Meanwhile, in Ron Paul News….
* Politico's Roger Simon: "In Iowa, Ron Paul is on time and on message."
* L.A. Times: "GOP rivals trade fire in Iowa, much of it aimed at Ron Paul."
* Manchester Union-Leader publisher: "Ron Paul is truly dangerous."
* After ensuring a full in-box with the sentence "The Paul candidacy is of course doomed," the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger makes an interesting point:
But the Paul vote won't die. This vote has been building in the depths of the American political ocean since the spending spree of the second Bush term. These people see the upward spending trend in annual outlays and accumulated commitments not as a "problem," as the Beltway prefers, but as a threat to their well-being.
The Romney campaign may assume that this vote must land by default in their man's lap. By the relentless logic of the Romney camp, that's true. But if we've learned anything the past several months, it's that this is one of the most volatile Republican electorates in a long while. […]
But if the former Massachusetts governor doesn't reach out pretty soon to the Paul-Perry-Bachmann Republican protest voters, he may never get them. The longer he waits, the more pressure will build for a third-party challenge that will cost him the election. That it would be led by a Ron Paul or Donald Trump is irrelevant to why these people would vote third party—or stay home.
Mr. Romney is going to have to take a risk with some piece of his locked-down strategy—the RomneyCare denial, the "middle-class" ceiling on his tax cut, naming a running mate who could have beaten him in the primaries.
Mr. Romney needs to give these Republicans a reason to come in his direction, before they walk away from him forever.
* New ad: "The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul":
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the spending spree of the second Bush term.
Whaaaaaaaaa...?
2004 outlays: $2.47T
2008 outlays: $2.98T
2009 includes the Obama stimulus, and clocks in at $3.51T
2011 is estimated to be $3.8T.
Spending in Bush's second term increase about 20%.
Spending in Obama's first year increased by 18%. Over his first three years, 30%. Obama is averaging 10%/year increases, compared to Bush's 5%/year.
But its the Bush spending spree that's killing us.
2009 is on Bush. It runs Oct 1 to Sep 30 and the CBO forecast $3.5 trillion before Bush left office.
Consider George W. Bush's eight horrendous years: The budget grew 89 percent?from $1.86 trillion to $3.52 trillion.
http://reason.com/archives/201.....-cut-gover
shrike -- some of the (significant) disparity between 2009 final and 2009 budget was what Obama & Co. did in 2009.
Matt, if we're talking actual budget outlays, Bush does deserve most of the blame for 2009. He submitted the $3.1T budget and then went hogwild trying to stop the economic bleeding. According to this Mises article, Obama is the first president in decades that actually cut federal outlays compared to his predecessor.
And most of the stimulus money Obama added to the pile wasn't spent until FY2010 and 2011.
2009 is on Bush.
No, it's not. The stimulus was one of the first things Obama did after taking office. That's all him.
Bush's FY 2009 budget was $3.1T, up a paltry 3% or so from the $2.98 spent in FY 2008. Actual outlays under Obama were, as noted, $3.51T, up nearly 18%.
Also, as noted, Obama is increasing spending at twice the rate that Bush did.
Again, most of the stimulus (controversially) wasn't budgeted for FY2009. 2009 is far more on Bush than Obama. Sure, if Obama were more responsible, he could have cancelled spending already allocated, but most presidents wouldn't throw their departments into organizational budget confusion in the middle of a fiscal year.
2009 is far more on Bush than Obama.
Bush budgeted a 3% increase. Obama spent an 18% increase.
Yes, he budgeted a 3% increase before TARP and the massive Fed/Treasury response to the fiscal collapse in late 2008 (part of FY2009). The $185B in the stimulus bill spent in FY2009 is about a 5% increase (all wasted in my opinion).
While Obama certainly contributed to the problem both as Senator and as President, putting the difference between the budgeted amount and the increase in outlays entirely on his shoulders is not a fair assessment. Bush's administration took the actions that contributed to a majority of that increase in outlays.
TARP was also in fiscal year 2009.
Hmm, didn't Obama vote for TARP? .......
I don't think anyone's claiming Obama is innocent. Merely that it's a cheap (or more likely, misinformed) political tactic to include the first year in office, budgeted and approved by his predecessor, in attacking their fiscal record as President. It's far less clear than that. Bush was still in office the first three to four months of FY2009. If you take out 2009 spending, Obama is not exponentially worse than Bush on spending (which means he's still atrocious), but the debt is more out of control because of greatly decreased revenue while attempting to maintain the same irresponsible level of government.
But in doing that you are absolving Obama of all responsibility for TARP and placing it on Bush. And further, TARP, for all of its sins, was a one time thing. The stimulus raised baseline domestic spending and thus lives year after year.
In the end, we are talking about the wrong people. Presidents don't control the budget, Congress does. If you want to have a meaningful debate over which side is worse, compare the spending under the 01-07 Republican Congress with the 07-11 Democratic Congress. What you find is that spending really didn't explode until after the Dems took Congress in 2006.
Not at all. Obama has blood on his hands for that, as did McCain, Bush, Paul Ryan, etc. Are executives fully responsible for legislative atrocities they signed, or are they not? Either Bush is accountable for approving crappy budgeting, massive spending and emergency measures - or Romney can't be held responsible for Romneycare, Obama for Obamacare or the stimulus, etc. since they didnt' actually write these laws. I prefer to assume they are responsible and I don't have partisan blinders to assume that rule doesn't apply to my "team".
