Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Breaking News on Drudge: Ron Paul is in for 2012

Recs

23

April 25, 2011 – Comments (41)

Let the fun begin!

Davd in Qatar

41 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 25, 2011 at 8:52 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Link to the article. Comments already shut down. Over 1,000 in an hour LMAO.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On April 25, 2011 at 9:14 PM, TMFAleph1 (96.02) wrote:

The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded.

Report this comment
#3) On April 25, 2011 at 9:41 PM, SultanOfSwing (99.09) wrote:

Maybe it's this link here.  But I don't see the 1,000 comments.  I assume they were mostly positive.

Report this comment
#4) On April 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-launches-presidential-campaign-20110425

Let's try again. Thanks!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On April 25, 2011 at 9:43 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Sultan,

Yeah that's the one. They removed all the comments. Probably flooded their server.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On April 25, 2011 at 9:57 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

Even if he doesn't win the party nomination I am voting for him.  I don't care even if it means my gold and silver are worth less.

Report this comment
#7) On April 25, 2011 at 10:01 PM, kdakota630 (29.77) wrote:

Awesome news.

I'm not surprised that he's running, only that I thought he wasn't planning to announce anything for another few weeks.

Report this comment
#8) On April 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM, ChrisGraley (30.23) wrote:

Best politcal news that I've seen for a while.

Report this comment
#9) On April 26, 2011 at 12:00 AM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Dr. Paul made three appearances today (The View, Hannity, Colbert). I have the first two clips. If someone gets the Colbert appearance or saw it, please chime in.

I wanna talk about the Hannity clip, but here's the View clip first:

Ron on the View

Ron on Hannity

Some interesting points to consider from the Hannity clip:

1. I didn't know whether to laugh or sneer at the snowball incident. LOL, is throwing a snowball really a violent act? I'd have been jailed many times as a child.  I remember when that happened and I remember why. Hopefully no one will do that again. Ron had been excluded from the debate and Hannity had previously blasted his own text poll that showed Ron way ahead in the all-important "who won" the last debate.

2. Hannity and his ilk like to play the Hitler card (he's going to take over the world!) That card was used against Hitler and they use it against anyone today.  First of all, no one seriously believes that Hitler could have invaded America.  But today, hundreds of thousands of neocons are convinced that rock-throwing, religious fanatics can take over America with no army, navy, or air force. If that isn't sensationalism.....  So this imam wants to install Sharia law in America.  Oh my god!  What would we do!  ROFL.  Does Hannity actually think the guy could do it?  Is he not aware of the millions of city, county, state, and federal police officers that are employed to protect the power elite?  The only way Sharia Law comes to America is if the power elite chooses to impose it.  Thankfully, that ain't happening.  

But what if we had a country that respected the Constitution?  Well, it's hardly an accepted Constitutional or Libertarian position to violate property rights. What court in a Constitutional America is going to uphold his claim that it was ok for him to bash in a woman's face for showing her legs? What court would say it's ok to force women to marry in a Constitutional America?  

Freedom of religion is not a one-party-to-the-transaction concept. It's a concept of voluntaryism. Both the imam and the woman he is coercing must agree to his wishes (hence, it wouldn't be coercion.) 

So Hannity is engaging in nonsense. Just fear mongering to get his voter base all worked up in anti-Muslim prejudice.

Finally, I loved Ron's response to the question about what his Presidency could accomplish. Basically, not much. A Constitutional position requires the Executive Branch to stay in their lane, giving Ron little ability to enact any cut he wants.  His job is to convince the people that it's the right thing to do, so they can pressure their representatives. He wouldn't even try to "End the Fed" on his own mandate. 

Ron wrote about this last year.  

"Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help — churches and private charities."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On April 26, 2011 at 12:26 AM, TMFAleph1 (96.02) wrote:

IMO, Ron Paul is a bit "pie-in-the-sky", but he is certainly one of the most honorable members of Congress.

Report this comment
#11) On April 26, 2011 at 1:32 AM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Ron Paul on Colbert

A fun interview.

Ron Paul - Colbert Report 04/25/11 from Ron Paul Friends on Vimeo.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On April 26, 2011 at 2:11 AM, alkusari (75.70) wrote:

Jesse Ventura: I will run with Ron Paul.....

