Ron Paul LIVES!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

| Ron Paul got at least 128,111 votes, or 16 percent, in the closed Republican Pennsylvania primary yesterday. Paul made four stops in the Keystone State during the month of April and spoke to overflow crowds of young people and other passionate supporters.

...

Paul is continuing his bid for the Republican nomination to spread the message of constitutional government and personal freedom, build the GOP back to its traditional roots and continue the grassroots activism his candidacy inspired. To date, he has received nearly one millions votes in Republican presidential contests and his campaign believes it will carry 50 delegates or more to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. His new book, “The Revolution, A Manifesto,” launches April 30th.

Linky. (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11237)

But why the hell did so many Republicans show up anyway? Their race really is over. Really over.

[mrbaracuda]

“The Revolution, A Manifesto” Oh sweet Lord why?

[dudalb]

But why the hell did so many Republicans show up anyway? Their race really is over. Really over.


Psssstttt..Ron Paul was never really a GOP Candidate and most of his supporters are not really Republicans. He had no support in the general party. He is a Libertarian who changed his party in his home district because he saw he could never get elected to congress as a Libertarian. Almost of his support in his presendential run came through people who were NOT Republicans before Paul came along. Basically,they tried to take over the party,and failed miserably. A bunch of people voted for Paul in a meaningless GOP primary as a kind of protest..I have no doubt a lot them did so not so much out of support for Paul but out of dislike for McCain.
"Revolution: A Manisfesto"?????
For someone who is a rabid Lasseiz Faire Capitalists,why does Paul sound like freaking Lenin or Mao?

[UserGoogol]

Linky. (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11237)

But why the hell did so many Republicans show up anyway? Their race really is over. Really over.

An individual vote rarely makes a difference. As a result of this, many people vote out of a sense of civic duty. Furthermore, it seems likely that for some people, this sense of civic duty even extends to when their vote makes literally no difference.

[WildCat]

But why the hell did so many Republicans show up anyway? Their race really is over. Really over.
My guess is that there were plenty of local races that weren't over. If you voted in a primary you'd know that there are many, many races to vote on besides POTUS. ;)

[joobie]

yeah, well huckabee got double digits, too.

[dudalb]

If Paul's book comes out April 30th, look for the Paultards to invade this website within the first week in May proclaiming it as the Second Coming and The Book That Has The Answers To All Our Problems.
Much entertainment will then ensue.

[UserGoogol]

My guess is that there were plenty of local races that weren't over. If you voted in a primary you'd know that there are many, many races to vote on besides POTUS. ;)

In Massachusetts all we had was some uncontested local elections. (There's a primary later in the year for Congressmen and stuff.) Although it does happen that this is not the case in Pennnslyvania (http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bcel/lib/bcel/elections/petition_filers.pdf).

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My guess is that there were plenty of local races that weren't over. If you voted in a primary you'd know that there are many, many races to vote on besides POTUS. ;)

Ah, yeah, that makes more sense.

[Pvt. Stash]

he (RP) and Barney Frank (D) MA, just introduced the First Federal Marijuana Decriminalization bill as well!!

Long Live RP!



(www.leap.cc)

[NeoRicen]

Psssstttt..Ron Paul was never really a GOP Candidate and most of his supporters are not really Republicans. He had no support in the general party. He is a Libertarian who changed his party in his home district because he saw he could never get elected to congress as a Libertarian. Almost of his support in his presendential run came through people who were NOT Republicans before Paul came along. Basically,they tried to take over the party,and failed miserably. A bunch of people voted for Paul in a meaningless GOP primary as a kind of protest..I have no doubt a lot them did so not so much out of support for Paul but out of dislike for McCain.
"Revolution: A Manisfesto"?????
For someone who is a rabid Lasseiz Faire Capitalists,why does Paul sound like freaking Lenin or Mao?
Wrong, Paul was a Republican first, before leaving to run a Libertarian presidential campaign in 1988, after which he went back to the Republican party where he remains. Paul is not a Libertarian, he's a paleoconservative Republican.

[Brainster]

Wrong, Paul was a Republican first, before leaving to run a Libertarian presidential campaign in 1988, after which he went back to the Republican party where he remains. Paul is not a Libertarian, he's a paleoconservative Republican.

Ah, this makes a lot of sense to me. I always wondered how a libertarian could be pro-life and favor stricter border control.

[Undesired Walrus]

He's like one of those horrible turds that just wont flush!

[timhau]

He's like one of those horrible turds that just wont flush!

Hmm... I kind of like the analogy. Has anyone tried to cover him with lots of toilet paper?

