Slashdot Mirror
Has Ron Paul Quit?
Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."
FTA:
"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.
Sincerely,
Ron"
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Now we'll be allowed to talk about economics scientifically again.
(NB: Paul's supporters believe in Austrian School "economics", which explicitly refutes science and empiricism)
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
... SHUT UP, INTERNET!
Whew... man, that feels good.
Did he spend it all?
I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and voted for him in the primaries. That said, reality cannot be ignored or distorted, McCain will be the nominee. Focus should now be reshifted to helping Dr. Paul keep his seat in the House.
Let's learn from our lessons this time around. (Money bombs -can- work, Internet support doesn't necessarily translate to high election numbers, the power of the MSM to shape opinion, etc..) Next time around, if we have another candidate who supports liberty, with a voting record to back it up, we can try again. I may be an old man by then...
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
To anyone who's not in the cult of Ron Paul, his race was over before it started. He never stood a chance. No number of fanboys will ever change that.
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
It's hard to believe that Ron Paul's chief political strategy was apparently to hope for deadlock between the front runners so that he could attempt to sway people to his side at a hypothetical brokered convention. And this, while encouraging his own rabid supporters to spend their own money out of pocket to try to create a grassroots following. Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?
Oh sure, don't say a word when Thompson, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney quit their presidential campaigns, but the rumor of a Ron Paul quitting gets front page notice on slashdot??!!
Talk about bias, and slantedness. But I would have expected nothing less from kdawson.
What is he? German?
Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:
But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?
You can't take the sky from me...
Geez, will you RTFA? He hasn't quit, quote:
But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get
He is just expressing that he also wants to win the primary for his congressional seat.
Although the only way for him to become president is for McCain and Huckabee to drop dead.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
It is too bad about Dr. Paul dropping out...I don't subscribe to all of his beliefs, but any person who lives and dies by the Constitution is O.K. by me.
Why does this website care so much for Paul? White supremacists and slashdot seem to be his only base of support. It makes as much sense as Obama winnin g the majority of liberal and conservative voters, and losing the moderates.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I got the email last night. So now 3 liberals to decide between... I believe that Obama is the best of the worst and I predict that he will win by an enormous landslide, perhaps even greater than Johnson. A significant number of those who would normally vote for Republican candidates are extraordinarily pissed off at the travesty that is the RNC and "party" now. And this is the party of Lincoln? I think not (at least, not in any recognizable form). It has been hijacked.
And I would probably be considered "a staunch conservative" by most slashdotters, even though I am really a moderate (at least according to http://www.politicalcompass.org/).
Has RP considered running for the Senate? Individual Senators are more powerful than Representatives.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I've never felt very strongly about any Presidential candidate, or any politician for that matter. But every candidate has a small % of avid, fervent, even whacko followers. With Ron Paul, he has so few followers to begin with, they're all whackos.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Maybe the astroturfing and spam can finally end now. Ron Paul definitely gets the award for most annoying campaign ever. I've never received spam in my inbox from any of the other candidates. And if I have to ignore one more invitation to a Ron Paul supporters group on facebook I'll scream.
One question though: what happens to all the money he raised? I'm sure he hasn't burned through all of it, and he raised a lot from what I've read. Now that he's running a "leaner" campaign he will be using it even slower.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
They prefer to 'suspend', 'go on hiatus'. Why can't they simply stop. Are they THAT BIG OF A EGOMANIAC?
The mainstream media covered all those other guys. Slashdot didn't need to, except to look into all the candidates positions on technological and scientific issues.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Well, as probably one of the only people who actually will get the opportunity to see Ron Paul's name on a ballot(he is my congressman), I think I should say something.
Ron Paul is absolutely INSANE.
He is an incredibly nice man, and one of the most available congressmen I have ever known.
But, once again, he is INSANE.
Now, with that being said, I will still vote for him.
Why? Because I agree with some of his positions.
I think that there are two types of people who like Ron Paul.
People who follow even his most ridiculous positions....and
People like myself and Bill Maher. We don't think he is right, but we think his insanity allows him the ability to be honest. Maybe that is all that matters.
That was also a bit of Paul's popularity. I liked the idea of a Republican who didn't approve of the war. I liked the idea of a guy who went back to the old conservative platform of cutting bureaucracies.
But, in the end, the Paul supporters had to realize they were having to try VERY HARD to apologize for Paul. They were twisting the words of a crazy man to support a much more rational platform.
But Paul will leave a legacy. His popularity showed other candidates that they can be more honest. We now have an election where people are going to have VERY different views. We have TWO parties again, rather than 2 groups.
He doesn't vote for things, just against them
:-)
Good, that's exactly what we need more of in Congress. Unless the "things" are legislation intended to roll-back the
size and scope of the Federal government. And I'm pretty sure Ron would vote for one of those if it ever came to
a vote.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
The more I watch Ron Paul and his followers, especially, the more I think about Lyndon LaRouche, who was the first presidential candidate that made a campaign organization scarier than Jim Jones' People Temple, the Moonies, Hare Krishna and Scientology combined.
Perhaps now Ron will join with LaRouche as a running mate. If not Lyndon himself, then an non-felon appointee.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
What has minimum wage got to do with anything? That's just an arbitrary number set by politicians. What if there wasn't one, would your argument then tell us that nobody made any money at all? You're going to have to come up with some numbers involving actual wages paid to compare to your numbers on inflation. And I doubt that's very easy to do.
People have shown that they have no ability to elect people who won't continue the country down the path bankruptcy or ridiculous war mongering. Hi ho, going to Canada before it's too late...this boat is likely going down in 4 years...
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Which reminded me of FDR, and how his isolationist policy kept the USA out of WWII for over two years. Oh, sure, he wasn't the only one, but do you think that if he had signed a war declaration against Germany in 1939 Congress would have bypassed it?
This strikes me as the biggest proof that Ron Paul is the nutcase some people claim. Whether you like it or not, the US *is* the most influential nation in the world, and you cannot withdraw from that role, just like that.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
Where are the answers to the questions we posted for the presidential candidates?
Wonkette reporting on Ron Paul? Check your sources people! It's hardly going to be unbiased. A quick Google search gives a rough idea- check the use of "Paultard" to describe Ron Paul supporters. Link. These aren't reader comments. They are the articles. Wonkette has fallen from its glory days, and it's not just a recent thing.
Nonetheless, the news is somewhat saddening. It isn't clear if he's pulling out in spirit, or has just chosen some poor words to describe his new focus.
I don't get to vote till June, you insensitive clod!
Man, first time I've ever declared a party affiliation, and the primaries are already decided six months before half the country has even cast a ballot. My vote isn't even good as a symbolic gesture now that no one is paying attention anymore. grumble, grumble.