 

Report this comment
#13) On April 26, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Valyooo (99.63) wrote:

I will probably vote for Ron Paul.  However...he is still a politician....idk why anybody should think he will be any different than any other politician.

An anarchist getting excited over a politician running....seems ironic ;)

Guess hes the lesser of evils.  Personally I find minarchy as a cop out but hey its the closest we can get.

Report this comment
#14) On April 26, 2011 at 3:27 AM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Val,

An anarchist getting excited over a politician running....seems ironic ;)

That's because we understand how rare it is to find someone that sticks to promoting liberty, and liberty only, for so long. It's quite charming.  Even to an anarchist :)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On April 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM, kdakota630 (29.77) wrote:

whereaminow

I watched him on Hannity and it wasn't bad, but thanks for the Colbert clip, especially since I could watch it here in Canada.  (If it was from Comedy Central it would've been blocked.)

Report this comment
#16) On April 26, 2011 at 11:18 AM, jasenj1 (34.46) wrote:

Too bad he's unelectable. The President is not only the Executive in Chief, but the visible figurehead of our country. You _must_ be fairly good looking and have a commanding "presence". Ron Paul is a short, little old man - not an inspiring visage.

And he has a habit of putting on a "I'm not sure what you're talking about" look when listening to questions being asked. Maybe he's getting hard of hearing and needs some hearing aids so he doesn't have to look like he's listening so intently. But he often appears slightly befuddled to me.

 Also, he's had a few tragic gaffes. Remember the last presidential debate where he answered the wrong question and looked foolish.

 Yes, those are superficial, shallow reasons, but they are significant. I like the idea of many of his policies, but I don't think he can be elected President.

However....

Rand Paul 2016 is something I might be able to get behind. 

Report this comment
#17) On April 26, 2011 at 1:01 PM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

Ron Paul will lose any run for the presidency.

Report this comment
#18) On April 26, 2011 at 2:08 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Americans spend all this time complaining about their elected leaders and how they never do what they say, and then we get stuff like this:

Ron Paul is a short, little old man - not an inspiring visage.

LOL, no wonder America is so f*cked. 

chk999,

And the deep thinker has shown up. You're like an idiot savant. You can play the CAPS game, and that's about it. Do you ever have any thing interesting to offer here?  Do you have investment advice?  Political ideas? Economic ideas?

I am purposely insulting you. I think you're a fraud and a tool.  You offer nothing.  You come on my blogs and put a one line negative comment every time. You never respond to anyone else.

So f*ck off, loser.  You can play a game, but you obviously have no brain.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#19) On April 26, 2011 at 2:31 PM, TMFAleph1 (96.02) wrote:

Hey David,

Why get upset when people (jasenj1, chk999) are stating facts? In the case of jasenj1, he did not state that this was a good reason not to vote for/ elect Ron Paul, he was simply observing what is almost certainly true: Americans will not hand the highest office to someone with Paul's demeanor/ stature.

For proof, look at the stats regarding the height of U.S. presidents. The 43 men who held that office had an average height of 70.8 inches -- that is over 1.5 inches taller than the average American male in 2005. That sort of difference is unlikely to be purely coincidental, particularly if we consider that the number would be higher if we were to adjust for the time period during which each president held office.

Alex Dumortier

Report this comment
#20) On April 26, 2011 at 3:11 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

TMFBullnBear,

Why get upset when people (jasenj1, chk999) are stating facts?

Those are not facts. They are opinions. Big difference.  You presented facts - sad, sad facts that make me wonder about the human race, but at least they were facts.  

chk999 is a hit-and-run commenter. I'm having fun with him. He's a loser.  

jasenj1 is welcome to have that opinion. I just find it disturbing. It's one of the reasons I'm convinced that statism is a religious cult and not a serious idea.

Let me be as clear as possible: I don't give a sh*t if Ron wins. It's not a horse race. Americans and their authoritarian leaders treat it like a horse race. I only care about the ideas.  

So I especially don't care if he's too short or too old or if chk999 thinks he can win.  It's unimportant.