[CFLarsen]

Psssstttt..Ron Paul was never really a GOP Candidate and most of his supporters are not really Republicans. He had no support in the general party. He is a Libertarian who changed his party in his home district because he saw he could never get elected to congress as a Libertarian.

What can a Libertarian get elected as?

:D

[timhau]

What can a Libertarian get elected as?

:D

Governor of Alaska?

The Alaskan Independence Party are sort of like Libertarians with the added twist of wanting to declare Alaska as their own independent Shangri-La. They once had their man as Governor.

[CFLarsen]

Governor of Alaska?

The Alaskan Independence Party are sort of like Libertarians with the added twist of wanting to declare Alaska as their own independent Shangri-La. They once had their man as Governor.

"sort of"?

[timhau]

"sort of"?

Yeah. They're nuts, but not entirely the same way as Libertarians.

[CFLarsen]

Yeah. They're nuts, but not entirely the same way as Libertarians.

Worse or not so worse?




Ah, forget it. Dumb question. :D

[Spindrift]

Paul made four stops in the Keystone State during the month of April and spoke to overflow crowds of young people and other passionate supporters

I think some terms need to be defined:
Overflow crowds = 15 people in a Motel 6 room.
Young people = likely non-voters
passionate supporters = delusional followers

[Richard Masters]

Psssstttt..Ron Paul was never really a GOP Candidate and most of his supporters are not really Republicans. He had no support in the general party. He is a Libertarian who changed his party in his home district because he saw he could never get elected to congress as a Libertarian. Almost of his support in his presendential run came through people who were NOT Republicans before Paul came along. Basically,they tried to take over the party,and failed miserably. A bunch of people voted for Paul in a meaningless GOP primary as a kind of protest..I have no doubt a lot them did so not so much out of support for Paul but out of dislike for McCain.
"Revolution: A Manisfesto"?????
For someone who is a rabid Lasseiz Faire Capitalists,why does Paul sound like freaking Lenin or Mao?

Are you saying McCain is a Republican and Ron Paul isn't?

Are you aware that Republicans have traditionally been classical liberals?

[Richard Masters]

“The Revolution, A Manifesto” Oh sweet Lord why?

It's a bad title. I agree.

[quixotecoyote]

Are you saying McCain is a Republican and Ron Paul isn't?

Are you aware that Republicans have traditionally been classical liberals?

No need to play word games when we all know what the parties stand for now, even if their terminology is idiosyncratic or their current positions counter to the party line circa 1832.

[Richard Masters]

An individual vote rarely makes a difference. As a result of this, many people vote out of a sense of civic duty. Furthermore, it seems likely that for some people, this sense of civic duty even extends to when their vote makes literally no difference.

Does voting between Obama, McCain or Hillary make any difference?

[Richard Masters]

No need to play word games when we all know what the parties stand for now, even if their terminology is idiosyncratic or their current positions counter to the party line circa 1832.

I was responding to a word game by dudalb, so my response was appropriate.

"even if their terminology is idiosyncratic or their current positions counter to the party line circa 1832."

No need to exaggerate time frames or the facts. Republicans were against wars of aggression in 1996, even 2000.

[quixotecoyote]

No need to exaggerate time frames or the facts. Republicans were against wars of aggression in 1996, even 2000.

If you refer to the events in Liberia, CAR, East Timor, Sierra Leone, or Yemen, you have passed beyond word games into misrepresentation. Wars of aggression :boggled:

[Richard Masters]

Could you be more specific?

[quixotecoyote]

Tell me which one(s) you were referring to and I will endeavor to comply.

[UserGoogol]

Does voting between Obama, McCain or Hillary make any difference?

No, but I should clarify what I was saying. There are millions of votes. The odds that the vote is going to be so close that your vote will swing the election over is unlikely. (Even in Florida, the difference was a few hundred.) On an individual level, this infinitesimally small degree to which they effect the election is not enough to justify getting off your ass and heading to the voting booth. Voting only matters in the large scale that the aggregate behavior of millions of people deciding which way to vote matters. Essentially, it's a difference between ethics and pragmatism. People don't vote because the individual act of voting itself serves their interests, (unless they're just dumb) they vote because it's "the right thing to do." (Although personally, I think that in the long run, ethics and pragmatism overlap, and that the pragmatic benefit of voting is that you are encouraging others to vote, thus promoting a more effective democracy.)

But yeah, on the "social level" it does matter whether people vote for Obama, Hillary, or Clinton because cynicism to the contrary, there are meaningful differences there.