Apparently not, he's staying in the race. http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/
I've been reading Slashdot for many many years. But that all ends today after this post. To have Slashdot quote wonkette of all biased sites on a story like this... its ridiculous. I give up. Slashdot has been a troll-haven forever now (they just proved it by linking Wonkette) and is usually 2 weeks behind digg with the news, so there is no longer any point of wasting my time here.. Peace out.
Ralph Nader 2.0
Table-ized A.I.
No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.
My personal preference, in order of who I think would be best for the country, is Obama, Clinton, and McCain to win. Now, having said that, I have to admit, I don't see McCain winning as all that bad.
Yes, he will continue the war in Iraq. But you know what? Unlike George Bush, I think he has the competence to continue it in a manner in which we don't alienate the entire world and look like idiots to those who want us all dead. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against our troops fighting the war. In fact, I have an immense respect that I could never convey adequately. But when I think of how Bush has misused them... Well, being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."
You know what I think is most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies, and he's cleaning the clocks of people who do. If he can successfully show Republicans with brains (yes, contrary to popular belief, there are some) that you can be a conservative without being a sycophant to the religious nuts out there, that would represent anything BUT entrenched politics.
So yeah, I hope Obama wins. And barring that, I hope Clinton wins. But if neither of them do, unlike I've ever felt about George Bush, if John McCain wins, he'll have my support as President and Commander-in-Chief. Unlike the last two elections, I don't see this country as being a miserable failure at everything in the next four years no matter who wins.
...the way to get media coverage is to say things that let them think they won and you're quitting. :-P
/. trolls.
No one is quitting anything here. He's making sure the crapweasel running against him for his Congressional seat doesn't get away with the smears he's spreading, several of which appear to have been written by
The campaign in Texas is just getting started, and there's no way the party here is going to go along with 100-years-of-war McCain.
Whats so insane about it? That he pushed unpopular views is not insanity, it's integrity. Which of his views do you find insane?
I guess it is kinda hard for people to get excited when your message is basically "Abolish the Fed."
"We pretend to enjoy working here, and they pretend to enjoy paying us." Not quite as bad, but still two-faced.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I miss the good old days, back when Ron Paul was still just called Snakes on a Plane.
I was elected to be a delegate on Feb. 5 for my precinct in Colorado, and I plan to go through with representing Ron Paul to the county level March 2 (and then possibly also to the state level on May 31) so that he does not lose any of the projected 42 delegates nationwide he is counting on.
There is one last additional hope to further spread the message this cycle, and that is if Ron Paul can get first place in four states (he has no first place finishes so far, at least according to official tallies), then he will be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention. And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms can be reinserted. Not that a Republican president elected in 2008 would honor that, but it would ensure that in the 2012 debates that a small-government candidate can score points by quoting the platform and criticizing the neocons.
I'm in the middle of canvassing in western PA for Ron Paul delegates right now. I've stopped for a moment to grab a bite to eat. I've had not one person liking McCain or Huckabee—that's right, all of them like Paul the most, but they say the same thing: they don't hear anything about him! Wonkette is just spreading FUD while trying to read into the Paul message.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
when you can have none!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I love it how the only political article to make it onto Slashdot is about Ron Paul.
Just remember guys... if the libertarians actually take over, they'll leave internet to 'the market'. Say goodbye to net neutrality.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
However, since people have been posting these things, Ron has posted a http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/">clarification. So we can end the debate now, and see exactly what he meant:
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Ever hear of the iran/contra scandal? Guess who broke that story? LR. I saw it happen live. The MSM, who are in the pockets of the military industrial complex fascists, tore him a new one over uncovering one of their many schemes, the the feds had him jailed on bogus charges, about the same as you might expect in any dipshit banana republic.
I don't support the guy or belong to his organization, but I am old enough and have been paying attention long enough to see who is a liar or not, or to see who is probably blackmailed/bribed/compromised or not. Any of the big media picked for you candidates are compromised, they are puppets. You want honesty, you need to look to whom the media instantly label "fringe", then pick through those.
RP and Kucinich were most likely the only honest guys running this time.
I'm a libertarian but didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Ron Paul's campaign. I would have voted for him in the primary but instead I voted Democrat to try to help Barack win support in CA.
Yet somehow I managed to get precisely 0 spams from Ron Paul's campaign. I also got zero facebook invites from his campaign.
Are you the guy with 10,000 pieces of spyware on his computer, too?
Ron Paul's campaign is a symptom of the same foolishness that was Nader 2000, the idea that politics isn't local, that all you need is a trendy / genius / misguided / radical / (insert opinion) platform or platforms and one candidate can run for the highest office in the land and Change Everything. Ron Paul doesn't have a party. As far as I can tell he's not a Republican (I mean that as a compliment and I did RTFA), says he isn't a Libertarian (and exactly how many Libertarian state governors are there? Just curious). He's running for the Republican party he wants not the Republican party which exists which is like being a Muslim feminist. Or, for that matter, many of the Ron Paul internetters who seem to be supporting the Ron Paul they want, not the Ron Paul they have.
So all you Ron Paul-ites / Naderites / Greens / whatevers. Get some mayors elected first, some governors, take over a few states. (and yes the Greens do have some elected officials). Making bold/bizarre speeches about the gold standard or keeping government out of environmental regulation (what? we settle it with guns?) is very entertaining, but it doesn't get the trash picked up, the schools financed, the roads fixed.
That said, he was/is far and away the most intelligent of the Republicans and in a better world not wanting to slaughter Muslims wouldn't be a deal breaker and the Republican party would actually be the party of small government. A Paul VS Obama debate on social welfare would be very interesting.
Instead we get Hillary 'corporate welfare' Clinton VS John 'kill kill kill' McCain. Or maybe Obama decides to play the substance card.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
All the mainstream candidates from both parties are different flavors of the same thing
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
Also note that both Gravel and Kucinich are more libertarian in policy than Paul.
That would be a shame, if it was true, but it's also premature.
I just got back from the Washington district 43 caucus (north half of Seattle, roughly), and it was basically a Ron Paul rally. I saw one guy with a Huckabee sign, no visible McCain support, and hundreds of Ron Paul signs, stickers, and buttons. My precinct, and every precinct within earshot of mine, appeared to go 100% Ron Paul. These aren't your father's neo-con republicans: there were a few retirees, but there was a *huge* under-35 crowd.
Don't underestimate how much us west-coast liberals (and conservatives) want large parts of the federal government to just shrivel up and die. DC is 3000 miles away, and they don't speak for us at all. Remember that Ron Paul supporters have, if nothing else, a remarkable ability to *show up*. This is what wins elections, after all.
