign about him. Should the issue of extra-judicially targeting US citizens concern us? Of course. Should Al Alwaki be the poster child? Not if we want ordinary thinking Americans to take the concern seriously.

Yeah Ray. I love the taste of power so much. Because as a public defender representing the most reviled people in American society I enjoy so much power. Politicians and policy makers left and right come to me for my advise. Again, wow.

To claim that Al Alwaki was somehow only engaged in benign speech is fallacious. He actively was encouraging terrorist attacks against Americans. There was nothing benign about him.

That's what trials are designed to determine. Without trial, feds can make up charges against anybody who gets in their way. NDAA made it official.

Wait to see how NDAA plays out? Germany did that with the Enabling Act. By the time they realized what was happening three months later, concentration camps were already being built.

Call it extreme and impossible all you want- history says otherwise. And "play out" doesn't cover up the fact that NDAA still is a gross attack on the Bill of Rights. The sheer indifference of Congress and Obama is what's really alarming, not the uncertain outcome.

Yeah Ray. I love the taste of power so much. Because as a public defender representing the most reviled people in American society I enjoy so much power. Politicians and policy makers left and right come to me for my advise. Again, wow.

So what! Power is all you talk about on this site. Winning the next election. To be in the dominant position to make the laws and regulations, and deprive more Americans of their liberties. This nation is well on the road to self destruction and your type are part of the problem.

"Methinks M8 ignores the dangers of centralized political power, because he loves the taste of power.

#29 | Posted by Ray

Whereas Ray ignores the dangers of centralized economic power, i.e., Corporate America, Inc.

"Not so much as hostile to Ron Paul, but blindly loyal to Obama"

What a steaming lump of bullshit.

Ron Paul's domestic policies are an anathema to the left. Anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-social safety net, pro-deregulation and anti-environment. Of course, all under the whitewashed states' rights banner.

Righties should understand that his non-intervention position wouldn't last 30 seconds after a terrorist attack but his "fuck everybody, I've got mine" domestic policies would last every second of every day.

I would just have to believe that they genuinely had a snowball's chance of winning.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2011-12-31 07:56 PM

And this is the meat of a lawyer? What a dumbass you are. Instead of voting for the person you think most closely aligns with your beliefs you settle for shit because it'll win.

I pity your clients.

Conservatives have also long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. Sadly most DEM or REP office holders acct according to their retoric on these issues.

Y'see Bukkake, I could vote for someone other that Obama. I would just have to believe that they genuinely had a snowball's chance of winning.

#14 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2011-12-31 07:56 PM

Obama ran as a progressive in '08 and won by a landslide. He would not have won or won by as much if he had campaigned as a moderate republican, which he ultimately governs as. So it's not that progressive candidates can't win, they can, it's that Obama is either a poor leader or a cynical political player.

I'm gonna fix this for you.

Obama ran as a progressive in '08 and won by a landslide. He would not have won or won by as much if he had campaigned as a moderate republican, which he ultimately governs as. So it's not that progressive candidates can't win, they can, it's that Obama is either a poor leader or a cynical political player that I'll vote for again regarless.

#39 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-01-01 01:28 PM |

There ya are.

#39

One reason I supported Hil over Obama for the #1 spot on the ticket is that Obama was a consensus builder; one who appointed his advisories to the Law Review instead of his supporters, when I felt we needed more of a partisan progressive... and one who would not be surprised at the extraordinary level of vitriol, hate, gridlock, and the willingness to hurt the country to help their Party that he had to face.

TH, I am not so certain that any of us yet know what we are talking about when it comes to the NDAA. Seriously. I acknowledge that in the abstract it sounds like something we should all oppose.
#26 | POSTED BY MODER8

Of course. The feds trashed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all with benign good intentions. I can imagine M8 would have said that about RICO. When it was passed into law, it was supposed to apply to organized crime. But it wasn't long before it became an excuse for property confiscation related to drug laws, even when the property owner had no knowledge of the crime.

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, 2.3 million out of a population of 300 million. That should serve as a warning that Americans are more at risk from government than from street thugs and foreign terrorists. The alleged protector has now become the predator.

advisories = adversaries

First off I'm tired of hearing what any single group including Jews in the US media think of the world. I don't a flying fuck what 1% of the world thinks. I mostly give a shxt what 99% of the world thinks.

The world is made up of billions of people and only a tiny tidbit of them are of the Israeli-Jewish tribe, and yet by way of TV appearance get the only say-so and opportunity to tell the 99% of us how we should think. I don't oppose those of Jewish faith, but I oppose a crony society that supports only a minority while casting off the views of the rest of society.

I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this.
#2 | Posted by nullifidian

What baggage? Seriously, tell us what you don't like about Ron Paul and what you "think" his background is all about. If you don't like his beliefs, then I can respect that, but if you buy into the unproven lies, then you have the problem.

I want to see how much of the untruth is still floating around out there in the Liberal world. There is quite a bit. I hear myths and untruths all the time from Liberals and when I set them straight, they realize that Ron Paul is genuine.

Here's a test. What would you say or ask of Ron Paul if you were both sitting at a table having a beer--no other intimidations or distractions.

"What baggage? Seriously, tell us what you don't like about Ron Paul "

I didn't say that. Glen Greenwald said that. Ask him. Paul has baggage. Newsletters. Kooky statements. Sorry, your hero is flawed. I may vote for him anyway, depending on what the final table looks like, but he's your Messiah, not mine.

I'm gonna fix this for you.

Obama ran as a progressive in '08 and won by a landslide. He would not have won or won by as much if he had campaigned as a moderate republican, which he ultimately governs as. So it's not that progressive candidates can't win, they can, it's that Obama is either a poor leader or a cynical political player that I'll vote for again regarless.

#39 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-01-01 01:28 PM |

There ya are.

#40 | Posted by Washboard

I don't agree with your "fix" 100%.