And for the record, It might also be worth noting that I'm roughly sympathetic with third party candidates as a general rule of thumb, and am vaguely supportive to voting for the Green Party although it depends on how sane their nominee is and I've grown vaguely annoyed by Ralph Nader and thus don't want to encourage him by giving my vote to him. (I live in Massachusetts, so I probably won't have to worry about the spoiler effect, although I've heard some vague rumblings that McCain might be able to appeal here.)

[Richard Masters]

Any part of post #26. Which events are you referring to?

[Richard Masters]

No, but I should clarify what I was saying. There are millions of votes. The odds that the vote is going to be so close that your vote will swing the election over is unlikely. (Even in Florida, the difference was a few hundred.) On an individual level, this infinitesimally small degree to which they effect the election is not enough to justify getting off your ass and heading to the voting booth. Voting only matters in the large scale that the aggregate behavior of millions of people deciding which way to vote matters. Essentially, it's a difference between ethics and pragmatism. People don't vote because the individual act of voting itself serves their interests, (unless they're just dumb) they vote because it's "the right thing to do." (Although personally, I think that in the long run, ethics and pragmatism overlap, and that the pragmatic benefit of voting is that you are encouraging others to vote, thus promoting a more effective democracy.)

But yeah, on the "social level" it does matter whether people vote for Obama, Hillary, or Clinton because cynicism to the contrary, there are meaningful differences there.

And for the record, It might also be worth noting that I'm roughly sympathetic with third party candidates as a general rule of thumb, and am vaguely supportive to voting for the Green Party although it depends on how sane their nominee is and I've grown vaguely annoyed by Ralph Nader and thus don't want to encourage him by giving my vote to him. (I live in Massachusetts, so I probably won't have to worry about the spoiler effect, although I've heard some vague rumblings that McCain might be able to appeal here.)

I misunderstood your original comment as sarcasm and responded with cynicism :blush:

Yes, there are some differences between the major players socially. Though, otherwise, they are too much like our current administration.

[quixotecoyote]

Any part of post #26. Which events are you referring to?

You said that republicans opposed wars of aggression in 1996 and 2000. I implied that I did not believe the US engaged in any wars of aggression during those years and guessed at a few countries US forces were sent to, thinking you might be exaggerating the situations.

If you want you can tell me what actions you are calling 'wars of aggression,' that's great, but I'm done playing guessing games.

[Richard Masters]

You said that republicans opposed wars of aggression in 1996 and 2000. I implied that I did not believe the US engaged in any wars of aggression during those years and guessed at a few countries US forces were sent to, thinking you might be exaggerating the situations.

If you want you can tell me what actions you are calling 'wars of aggression,' that's great, but I'm done playing guessing games.

Wars of aggression: invading Iraq or trying to provoke a war with Iran. Somewhat related: Going into Bosnia.

[Tricky]

Oh yeah, he's alive. He's certainly not in the race though, because he's coming up with interesting, innovative and probably illegal ways to use his campaign contributions (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5732113.html).


To further Paul's Libertarian-leaning agenda, his campaign is exploring a novel way to use millions of dollars in leftover donations: setting up a for-profit publishing company that would focus on free-market economics and personal liberties — causes the Texas congressman holds dear.

Political finance experts say such a business venture funded with some $4 million in political cash would test the bounds of federal campaign finance regulations.

"I've never heard of anyone taking their campaign money and putting it into a for-profit corporation," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an organization that advocates campaign finance reform.
But he'll probably get away with it because...

"There's a provision that says you can use the funds for any lawful purpose, so long as it's not personal use for the candidate," said FEC spokesman Bob Biersack.
But the election watchdog agency cannot enforce its own rules because a majority of its board seats are vacant, the result of a partisan stalemate on Capitol Hill.

Besides, politicians are remarkably unified in ignoring what other politicians do with their campaign money. Too many glass houses on Capitol Hill.

[Mister Agenda]

I think some terms need to be defined:
Overflow crowds = 15 people in a Motel 6 room.
Young people = likely non-voters
passionate supporters = delusional followers

The first term is easy to check: crowds of around 800, 1200, and 2000 at colleges RP spoke at in April. Overflow of course depends on the size of the room in relation to the crowd.

[Mister Agenda]

What can a Libertarian get elected as?

:D

City Council. State Legislature. Maybe Sheriff. If Tim Moultrie had been elected Superintendent of Schools in SC he would have been holding the highest-ranking office of any Libertarian.

[Mister Agenda]

Linky. (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11237)

But why the hell did so many Republicans show up anyway? Their race really is over. Really over.

Civic duty. To make some kind of point, maybe. I would think once the race is decided one might feel more free to vote their conscience rather than factoring in who can beat whom. Someone who thinks RP and Huckabee are wingnuts and would never vote for them if they thought they had a chance of winning might vote for one of them now to send a message that they aren't happy with the choices available to them. Voting is primarily a mechanism for selecting political leaders, but it is also a means of expression.