If the republican party was smart (ha!), and wanted a republican in the White House come 2009, I think Ron Paul is now their best bet. Obama is going to get the democratic ticket, in a landslide, and Obama would soundly defeat McCain in the general election. The only hope the republican party has now is to try the wildcard Paul. Against Obama, it's a hail-mary, but that's better than nothing at this point. Of course, McCain will probably get the nomination, which means I'll have the same standard big-government jerks on both sides, as always. Yay bigger federal government!
Seriously, how the fuck did that smear get modded up +5 Insightful?
important political dimensions like the "barking nutcase, conspiracy moron" dimension, the "I lie whenever my mouth is open" dimension and the "wears a white dress with a hood over his face" dimension. There's a bigger story to tell.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
If you must use both titles, it's:
Congressman Dr. Ron Paul
not the other way around.
And to think, not too long ago I was joking about Clinton/Gore '08.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
Nobody else fought so hard to keep the internet unregulated, untaxed and free. Dr. Paul made a great effort and we are all in his debt.
arrg I thought slashdot was different than main stream media, sadly mistaken here, first the lame ass interview and now this question.
If John McCain goes totally war-hawk nuts, THEN the last flicker of hope will go out.
Until then, we have Obama, who really does seem promising in terms of actually being a GOOD president and having some real ideas for fixing our broken government, Hillary, who is at least not nuts and orders of magnitude smarter than what we have now, and McCain, who is DEFINITELY smarter than George and highly competent even if he did run hard-right after the 2002 election.
Just calm down.
+++ATH0
Your idea of forcing your beliefs on others in the name of 'equality' is just an excuse for authoritarianism. You simply have no right to tell others how to live, no matter how morally justified you may feel your reasons are. That is the kind of thinking that breeds radicalism and war. The human race needs to move past that kind of self-righteousness and start behaving like and treating each other as adults.
PS: Anarcho-syndicalism is just communism without Marx or the hammer and sickle. Without the concept of private property and self-ownership, no one can ever be free.
> What part of "fight on in every primary and caucus remaining and at the convention" did you people parse as "I quit"?
It would have to be the part where he admits that he can't win (e.g. there won't be a brokered convention) and has to focus on his seat in the Senate or lose that, too.
That's not the same as quitting, of course, but it's certainly an admission of defeat.
...
Why won't he run as an independent? If the Republican party doesn't back him, why not be the libertarian candidate and give them some much needed publicity?
If you designed a social system that is absolutely the best in any measure, with the only flaw that human nature doesn't support it - does it make any sense? Is your design meaningful and worthwhile at all?
Communism is such a system. It's total nonsense because it blatantly ignores the basic human nature as we know it. You cannot say you have a system for humans in which humans are not humans.
Now let's check Libertarianism, which is my personal favorite because of *my* personality. And the Ron Paul campaign shows that around 1% of American population are in the same taste.
However I have to ask the inconvenient question. People obviously do want powerful governing power over themselves, and people do want that power to solve all of their problems. The trend is undoubtedly clear that people want to assign more power to the power, especially at the times the power doesn't work. It is almost as if it is embedded in their DNA since the monkey time.
If that is a basic human nature, what is the point of advocating Libertarianism which is against that human nature? How can you argue that it is a viable social system for humans? Is it possible to educate people out of that mindset? There's no proof whatsoever that it can be done.
This is not to say any other political system is any better. Especially the democratic socialism we seem to rush into. I believe it will blow up in my life time, when I am too old and most vulnerable. Nice.
So here I am, back to the good old cynicism. It's the only safe corner ironically where I can have some peace of mind. As to Ron Paul, he's a good man as far as I know, and he's obviously very pessimistic and realistic since the beginning. I wish he has achieved whatever he set out to achieve.
So in fact one president in a bigger government decides for ALL citizens what is best? Might as well vote Hillary and give Bill second chance at leaving some more stains. Makes about as much sense.
If there's only two parties than one party always will be too powerful. If on the other hand there were truly more parties (forget about the marginal parties that exist), then they would be forced to compromise, something that has been lacking for (at least) the last seven years.
I read this on Slashdot all the time. All the time. We need more parties! Yes, they would be nice. However this isn't going to happen. And you can't blame the two parties themselves for this (not both of them, anyway) because of the way the U.S. Constitution is constructed. This is really the Constitution's fault.
The Constitution does not explicitly mandate a two party system, but it sets up an electoral system using proportional representation, in which a district is represented by whoever wins a plurality of votes. A two-party political system will naturally emerge from this as a mathematical certainty. Straight out of game theory.
Let's say we have three parties here, the A Party, the B Party, and the C Party. Your district holds an election with candidates A, B, and C. Candidate A gets 30,000 votes, candidate B gets 20,000, and candidate C gets 20,000. Who goes to Washington to represent you? Candidate A.
Generally in a 3+ party system, one party will be far more distinctive (crazy) than the other two- of all three, it holds positions that are the furthest from those which are desired by the public at large. If this party is B or C, and A won, then we have no problem- candidate A is your representative, and mostly represents the majority opinion (A voters + B voters, or A voters + C voters). If the "distinctive" party is A, we have a disaster. Because the majority of voters in the district split their votes across two parties, they lost the representation that they chose.
Since most people who would vote for B or C will realize this (fearing that A might win), there is no way to balance this seesaw- the three-party situation is inherently unstable. The non-A people will panic and they generally all run to B, or all run to C, whichever one looks like a more likely win. And the result is a political system in which you don't vote for the candidate you prefer- you vote against the one you fear. Hence two parties.
In a parliamentary system, your district might send 7 guys to the capital- three from A, two from B, and two from C. Let's say the B party and the C party are much more politically aligned with each other than they are with A. They can cut deals and make compromises, so that the will of the majority of voters (on the issues where they agree) are generally well represented, even if parties B and C individually failed to win a plurality of votes. They together won a majority, which is what really matters.
The Constitution enjoys an undeservedly good reputation, mostly because of its Amendments that allegedly let us own guns, shoot off our mouths, and be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. These are the parts we usually think of and speak fondly about. But these could be tacked on to any Constitution, even one that sucks as much as ours. And whatever else you can say about Bush, it's clear that he's done an excellent QA job on this thing and the structural deficiencies within it now lay fully exposed for all to see. If he can leverage plurality support among the public to get majority support in Congress, and can appoint judges of his choosing to lifetime positions, one psychotic man can effectively end the rule of law- giving us a virtual dictatorship that nevertheless operates within the structure of a representative democracy.
Dear Ron Paul,
If you lose the primary for your congressional seat, it will in fact be a rejection of your ideas. It could hardly be a partisan matter, as it was a primary and whomever wins is going to count for the number of Republicans in Congress.