I think that Obama dishonestly ran as a moderate in '08 and then immediately flipped into a far-left "Progressive" whatever that word means. He is also working closely with the Neocons keeping with Bush's plan.

Sorry, but I am not passionate about keeping Obama to one term, but I will not be sad if he doesn't win in 2012. The reason for this is that he will become a non-entity much like Clinton was and the country will be run by Congress... Again. It won't hurt us, but who wants that?

I didn't say that. Glen Greenwald said that. Ask him. Paul has baggage. Newsletters. Kooky statements. Sorry, your hero is flawed. I may vote for him anyway, depending on what the final table looks like, but he's your Messiah, not mine.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian

You're right. He is a hero. I admire him. If I believed that he had anything to do with the content of those Newsletters, I would not support him.

The issue with the Newsletter is bullshit. He has successfully distanced himself from it. If you don't know this, then you are not paying attention.

Honestly, and when I say honestly, I f%cking mean HONESTLY. Now compare Ron Paul’s non-involvement with Barack Obama's complete and total involvement with Jeremiah Wright and his church.

There's no comparison is there?

The only reason you keep bringing it up is because there's nothing else and you have to bring up something.

Kooky statements? Any examples?

Again, I will respect you if you don't believe the same way he does about how the country should be governed.

What baggage? Seriously, tell us what you don't like about Ron Paul and what you "think" his background is all about. If you don't like his beliefs, then I can respect that, but if you buy into the unproven lies, then you have the problem.

Ron Paul has baggage. If you don't think so, you aren't being honest with yourself. The newsletters and his complete and total inability to handle questions about them in a nimble fashion are very much baggage for Paul. It is an absolute joke that in 4+ years, his campaign staff has not prepared him to answer those questions in a more proficient fashion.

He also does a terrible job of making stupid people understand his positions. He doesn't do a good job of explaining how he is going to preserve existing social programs for those who have paid into them all their life. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me that Ron Paul was going to take their check, I'd be rich.

He also gets easily suckered into discussions that are purely philosophical, but bring absolutely nothing to his campaign. What is appropriate for discussing with Rand and the family at Christmas dinner is not necessarily appropriate to talk about in a forum that the American people will hear. I'm sure talking about how the Civil Rights Act is philosophically wrong and Unconstitutional is an awesome discussion. However, openly talking about things like that are of zero benefit and can only hurt his campaign...yet he continues to do it.

Libertarians were often called Liberals during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. By Republicans. Don't tell me who it is that is really confused.

I've listened to Paul. When he gets to a particularly thorny item, such as medical care, that Libertarianism might just have a WEE bit of problem handling, he punts the issue.

FTA: Even though I don't support him for President, Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.

Agreed.

From ending costly and largely unproductive foreign entanglements and putting the lid on the notion of "pre-emptive war" to challenging the conglomerate of elites who own too many on both sides of the aisle Ron Paul's presence in this campaign is a positive thing.

He's not afraid to ask the tough questions and get a few boos from audiences instead of just parroting the latest pre-approved, pre-polled and focused-grouped sound bytes to emerge from the various RW corporate think tanks around the country set up for that very purpose in order to sell politics to the masses like freakin' toothpaste.

For that much alone the guy demands some respect.

There is talk on the left that Paul ultimately if Obama did lose to him would not make a bad POTUS in that his foreign agenda (ending wars, decreasing AID monies etc are far more doable than his state's rights derp domestic policies.

That noted, he a very old man and the job is very tough on the guy behind the desk.

He's already said he's not gonna run again for his current seat when it comes up. This is truly his last hurrah in American politics.

Would like to see him stick it out to the very end and make the final convention a barn burner rather than a snooze fest political ad.

Certainly like him a shiat-ton more than any of the other GOP hopefuls with the possible exception of Huntsman who's numbers are too woeful to even consider him.

Be Well.

Ron Paul has baggage. If you don't think so, you aren't being honest with yourself. The newsletters and his complete and total inability to handle questions about them in a nimble fashion are very much baggage for Paul. It is an absolute joke that in 4+ years, his campaign staff has not prepared him to answer those questions in a more proficient fashion.

#49 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Wow! He did just fine answering the questions.

It's a non-issue and he treated it as a non-issue.

What do you want him to do? Admit that he was responsible for the content? Would that make you happy?

Of course it would make you happy, you idiots are browbeating him into making a false confession!

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Really. What do you think he could say that would satisfy you and the Bush lovers.

He doesn't do a good job of explaining how he is going to preserve existing social programs for those who have paid into them all their life.

Because it's impossible. If Paul told them the truth, his candidacy would end in a day. I find it hard to believe Paul seriously expects to be elected. The bureaucracy under him would eat him up and spit him out. That's what really runs this country. Politicians are figureheads to give the impression voters have control over their government.

He also gets easily suckered into discussions that are purely philosophical, but bring absolutely nothing to his campaign. What is appropriate for discussing with Rand and the family at Christmas dinner is not necessarily appropriate to talk about in a forum that the American people will hear. I'm sure talking about how the Civil Rights Act is philosophically wrong and Unconstitutional is an awesome discussion. However, openly talking about things like that are of zero benefit and can only hurt his campaign...yet he continues to do it.

#49 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Bullshit! This is precisely why a non-politician (someone not playing the game) like him is making so much headway.

I've been following Ron Paul since 2006 when he had less than a few hundred thousand followers outside his constituency.

His "purely philosophical" discussions have attracted millions of Americans into thinking that it just might be possible to elect an honest person into the White House who is unenforceable and will do what he says he's going to do.

You have to remember that he needs to get Congress to agree with him.

What do you think he could say that would satisfy you and the Bush lovers.

#52 | Posted by Eddie

You might be even dumber than KBM.

I've listened to Paul. When he gets to a particularly thorny item, such as medical care, that Libertarianism might just have a WEE bit of problem handling, he punts the issue.