We are comparing records as President. Including the first year (which conveniently happens to be the worst year) wholly in Obama's record on spending in order to advance a largely false meme that Obama is a radically worse spender than Bush looks more like either Team Red partisan jockeying or fiscal ignorance.
Merely that it's a cheap (or more likely, misinformed) political tactic to include the first year in office, budgeted and approved by his predecessor, in attacking their fiscal record as President.
Ordinarily, perhaps. But in Obama's case, given that the first major piece of legislation he signed was the stimulus, I don't think so.
For crying out loud. Let's just agree that Bush went hog wild on a spending spree during a crisis. Rather than reversing course when the crisis was over, Obama decided to make it an ongoing thing. Regardless of who you want to blame, we need to stop it and reverse course.
"Regardless of who you want to blame, we need to stop it and reverse course."
I agree. I happen to blame the two-headed monster called Bush-Obama. Do you really think these are two different creatures?
PIRS,
Why not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Last I looked there was something about money not being drawn from the treasury without Congress' approval in the Constitution.
"Are you SERIOUS?"
Because Reid and Pelosi didn't pass any new spending programs in 2007-2008 (other than TARP).
And TARP could have been avoided with some decent foresight but the Bush administration had its head up its ass 2001-2008 instead of shit like this -
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2003/pr03-140.cfm
Your ideology has blinded you. I didn't become a GOP hater until 2003 and the Medicare Welfare Plan/Iraq War/Downpayment Welfare Plan.
I didn't become a GOP hater until 2003
So prior to 2003 you were a Christfag?
But in Obama's case, given that the first major piece of legislation he signed was the stimulus, I don't think so
Which, as I've said multiple times, was mostly budgeted for FY2010 and 2011 outlays. Only a small fraction was spent in FY2009 (between passing in March and the end of the FY in September). Look, I hate defending the dude, but FY2010 had a marginal cut, making him the first president in quite a while to actually cut outlays in the first FY completely controlled by him. The idea that Obama has taken us on a spending rampage compared to Bush is simply false (as wasteful as the bailouts and stimulus were).
Moreover, unlike Bush, Obama is at least willing to pay for his spending (well, more accurately, make other people pay for his spending by force). Bush might have had to make similar concessions had he stayed in office.
We need to base our criticisms on facts and not on talking points.
Moreover, unlike Bush, Obama is at least willing to pay for his spending
WTF???
Quadrupling the deficit is paying for your spending?
The proposal to roll back the Bush tax cuts would temporarily increase revenues, which have fallen drastically, which is why the deficits are historic. I'm not advocating doing that by any means, just that Democrats are willing to tax to cover their spending, unlike the Republicans.
To be fair, I think the writer's point was that the Tea Party got started right at the end of Bush part two's second term.
What the hell are yall arguing about? Which spendthrift raped the taxpayer more? Who gives a damn, they are both rapists.
Fan of this team: He rapes me cuz he loves me.
Fan of the other team: He rapes me cuz he hates me.
So 3rd parties get raped out of disinterest?
No, out of fairness.
Thank you!
Which spendthrift raped the taxpayer more?
I defer to our resident expert, STEVE SMITH.
Poor Steve Smith.
What did this man ever do to the reason commentariat?
http://www.espncricinfo.com/au.....67192.html
Mr. Romney needs to give these Republicans a reason to come in his direction,
There is no possible credible way for ROMNIAC to suddenly reverse course on his entire political career and become a small-government fiscal hawk.
Can't. Be. Done.
Sure, he can lie about it. But who will believe him?
All the people who believed that George W. Bush was a "small government" conservative?
Did we even have a government when Bush was in office?
I think there was anarchy and chaos and a Third Jedi Purge and shit! It was awful!
Thank God Obama offered the world order.
Obama != Khan
Just to clarify, are you talking Genghis or Singh?
Noonien Singh, of course! We are one big, happy fleet! Ah, sloopy, my old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?
You know, my opinion of Indian education really went down when I heard him say that, as it's an Earth proverb. Maybe French, maybe not.
Well, the Klingons stole "bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'" I'm sure it wasn't the French, though. IIRC, their's goes "Revenge is best served by handing your rifle over to the man that wronged you." Or something like that.
Not those French. The earlier, more German French.
Not those French. The earlier, more German French.
You mean the French that didn't have a hotline to the US? The one's that actually defended themselves?
Wow. That's a tough concept even knowing the Franks were germanic tribes.
France could use another Charles Martel.
French politics could use another Marcel Marceau. Or about 250 of them.
And so could American politics.
The Franks are germans, the gauls are french and the normans are brittons while the english are germans.
I love europe.
Pro Lib, do you not enjoy Hamlet in its original Klingon?
The Klingons clearly have no respect for intellectual property rights.
I just had my annual holiday sci-fi movie marathon last night. Started off with Khan, moved to Aliens, and finished off with Alien.
Obama finds himself growing fatigued.
Not to interject but it seems the Mme. Pelosi has the the back of her hand pressed firmly to forehead as well!
http://biggovernment.com/jssha.....-congress/
Different kind of order. Khan meant this kind of order: "a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement."
Obama meant this kind: "an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate."
I would still rather live under Genghis Khan than Khan Singh.