Or are you such a bad Congressman that you alone of almost all incumbents should be singled out for removal from office by his own party?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
READ THE LETTER rofl. Here is his official press release on this mess if you're still not convinced
./
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/
Here's a small excerpt "A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way."
gg
Exit polls clearly showed that McCain's success to date was due to Romney and Huckabee splitting the vote of self-identified conservatives (I won't argue over who is or is not a "real" conservative). With Romney's official campaign ending, the self-described vast majority of conservatives will go to Huckabee. Huckabee will keep McCain from getting an outright majority of delegates (1245). Huckabee will is also not likely to get an outright majority. With no candidate getting an outright majority, stay tuned for a ruckus convention fight!
Maybe other people didn't want to vote for Ron Paul.
Presupposing that the reason he didn't win is to flatly state that if everyone were informed and voted their hearts, Ron Paul would have won.
Did you ever just stop to think that maybe a majority of people don't agree with you? That if the world was well informed, they wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you?
Only an egotist would put forth their choice of candidate as the only valid one.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
he took 2nd place behind huckabee in my county caucus here in WA today. mcain took 4th behind romney.
In the wake, Digg dot com has shut its servers down in protest. The decision to focus on his senate re-election has been described by the users as, 'the gayest fucking thing to ever happen'.
Ron Paul??? Are you fucking kidding me? A certified KKK/CofCC sympathizer? Boo hoo fucking hoo. The biggest fraud of the campaign gone? I'm dancing on the grave of his campaign.
I still cannot believe that anyone could possibly have supported him. But then again, there are people who simply can't read...
Paul's campaign makes government waste and inefficiency look like something people want to sign up to support. His campaign spent more money on less results than any I've ever heard of. I guess polling, focus groups, and that kind of information gathering is too centralized for the Paul spirit.
I guess a benefit of the campaign is that it proved that non-results can come from unfocused distributed efforts, with as much waste as misguided centralized ones. But even that benefit vanishes if we don't learn the lesson.
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
I cannot believe no one has mentioned the contributions yet! Is Ron Paul going to keep the tens of millions in contributions that he barely spent? Is this going to disillusion a whole generation of politically active geeks?
Ron Paul should donate a large portion of that money to the EFF, ACLU, and anyone else staying in the fight for our civil liberties! We did not contribute for his reelection to congress!
As a generally *very far left* guy (who has recently donated to Paul, since we agree on a lot of civil liberties matters), I used to like McCain-- like Ron Paul does now, eight years ago McCain stuck me as authentic and "genuine." He had the balls to call Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" in the 2000 campaign. Then in 2006 he went to Jerry's university ("Liberty Univeristy" -- LOL! Liberty as long as you're a heterosexual Christian, I guess..) and gave a speech and played nice with a guy who is a blatant bigot -- all because he knew he was going to run in 2008, and some advisor told him he needed to court the fundamentalist vote
I pray (to FSM) that McCain is secretly a genuine guy with real convictions, and some of his "selling out" is just maneuvering to get into the White House, and then he'll flipflop back to being the guy who won't stand for bigotry-- but it's too hard to say, unfortunately. Ron Paul, as much as I may not agree on certain matters (getting rid of the EPA, for instance!), at least I am 100% certain he is the genuine article; he'll say (and do) what he believes, whether it gets him elected or not.
We shouldn't spend money we don't have. Not for infrastructure, not for social programs, not for anything. Any money left over by a budget surplus should go directly to paying down the national debt.
There is nothing wrong with a limited amount of debt. I will leave the Slashdot "philosopher-kings" to sort that one out.
Consider the following example, which basically is my world right now: You owe about $150,000 in a 30-year mortgage at a rate between 6%. Do you pay off the mortgage, or do you invest the money?
If you said pay off the mortgage, you fail.
If you can find an investment that pays more than 6% on average (nothing is guaranteed) you put your extra dollars above and beyond the mortgage payments into that investment. Why?
1) liquidity. Investments are liquid, easy to cash out on a moments' notice the value of your house is not (the sale price and sale time of your house is tied to the market). Plus if you sell your house, you have to spend some of that money for future housing. In the same way, there are certain things the government can spend money on that have a higher return-on-investment than paying off debt.
2) time value of money. If you sock away even a little bit of money each month, over 30 years you have a whole lot of money. If you pay down your house in 15 years and then spend the next 15 years saving, you would have to invest a lot more of you own money to match what you could have had, if you were just investing a little bit since day 1 and paying the default amount on your loan. In the same way, the government setting up infrastructure now is often cheaper and more cost-effective in the long run than waiting to pay off debt.
3) the value of debt. Some loans are cheaper than others. In your mortgage's case, you can use it as a tax writeoff, which effectively lowers the interest rate an additional few percent. There are similar 'features' to the national debt. The value of the dollar is almost directly related to the amount of debt we have
The dollar has only started to drop in very recent history, and we have held a high amount of debt for a long time. It has much more international implications than just the national debt.
Nobody could possibly be rationally attracted to the idea of reducing spending, balancing a budget, and letting the economy do its job. Only crazy "cultists" are interested in that kind of stuff.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Tag: perhapsnowallyoulunaticblowhardswillstfu
Seriously, the last few months of these "libertarian" bassment-dwelling, no-relation-to-the-real-world pie-in-the-sky crap blowhards spouting off about privatising the sidewalks is a sensible way forward, have been unbearable. Can we get on with real world politics now?
I can see the Fox News headlines now: "Bushwhacked; War on Terrorism now shifts to Obama vs. Osama". The difference is BS.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm actually a bit of a bleeding heart myself but listening to an argument like this makes me sick. The GP never said they wouldn't lend a helping hand to people thrown into uncontrollable circumstances, that's the kind of thing that might make them hated.
/. troll, bet the ladies are all over you.
GP is talking about the good-for-nothing types that just bitch and moan and take money without putting in any effort. Hating lazy people who won't help themselves is so damn far away from being lonely and miserable that your post can only be interpreted as an ad hominem troll. Though I guess that's appropriate.
(I don't want to write this last line because then I'll have to hear your painful masturbatory comments about how you've raised a wonderful family, etc, but here I go anyway)
But seriously, a
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Narrator: In A.D. 2008, war was beginning. ....
Public: What happen ?
Democrats: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Public: We get signal.
Paul: What!
Public: Main screen turn on.
Paul: It's you!!
GOV: How are you gentlemen!!
GOV: All your rights are belong to us.
GOV: You are on the way to destruction.
Paul: What you say!!
GOV: Freedom have no chance to survive make your time.
GOV: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Public: Dr. Paul!!
Paul: Take off every 'ZIG'!!
Paul: You know what you doing.
Paul: Move 'ZIG'.
Paul: For great justice.
1% of those who voted will be in tears.
US soldiers undergo waterboarding as a standard part of training. The effectiveness of waterboarding depends on *not* knowing what it is before hand. Now that it has been beaten to death on the news, the terrorists practice undergoing waterboarding as part of their training also. So the effectiveness is now essentially zero. Which is why I heard some high mucky muck say "we don't use it anymore" in the last few months.
