• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ron Paul for president

gunns

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
270
Location
Minnesota
Then continue to vote Liberarian. I will be voting along those lines when someone comes on the scene that makes sense for me to toss my vote at in hopes that they actually cut the legs out from both parties.

Dang, I am starting to like you more and more.

We need a purge in Washington.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Professor Murray Sabrin asks why Ron Paul is the only candidate who talks about the Federal Reserve. "Either the other candidates don't talk about it because they don't understand it, or they don't talk about it because they are told not to talk about it."

[video=youtube;Ug7skW3eIM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug7skW3eIM4&[/video]
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
If anybody needed any proof that the two parties are in collusion, it's these goings-on with the caucuses.

The GOP would much rather field candidates who will further the demagoguery and blindly oppositional partisan tendencies which empower the "two" parties, than they would actually win the election.

The interest is in maintaining power (for both parties), rather than actually addressing any issues whatsoever. They don't need to win this election -- they get the next 8 years (after 4 more of Obama) to do exactly the same stuff the Democrats do -- for the time being they just need to keep the hatred burning. And how better to do that than subject their followers to a full 8 years of "rule by the enemy"? 4 years is too transient, too brief. 8 years is almost a decade, a significant part of a person's life. Together, the hegemony of the "two" parties is unchallenged.

Basically, the only reason there are "two" parties is because the people need to be distracted with their hate for "the other" (witness how folks around here talk about Democrats, as if they are somehow so much smarter for favoring the GOP -- despite there being no practical difference whatsoever :rolleyes:). If politics were allowed to be about the issues, rather than just blind partisanship, it would threaten the process by which the single Statist party furthers its relentless confiscation of ever-increasing quantities of national productivity, to redirect into the pockets of those who produce nothing. It might encourage people to (gasp!) cross party lines over important issues, which is only a step away from voting for third parties or whomever actually represents their interests. God forbid!

This is why I refuse to hate the person, while I may be disgusted with their political views. Peoples' political views aren't engendered by objective consideration, but rather by oppositional hate. I refuse to be a part of this process. (No matter how offensive B92FSL's posts may be from time to time. :p) Instead, I have sympathy for their manipulated state of mind, and simply try to reach out to as many as I can.

Someone once said, "those who cannot do, teach". This could not be farther from the truth. In reality, those who cannot do, enter politics -- or buy politicians so they can profit from appropriated resources and a veneer of productivity.

Where should I start?--let's see here; I'm thinking along the lines of Marshal knows it's over this election cycle for whatever runs on the Republican ticket, and has decided to call foul of the whole process, of course, because President Obama couldn't actually legitimately win, am I wrong about this? Whew, I'm a bit finger-winded.
 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Where should I start?--let's see here; I'm thinking along the lines of Marshal knows it's over this election cycle for whatever runs on the Republican ticket, and has decided to call foul of the whole process, of course, because President Obama couldn't actually legitimately win, am I wrong about this? Whew, I'm a bit finger-winded.

Is it really so challenging to consider the notion that a person could dislike both parties equally? Is it really so challenging to divorce your thinking from the simple-minded "if you're not for one, you must be for the other" fallacy? Is it really so challenging to understand that marshaul's disdain for Obama is equivalent to his disdain for whomever the Republican party nominates?

You are the bread and butter of the two-party monopoly strategy. It's a political good-cop-bad-cop game, and you're the rube they've got duped. One of the millions, that is.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Is it really so challenging to consider the notion that a person could dislike both parties equally? Is it really so challenging to divorce your thinking from the simple-minded "if you're not for one, you must be for the other" fallacy? Is it really so challenging to understand that marshaul's disdain for Obama is equivalent to his disdain for whomever the Republican party nominates?

You are the bread and butter of the two-party monopoly strategy. It's a political good-cop-bad-cop game, and you're the rube they've got duped. One of the millions, that is.

I see a person disliking the System but not each party equally. Marshaul, if pushed, would vote on the Republican ticket; but we would never know for sure, right?

You are right, I have been duped by the two-party system that I rail against.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I see a person disliking the System but not each party equally. Marshaul, if pushed, would vote on the Republican ticket; but we would never know for sure, right?

You are right, I have been duped by the two-party system that I rail against.

I don't see how voting for a candidate I actually think is halfway decent (enough that it's no longer a "lesser evil") is being "pushed". It just so happens that the GOP will never, ever field a candidate I find halfway decent. They certainly have not done so for the past half a century.

I'd also vote democrat if they managed to field someone I could endorse, but they won't do so either.

You can see whatever you like, but I once might have had some faint traces of a vestigial preference for the Democratic party. However, I'm not going to argue that because I really, passionately don't care to argue one single thing in favor of either party over the other.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Witness the Power of an Idea: Ron Paul Massive Rallies 2012

This is real.
This is happening.
You will not see this on television.


[video=youtube;hgsg7a-Ok8Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q&[/video]
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Ron Paul primed to take Iowa

http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/p...-–-caucuses-set-to-suffer-another-fatal-blow/
As unthinkable as it seems, Iowa Republicans are on course to declare three different candidates the winner of the 2012 caucuses. Ironically, the candidate who actually won the contest, Rick Santorum, will have received the least for his effort here as Mitt Romney received all the attention and hype from being declared the winner on caucus night, and Ron Paul is likely to get the most delegates.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
A Ron Paul supporter is voted caucus chair in King County, Washington. King County GOP's Lori Sotelo then says everyone has to leave the building because the GOP paid for the building insurance, not the Ron Paul campaign. Here's video of the crowd saying what they think of that.
[video=youtube;q-zOrBIXwBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-zOrBIXwBs&[/video]
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Oh so that's what being "unelectable" looks like!

Amazing videos of the huge Ron Paul crowds.

[video=youtube;o2e_FUy-3eo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2e_FUy-3eo[/video]
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
If Ron Paul discovered a cure for cancer:

--Fox would refuse to mention his name, and they would say that Romney "almost" discovered a cure for cancer, and Newt invented modern medicine

--CNN would say that Ron Paul gave cancer to lab rats, but ONLY the ones from Israel

--MSNBC would say that anyone who believes in cancer cures was a conspiracy theorist and then, in teh same breath, would say that Ron Paul would only dispense his cure to white heterosexuals...
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI

So that's what "unelectable" looks like.

What a joke the establishment Republicans are. Talking about "breaking the rules." Romney supporters were passing around fake delegate slates that were even printed on the same color paper! And they had 400 "guests" there who started voting along with the voice voting!

Paul supporters go out of their way to follow the rules, while the establishment changes the rules, breaks the rules, and plays sneaky and dirty and are just all-around corrupt S.O.B.s. Just look at Athens, GA and St. Charles, MO! Those committee members there should be in prison for election tampering, or at the very least kicked out of GOP office for a long time.

Ron Paul is an honest man. And the establishment can't allow an honest man to be President.
 
Last edited:
Top