[moon1969]

So can Ron Paul walk on water and turn water into wine? :D

[moon1969]

Oh yeah and Mike Gravel is a libertarian. See for youself:

"Running as a Libertarian

Mike allegedly issued a press release a while back saying he was going to run for the Libertarian nomination for president."

http://www.gravel2008.us/node/172

Looks like Ron Paul might have some competition. :D

[quixotecoyote]

Oh yeah and Mike Gravel is a libertarian. See for youself:

"Running as a Libertarian

Mike allegedly issued a press release a while back saying he was going to run for the Libertarian nomination for president."

http://www.gravel2008.us/node/172

Looks like Ron Paul might have some competition. :D

All that is, is some schmuck on a forum saying Gravel issued a press release. For all we know 'rich' could be you.

I would much rather have Gravel as president than any of the front runners, but he is not running as a libertarian.

[quixotecoyote]

Wars of aggression: invading Iraq or trying to provoke a war with Iran. Somewhat related: Going into Bosnia.

The first Gulf War was 1990-1991. (calling this a war of aggression is a stretch)

Bosnia was 1995. (calling this a war of aggression is a real strech)

The new operation in Iraq started in 2003.

So your dates don't match.

Further, look at the key figures by party that instigated US involvement in each conflict as opposed to those who opposed them. I do not think it will square with your assertion that:

Republicans were against wars of aggression in 1996, even 2000.
Even if one forgives you for mangling the dates and assumes you mean the conflicts you name, it doesn't make sense.

[dudalb]

So can Ron Paul walk on water and turn water into wine? :D


Nope, but, to some of his supporters, Obama can.

[Richard Masters]

The first Gulf War was 1990-1991. (calling this a war of aggression is a stretch)

Bosnia was 1995. (calling this a war of aggression is a real strech)

The new operation in Iraq started in 2003.

So your dates don't match.

Further, look at the key figures by party that instigated US involvement in each conflict as opposed to those who opposed them. I do not think it will square with your assertion that:


Even if one forgives you for mangling the dates and assumes you mean the conflicts you name, it doesn't make sense.

Actually, it does make sense. Republicans opposed Bosnia in 1996. President Bush got elected by promising a non-interventionist foreign policy in 2000.

[quixotecoyote]

Actually, it does make sense. Republicans opposed Bosnia in 1996. President Bush got elected by promising a non-interventionist foreign policy in 2000.

I'm sorry, but trying to paint President Bush as an opponent of wars of aggression is absurd for reasons that should be obvious.

[Richard Masters]

I'm sorry, but trying to paint President Bush as an opponent of wars of aggression is absurd for reasons that should be obvious.

I'm not trying to paint Bush as anything. His 2000 platform specifically opposed military intervention.

Bush at the 2000 presidential debate regarding Somalia and the Balkans:
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

The point is, he was elected under the assumption that he would maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy. That was a core value of the Republican party.

But back to the point. In this respect Ron Paul is certainly a Republican.

[hgc]

I'm not trying to paint Bush as anything. His 2000 platform specifically opposed military intervention.

Bush at the 2000 presidential debate regarding Somalia and the Balkans:
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

The point is, he was elected under the assumption that he would maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy. That was a core value of the Republican party.

But back to the point. In this respect Ron Paul is certainly a Republican.

The history of Republican "non-interventionalism" - January 20, 1993, 12:00 PM to January 20, 2001, 12:00 PM.

Incidentally, the U.S. intervention in Somalia began under Bush père, December 12, 1992.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

If Paul's book comes out April 30th, look for the Paultards to invade this website within the first week in May proclaiming it as the Second Coming and The Book That Has The Answers To All Our Problems.
Much entertainment will then ensue.


According to the Amazon.com ratings, this book is the greatest ever written.

With all the great reviews I guess Ron Paul is right about everything.:rolleyes:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519

[Richard Masters]

The history of Republican "non-interventionalism" - January 20, 1993, 12:00 PM to January 20, 2001, 12:00 PM.

Incidentally, the U.S. intervention in Somalia began under Bush père, December 12, 1992.

And yet the Republican party has historically been classically liberal until about the 1950s. There has been a major shift toward neoconservatism since then, especially in the last few decades.

That the last few Republican presidents pretended to be classically liberal (and acted otherwise) has no bearing on whether Ron Paul is a Republican.

[Richard Masters]

According to the Amazon.com ratings, this book is the greatest ever written.

With all the great reviews I guess Ron Paul is right about everything.:rolleyes:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519

Nice straw man.