Ron Paul's schtick is the same as Pat Buchanon's, Jesse Jackson's, or Al Sharpton's. These men do not run for the Presidency with the aim of winning because they know they have no chance of winning. Rather, they enter with the goal of stocking their mailing list with supporters and filling up their off-season schedule of speaking events. Has Ron Paul written a book yet? That'll be the next move.
Seriously, Ron Paul never intended to seriously compete. Just as Pat Buchanon appeals to a narrow band of nativist blue collar Republicans who have no other alternatives and Al Sharpton appeals to a narrow band of poor blacks, so Ron Paul appeals to a small slice of libertarian strict-constructionists. That's not to judge his ideas but rather to understand his marketing. There's a fair business to be done in appealing to groups of Americans who are passionate about their particular beliefs and have no other spokesman. RP simply satisfies on demographic. He knew going in that he would never seriously compete and now that he's raised a bunch of money, added a ton of names, and raised his national profile, it's time to bow out and start recouping that investment.
So does that mean that all RP supporters were played? Yes, in a sense. On the other hand, most of the ones I've talked to really like the idea of supporting someone who represents their views. So in that sense, everyone wins - RP makes money and fame, RP supporters can stridently claim that they backed someone who represents their views, and in the end one of the three or four mainstream candidates who was inevitably going to win will take up residency at 1600 Pennsylvania in January 2009.
Advice: on VPS providers
So, those of you that are too cool for school, be aware that the Alaksa GOP district caucuses were today, and Ron Paul Republicans managed major party platform changes at the district level, which will now move on to state. These included:
- removing the plank opposed to gaming/gambling
- rewriting the "war" plank from "we support the Iraq war" to "we opposed all undeclared wars"
- promoting the legalization of industrial hemp
What did you do today that compares? Anything that actually changed the world?
gb2/fark/ faggot.
That said, reality cannot be ignored or distorted, McCain will be the nominee.
Not necessarily. It looks like today's primaries were a sweep for Huckabee. If Romney throws his support to Huck, McCain could be in serious trouble, as the GOP base doesn't like him. If Huck managed to take the nomination from McCain like the Giants took away the Patriot's perfect season, that would be awesome.
I don't really see that happening though, as Romney seems to be much more of a corporate Republican than a fundie Republican, and he already endorsed McCain.
They already have that: It's called Alan Keyes, and he really hasn't been all that successful.
As much as Paul supporters would like to believe otherwise, Paul hasn't been successful largely because not that many people like his ideas. I'm not saying that he hasn't been somewhat marginalized (as is any candidate who is not seen as a leading candidate), but many people also just don't happen to share his views. It's just that those who do share them are very vocal and energized. My own opinion is that Paul represents a form of Republicanism that has been all but killed by neoconservatives (really beginning with Reagan).
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
The problem with the Republican Party and racism is that Republican strategists decided to campaign towards racists back when Nixon ran for president. This may sound terrible to say, but the electoral victories of the last 30 years may not have happened without candidates pandering to racism. Unfortunately this decision made 30 years ago is destroying the party. Every decent Republican leaves the party because they can't stand the bigotry. And every time a decent Republican leaves, it makes the bigoted faction more and more important. Expel the racists from the Republican Party, and you will see that the party will become a lot stronger, since many of its principles appeal to a wide demographic. They just don't become Republicans because of the GOP's bigotry.
Perhaps it is crazy, but writing Ron Paul in for a popular vote by all those who really support his ideas is something that should be encouraged. Maybe running a "None of the Above" campaign would actually catch all those who are unhappy with the other choices "above"...
His decision seems fairly logical to me when the main goal of an on the ground campaign is to get out the vote and most of the elections are over (there are still some late caucuses left though) that he should lean up his machine (less votes to get out).
Bah, people say that the media was totally fair with Dr. Paul. These people weren't paying attention. When the media did cover him, they only questions they asked him were whether or not he planned to run as a third party candidate or to paint him as a racist. Of course when the chairman of the NAACP refuted the claim that Dr. Paul was a racist, you didn't see that on the news.
I am just disgusted with this whole political process. You have both parties that are leading us down the path of a corporatist/fascist police state and the one man who calls a duck a duck is the crazy whacko. The one candidate who won't take corporate donations and he is called nuts and un-viable. Guess who are the ones calling him not-viable...the ones he won't take donations from...but whatever.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
The war aside, Obama and Paul couldn't be more different. I don't know how you want a libertarian Republican (Paul) who wants to cut nearly every social program (Medicare, Social Security, Public Education)...but, in Paul's absence, will happily accept a left leaning Democrat (Obama) who wants to strengthen those same programs.
In the three fundamental actions a government performs: levy taxes, execute violence, and provide services...Obama and Paul only agree on one specific execution of violence (Iraq War). They disagree on everything else.
I guess when people vote based on how candidates make them feel, instead of what candidates actually want to DO, then you can find these sort of positions. Otherwise, I just can't make sense of it.
I know Bush sucked, and I know you guys think you want to be revolutionaries...but it's important, now more than ever, that people really examine the candidates positions and reward politicians with sound policy (which I'm sorry, but Paul just doesn't have) instead of politicians who make you feel swell.
Oh, and of course, the RNC can invite whomever it wants to speak. The five states would simply force the RNC to allow Ron Paul to speak.
For someone who took in all those contributions in December, what the hell did he do with it? No ads or anything.
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
There's no need for him to run as a third-party candidate. He would have to spend all his time, effort, and money just fighting to get on the ballots, and he would be excluded from all debates. Even so, he would probably only get 1-2 million votes in the general election. Also, if it's a close race in November, then no matter who loses, they would try to blame Ron Paul for siphoning off votes, from anti-war Dems if Hitlery loses or from constitutional Repubs if McCrazy loses.
By staying in, he gets to spread the message in more debates. The freedom movement needs all the exposure it can get. Additionally, he could still receive a million or more votes in November as a write-in candidate, without wasting a cent on a 3rd-party run.
Perhaps most important, he gets to run for his Congressional seat. If he runs for Pres. as a Libertarian he will alienate the Repubs in his home district. We need him in Congress (and many more like him).
The money I sent to his campaign was worth every cent. After 51 years, I got to vote for an honest politician. That alone was priceless. I hope to get that opportunity again.
...it's about time! That guy is a whack job. All you Ron Paul supporters are still children. Grow up.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
I would generally agree though I can see where there may be occasion to fund a project with borrowed money. If our debt load wasn't in such dire straits I could see where the amortization of a projects cost over time could be helpful with larger endeavors. This is capitalism and there is no reason that our government could not make it work as well as a private entity. The main qualification I would require is that it have a well hashed and logical plan that projects a ROI.
