If your willing to wager on Ron Paul winning...

[corplinx]

Edited to add: Yes, I know I flubbed Your/You're in the thread title.


Here's the deal. If Ron Paul wins even one primary, I give you five bucks.

If he loses, here is what you Ron Paulbots have to do:
[Edited]

Mods, feel free to move this to the RonPaul SubForum.

Just post in this thread if you are willing to accept this wager because you are so sure that Ron is going to win despite not leading in any primary state in any national poll.

I know this is late in coming, but suggesting suicide is a violation of your membership agreement.

[rtalman]

He may not win a primary outright, but there is a good chance he can get a few delegates in California, which is not a winner take all primary state.

[NeoRicen]

He may not win a primary outright, but there is a good chance he can get a few delegates in California, which is not a winner take all primary state.
Ultra-conservative Ron Paul winning California?
LOL

[Brainster]

I'm willing to wager on Ron Paul's supporters around here whining when he doesn't win.

[Puppycow]

Dude, we already know that it's fixed so he can't win. Even though he wins every internet poll, the so-called "scientific" NWO-controlled fake polls like Gallup and such are fixed to set up expectations among the gullible for the inevitable stuffed ballot boxes that will coronate the NWO-controlled Manchurian candidate. So it would be silly to take that bet.

[rtalman]

Ultra-conservative Ron Paul winning California?
LOLAs I said in my post, California is not a winner take all state. 159 of the 173 delegates will be awarded by congressional district. Paul has a fair to good shot of winning some of the most conservative districts.

When that matters will be if it is a tight race at the convention with no one candidate having enough delegates to lock up the nomination. There will be much wooing and bargaining with Ron Paul if he holds enough delegates to offer to another nominee to secure a victory.

[Mister Agenda]

Edited to add: Yes, I know I flubbed Your/You're in the thread title.


Here's the deal. If Ron Paul wins even one primary, I give you five bucks.

If he loses, here is what you Ron Paulbots have to do:
[edited]

Mods, feel free to move this to the RonPaul SubForum.

Just post in this thread if you are willing to accept this wager because you are so sure that Ron is going to win despite not leading in any primary state in any national poll.

Wow, that's the nastiest OP I've seen in years. Basically, "If you win I'll give you five bucks, if I win, you kill yourself." Are you from some subculture where this type of proposal is considered funny?

[Phrost]

I think it's funny. And I sorta support Ron Paul myself. He's the closest we're going to get to a Barry Goldwater any time soon.

[Richard Masters]

Ultra-conservative Ron Paul winning California?
LOL

Ultra Conservative?

Have you ever read about libertarianism?

libertarianism is an economically conservative AND socially liberal philosophy.

Somehow, I get the feeling you are not qualified to speak about Ron Paul.

[Mister Agenda]

I think it's funny. And I sorta support Ron Paul myself. He's the closest we're going to get to a Barry Goldwater any time soon.

Eh, maybe I'm too serious this morning. He does seem like a Goldwater type, doesn't he?

[Phrost]

In a way. Same type of hate and attack ads targeted at the guy.

[Donal]

Attacks ads?

[WildCat]

libertarianism is an economically conservative AND socially liberal philosophy.
Being against church-state separation, opposing the Voting Rights Act and gay marriage is socially liberal?

[Richard Masters]

Being against church-state separation, opposing the Voting Rights Act and gay marriage is socially liberal?

No. Opposing the war on drugs; allowing people to marry whether they are gay or not; equal rights whether you are black or white... those are typically "liberal stances".

Ron Paul doesn't oppose gay marriage. He opposes all federally-sanctioned marriage. Kind of odd for someone who opposes church-state separation, right?

[corplinx]

Seppuku is painless. Come on, you stand to win 5 dollars! I'll even give them in your choice of alternative currencies.

[Kerberos]

If I believed RP would win, I think I could get better odds elsewhere. :p

[NeoRicen]

Ultra Conservative?

Have you ever read about libertarianism?

libertarianism is an economically conservative AND socially liberal philosophy.

Somehow, I get the feeling you are not qualified to speak about Ron Paul.

I know EXACTLY what libertarianism is, but I fail to see how it's relevant given that Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian.

Go look at his political positions and his voting record. It's ultra-conservative through and through.

If you want to support a Libertarian candidate then that's fine. but Ron Paul isn't one.

YOU obviously aren't qualified to speak about Ron Paul as you are apparently completely unaware of his political philosophy.

Obviously all you saw was
self-proclaimed Libertarian + getting some support = VOTE FOR HIM!
and you didn't look any further.

[Mister Agenda]

More like libertarian enough to support if he can raise awareness. The positions I disagree with him on tend to be nuanced enough to still be more palatable than the positions of his competition on the same issues. He's tough on illegal immigration but for increasing immigration quotas which would make legal immiration easier. He's not big on church-state separation but against an ammendment to ban gay marriage. He's pro-life but against a federal ban on abortion.

I note that there is no expectation for Democrats and Republicans to hold out for ideologically-perfect candidates. Libertarians are held to a different standard because of majority priviledge. Dems and Repubs swim in their special priviledges in politics, discourse, law, and media and are completely unconscious of the hypocrisy involved in demanding from others what they would never expect from themselves.

[Mister Agenda]

Edited to add: Yes, I know I flubbed Your/You're in the thread title.


Here's the deal. If Ron Paul wins even one primary, I give you five bucks.