Or Obama, for that matter.
Vercingetorix!
In 2000 Bush did say
"But we can't be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don't think nation-building missions are worthwhile."
I fell for it too.
I fell for the line, though not enough to vote for him. Considering he ran as a "compassionate conservative" I was smart enough to read through that and cast my first ever POTUS ballot for Harry Browne, a distinction in which I still take great pride.
He can change the definitions which measure his policy positions. The individual mandate is conservative now.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....servative/
Fuck Willard.
All Romney needs to do is lead a pitchfork and torches bearing lynch mob over to the Federal Reserve. Instant credibility.
What time?
I reiterate: The Million Pitchfork March is what it will take to start bringing about real change.
When 8-( Ron Paul loses the nomination I h-word *he* is the leader.
When do we get our march!!? When do we get our march!!??
One thing I will say in Romney's credit is that he's playing very smartly. Not only has his operation been relatively stable, he's specifically not launching hits on Ron Paul like Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are. I think he (unlike the others) realizes that in a close race he can't afford to burn bridges, because that could trigger an Paul independent run in the general. Of course, that's a possibility anyway, but why help it along? Paul's attacking him far more than vice versa.
Sometimes the best thing you can do to look strong is to not react when "weaker" people attack you.
My response to most insults is "I've been called worse by better." I've always been surprised at politicians' refusal to actually take, and articulate, a principled stand on anything.
Of course that surprise might be why I will never, ever be a politician.
That and the pictures.
+1
Professional politician. Empty suit. Cipher. Placeholder. Yes, he's doing that perfectly.
I totally agree.
"The Romney campaign may assume that this vote must land by default in their man's lap."
HAHAHA
Can Romney process "disappointment"?
Now that I have Gary Johnson to vote for on the Libertarian ticket any Republican who is not Ron Paul will not get my vote.
I can't decide which would be better: helping Johnson become the LP candidate so maybe he can spoil a purple state (NM) or plain old sending an "FU" message to the anti-liberty Republicans with a Paul vote. Decisions, decisions.
Are you not able to do both?
I'm pretty sure in my state I can only vote in one primary. I think I'd have to choose between voting in the Republican or the libertarian primary. But if one loses and another wins I'll support the one who wins.
Why don't you take the two minutes to google it up with your state election board?
Because I was 99% sure.
I checked.
Open primary, can choose one ballot, don't have to be affiliated. I can either vote on the L ballot or the R ballot but not both.
You have an L ballot in your primary? That seems....unlikely.
Why is that?
Perhaps robc is referring to the Libertarian Party as nominating their preference at convention rather than via primary ballot. I figured one could be a registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul and show up to the LP convention to support Gary Johnson. I could be wrong. It's been a while since I looked deeply into LP structure.
I think you'd have to be a party member selected as a delegate by your local party and approved by the state party to go to the convention. Don't think the average casual LP voter has much of a voice.
This is inacurate. The delegations often run half empty. It is not difficult in the vast majority of states to become a delegate to the national convention.
It may not be difficult, but I still thought there was an allocation procedure by state parties administered through local parties in selecting a delegate. At least that's how it worked in my local party when I went to meetings.
I'm pretty sure in my state I can only vote in one primary. I think I'd have to choose between voting in the Republican or the libertarian primary. But if one loses and another wins I'll support the one who wins.
This is a total no-brainer. Spend your vote in the Republican primary. The Libertarian primary is not going to be much of a contest.
It's been contested before (1988) so I won't assume that now.
The LP presidential candidate is chosen by convention, and most or all of those delegates are unconstrained by their states' primary.
I was there in '88. I had a free vote on the first ballot. (For the record, it only went one ballot.)
Ditto. Although if Romney selects Paul as his running mate (credibility, anyone?), and Paul accepts, I may get pulled back in.
Rand Paul might be a more likely choice. I think he plays better with the masses, as well as with the current Romney supporters. He could more credibly choose Rand without it being an obvious ploy, and Rand could more easily accept. It would get my vote.
Nonono. We need him in the Senate, not seat-warming for President Good Hair.
God help me, his hair is AMAZING.
Do you suppose there really was a homosexual conspiracy to cover up the threat of AIDS as Ron Paul claimed in a solicitaion letter for subscribers to one of his newsletters?
http://img140.imageshack.us/im.....uicide.jpg
There was most definitely a PC conspiracy to exaggerate the threat of AIDS for those outside of high risk groups. I think they were worried about "Hemophiliaphobia" or something.
A PC conspiracy to exaggerate the threat of AIDS? You really meant that?
Yeah, well, I suppose there could be a little truth to that. It does seem that heterosexual, non-needle-using threats of exposure were exaggerated when AIDS became a big issue. I don't know that it was so much PC as done in the fear that the general public wouldn't care much about a disease that hit drug addicts and homosexuals the hardest. Or, to be fair, it might've just been ignorance and the precautionary principle at work.
I'd say you summed it up about right except for the "little truth" part.
I was a teenager in the late 1980s, and I seem to recall the fear mongering suggesting that if you had sex with somebody, you were having sex with everybody they ever had sex with.
What I was never able to understand is why every other VD is the sort of stuff we laugh behind people's backs about, AIDS gets much different treatment
Well there is that whole incurable-disease-used-to-be-a-short-term-death-sentence aspect to HIV infection...