As an example a few years back I noted the repair and fuel costs of my truck(78 Jeep Cherokee), a little calculation proved to me that I could drive a new more fuel efficient truck (89 F-150) for a 25% increase in current expenditures. The difference of value between the new truck and the old one at the end of the 5 year loan would further raise the advantage and put me at better than 25% ahead in total expenses. So even with interest accounted for I saved money via the investment in a new truck. Of course I did have the ability to pay the loan without rolling the interest forward forever.
Guess what I drove that truck for over 15 years and had minimal repair costs in over 300,000 miles. By my calculations I saved over 100% of what it would have cost me to keep driving the old one, or over $10,000. More than twice enough to pay for the replacement (a cherry 94 F-150). What with technological improvements stalled and times as they are I could not get the same level of return on another new one even if I could afford the payments, which I would be afraid of in these times. Besides I like this style of Ford and the 94 is as I said cherry, it should be good for a quarter million miles more easy. The old F-150 looks like hell, a few to many deer, but still runs pretty good so I just gave it to my son a few days ago.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Clinton is politics as usual. I'm sick of politics as usual, so I'm not voting for her.
That leaves Obama and McCain.
McCain tried 'Do the right thing' in '00. It didn't work. Now he's being a lot more savvy - catering more to his party, and he's now likely going to have the nomination. So, the question is, did he sell himself out, or did he just decide that he had to d some evil to make it to the general election, and once he actually gets elected, we'll get the '00 McCain back? Yes, it would be nice if he had been the '00 McCain the whole time, but a '00 McCain that doesn't get elected doesn't do us any good either.
McCain is my second choice.
Obama is either the most genuine person to ever run for President, twice as genuine as McCain, or he is the slickest politician ever - 10 times as slick as Clinton (either of them). Whichever it is - whether he's the mos genuine candidate ever, or the slickest candidate ever, I think I have to vote for Obama.
There's really no reason to vote for Clinton with Obama around. The only thing Clinton can have on Obama is that he's really just a fraud, but if that's the case, he's so much better at being a fraud than she is, he's STILL better than Clinton!
paintball
His platform is crazy.
It's not like Ron Paul's brain in Obama's body hasn't been done before - last time we just called it Jesse Jackson.
I actually LIKE that Obama isn't talking all this "I'm going to change everything!" stuff. Why? Because President's don't change shit!
What percentage of 'Presidential Plans' actually make it onto the books?
Ron Paul is a moron, and Ron Paul followers are morons - if not because most of the ideas themselves are bad, then because they are silly enough to believe that ANY president is somehow going to be able to get ANY of those things to happen. Eliminate the Fed? What huh? People come down on Obama for having promises he doesn't have the 'experience' to deliver, but really all Obama is promising is good due diligence. Paul is promising to flip the country upside down, and the country is just too big for that.
All we need for a President is a guy who can talk to the world and not spend a bunch of lives and money blowing up shit that doesn't need to be blown up. Bonus points if he doesn't use the federal government to make his (or her) friends and political buddies and campaign donors rich. Obama is that guy.
paintball
Great blog - thanks! We are collecting links to articles like yours at www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com for all the latest reporting about Ron Paul. At this time it is even more important to show that the support for Ron Paul is still growing. Did you know that you can go to www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com and post links to your own articles about Ron Paul as soon as you make them available online?
but it's not the same thing. Okay, how about Obama/Nader '08? Before you judge, say it out loud.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
but you are a fucking retard.
...since I'm trolling, might as well. USELESS JACKASS!
He's talking about a class of people, the working poor (those who live off of the minimum wage), not specific people. There are few people outside of the clinically retarded that never get a raise, so of course people who were making the minimum in 19-tickity-two are making more than the minimum now. That's not what the GP was talking about, idiot.
PS: Your "all immigrants are poor and ignorant" bit makes you look racist and ignorant. Also, read up on your statistics, buddy. There used to be social mobility, it was part of the American Dream. Now, only about 10% of the population climb the social ladder to a higher position. We are turning into a static society.
Well in the current United States, largely apathy is king.
...Rome...
Ppl want to be entertained, bread and circuses and all, much like
So when ppl mention that the Federal Reserve really isn't federal, they
think your a nut job by default and don't bother to even read about it.
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/federal-reserve/
It is all verifiable.
It is all true.
But they dismiss it with a wave, so they can get back to the Computer, TV,
and watch their sports, boink their significant other, or read a book
about some made up shit that does not even exist.
In the meantime, the Fed loans the government its own money at 'interest'.
It is boring though, doesn't really entertain ppl, so it doesn't get much brain time.
My grandfather when I was a small child decades ago warned us about how bad
this would get, and I didn't really understand him then.
After many years, and a fair bit of reading and discussing with very intelligent
ppl in and out of the united states, I now see the shell game for what it is.
Some of the ppl that backed Ron Paul felt much like those ppl in V for vendetta
and are sick of blood sucking bastards that are ruining our country, and
charging us interest to do it to boot !
When the collapsing dollar dies, and the Amero is brought in to replace it,
the NAU is formed, the RealID and DNA database, and it suddenly dawns on you
that all of this was mentioned, you were warned and it was all in writing
by government officials in plain sight.
Lou dobbs covered the NAU forming, and the fact that there was no vote.
The Trans Texas Corridor was to be paid for by US tax dollars, but sold
to a Spanish billionaire who would run it as a for profit toll road
that we paid to build.
Fortunately the good ppl of Texas caught this and killed it, but it will
be back, and Rick Perry governor of Texas is in on it with them.
If you get a chance watch 911 press for truth to get a good Idea just how
bad things are getting, for the non religious folks also watch Zeitgeist the movie.
Also money as debt is a good primer for the Federal Reserve banking system.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
Most ppl will ignore this and plod on, just another brick in the wall.
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Can we please have a filter that allows blocking any stories from kdawson??? The constant stream of crap is annoying.
-metric
So I guess the Camel....
... sorry for the inconvenience.
WWW.CAMELSMOKES.COM
This website is temporarily
unavailable due to maintenance.
Please try again later
Got the best of the
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/3499
Roken is Dodelijk
What is the fucking world coming to? I always liked Paul Malls better than camels, cause they're longer that that short ass shit. But not everyone can BUY paul malls. Then again LSMFT (lucky strike means fuckable titties!)
Your comparing apples and oranges. A gallon of gas, a car, a home, and many other things in the 60s are NOT the same as they are now. Lets take your gas and car analogy.
In 1960 a low end car the Chevy Malibu was $2156 It got about 15 MPG (Average car in 65 achieved a little less) A low end Kia can be purchased for 13K in 2007 (Average mileage now is 25MPG). (6 fold increase)
Gas then 30 cents a gallon. Gas now $3.00 a gallon. (10 fold increase)
Now lets look at the real cost
Cost to drive 75 miles in 1965 = 1.50 cost to drive in 2007 = 9.00 Only a 6 fold increase not 10 fold as it first looks. Additionally cars back then used large quantities of Lead, Sulfur, etc which was put into the environment. Gasoline is far cleaner, one of the reasons it costs more.