#50 | Posted by Zed

I'll bet you don't understand what he is saying then. When Ron Paul says that the Federal Government should not be involved, he's talking about it from the Constitutional perspective where the State is responsible for the welfare of it's residents.

I don't think you know what "punt" means or you don't have the capacity to understand what Ron Paul is talking about.

I'm picking on you because most Americans think that it's the Federal Government responsibility to take care of everyone. Where did you pick up this bullshit? When did this happen? Both Democrat and Republican politicians use this tactic to get elected and to expand the size of the Federal Government.

You have to remember that he needs to get Congress to agree with him.

#54 | Posted by Eddie

You have to remember that he has to get the country to agree with him.

What would a Libertarian do with Yosemite National Park, EDDIE?

What do you think he could say that would satisfy you and the Bush lovers.

#52 | Posted by Eddie

You might be even dumber than KBM.

#55 | Posted by nullifidian

Quiet! The adults are talking now...

You can be a part of the conversation when you can behave.

"His "purely philosophical" discussions have attracted millions of Americans into thinking that it just might be possible to elect an honest person into the White House who is unenforceable and will do what he says he's going to do. "

I suppose you meant to say he was incorruptible. In any event, you're gushing like an Obamabot in 2008.

"I'll bet you don't understand what he is saying then".

Paul? In the case of medical care, I heard him state that it would be the churches who picked up the slack for deep-sixed medical care programs.

I didn't misunderstand that. I was, however, waiting for some story from him as to how the churches would accomplish that, or how he knew they'd even be willing, but he sat on it.

That's one definition of punting, by the way, to say nebulous and high-sounding nothings and just sort of trust to the future to be on your side somehow.

"I'm picking on you because most Americans think that it's the Federal Government responsibility to take care of everyone."

Well, then, if most Americans believe something then that must be the very definition of...

... Democracy.

Or, perhaps, that's the result of representatives representing their constituents in a...

... Democratic Republic (a representative democracy).

How's that whole national park question coming, EDDIE? You have no real need to hide from it. I've had more than one Libertarian tell me what they'd do with those parks.

He's already said he's not gonna run again for his current seat when it comes up. This is truly his last hurrah in American politics.

#51 | Posted by dethspud

I like your honesty, Spud.

The truth is that he is getting up there in age, but he's pretty sharp for a 77 year old.

My deepest thought on this, Spud, is that I don't think Paul is in this to win it, but he is coming very close this time. I think he's in it to shake up the Republican Party to its Neocon roots.

I suppose you meant to say he was incorruptible. In any event, you're gushing like an Obamabot in 2008.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah, I just got an IPad and it's replacing words for me automatically and I'm not paying attention.

Anyway, you're not answering my question...

"but he's pretty sharp for a 77 year old. "

If he was really interested in promoting his ideas rather than his ego, he would have endorsed Gary Johnson rather than running himself.

#54 | Posted by Eddie

You have to remember that he has to get the country to agree with him.

What would a Libertarian do with Yosemite National Park, EDDIE?

#57 | Posted by Zed

That's a good question. Ask a Libertarian.

I think you're trying to say that Ron Paul is 100% Libertarian. He's not. There are many ideals that he subscribes to, but he doesn't follow that belief system 100%. I don't think the Libertarian Party even knows what that is.

But, you do.

Why don't you tell us.

"I don't think the Libertarian Party even knows what that is. "

The Libertarian party doesn't know what libertarianism is? Then why do they call themselves "libertarian"?

Zed...

Zed....

Why don't you tell us.

#66 | Posted by Eddie at

Thanks, EDDIE. Libertarians, but I assume only the pure-bred ones, would sell off the national parks into private ownership, there to be developed for "highest use".

"but he's pretty sharp for a 77 year old. "

If he was really interested in promoting his ideas rather than his ego, he would have endorsed Gary Johnson rather than running himself.

#65 | Posted by nullifidian

I like Gary Johnson, but I don't know him at all. He's got a ways to go.

Did that answer your question?

Ron Paul would ask the churches to take over medical care for those who can't afford it, which would be almost all of us at some point in our lives.

My church privately supports two important social service programs for two of the most desperate and vulnerable classes of people, one of these being physically abused women.

But we couldn't deal with general medical care, no matter how much we wanted to. Insufficent resources. It's the sort of thing that makes you listen to people like Paul and understand just how far he's inserted his head up his ass.

Why don't you tell us.

#66 | Posted by Eddie at

Thanks, EDDIE. Libertarians, but I assume only the pure-bred ones, would sell off the national parks into private ownership, there to be developed for "highest use".

#69 | Posted by Zed

But where does Ron Paul talk about selling off National Parks?

I think you know the answer is no.

I think he's in it to shake up the Republican Party to its Neocon roots.

Are ya sitting down?

Spud thinks yer right.

*looks around for signs of an oncoming apocalypse*

Hey, that wasn't as bad as Spud thought it was gonna be.

Be Well.

/Skyrim time, biatches.
//Level 41 Wood Elf Bow dood with mad ninja skillz.
///Already Crushed a civil war, was made archmage of the Mages College, then leader of the Dark Brotherhood of Assasins by assassinating the Emperor , then Head Bard at the Bards College after the old burnt up, then Leader of a newly reinvigorated Thieves Guild and am currently working me way up in the Companions before toodling off to do grab the last few th'um and do the final end quests again. S'fun.

I think you know the answer is no.

#72 | Posted by Eddie at 2012

EDDIE, your defense of Paul is essentially that he isn't really a complete nazi. You want me to ask the full nazis what they would do, and leave Paul alone.

Pardon me, but if you're Jewish this is not reassuring.

Ron Paul would ask the churches to take over medical care for those who can't afford it, which would be almost all of us at some point in our lives.

My church privately supports two important social service programs for two of the most desperate and vulnerable classes of people, one of these being physically abused women.

But we couldn't deal with general medical care, no matter how much we wanted to. Insufficent resources. It's the sort of thing that makes you listen to people like Paul and understand just how far he's inserted his head up his ass.