Admittedly, the threat is far great with sodomy in general, not homosexual sodomy in particular. Acquiring AIDS merely through exchange of seminal fluids is possible from what I understand, though not approaching a near certainty. Meanwhile, acquiring AIDS though seminal fluids flowing into an open wound is more far more likely.
The reason AIDS hit the gay community so much harder is due to act of sodomy being a bit more prone to incidents of tearing and wound-opening. Perhaps this also explains how a certain minority group known for being well-endowed also featured a higher rate of initial infections.
There was no conspiracy, but there was a great exaggeration of the 'AIDS epidemic' in many areas. UNAIDS consistently used poor methodology that always hyped up the threat. A UN science agency using shitty practices with questionable ethics...must be an aberration.
Re: Tonio.
I can vouch for that. The running meme during the early 90s in Mexico was that AIDS affected everybody - that is, everybody, and that something had to be done about it. A very similar thread was being followed in the US (whatever I could see on satellite TV and US magazines) was that the AIDS epidemic could cause a catastrophe all over the world. The thread ended, obviously, with a call for taxpayer money to lavishly fund anti-AIDS research.
Of course the pandemic scare was an exaggeration. Don't think for a minute it did not happen - those comments [allegedly pinned on Paul] did not come out of the blue, Tonio.
And of course, President Reagan was evil for not mentioning the word "AIDS": the wicked worldview that somehow people couldn't do something to raise funds for research themselves without Big Government leading the way.
And it wasn't really a conspiracy. There was nothing covert about it.
"AIDS isn't a gay disease; it's a people disease."
Michael Fumento, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS:
http://amzn.to/uuultD
AIDS was "a disease which doesn't discriminate" for certain purposes, but for other purposes (that is, calling Reagan a homophobe), it was a gay disease (so that opposition to AIDS funding was objectively anti-gay).
I don't think the word myth means what you think it does.
The mythmakers of the 1980s were talking about nice white people like Ryan White who never had gay sex, never slept with prostitutes, never used dirty heroin needles, and didn't sleep with those who had.
In the eyes of the mythmakers, Main Street America was so bigoted they wouldn't care about gay people, drug addicts, or Africans dying, so the key was to pretend like straight, traditional-family, non-heroin-using Americans were just as much in danger as the "outcast" social groups.
I would also give "credit" to the mass media of the time. It always boosts ratings to push "there's a new, terrible threat... and it can happen to YOU (and YOUR CHILDREN!!!1!)".
Nowadays they have to content themselves with foot-nibbling fish and digital drugs. You can imagine the fun and profit in playing up a debilitating, disfiguring, fatal disease, whose cause was a mystery.
Also recall that early on the evidence against easy transmission was epidemiological: "we know from public health that heterosexuals are unlikely to get it, but we don't know why." That's a great market to sell panic into.
My father (AIDS!)
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades
Lease is still an underrated play.
Dear Max:
Nobody cares to discuss the newsletters with you.
Re: Appalachian Australian,
Maxipad there is simply shifting the focus because the racism canard has been shot down in flames. The homophobic canard as well, as I showed last night, but the pet yorkie will continue to yap until he shits on the carpet.
Wow, still spouting the same logical fallacies even after being taught how they're fallacious?
You've graduated to fucking stupid.
If I were Ron Paul, I'd be putting a restraining order on you, Max.
Fuck maxiepad, Dr Ron Paul personally pays for someone's health care, but you still prefer the Killer Drone fucking killer Obama, who's now getting ready for war against yet another MidEast country. And all you can do is join the Big Smear campaign run by Gingrich, Romney and the Obamabots against RoAn PaOul.
pitiful, MaxiePad, just pitiful.
Romney can drop dead. Ron Paul needs to keep pushing as hard as he can, as often as he can, and pull through.
Cue dipshit liberals screaming NOOSE-LETTERZ!
Hey, we warned you guys this would be a big deal if Paul got anywhere close to the lead. We said he should have confronted it and explained it fully much earlier in the process (ideally, like 15 years earlier, but back when he was polling a few months ago 7% would have been fine too.) I frankly don't care about his loyalties to Rothbard and Rockwell, nor do voters. I just want him to win, and I see the newsletters as a huge barrier to that goal.
Now the consistent media meme from both Team Red and Team Blue is that he's a crypto-racist who wants America to be nuked by Iran and every preteen high on heroin.
And "our problem" is...that still sounds better than what we have now.
The newsletter weapon appears to have been fired and found wanting, because they've switched back to sputtering about Iran.
I think their problem is that there is a significant bloc of even the GOP electorate that doesn't really feel like having another war tomorrow morning. Isolating Paul and abusing him on this issue, while competing with each other over who is the war-iest or the warriors out there, actually builds Paul's base for him.
This is true.
The pro-war vote is also divided amongst numerous candidates, while the anti-war contingent is fairly consolidated.
And you were wrong, it isnt a big deal.
Ok, I guess that's true because you say so. Kelly Clarkson endorses Ron Paul and every article of course includes her reactions on how she feels about "supporting a racist" when prompted by the media.
To be perfectly honest, I am stunned to see Henninger even admit to any untoward increase in spending under the Bush administration.
A modicum of honesty, perhaps? Genuine guilt?