The money you paid for cars back then got you a car with no pollution controls, no airbag, no safety speed tests, Im not even sure if seat belts were mandatory? You were lucky if you had an AM/FM radio (No CD, MP3 or tape). AC was definitely extra, seat comfort on many was atrocious.
Sure Wages have gone up 4.7 fold while the gas to drive somewhere has gone up 6 fold and a car has gone up 6 fold, yet the quality and comfort of that drive as well as safety has sky rocketed. If we said to car manufacturers, No regulations, make a car of the quality and standards of the 60s Im sure we would have them for less $9000, the cost of inflation vs minimum wage.
Other comparisons.
Milk 99 cents a gallon in 1965 Milk $3.00 a gallon now (3 fold increase)
Eggs 60 cents a dozen in 1965 vs 1.50 a dozen now (2.5 fold increase)
Computer in 1965 LOL 1975 ($1000) Now $300 A DECREASE of 3.3 fold (Quality. Dont make me laugh)
Color TV 23 inch Manual channel changer 1965 ($160), Now 24 inch with stereo, remote, timer, etc $199 (1.3 increase)
9 cubic foot fridge $200, Now 20 cubic foot fridge $500 with auto defrost far better energy efficiency (2.5 fold increase)
Before you compare minimum wage 1965 to 2007 also compare how good the products are in safety, features, energy efficacy, convenience, etc. All thing that ADD to the price.
If you want to live with 1965 technology I bet we can do most of it for only 2-3 times the price we paid then, meaning our dollars go twice as far.
Random Unicorn
Does anyone know? Has he ever said?
Seastead this.
Its amazing that so many people on the internet don't get that.
Seastead this.
If it turns out this letter is politically inconvenient for him later, he'll just claim it was ghost written.
I was about to make a post on how the US considered water boarding a war crime in WW2, but then I realized that even debating it gives some legitimacy to water boarding. I refuse to debate the issue, and ask others to do the same. Just say "No" to torture.
Up here in New England whenever people ask me why I wasted my vote, voting for Paul in the NH Primary, I ask them why they wasted there time supporting the Pats when they lost the Superbowl. So far I haven't been killed, yet
The plain fact is, people want to vote for a 'winner' and allow the MSM to dictate who that should be. Ron Paul was excluded from debates when Guilanni was not because he was deemed 'not viable'. Turns out, they had that backwards. I have NEVER felt more jaded towards politics as I do right now. Observe:
1) For a candidate to win, MSM support is required
2) MSM is in favor, some directly and others indirectly, of 'news worthy' wars and other events
3) The best interests of the average American ARE NOT in line with the best interests of the average MSM corporation
Therefore: Allowing the media to select our election candidate is nothing short of complete insanity. Anyone that didn't vote for Paul ought to be committed, as they cannot form simple value judgments without the support of the idiot-box.
And, by the way, if we ever want this to REALLY change, we're going to have to bring the word 'revolution' back to an earlier meaning. Those powerful people are entrenched, folks, and it's all YOUR fault.
> Yes, libertarianism for how to use a military and conduct some foreign policy and the domestic policy ala new deal.
Hmm. Surrender in the war and new deal domestic policies.... I'd swear I had heard another, more popular leader than Dr. Paul, making just that pitch. I think his nsme is Hussein or something.... wait.... AH! Barack Hussein Omaba was the guy I saw on the TV talking that way. Perhaps you should check him out, sounds like a candidate right up your alley and a lot more electable than Ron Paul. Although HIllary Clinton is also 90% what you are looking for so be sure to check out her website as well.
Democrat delenda est
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution and would nominate strict constructionists (AKA, Conservative activists) to the Supreme Court. As a liberal atheist, I think Ron Paul is just as dangerous as anyone else from that "side". That he's willing to talk about issues the other Republicans don't is a good thing, yes, but overall, I could never vote Paul, even if I thought he had a real chance.
His stance on the Iraq war and his position on constitutional issues is admirable, but it's a shame more people aren't familiar with Ron Paul's brand of Libertarianism - it's a real eye-opener.
Personally, I'd rather not have another president in office who doesn't believe in evolution and thinks man and dinosaurs walked hand in hand. I don't care if he fellates the Constitution every night before bedtime, I'm not voting for a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian who thinks superstition takes priority over science, and nobody in their right mind can afford to have another leader in office who hears voices in his head, even if they have a few good ideas.
You just NAILED it! Extra props for the system design analogy... any chance that next time you can use system design/car analogy? :)
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
He cut back on his campaign staff, he didn't call it quits. Its headlines like this in the media that confuse people and cause them to find someone else to support because they trust that big media (and apparently small media) are telling the truth and providing the people with actual news.
The Associated Press, wow, telling the truth
Chron, telling the truth
Digg can fuck off
Shoutwire can fuck off
Associated Content can fuck off
Wait - doesn't he now oppose torture? Didn't he flip-flop on it somewhat before finally opposing it? I watched the YouTube Rep. debate and in it he was the only one who was against torture (except for Ron Paul, I guess). His position might have changed again, though, I don't know. Have you a link?
That aside, McCain's belief that going into Iraq was a good idea troubles me and, unlike the Dems who voted for it, he continues to think it was a good idea. It wasn't. It was a stupid idea. That's why I like Obama, because he knew it was a stupid idea from the start. They should've stayed in Afghanistan and continued fighting and hunting bin Laden. But because they couldn't be bothered, Al Qaeda is pretty much back to pre-9/11 strength.
The kind of thinking that led America into Iraq could lead them into Iran as well and that isn't a very pleasant thought.
People must be very stupid to think that he means he quits. That is clearly not what he is saying at all and I'm sure the MSM is elated with people thinking he has quit. He has not. He will still be at the Convention come sept. and many people who haven't heard his no B.S. message will hear him there.
US politics to an outsider look hopelessly fragmented, this despite that fact that on the surface they are ALL rightwing capatalists compared to most of the rest of the world.
Odd as it may seem, there is more difference amongst american rightwingers then between right and left wing in europe.
That is because very few in europe support the abolision of goverment itself, we know goverment is big and cumbersome and a blackhole for money, but more or less we accept this as the way it has always been.
Only in the US it seems some people passionalty believe that a different method is possible. I think it is a leftover from their early days as a country, a sign these people have not realised the US is no longer and CAN no longer be that nation of the founding fathers.