#71 | Posted by Zed

Wow. We can all see that you are the one with the head-up-ass.

Paul said that "in the early days of his career, we never turned anyone away. The hospital organizations and churches took care of the people in need".

Where do you get that Ron Paul would ask the churches to take over medical care.

Where do you get that Ron Paul would ask the churches to take over medical care.

#75 | Posted by Eddie at

Um, probably when he used the word "churches", EDDIE.

"But where does Ron Paul talk about selling off National Parks?"

Here:

Paul said that "in the early days of his career, we never turned anyone away

#75 | Posted by Eddie

Paul has never been asked to back-up that statement, which seems in stark contrast to what I've seen or been told concerning those "Good Old Days".

I could vote for someone other that Obama. I would just have to believe that they genuinely had a snowball's chance of winning.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2011-12-31 07:56 PM

That's what makes Obamatards so fucking pathetic. They pretend he doesn't have them to count on as absolutely voting for him in the next election, pretend to be "disappointed" with him on a number of things while making excuses every time he violates their pseudo-liberal philosophy, and then go on to pretend that if only those "more reasonable" Republicans had a shot in hell of winning the nomination, they would gladly vote against their man, Obama.

This is why I enjoy watching real liberals, those who actually have some level of self respect for their philosophies, (TH for example), put you fakers in their place.

Skyrim time, biatches.

#73 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-01 09:03 PM

I don't think I'll be seeing much of her in the coming months.

I think you know the answer is no.

#72 | Posted by Eddie at 2012

EDDIE, your defense of Paul is essentially that he isn't really a complete nazi. You want me to ask the full nazis what they would do, and leave Paul alone.

Pardon me, but if you're Jewish this is not reassuring.

#74 | Posted by Zed

OMG! A Nazi? Are you that threatened by reducing the size of the Federal Government?

Come on, really?

Paul said that "in the early days of his career, we never turned anyone away

#75 | Posted by Eddie

Paul has never been asked to back-up that statement, which seems in stark contrast to what I've seen or been told concerning those "Good Old Days".

#78 | Posted by Zed

LOL!

Keep trying...

"Where do you get that Ron Paul would ask the churches to take over medical care."

Here:

"But where does Ron Paul talk about selling off National Parks?"

Here:

Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be 'Sold Off To Private Owners'

#77 | Posted by Hans

Uh... *snap* *snap*... Hans? HANS!!??

We are talking about National Parks here.

The US government owns millions of acres of unused land.

Come on, really?

#81 | Posted by Eddie at

Don't get too confused by use of the word "nazis", EDDIE. The word was used to make a point.

Everyone understands that Paul is not a nazi, merely a person who belongs to a political philosophy that would allow the owners of food to sell it overseas to maximize profit rather than sell it to their own countrymen in famine.

The US government owns millions of acres of unused land.

#84 | Posted by Eddie at 2012

That's what a National Park is, EDDIE. Unused land.

"We are talking about National Parks here."

Uh... *snap* *snap*... Eddie? EDDIE!!??

National Parks are lands owned by the US government.

"Where do you get that Ron Paul would ask the churches to take over medical care."

Here:

"We've given up on this concept that we might assume responsibility for ourselves, that our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it," said Paul, an opponent to federal healthcare as well Medicaid and Medicare plans.

#83 | Posted by Hans

Thank you Hans for painting Zed into a corner.

Now you and Zed are saying that the Federal Government is more capable of taking care of us than our local systems that have worked for centuries.

You may not realize this, but many hospitals are owned by religious organizations.

Keep trying...

#82 | Posted by Eddie at 2012

What, about medical care? I know how my grandparents lived and died, EDDIE. Without medical care, and dead at early ages for most because of that..

"We are talking about National Parks here."

Uh... *snap* *snap*... Eddie? EDDIE!!??

National Parks are lands owned by the US government.

#87 | Posted by Hans

LOL!!!

Show me where he said he wanted to sell off National Parks?

I'll be ignoring you from now on Hans. You're being a clown.

"Now you and Zed are saying that the Federal Government is more capable of taking care of us than our local systems that have worked for centuries."

What, about medical care? I know how my grandparents lived and died, EDDIE. Without medical care, and dead at early ages for most because of that..

#89 | Posted by Zed

You're not giving enough information, as usual. I think you are confused because the advanced medical care we have today was not available then?

This is turning into bickering and it's not fun anymore, Zed. You are getting desperate and grasping at straws.

You may not realize this, but many hospitals are owned by religious organizations.

#88 | Posted by Eddie at

No, really....?

Hardly the point. We won't be able to fill the gaps. Especially churches like mine, which are very small.

You're not giving enough information, as usual. I think you are confused because the advanced medical care we have today was not available then?

#92 | Posted by Eddie at 2012

Advanced medical acre, relative to the times, was always available to people of my grandparent's generation WHO COULD AFFORD IT.

Damn, man. You've never heard of the working poor?

Everyone understands that Paul is not a nazi, merely a person who belongs to a political philosophy that would allow the owners of food to sell it overseas to maximize profit rather than sell it to their own countrymen in famine.

#85 | Posted by Zed

Holy Shit! You can't lose gracefully, can you?

Ed 'n' Zed.

A match made in Heaven.

"Show me where he said he wanted to sell off National Parks?"

National Parks are federal public lands owned by the US government.

Zed and Hans are dishonest...

This is turning into bickering and it's not fun anymore, Zed. You are getting desperate and grasping at straws.

#92 | Posted by Eddie at 2012

We're just getting down to cases.

That's what a National Park is, EDDIE. Unused land.
#86 | Posted by Zed

ERRRRR Wrong.

Holy Shit! You can't lose gracefully, can you?

#95 | Posted by Eddie at

I just report what Libertarians tell me they would do, EDDIE. It's not necessary to make things up or exaggerate.

Zed and Hans are dishonest...