If he loses, here is what you Ron Paulbots have to do:
[edited]

Mods, feel free to move this to the RonPaul SubForum.

Just post in this thread if you are willing to accept this wager because you are so sure that Ron is going to win despite not leading in any primary state in any national poll.

How about if Ron Paul wins even one primary you just admit you were wrong about his chances and support (without snide additions and qualifiers) and if he doesn't I'll admit I was overoptimistic about his chances and support with the same sincerity I ask of you? That would mean more to me than five bucks, and very few things are certain enough to bet your life on for such a small reward.

I'll bet my seppuku against your $5 that the earth will still be rotating tomorrow as often as you want, though.

[Mister Agenda]

I know EXACTLY what libertarianism is, but I fail to see how it's relevant given that Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian.

Go look at his political positions and his voting record. It's ultra-conservative through and through.

If you want to support a Libertarian candidate then that's fine. but Ron Paul isn't one.

YOU obviously aren't qualified to speak about Ron Paul as you are apparently completely unaware of his political philosophy.

Obviously all you saw was
self-proclaimed Libertarian + getting some support = VOTE FOR HIM!
and you didn't look any further.

Do you know exactly what Democratism is? I've been wondering and it would be nice if someone could explain it.

[Richard Masters]

I know EXACTLY what libertarianism is, but I fail to see how it's relevant given that Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian.

Go look at his political positions and his voting record. It's ultra-conservative through and through.

If you want to support a Libertarian candidate then that's fine. but Ron Paul isn't one.

YOU obviously aren't qualified to speak about Ron Paul as you are apparently completely unaware of his political philosophy.

Obviously all you saw was
self-proclaimed Libertarian + getting some support = VOTE FOR HIM!
and you didn't look any further.

Ron Paul is not a [L]ibertarian. He is a [l]ibertarian. I know exactly why I will be supporting Ron Paul and I have already discussed this elsewhere. He opposes the war on Iraq, the Patriot Act. I like his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties. I also like his economic policies.

So I'm well aware of why I am voting for him, even if as a libertarian he leans right.

Sorry, but I'm not a partisan hack, like you.

[WildCat]

I also like his economic policies.
Ron Paul has demonstrated over and over that he has no idea at all how a modern economy works, why do you find that so attractive?

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul has demonstrated over and over that he has no idea at all how a modern economy works, why do you find that so attractive?

For example?

[WildCat]

For example?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/227/monetary-policy-is-critically-important/

eta: and especially: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/255/the-maestro-changes-his-tune/

[Richard Masters]

What specifically indicates to you that Ron Paul doesn't understand how "a modern economy" works?

[NeoRicen]

Ron Paul is not a [L]ibertarian. He is a [l]ibertarian. I know exactly why I will be supporting Ron Paul and I have already discussed this elsewhere. He opposes the war on Iraq, the Patriot Act. I like his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties. I also like his economic policies.

So I'm well aware of why I am voting for him, even if as a libertarian he leans right.

Sorry, but I'm not a partisan hack, like you.

He's not a libertarian, or a Libertarian. That's what I'm saying. He's a CONSERVATIVE. That's it. No libertarianism, just small government conservatism. He doesn't want federal government to do anything but he has ZERO problems with state governments banning gay marriage, banning abortion, promoting religion and just generally squashing the civil liberties of minorities.

[Richard Masters]

He's not a libertarian, or a Libertarian. That's what I'm saying. He's a CONSERVATIVE. That's it. No libertarianism, just small government conservatism. He doesn't want federal government to do anything but he has ZERO problems with state governments banning gay marriage, banning abortion, promoting religion and just generally squashing the civil liberties of minorities.

That's a Constitutional stand. He also has no problems with state governments legalizing drugs and legalizing gay marriage, legalizing abortion, not promoting religion and generally protecting the liberties of minorities.

[NeoRicen]

That's a Constitutional stand. He also has no problems with state governments legalizing drugs and legalizing gay marriage, legalizing abortion, not promoting religion and generally protecting the liberties of minorities.

Promoting religion is NOT a constitutional stand. It's violates the first amendment. I'm not even American and I know that.

Ron Paul only follows the constitution when it suits him.

[Richard Masters]

Promoting religion is NOT a constitutional stand. It's violates the first amendment. I'm not even American and I know that.

Ron Paul only follows the constitution when it suits him.

Ron Paul doesn't promote religion via the government. So why is this relevant?

[NeoRicen]

Ron Paul doesn't promote religion via the government. So why is this relevant?
Yes he does.

He tried to pass legislation forbidding the people from challenging the government on establishment clause issue.

Consistently votes for keeping the Ten Commandments on public property.

Voted NO on:
...a constitutional amendment to clarify that neither the U. S. nor the individual states can establish an official religion and that the people's right to pray or recognize their religious beliefs on public property shall not be infringed.

Has said:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
and
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
and
Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.
and
My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul85.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

[corplinx]

I know this is late in coming, but suggesting suicide is a violation of your membership agreement.

Sarchasm, the gulf between the author or sarcastic wit and he or her who does not get it.

[Richard Masters]

Yes he does.

He tried to pass legislation forbidding the people from challenging the government on establishment clause issue.

Consistently votes for keeping the Ten Commandments on public property.

Voted NO on:


Has said:

and

and

and

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul85.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

There is a difference between protecting religion and promoting it.

When looking at Ron Paul's votes, also keep in mind that he is somewhat absolutist about federal spending and will usually vote against anything that is unconstitutional. He also votes against most legislation.