Our spending and the state of our economy should be the only issues for this campaign. The only ones. We're not going to get a Congress that will significantly reduce spending on its own, even when it goes GOP, so the only hope right now is to elect Paul (or Johnson, of course). That's it. No one else will even try.
Ron Paul should address the US debt and spending problems as what it really is: a national security issue. Run to the right of the GOP on National Security by clearly stating that if the US wishes to remain the world's superpower, it must get its fiscal house in order.
It has the benefit of being true.
I think the official term is "Limited Hangout"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
Did we even have a government when Bush was in office?
Spend more, govern less!
I can't recall any regulations or taxation during the time, though I do remember having to fend off serfs as they were starving in the street. Child labor was abundant then, however.
Sarbanes Oxley.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....icker.html
The USA is #4 in fewest regulations - behind only Singapore, NZ, and Honk Kong.
Like the difference between the 4th largest army and the 1st, the difference between the 4th least regulated and the least regulated is orders of magnitude.
Of course, I was kidding. We're overregulated, and the Bush years only added to that state.
You didn't have the kids carry your litter? Helped keep the serfs back.
Good litter-bearers are really hard to find these days.
I think the official term is "Limited Hangout"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
Is this related to that story about Milton Berle taking out just enough to win?
The reason Obama is president now and not Hillary is becasue where Hillary supported and voted to authorize the Iraq War, Obama opposed it. ...which is to say, Obama got out ahead of Hillary, the establishment candidate, on the issue that Democrats were really excited about at the time.
Romney is certainly in danger of playing Hillary's role in the Republican primaries today. His support for RomneyCare is in some ways like Hillary's support for the Iraq War.
Romney needs a vice president who will give him some personality and credibility. Preferably someone from the South. What's Nikki Haley doing these days?
Or, perhaps more relevantly, who's Nikki Haley doing these days?
Or, perhaps more relevantly, who's Nikki Haley doing these days?
I sure wish it was me!
That's exactly the kind of stuff Romney needs!
The man's so vanilla. He needs what old school rappers used to call "flavor". I think Postrel would say he has a glamor problem.
From a strategic perspective, he needs somebody from the South, who will also sell in places like California, too. And for the kicker, Nikki Haley could cure that robot aesthetic he's got goin' with a smile.
Straight up, if you're somebody who people suspect may be wearing magic underwear, countering that with a running mate, who people suspect may have taken her underwear off at some point?
Could be just what the doctor ordered.
He could also select Sasha Grey. She obviously has great experience running a business.
Yeah, Nikki Haley being accused of something is exactly like what Sasha Grey does.
...not that I have any idea who Sasha Grey is or what she does. ; )
"Next Republican in line" candidate combined with an attractive female vice presidential candidate? Why didn't they think of this before!?!
Well, at least Haley could grab a bit of the minority vote...
This plot line sounds familiar...
The wisdom of Ron Paul
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo......etters.php
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?" -June 1990
"Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little." -'The New York Bombing,' April 1993
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)." 'Blast 'Em', October 1992
"The opposition will do its best to provoke some precipitous action on on our part to discredit us and our cause. Follow the orders of Captain Parker at Lexington: Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." -Militia's 10-point advice to other militias, January 1995.
."When the New Money is imposed, every American family must have a Survival Kit of highly liquid, small-denomination silver and gold coins for hand-to-hand use. The Ron Paul Survival Kit ? now an industry standard ? comes in an official World War II US Army ammo holder." -Ad for 'The Original Famous Ron Paul Survival Kit,' undated
On tonight's news: A 76 year-old man fails to have progressive views on gay rights. But first, a breaking story about a dog biting a man!
Breaking News: 76-year-old crackpot thinks Mossad may have bombed the World Trade Center and is now running for president.
If you bother to read your own posting it says "was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects", not that the author believes
You're a fucking moron.
EDWARD SMASH! EDWARD HATE RONPAUL!
I can suck my own cock.
And frequently do.
You're not one to call people morons, Max.
Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.
Shorter: it doesn't matter who did it.
Nothing to criticize there, Max.
Fuck you.
WAAAAHH! YOU'RE RIGHT IM WRONG!!!! FUCK YOU RACIST!
Now that Max has been handed his ass via facts, let's go to Max for his well-reasoned response:
Max|12.29.11 @ 11:31AM|#
"Fuck you."
Way to go Max!
Re: Maxipad,
The pet yorkie is shifting the focus yet again, now that the racism canard ahs been shot down in flames.
Go on, pet yorkie. Now tell us how Paul believes in ancient alien technology or wicca.
Ron Paul is that weird Greek dude on History channel?
psoulokis...or something. What is up with his tan?
It wasn't Mossad. Everyone knows it was the FBI.
The Mossad is secretly operating the FBI.
Are you hinting at something?
An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)." 'Blast 'Em',
Not that different from the cop who told me to be sure to wait until they were inside and facing you.
Wish I'd bought one of those Ron Paul survival kits. I'd have made a crap ton of money.
Re: Maxipad,
I created my own when gold was at $690.00 and silver at $15.00; it has valuated against the dollar by a factor of 2.
But the pet yorkie wants to believe that espousing such ideas is nutty. I am crying all the way to the bank.
By the way, Maxipad, take you Thorazine. Please. You're seeing hobgoblins everywhere.
Thanks, Max, where do we send the $$check$$. It will be signed by $oros.
"You are a godsend Maxie. Thanx a million for the Smear. Check is in the US mail."