#98 | Posted by Eddie at 2012-01-01 09:26 PM

Hans is just kicking your ass.

"Show me where he said he wanted to sell off National Parks?"

National Parks are federal public lands owned by the US government.

Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be 'Sold Off To Private Owners'

You're welcome.

#97 | Posted by Hans

You're a liar Hans...

A buffoon and a liar.

Pls go and play somewhere else. You've made too much of a fool of yourself here. Didn't long either.

"The Feds have been on a buying spree for years now to tie up mineral rights."

Thank you Teddy Roosevelt... and leaders from then until now.

In my view - Ron Paul offers a few very important philosophies that neither Obama nor the other hacks even consider.

End the our role of global policeman and imperialist war monger. It was what resulted in and cost us on 9-11. It is a disservice to every American. No more wars in the ME including Iran. End our beholden relationship and billion dollar payouts to Israel and Egypt and Jordan and Syria. End it all now. End our costly relationship with the ME in all aspects. Remove us from that land and rebuild the USA instead. Fxxk the ME.

Zed is.

Hans is just kicking your ass.

#102 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

LOL!!!

Nice try.

You're a trolling idiot, so no harm done.

"The Feds have been on a buying spree for years now to tie up mineral rights."

Thank you Teddy Roosevelt... and leaders from then until now.

#104 | Posted by Hans

That's true.

The question was about National Parks.

Link to something about "National Parks"

LOL!!!

Are you being stupid on purpose?

"Hans is just kicking your ass."

Funny you would bring up Jindal...

Jindal is doing really well in Louisiana. Louisiana is doing VERY well because of Jindal.

LOL!!

Again, I ask.

Are you being stupid on purpose?

this is getting boring.

Spud, where is the Intervention Cat? I need the Intervention Cat.

Hans,

Everyone is gone now.

It's just you. See ya. F&cking clown.

NATIONAL PARKS, Hans.

NATIONAL PARKS

BWAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!

f%cking idiot.

"Funny you would bring up Jindal... "

Whatever happened to old Jindi the Hindi, anyway? Is he still alive?

Wow! He did just fine answering the questions.

It's a non-issue and he treated it as a non-issue.

What do you want him to do?Admit that he was responsible for the content?Would that make you happy?

No, he didn't do fine answering the questions.

What I wanted him to do was segue from the topic of the newsletters to his specific policies and positions that clearly show the difference between the newsletters and reality.

Of course it would make you happy, you idiots are browbeating him into making a false confession!

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Really. What do you think he could say that would satisfy you and the Bush
lovers.

How about a single iota of glibness?

You are incapable of talking about this with an honest assessment.

You are incapable of talking about this with an honest assessment.

#115 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

I'm just wondering what part of "you idiots are browbeating him into making a false confession!" did you not understand?

Again, what would you have him do that would satisfy you?

Again, what would you have him do that would satisfy you?

Read what I write and respond to it. I think your choice to ignore what I'm saying speaks volumes.

Eddie, you're retarded.

Please, STFU.

"Eddie, you're retarded."

Even a fucking 30 year old child can figure that out.
I just went to see Tinker Taylor etc with my 90 YO father-in-law.
My FIL used to maintain nukes at Sandia before he taught high school physics in Austin.
Before that he worked the Berlin Airlift in his Air Force career along with my dad.
They never met.

He schooled me on plot details.

Do what you like till you drop.
I had lunch last month with an 80 year old who shares memories with me of Janis Joplin at Threadgill's way back when.

Party on!
My kids like me.

The rest of you can kiss my ass.

Thats crap, Obama ran as a hip, good-looking black man, and won.. He persuaded the uninformed to vote for him in hip ads & slogans; along with a few million ACORN votes, and deceased voters. And, as much as he has had to move to the center, mainstream America doesn't like his policies. While a progressive may have stood a chance before, I think the Obama "experience" will assure that won't happen for awhile.

With a $15T national debt, and Obama asking for another $1.2T, this country can't withstand 4 more years of this, and intelligent people understand that. Koolaid-drinkers will still vote their party, but many people are waking up, declaring themselves independant.

"As a proud liberal, obama has disappointed me to the point I am seriously considering not voting for him (him taking on the power to kill US citizens was the straw). Paul is the only candidate I would consider, because of his progressive and honorable positions on many subjects."

Could a true leftist actually support Paul? I get the being on the same page when it comes to foreign policy, but the left has always regarded individual rights as being secondary to the good of the kollektiv. I have no doubts that Paul would do his best to disable the nanny state, which is the source of the left's political power.

It would be like exxon stumping in support of outlawing fossil fuels. I would like to think it's true, but I just can't see those who are fans of redistribution ever being able to support Paul.

"Thanks, EDDIE. Libertarians, but I assume only the pure-bred ones, would sell off the national parks into private ownership, there to be developed for "highest use"."

What's wrong with that? More and more public land is being removed from practical public usage. At least if it were auctioned off to the highest bidder it could be put to use. Not that Yosemite isn't, but one has to suspect that the most profitable use of that land would involve allowing people access for a fee.

"Two steps forward one step back. That is how I would define President Obama's term thus far in a nutshell."

With today's signing of the NDAA? More like one step back. Or maybe two steps back.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian

Obama does take 3 steps, but he goes full circle do it.

It is an absolute joke that in 4+ years, his campaign staff has not prepared him to answer those questions in a more proficient fashion...

...He also does a terrible job of making stupid people understand his positions.

#49 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

I could be wrong, but didn't you just call yourself stupid?

Eddie, you're retarded.

Please, STFU.

#118 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

If you would grow up, then you would understand what I was saying.

Young ignorant f%ckers like you annoy me; you can't argue the point so you attack the person. F%ck you, you dumb little shit! You have good input from time to time and you are tolerated when you act like a grown up, but you are an idiot when you troll.

Stop being an idiot!

Pay attention to the conversation!!

F&ck! You are almost as idiotic as Rex.