You see them talk on and on about the constitution, a document written by supporters of slavery, etnic cleansing and voting rights based on gender, religion and income. The US was created in a worldview where it was perfectly alright to slaughter the natives, keep people as property and women were second rank citizens. It was perfectly alright back then to just claim a piece of land as your own and cultivate it.
This no longer works, the real problem is that the US is no longer the Wild West or a frontier nation, it is just another country, just the same as all the ancient ones on eurasian continent and it can no longer be run as an experiment.
While movies are rarely a good indicator of anything, some "cowboy" movies showed this when the cowboy from the wild west enters one of large cities. The difference between the lone gunman whose law comes from a bullet and the almost european like cities.
There exist a simple cartoon, young boy seen going to school with a rifle "1800: Everything is alright, Jimmy got his gun" "1980: Look out! Jimmy got his GUN!".
The US has had to grow up and this is never popular. Once you could build your ranch whereever you wanted and your nearest neighbour was a state away. Now your house is next to dozens of others, cost a fortune and you don't want its value to decline because your neightbour decides to open a leatherworks in his backyard. This means big goverment, lots of regulations and an end to liberty.
In europe we know this, we know there have to lots and lots of rules to allow us to live so close together. Americans still hope that it can be like the glory days and that just is no longer possible.
Ron Paul's message was that he could turn the clock back, that was appealing to a lot of people, who carefully avoided asking themselves what it would all mean in the end.
Take his isolationist policies. Currently a lot of US goods come from abroad, with the US no longer protecting world peace, what might happen to those traderoutes?
Pull out of korea? Would save a lot of money to be sure. But would China not extend its control in the region? What would you do with the soldiers? Fire them? Where would they get new jobs? Defence may cost a lot, but it also supplies a lot of people with wage packages they then spend fueling the economy.
Say korea and such nations had to fund for defence themselves, they would have to raise the price of exports, not a good thing either.
The US floats on foreign oil, the US has a continues fleet presence to try and stop the constant sinking of tankers by Iraq/Iran in the past, why risk that mess again by pulling the fleets out.
What do you do with the fleets if they are not out there, mothball them? What if war does happen, how quickly can you get your military up? Japan had the run around at the start of US involvement precisly because of Ron Paul like sentiments. How many americans died for the believe that the US could stay out of a WW?
The simple fact is that Ron Paul and his supporters have a vision of the world that no longer is accurate, they want the US to become something it no longer can be, and are unable to answer how they would overcome any of the problems they would create.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Please stop bragging.
Programmers are losing their jobs to existing software.
YOU ARE A LOSER
DIE
PLEASE DIE
FUCK YOU
ASS!!
-- YourWorstEnemy
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
-- Frank Zappa
It is terrifying the lengths to which some people are prepared to go to deny the patently obvious.
For you:
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Honestly, only scumbags keep arguing this point.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Such permanent bodily harm, BTW, is the only compelling argument against torturing of uncooperative captives of intelligence value — who are not protected by laws like Geneva convention, that is (McCain was, but it did not help him). If waterboarding does not have long-lasting effects, then I don't see it as inherently immoral. Whether it qualifies as "torture" or not is moot.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Quote from www.ronpaul2008.com
A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.
Yo slashdot wtf? this is your first warning since you are normally a reliable source of information, I just can't believe slashdot has stooped to a new low.
That's the answer. No, he has not quit. He's going to the convention to preach the ideas of freedom, peace, and prosperity - even if nobody wants to hear about those three. :)
:)
All he's said is that it's less likely we'll have a brokered convention, so the delegates won't get the opportunity to vote their conscience. Ron has a higher percentage of delegates that like him than delegates that were awarded to him - so if it came down to an unencumbered vote, he had a better chance.
OTOH, lots of people in the Republican party hate John McCain - so who knows what might happen. Maybe they'll drag up new evidence on the S&L scandal.
Ron Paul has not quit! He will quit when there is no breath left in his body. His message is for us and our children and he will continue that until he has exhausted every penny......of volunteered money - not corporate bribes. In the mean time, please respect what the man has to say as he campaigns for president and fights to keep his congressional seat. He has guts. Thank you.
Apparently, he did not have the right ant ticks
Date: Feb 11, 2008 10:30 AM
Subject: This Candidate Doesn't Quit
Body:
A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last week. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.
Republicans do not want John McCain to be their nominee. He has only been able to become the front-runner because the field was so divided and because he's a media darling. We can see just how unpopular McCain is in the heartland by his performance in the Kansas caucuses today. Kansans resoundingly rejected the Arizona senator, and McCain's big wins so far have mostly been in blue states -- states he won't win in November if, heaven forbid, he's the Republican nominee.
Republicans want and need an alternative. Some people think Mike Huckabee provides an alternative to McCain. But Huckabee, who now tries to sound like Ron Paul when he talks about abolishing the IRS, raised taxes in Arkansas and vastly expanded spending in that state when he was its governor. Huckabee is no alternative at all. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has never voted for a tax increase, never voted for an unbalanced budget or for an unconstitutional war or government program.
At stake here is not just the Republican nomination -- which McCain still has not locked up -- but the future of the Republican Party and, much more importantly, the future of our liberties. We have to organize in every single state, including the ones that have already voted in the primaries and caucuses, to continue the fight to take back the Republican Party and to ensure that Ron Paul's principles, the principles of Washington and Jefferson, prevail. For the sake of that cause, Ron Paul's campaign continues, all the way to the convention.
- Dan McCarthy, Internet Communications Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Out of the hundreds of hours of political conversations with friends, coworkers, relatives, I know more Ron Paul supporters than supporters of any other candidate. I know more people that voted for Ron Paul than all of the other candidates combined. I live in Florida - where Paul has done worse than any other state..
In my area, I've seen 10x the signs, bumper stickers, and T-shirts for Ron Paul than all of the other candidates combined - in the malls, neighborhoods, everywhere in my town. And then.. I find out that not only did Ron Paul only get ~4% in Florida, he got less than that in my town.. I don't believe it.
This entire election, I see so much support for Ron Paul - he's raised more money, he has more grassroots effort - and yet there is always a 'mysterious entity from somewhere higher up' that declares that Ron Paul is a long shot and not worth our votes..
And now, even on Slashdot, where Ron Paul should be a superhero among the entire Slashdot community, he is merely a superhero for the bottom.. Those of us that hardly get modded up.. Yet, the discussions placed on the front pages of Slashdot say things like 'Huckabee, Romney, McCain only' or 'Has Ron Paul Quit?' --- another example of 'mysterious entity from somewhere higher up' declaring Ron Paul not viable.
Fuck that. I'm voting for Ron Paul. And, fuck you, Slashdot super-mods that attempt to influenece the tone of Ron Paul support from the Slashdot community. (This is not directed to the lowly +1/-1 mods that typically rate Ron Paul fairly.)
--- We need more Ron Paul!