Let's see now, launching Killer Drones that kill Blacks, Arabs and Persians is patriotic and makes someone worthy of reelection or election, but "insensitive" remarks alone are grounds to disqualify a candidate who would stop the Killer Drones.
Ron Paul X
Paul is so egregiously mishandling the whole newsletter thing that it really causes me to doubt whether he has the chops to be President.
Philosophically, I'm on board, but the kind of political/cultural revolution we need calls for a knife fighter with keen political instincts. And I don't Paul is that guy.
Leaving aside the issue of venue, Paul needs to out the authors, repudiate them, and give a plausible explanation of his (benign) neglect. He needs to give it once, and answer all future questions "I already dealt with that. Let's talk about how to keep this country out of the shitter, shall we?"
The libertarian bench remains stubbornly shallow so vote for Paul and hope rand builds upon it for the 2016 race which will be another open race after Obama finishes.
You mean like Rockwell?
I am pretty surprised at how little traction the newsletters story got.
I think it's partially due to the fact that the GOP establishment is so fucking incompetent that they decided to hit ramming speed three days before Christmas. And partially due to the fact that the story got used once before and is less shocking to insiders this time.
I wanted him to do exactly what you're saying, and still am going back and forth. But right now I want a NH TV ad with the "Ron Paul saved my life" guy. And he needs to dig up some African-American marijuana activist to do an ad saying how Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about any issue that will actually help minority voters in 2012. Work "restore citizenship and voting rights" in there somewhere too.
The only problem with doing that this week (paradoxically) is that the GOP electorate might react with hostility to ads with black faces. So Paul can't make his own best defense against racism effectively in his advertising because the people criticizing him are themselves racist.
I just want Paul to appoint an AG who will fix the DOJ. That, and putting The Judge on SCOTUS are worth every effort to get him elected. Every president is retarded. I want this retard.
Best case Paul was totally unaware of this shit going out under his name...
But who wants a president that is so hapless and out of touch that this shit can go on?
Who wants a president that will hit the gas pedal as we're heading off the cliff? Paul is the only candidate in the major parties who won't. I don't give a crap if all he does is submit slashed budgets over and over again, veto the hell out of bills, and refuse to do things he views as unconstitutional. He can do that from the Oval Office by phone.
Paul could phone in 4 years of vetos and do more for America than 50 years of progressives have done.
Hell, distribute out proportional taxes back to the states and let them decide on what they want to spend it on.
The pardon power could also do some damage to some state overreach. Zapping EOs, too. There's quite a bit he could do without much efforts.
Or even just effort.
Valid points all the way round.
Who wants a president even remotely resembling anybody else in this race?
If your an anti-war single issue voter, aren't you being unbelievably stupid voting for anybody but Ron Paul. Everyone else with a shot seems to be engaged in a race to see who can start the next war while we're still fighting at least two different ones already.
Ditto goes for the single issue anti-drug war voter. It's not like he's going up against the 27 Yankees here for your vote. It's a low bar to clear.
or the single issue "cut 1T in the first year" voter.
or the "follow the constitution at least somewhat" single issue voter
or the, well, you get the idea.
There are about 20 different single issue voters for which Paul is the only plausible candidate.
Yes, and his anti-war stances will also encourage Democrats to come vote in the GOP primary for him. Or at least they would have before the media taught them that he was a "massive racist".
If Ron Paul was an unchallenged incumbent President, I'd gladly register as a Democrat and vote for Kucinich. At least he gets some important things right, which is better than I can say about most Democrats.
Yes, and his anti-war stances will also encourage Democrats to come vote in the GOP primary for him. Or at least they would have before the media taught them that he was a "massive racist".
You're overestimating the intellectual honestly of most Democrats. They won't vote for Ron Paul because he's got the wrong letter after his name, end of story. The newsletter angle is a convenient excuse for desperate Dems trying to rationalize the Obama vote they're ultimate going to cast.
* ultimately
But who wants a president that is so hapless and out of touch that this shit can go on?
Me.
I want the President to do about two things: Sign legislation, and veto legislation.
But who wants a president that is so hapless and out of touch that this shit can go on?
Actually, ....
Re: Tim,
Out of touch with what? The man was not in Congress during that time but managing his OB/GYN business. Even Superman could not be in 2 places at once. use your head.
Nice article about Paul organization in Iowa.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48432
Nice article about Ron Paul, the 9/11 Truther
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h.....f-racists/
Red State would be circle jerking themselves into an ecstatic frenzy if we bombed every Islamic country that looked at us funny. If Paul, felt the same way they'd be frothing at the mouth to defend him.
Because he doesn't. And that's why Romney, et al, can't extend an olive branch to Paul's supporters. And none of the supporters are going to be lured to vote for the GOP nominee who believes in business as usual for the
Empire. I could not find one RP supporter at the meet-up last night who would admit to voting Republican in 2012 if Ron Paul is not the nominee.
none of the supporters are going to be lured to vote for the GOP nominee
Eh, I don't know. I suppose voting for Romney over Obama wouldn't be the worst thing ever. I definitely would vote libertarian if Gingrich got the nod.
If the GOP controls Congress, Romney could be worse than Obama because they're essentially the same but Romney would have a compliant Congress to assist. I'd rather have gridlock.
Same here. If Ron Paul is not the GOP nom come Nov 2012, then I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.