The rest of you can kiss my ass.

#119 | Posted by Zatoichi

Stay drunk Zat...

"Stay drunk Zat..."

eddie: "Zat, you're drunk!"

Zat: "Yeah, well, eddie, you're stupid. I'll be sober tomorrow, but you'll be stupid for the rest of your life."

Now Hans, that's better. Losing gracefully is a virtue. You're getting better at it.

Find anything about Nation Parks yet?

Any issue that would "confuse" liberals about Ron Paul should also confuse Ron Paul about Ron Paul since he's calling himself a Republican for some reason.

Any issue that would "confuse" liberals about Ron Paul should also confuse Ron Paul about Ron Paul since he's calling himself a Republican for some reason.

#128 | Posted by RastaCyborg

Ron Paul is a Conservative Republican with a leaning toward Libertarian.

He's very successful in shaking the Republican Party to its Neocon roots.

Ever heard of the "Tea Party?"

I could be wrong, but didn't you just call yourself stupid?

You're wrong.

The first statement had to do with RP being articulate when it comes to questions that he knows he is going to have to answer.

The second statement has to do with comforting people's fears of the unknown. The media spends much of its time fear mongering when talking about RP. He needs to do a better job emphasizing the positive changes associated with him being elected.

Stop being an idiot!

Pay attention to the conversation!!

Anytime you're ready, let me know Eddie.

Anytime you're ready, let me know Eddie.

#131 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

I think I successfully countered your argument against Ron Paul.

Do you have any more?

Ever heard of the "Tea Party?"

#129 | Posted by Eddie

Yeah, it's a bunch of Republicans with the misguided belief that they've formed a new party.

Yes, I'm willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America's minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for "espionage," and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support)

Well, I'm sure Ron Paul voted for George Bush, so that would mean that he supports all of these things just as much as the "confused" liberals.

Sad that Paul has no chance. Limited govt and reduced role as a superpower align with my beliefs pretty well. Gutting social programs is bad but the good outweighs the bad.

I think I successfully countered your argument against Ron Paul.

You didn't counter anything. You said what should he do different. I told you. You ignored it.

Well, I'm sure Ron Paul voted for George Bush, so that would mean that he supports all of these things just as much as the "confused" liberals.

How do you know? Oh, that's right, you think it's about donkey vs. Elephant.

That's the nice thing about Ron Paul is you can check his voting record. Of course, that requires a little more effort and honesty than assumptions.

Could a true leftist actually support Paul? I get the being on the same page when it comes to foreign policy, but the left has always regarded individual rights as being secondary to the good of the kollektiv. I have no doubts that Paul would do his best to disable the nanny state, which is the source of the left's political power.
#121 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2012-01-02 05:17 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I have no problem whatsoever with socialism - as long as it's truly democratically controlled (not "the party," not to be confused with communism, ie more like sweden than cuba) and I would vote RP over Obama in a heartbeat.

Two things going for that. First, Obama's "liberal spending" hasn't happened in the way it should for someone looking out for the people - rather than say, buy up out of control adjustable mortgages and renegotiate the contracts so homeowners could keep property and slowly allow the housing bubble to readjust, he simply followed the Bush big-government/screw the little people philosophy, and bailed out the banks. The little guy ended up homeless, their neighbors ended up hearing the sucking sound of their own property values, and bankers, but nobody else, got socialism.
Second, liberals are no more beholden to one set of values than a libertarian and a neocon both running repub. There is often a break between economic rights and civil rights, at least in my mind. I don't care if you light up a joint and dance naked in the street, so long as I know you don't own a monopoly that can take my livelihood and ability to compete away.

Also, the office of president would give RP the power to dismantle enforcement of things like the patriot act, bring soldiers home, and a strong bully pulpit from which to call for congress to stop wasting our money on foreign powers that still hate us. He wouldn't have power to make them change the budget on social safety nets.

Ever heard of the "Tea Party?"
#129 | POSTED BY EDDIE AT 2012-01-02 11:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yeah - that's the Republican evangelical base that still thinks Batshit would make an excellent president because she would cut social security and medicare while still making sure Israel had enough income to maintain their single payer system - just so Jebus knows where to land. It's anecdotal, but the only tea party people I have met in real life at the time supported Herman Cain, because they still wanted Big Gov in the military business, just not the business of helping the less fortunate in our own nation. (Not how they phrased it, obviously :) )

/Skyrim time, biatches.
//Level 41 Wood Elf Bow dood with mad ninja skillz.
///Already Crushed a civil war, was made archmage of the Mages College, then leader of the Dark Brotherhood of Assasins by assassinating the Emperor , then Head Bard at the Bards College after the old burnt up, then Leader of a newly reinvigorated Thieves Guild and am currently working me way up in the Companions before toodling off to do grab the last few th'um and do the final end quests again. S'fun.

#73 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD AT 2012-01-01 09:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I so want to play that, but no time! SWTOR just came out. I only have one week until the next semester begins too. Then, between work, class, and saving the galaxy, the only thing left to sacrifice is sleep :(

Well, I'm sure Ron Paul voted for George Bush, so that would mean that he supports all of these things just as much as the "confused" liberals.

#135 | Posted by RastaCyborg at 2012-01-02 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag

Now this guy is a real intellectual! We all know that when we vote for an individual that some of the things done are not to our liking or support.

I like this guy though, we can definitely count on him to be from one extreme to the other. Not much grey zone here. The scary thing though, his personal life has to be hell for those living around him, all those high peaks and valleys.

Someone should buy him a dimmer switch.

Paul confuses liberals because he is a tin-foil hat wearing leader of Paulbots that are so belligerently in love with him they follow him on bloody stumps through the snow no matter what kind of bat-shit-crazy policies he has.

You are almost as idiotic as Rex.

#124 | Posted by Eddie at 2012-01-02 09:03 AM

Now this guy is a real intellectual! We all know that when we vote for an individual that some of the things done are not to our liking or support.

#140 | Posted by moneywar

Uhhh, yeah. That was my entire point. The article implies that liberals who voted for Obama support everything that he did and are "confused" because Ron Paul supports some of the same things that they do.

I like Paul because he blows open the debate. Just look at this thread. Everyone is turning on everyone else. There are very few that can't find something they like about Paul's ideals. Sure they can all find something they hate too. It is a truly facinating thing to watch what he has done for political discourse in this country.

Yeah I'm a Paulbot or whatever you want to call me but I am realistic enough to admit that yes he has some bagage. I mean no mistresses or secret gay lovers or meth habit or anything but some bagage sure. I don't even love all his ideas but I love enough of them to counteract those I hate.

I do want him to get the nomination if for no other reason than to see him debate Obama.

I think I successfully countered your argument against Ron Paul.

You didn't counter anything. You said what should he do different. I told you. You ignored it.

#137 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

My counter was that you think that he should confess to knowing about it and apologize.

He didn't know about it, so why should he apologize.

What you suggested is bullshit. He should give some politicized statement that would satisfy the people who are already against him?

LOL!!!

That's the beautiful part about Ron Paul. He's not a politician. He's not going to give you an answer that is not true. It is what it is and you can take it or leave it.

What a stupid article, Ron Paul is attracting liberals not pushing them away.

This is why the democrat party is afaid of Paul, they are losing their voters to Paul.

"This is why the democrat party ..."

In America there is no such thing as a "democrat party."

On the other hand, this was from the author of such gems as:

Wow! Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

In Kantian fashion, our moral disposition is being confronted with and tested by the social order and this trend is determined by ethical, political, and juridical power. (Empire!) building.

"Tea Party?" A small group of people who dressed up like indian's and destoryed someone elses property..

Oh hans, did I hurt your feelings, did you pull your pants up above your chest today?

I laugh at the post you always make that have nothing to do with subject matter like there is some disprovable point to your process. Now if I was in the 3rd grade like you so prove to be, I would store useless information about other posters too.

Still the democrat party is worried about the aspect of Ron Paul because he is stealing votes in a major way from the lazy do nothing party and it is for good reason.

If it comes to obama and paul my vote will be for paul, and I think there are millions of others out there who feel the same as I.

So go dust off some more 3rd grade stored information and post that too.

Ron Paul is a mentally unstable loser, whose moronic cultilke followers have thrown out their life long beliefs because some far far left goon incoherently mumbles something about the constitution.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.

The only thing now I have to worry about with Hans is he will throw another virus at my computer like always when he meets against someone that doesn't worship at his alter.

And just so everyone here knows, it is true that Hans does this now and again.

"So go dust off some more 3rd grade stored information and post that too."

Okay:

Fortunately, the totality of the empire is not falling in line with the single state policing.

3rd grade stored information posted by moneywar

reasoning skills are necessary to add the post he was responding to to his own.

3rd grade stored information posted by moneywar

"...it is true that Hans does this now and again."

#151 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-02 02:26 PM Flag: paranoia runs deep

NO, just putting the truth out there. Sorry hans

Come on hans, you can do better.

And Wow, didn't know you trolled me so much, not sure how to take such an obsession.

Throw some more out there, get it all out now cause you're the man!

So Moneywar, you are accusing Hans of hacking you?

I've known Hans a long time and I've never known him to do anything like that.

"NO, just putting the truth out there. Sorry hans"

Well Rex, I have Known of hans along time too, and yes hans does hack you if you don't eventually cave to him. Nothing serious mind you but still a pain.

"I've known Hans a long time and I've never known him to do anything like that."

Thanks, Rex.

Mr. "reasoning skills are necessary to add the post he was responding to to his own" doesn't have a clue.

Anyone who can have such an obsession as to store and save information for a blog going back years can be clearly seen as someone who would also hack at individuals.

"Anyone who can have such an obsession as to store and save information for a blog going back years can be clearly seen as someone who would also hack at individuals."

Translation:

In Kantian fashion, our moral disposition is being confronted with and tested by the social order and this trend is determined by ethical, political, and juridical power. (Empire!) building.

Oh not so nieve as you think hans, just want to see how much trouble you will go through to get the stuff.

Can't you go back any farther...And by the way

you haven't address the point

The democrat party is afraid of RON PAUL because he will steal needed votes for lazy obama away.

I've known Hans a long time and I've never known him to do anything like that.

#156 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2012-01-02 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag

Really, and how long have you known him?

Hans I mean.

"The democrat party ...."

In America there is no such thing.

Point addressed.

7-8 years now.

Moneywars mental image of Hans.

Try that again...

3rd grade stored information posted by moneywar

You're welcome.

#152 | Posted by Hans

and your posts are better?

Oh, wait. You've yet to make a post other than trolling.

"and your posts are better?"

Here, here. The Drudge Archivist is quite adept at shoving people's words back down their throat.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-03-14 04:47 PM

HANS is one of my favorite posters whos posts are backed up by facts

Posted by AllAmerican at 2007-03-22 03:09 PM

Apropos of nothing, I was reading Hans and Last American go at it today. I have been a member of this site for about a year. I don't think I have witnessed one member so thoroughly discredit and dominate another member the way Hans did to Last American. Hans had LA's number, complete with quotes and cites and sources. It actually was a thing of beauty. Making even more deliciously absurd, LA declared victory and left the thread.

Posted by moder8 at 2007-03-22 08:52 PM

Hans is a bright guy. Sharp memory, biting sarcasm.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-03-23 09:40 AM

Hans gets all the chicks.

Posted by I_N_Cognito at 2007-03-25 12:13 AM

"I have no problem whatsoever with socialism - as long as it's truly democratically controlled (not "the party," not to be confused with communism, ie more like sweden than cuba) and I would vote RP over Obama in a heartbeat."