But if you stop by my blog and offer nothing (especially if you're chk999 and do this 3 dozen times or so), I will happily insult you and tell you to p*ss off. The best thing about hit and run commentors is that they never come back, so you can say what you want! I used to waste my time offering a reasoned response to him. Now I just have fun.

Engage me in conversation as one human to another or get lost.

That's not too much to ask, I don't think.

=D

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On April 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, MoneyOre (< 20) wrote:

Yeah, who cares about character, values, morals, policies, and actions.....if they aren't tall enough, then f*ck 'em.  

jasenj1 and chk999 didn't state facts; they expressed opinions.

Report this comment
#22) On April 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM, catoismymotor (38.29) wrote:

I hope he gives the GOP a run for their money. Just by being in the race he is bound to elevate the playing field. 

Two issues, of many, I see him facing is having any one known professionally as "The Body" endorsing him and making his message understood by Joe Sixpack.

With a Tea Party tailwind and many other voters questioning their party leaders he may do well. Time will tell.

Cato

P.S. - Before you play the Hannity clip look at the frozen crawl at the bottom of the video. It looks to me like the residents of SE Missouri are being evacuated because of Dr. Paul's announcement. The authorities must be fearful of libertarian thought leaking through the levy, contaminating the sheeple.

Report this comment
#23) On April 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

Alex,

It's an interesting statistic, but what have we learned about correlation and causation?  Keep in mind the majority of those 43 were elected in a time before television.  A large amount elected before photography.  Did the majority of the electorate really KNOW that Lincoln had an imposing presence?

These days you MAY have a point about needing a strong image to win elections, but even then I'm not so sure.  We've seen plenty of unattractive "bad-on-TV" politicians win races for Congress, Senate, and Governorships.  Not exactly small potatoes.  I have no idea who has run against Ron Paul for his congressional seat in the past, but I'm 100% sure that he has defeated at least one challenger who was taller, more attractive, and a better public speaker than he is, because the electorate preferred his ideas.  Why is that possible for Congress but not for the Presidency?

Report this comment
#24) On April 26, 2011 at 3:48 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

kdakota630,

You're welcome. Hey, who you got tonight? Blackhawks or Canucks? I haven't lived in Chicago for over a dozen years, but I still can't get over my allegiances! (Sport is beautifully irrational.)

MoneyOre ,

That sums my frustration. Thanks.

catoismymotor ,

Agreed.

Though as a guilty pleasure, I love JV.  Did you see Stephanapolous' reaction when Jesse asked why there has been no idictment of Bin Laden?  HILARIOUS!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#25) On April 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM, TMFAleph1 (96.02) wrote:

Yeah, who cares about character, values, morals, policies, and actions.....if they aren't tall enough, then f*ck 'em.

Don't confuse the world you'd like/ a rational world with the world such as it is. 

Report this comment
#26) On April 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, kdakota630 (29.77) wrote:

whereaminow

I know what you mean about irrational sports allegiances.  I still can't disown the Toronto Maple Leafs.  I kind of have recently since I figure if the owners are just milking that cash cow rather than invest in a quality team (despite being the most valuable in the league), I can't support them anymore.  Realistically, the moment they turn around I know I'll be back on that bandwagon.  I have been a loyal fan for most of my forty years though.

In the meantime, Vancouver is my new team.  Perhaps I'm being blinded by that fact, but I have to think they'll take it in game 7.  They're at home ice, first overall in the regular season, and teams coming back from 3-0 deficits in hockey to win a playoff series is almost unheard of.

Report this comment
#27) On April 26, 2011 at 4:47 PM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

Gee David, guess I hit a sensitive spot hunh?

Report this comment
#28) On April 26, 2011 at 4:50 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

Alex,

Don't confuse the world you'd like/ a rational world with the world such as it is.  

Now that's a true statement!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#29) On April 26, 2011 at 4:51 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

chk999,

Any sensitivity you are imagining would be your own. I just enjoy stirring the pot.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On April 26, 2011 at 6:15 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

This morning he appeared on Fox:

"What if we liberated a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Did you catch Dr. Paul almost lose his bearing and start laughing at that question? That was funny.

How can you liberate people by installing democratic socialism, at best, and a corrupt puppet-client-state at worst?  That's not liberation. That's swapping one tyranny for another. 