Ditto.
And, if Ron Paul loses, I think he has a more natural fit with the State of California than he does with Texas. He should come here and run for governor!
Same here. If Ron Paul is not the GOP nom come Nov 2012, then I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.
Double post! To hades with thee server squirrels!
Re: Maxipad,
Nice way to shift the focus, pet yorkie, now that the racist charge has been shot down.
Okey-dokey, Max. And from here on out, you're to be considered onboard with whatever the hell Red State is peddling. Nice cup of neocon you just poured yourself. Hope you find it tasty.
I'd venture that cozying up to 9/11 truthers would gain votes, not lose them.
I suggest that you have joined the wild-eyed race-baiting smear team that includes the Gingriches, the Romneyites, the Bachmann crowd, the Obama nuts and the rest of the bunch of "serious" media like the Post, the Fox, the Times and other outlets that never say too much without permission from The Beltway Elite....bow down and foam at the mouth!!!!
But who wants a president that is so hapless and out of touch that this shit can go on?
Especially when we've already got one.
I don't give a crap if all he does is submit slashed budgets over and over again, veto the hell out of bills, and refuse to do things he views as unconstitutional. He can do that from the Oval Office by phone.
He should spend his entire first year in office stamping, "TL;DR" in red on every single Bill to reach his desk.
That's what I'd do.
Or TU;DR.
Man, I'd die from laughter if that ever actually happened. Could you imagine the hissy fit in DC?
Someone suggest this to Gary Johnson, immediately,
Too bad Cain dropped out. I could totally see him doing something that comical.
Why isn't anybody commenting on the ad? It's really good.
Did anyone else mis-read that as "The Passion of Ron Paul"?
Re: Appalachian Australian,
Why would anybody do that, A?
It's a decent ad; too bad they had to just show Dr. Paul doing his job as a physician in order to fight back against the newsletters, but yes, helping a woman with a problem pregnancy despite her being white with a black husband, then not sending a bill - if that's what a racist dr. would do, then racism just ain't what it used to be.
And when the young Dr. Paul walks in to save the day, he's slo-mo and bathed in light - these ad guys don't play around!
Because they're one of the other five people who've seen The Passion of Ayn Rand? Eric Stoltz sleeping with Ayn Rand while his smoking hot wife just lies back and gets none. If that dude's wife was that hot in real life, he was a sick, sick man.
There are other possible reasons for confusion, and it's nothing to do with Ayn Rand. But I hope *that* kind of confusion hasn't happened.
I thought it was ok, going to be a bit hard to trim it down to 30 seconds for television consumption though.
wait, what? Ron Paul aborted a mulatto baby on account of its race?
Re: yonemoto,
Shit, I saw that joke last night on Daily Paul.
Interestingly enough, it's the mulatto candidate who wants to directly subsidize the abortion of mulatto babies.
Wouldn't want them to be punished with a child.
honestly, I cried watching that video. My acerbic sarcasm is 1) just a knee-jerk overcompensation for not wanting to show my sensitive side and 2) a cynical take on how the left will exploit this. Mark my words.
Putting Ron Paul in the same category as Donald Trump. What a schmuck.
In my opinion, if Paul can make it through Iowa and New Hampshire with a 1st and 2nd respectively, the newsletter issue will be dead and the pols and pundits will have to compare him to Romney based on policy as opposed to age, what happened 20 years ago or some other manufactured reason.
And I know I said he needed to name names last week. It looks like I was wrong, and defending his record has been sufficient.
You kidding?
If he pulls that off the newsletter will be front and center on every media outlet!
Even FOX and MSNBC will unite to fight a common enemy like Paul.
I don't think so. They've all been beating him up for at least 10 days on it, and he's countered well and given reasonable explanations. Their viewers have tired of it already. Rehashing it over and over will only make Paul a sympathetic figure, and will get people websearching his name, and those search results won't bode well for Team Red or Team Blue.
The have to demonize him somehow to discourage people from listening to what he has to say.
Once people listen, and give it some thought, there's a chance they'll come around.
Their straw man tactics are failing because his real message is getting out, so their next fallacy is the ad hominem.
After that they're pretty well sunk.
The Hume-Maddow report?
More like the O'Reilly-Maddow report.
Say what you want about Brit Hume, but the guy is generally fair.
Hannity-Olbermann report.
Pandemonium! Cats sleeping with dogs!
Fox should offer Olbermann the old spot Alan Colmes had with Hannity and resurrect that show. Then fire Olbermann after one episode and say they will pay his contract off (make it so he cannot work until the contract term ends), but they just wanted to show his hypocrisy to the world.
LULZ would ensue, along with some exploding heads.
Why fire him? He only has a fighting chance at winning an argument when it's against a shill or a straw man.
Keep him on. He'd be made to look like such a fool that he'd quit on his own, or better yet kill himself.
But the whole point in hiring him would be to point out his hypocrisy. Do that, and he is permanently marginalized within his circle of progressive idiots for taking the Ailes bait.
Then he kills himself.
His hypocrisy doesn't need to be pointed out. It's right there in the open.
Liberals are proud to be hypocrites.
Not that they would admit it. That would require honesty.
I don't know. In a two person room with Hannity, it's not hard to come off as the reasonable one. Even Olbermann could do that, just to fuck with Hannity and Fox News.
Ya, I don't want Hannity and Olberman talking to each other every day on TV. One of them will end up looking the "reasonable one". And they are both grade-A assholes, who don't ever deserve to look like the "reasonable one"
If he pulls that off the newsletter will be front and center on every media outlet!
Good. Then we can finally have my "Nation of Cowards" conversation.
If / when Paul wins, the headlines will read "Newt comes in third behind Romney".
I would have agreed with that 10 days ago, but not with Titties' campaign spiraling down the crapper like it is today. Hell, there's a better chance you see Santorum plastered [titter] across America's front pages next Wednesday.
Santorum could concievably beat Gingrich. Paul and Romney tied for first.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1588.html
Something that doesn't get talked about much, is how prepared Paul is to do well in the Caucus of Iowa.
He's got more boots on the ground and his troops are more dedicated than any other candidate.
Dur, there's a reason every conservative talk radio jock has been saying "Iowa doesn't even matter" for the past month.
Is Iowa even a state?
What's a caucus?
Some sort of French-Canadian-Maoist thing, I think.
Sounds dirty.
cock-us
I hope they don't allow children to those things.
Does it involve the wiggling of fingers and crossing of arms?
And making "caw" sounds ("cau" in French). Very impressive, your knowledge of French-Canadian-Maoist political practices.
If he comes back with 30% or more that could really help his campaigning in new Hampshire.
I still don't see his leading to his nomination but this might shake up the party enough to tilt it back toasted our favor. We can never trust the neocons or socons again but perhaps the independents could lead to a paleo/libertarian takeover of the GOP.
fish|12.29.11 @ 11:13AM|#|show direct|ignore
Not to interject but it seems the Mme. Pelosi has the the back of her hand pressed firmly to forehead as well!
http://biggovernment.com/jssha.....-congress/
reply to this
Pelosi's daughter is a good and fair documentarian. I have a sneaking suspicion that if her mother decided to end her "public service," she would be the kind of liberal to jump on the Paul bandwagon.
"Pelosi's daughter is a good and fair documentarian."
So, the pathology is not genetic?
No, it's not. watch her documentary on GWB, and ask anyone in Bush's inner circle. They've always maintained that she was professional and fair-minded in the way she presented him.
The link was all Sugarfreed for me. Here is the article, I think.
OT: Can somebody tell me what to push to take scroll lock off on my fucking laptop? I can't get Excel to move boxes with my arrow keys because scroll lock is on, and I'm about to go batshit.
[ScrLk]?
I'm not retarded. My keyboard doesn't have a [ScrLk] key.
Should I have used sarcasm tags?
No. [SarTg]
It might have one as a dual function key. So it might be a combination of holding down the function key while hitting some other key.
I know that much. I was just hoping some nerd on here would know the combination. It's a Dell Latitude, by the way.
I'd plug the model number into google and see if you can find a manual.
A manual? Turn in your man card, sir.
In my line of work "RTFM" is a standard answer to most questions.
Manuals are okay for little people, but not for manly men such as we.
I wouldn't hire you.
It used to be the only way in IT. Now script kiddies don't even understand how they're doing things. They just follow what google says. Get off my lawn, punks.
[fn]+[F5]!!!!!
Thanks for nothing, people.
Thanks for nothing, people.
That's what you get for asking libertarians.
M stands for "man page" not "manual". Duh.
Not that that isnt basically the same thing.
And, yes, I know.
It's quite simple. First, procure a fatted calf that has a pure, white skin.
Second, sacrifice that calf before the laptop while facing towards Redmond.
Finally, hit the scroll lock key seven times, while chanting odes of praise to Microsoft.
That only works during certain phases of the moon.
Except when you're on the Moon.
Jeebus. Imagine that. Windows embedded systems to go to the moon. Wouldn't you love to find out the retrorocket driver wasn't compatible with the new patch. Although the Apollo 11 lander pretty much BSOD'd in the final seconds. Thankfully nobody trusted computers with important stuff like activating thrusters back then.
Well father said, "Eldest son, kill the fatted calf,
Call the family round
Kill that calf and call the family round
My son was lost but now he is found
'Cause that's the way for us to get along"
Hey
Ask the closest 12 year old.
My Dell is Fn F5 - your results may vary.
Hmmm, maybe I should try reloading the page periodically before replying...
silly concept
The Libertarian candidate will get my vote if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, so there's that. Well that and all of the Dem/Independent votes that the Republicans will lose if Ron Paul isn't the Republican candidate.
I don't think Henninger has it quite right. I don't think the Ron Paul supporters are necessarily "getable" by Romney. I don't think they're exclusively Obama haters. I think they're more interested in making a statement about the whole kit and kaboodle in Washington. With Gary Johnson running Libertarian, I think most Paul voters likely will land there if Paul loses.
The WSJ can't mention this point yet. They have to save it for the "you're re-electing Obama" hysteria in October.
If Ron Paul loses, he should move to California and run for governor. We need him!
Johnson needs 15% in polls to be in the October debates.
I think he can get that.
* Manchester Union-Leader publisher: "Ron Paul is truly dangerous."
Best endorsement I've read so far.
Ron Paul is a racist? HAHAHAHA your kidding right?
http://youtu.be/2fyBzkBtl34
I finally broke down and read that Union Leader thing.
Holy shit, the guy who wrote that is a hyperventilating moron.