I have no problem either, provided that it is a voluntary agreement amongst all affected parties. You'll notice this is different than being democratically controlled, because under a democracy the majority could claim legal rights to the wealth and assets of the minority. It makes no difference if that minority is 49% of the population, or 1%.

If society truly wanted socialism, they could implement it without any sort of government interference or control. Government becomes necessary when society will not choose this path of their own accord, and need to be coerced.

As for the Tea Party-I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it emerged out of the Libertarian community, later to be either co-opted by the evangelicals, or be branded evangelical by traditional progressives who understand that a greater libertarian movement poses a huge threat to their own movement.

#170 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2012-01-02 04:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Hans rawks!

They say elephants never forget, which is mostly true.

However when an elephant does forget something they immediately consult with Hans to figure out what it was.

DR's unofficial historian up in this house, biatches.

Best recognize.

Be Well.

My counter was that you think that he should confess to knowing about it and apologize.

He didn't know about it, so why should he apologize.

Who said anything about apologizing? You wonder why people call you retarded?

What you suggested is bullshit. He should give some politicized statement that would satisfy the people who are already against him?

LOL!!!

Ok, so contrasting your record (what you do) with what is said in the newsletters is bullshit? Do you understand how any of this works? You have to address the allegations against you or they will fester like a wound...and the mainstream media will do him no favors.

I've tried to talk to like a real adult Eddie, I really have...but you say the dumbest shit. You're a living, breathing logical fallacy machine.

That's the beautiful part about Ron Paul. He's not a politician. He's not going to give you an answer that is not true. It is what it is and you can take it or leave it.

I'm pretty sure RP is a politican. Wasn't he in Congress?

Who said anything about saying something untrue? Who the fuck are you talking to...the space aliens in your head? Stop making shit up.

I've had more productive conversations with homeless people...but you can't say I didn't try.

What a stupid article, Ron Paul is attracting liberals not pushing them away.

The article isn't about those he's attracting, it's about lazy democrats who take the path of least resistance by looking at a single issue that resonates with Republicans without applying the same prism to their own candidate.

#173 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Ok, Iraqi, you win. I'm retarded.

I'm pretty sure RP is a politican. Wasn't he in Congress?

#173 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Actually, I heard Ron Paul say this about himself, that he doesn't see himself as a politician. I looked for a link, but couldn't find it.

Maybe you should relax and have an open mind to other people's opinions, since you were giving yours.

You showed your ignorance of Ron Paul and I pointed it out, that's all.

maybe some humility is due?

IraqiBukkake ,

maybe this explains where I am coming from:

I've had more productive conversations with homeless people...but you can't say I didn't try.

#173 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

You're initial post was nonsense.

I called you on a few things and you got pissed off.

Then you came off as an ignorant ass and instead of clarifying, you called me names

Apparently so.

#170 | Posted by Hans

Like I said...

You're a troll.

You make no posts other than being a troll.

And you stupidly linked to all your trolling posts in #170.

Shessshh!! Could you just stop?

You showed your ignorance of Ron Paul and I pointed it out, that's all.

maybe some humility is due?

I'm not giving up. I'm a glutton for punishment.

Well Eddie, you didn't show anything. You started talking about something that nobody else was talking about except yourself, and then acted as though you had a point. I said nothing about taking blame and apologizing...I talked about how RP should emphasize how his positions do not reflect the message in the newsletters as opposed to "I didn't do it and I didn't know". Do you think his campaign would have been better suited by tightening his response for those who are on the fence about voting for Ron Paul?

Then you got pissy about me saying that regardless of what you believe, you have nothing to gain by getting in a philosophical discussion about things like the legality of the Civil Rights Act. Do you really think that Ron Paul gains supporters by talking about the repealing of the Civil Rights Act?

I'm talking about winning. You have to cast a wide net to win. I'm not talking about winning over Eddie, the Tim Tebow of Ron Paul supporters. I'm talking about pulling in enough independents and disenfranchised liberals to win. These are the things that keep RP from exploding. But if all you're looking for is to high five yourself as the smartest person in the room, then Ron Paul is doing a perfect job.

...and do me a favor? Stop acting like you discovered the cure for cancer back in '06 when you found Ron Paul. Take a look at my post history from '06-'08 and tell me who was talking Ron Paul on this site more than anyone. Your "educating the ignorant comments" are laughable.

You started talking about something that nobody else was talking about except yourself,

#180 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

uh... I was answering you.

You didn't like it and started behaving like a spoiled child.

goodnight.

uh... I was answering you.

You didn't like it and started behaving like a spoiled child.

goodnight.

You start off by calling me an idiot while I'm trying to engage in a thoughtful discussion and then are trying to take the high ground when I bring it down to your level?

nuh uh.

Go fuck yourself, Eddie.

The entire article is premised on a lie, and is totally bullshit. Kudos to RC though, for allowing in a thread that does nothing but allow people to vent their usual biases (me included).

You start off by calling me an idiot while I'm trying to engage in a thoughtful discussion and then are trying to take the high ground when I bring it down to your level?

nuh uh.

Go fuck yourself, Eddie.

#182 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Wow! Did you get that from a book?

Look, why don't you just admit it's a misunderstanding. I do.

Go back and read what we wrote or just forget about it.

.
...very good article.....worth reading in it's entirety......
.
.....makes a good case that Obama is a Republican-Lite......
.
......and yes.....Ron Paul has many positions that some of us agree with, including ending our World Police crusade, ending the war on drugs, ending foreign aid,.....

Look, why don't you just admit it's a misunderstanding. I do.

Eddie, after the way you've conducted yourself on this post, I'd argue your entire time on the Retort is just one big misunderstanding.

Eddie's entire life is a big misunderstanding. His birth certificate is an apology letter from an abortion clinic. He is the only poster on this site that brings complete solidarity--everyone knows he is a fucking moron. Everyone.

I saw this quote about Ron Paul on the Interwebs this morning and found it humorous....

"Ron Paul is a stopped clock who is right twice a day, namely at 4:20."