Facebook accomplished that in Egypt and Tunisia (swapping leaders) without spending a penny of US taxpayer money and without dropping a single bomb. Even better, when the new "leaders" take over, at least the problems they create won't be blamed on America.

That's the beauty of it.  I know that the Egyptians are not entering into a Utopian period.  It's going to suck. But at least they are determining their own affairs, rather than begging for money and bombs (see Libya), or worse, didn't ask for help in the first place (see Iraq, Afghanistan).  

Even more than that, this attitude that we are noble crusaders liberating the world.... what is that?  That's religious mystical nonsense.  That's the essense of statism.  Everything we do is noble and glorious.  Everything we did was the best possible thing.  Baloney!  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On April 26, 2011 at 6:52 PM, TMFAleph1 (96.02) wrote:

The impact of facebook and twitter in facilitating these popular uprisings is vastly overstated, per the Economist.

Report this comment
#32) On April 26, 2011 at 7:59 PM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

The impact of facebook and twitter in facilitating these popular uprisings is vastly overstated, per the Economist

It beats bombing them, though right?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#33) On April 27, 2011 at 1:15 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.75) wrote:

You're welcome. Hey, who you got tonight? Blackhawks or Canucks? I haven't lived in Chicago for over a dozen years, but I still can't get over my allegiances! (Sport is beautifully irrational.)

Bummer. I happened to start reading this during intermission before O.T and was hoping to post Chelseas Dagger on a Hawks win but, alas it was not meant to be.

Report this comment
#34) On April 27, 2011 at 8:26 AM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

It was a great series, but no dice. At least we have the Bulls.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#35) On April 27, 2011 at 9:49 AM, jasenj1 (34.46) wrote:

"Don't confuse the world you'd like/ a rational world with the world such as it is.  

Now that's a true statement!"

And that was my point. IMCO (in my cynical opinion) the masses that determine election outcome at the national level will not vote for Dr. Paul.

 

However, I'm VERY glad that he is out there raising issues and part of the discussion. As he points out, the Rs want to spend too much on militarism, the Ds want to spend too much on socialism. Somewhere there are people who believe we should spend less on both. Dr. Paul speaks for those people and hopefully makes the Ds & Rs pay attention a little.

 

He was on CNBC this morning:http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000018858  

Report this comment
#36) On April 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

jasenj1,

Thanks for the clarifying comment. I agree wtih you wholeheartedly.  I'm cynical that he can win now, but optimistic that his ideas will win in the long run.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#37) On April 27, 2011 at 10:36 AM, kdakota630 (29.77) wrote:

whereaminow

It was a great series, but no dice.

Agreed.  I'm surprised the Blackhawks got as close as they did after being down 3 games to 0.  Unfortunately I couldn't stay up to watch the entire game.

Very happy to see the Flyers advance and the Sabres eliminated.  Now let's just hope that Boston can do the same to Montreal.

Report this comment
#38) On April 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM, whereaminow (39.83) wrote:

kdak,

Congrats!  Good luck the rest of the way!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#39) On April 27, 2011 at 5:38 PM, kdakota630 (29.77) wrote:

whereaminow

Thanks.  I don't remember the last time there was a Stanley Cup winner that I truly wanted to win.  I liked that Calgary won in 1989, but I'd probably have to go back to 1983 when I was an Islander fan, but even then I was too young to be fully into it.

Report this comment
#40) On April 27, 2011 at 5:44 PM, mtf00l (43.52) wrote:

I don't believe Ron Paul will get elected.  That's my oppinion.  "Big money" wins elections and I'm confident the "big money" holders of the world, unless they could own or do own Ron Paul, will not be sending campaign contributions his way.

I'm confident Danny DeVito could get elected as president of the U. S. with the financial backing that the last few presidents have had.  Again, my oppinion, the last few presidents were/are owned.

Big money facts;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Find; Expense summary.

You wont find Ron Paul on the list.

You will find Barack Obama number one.

Report this comment
#41) On April 28, 2011 at 10:09 AM, jasenj1 (34.46) wrote:

Ron Paul on CNBC with a reaction to the Fed chief's news conference:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000019039 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement