I'm not sure what he means by that. The last time the Dems controlled the White House we didn't just balance the budget, there was a freaking surplus that we were using to pay off the debt. Republicans, for all their talk of small government and reduced spending, always outspend everyone on other people's money, running up the largest budgets and deficits on record. I would like to see more people act like Democrats these days.

Why does Ron Paul make so many Republicans uncomfortable? Because he's got the same position they used to on a ton of issues, before they all got into power and corrupted themselves.

"Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination," Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Cybercast News Service.

"He has a fanatical group of libertarians who stand behind him that account for the success he's had against all of the mainstream positions," added Herb London, president of the conservative Hudson Institute.


Fanatical Libertarians and the internet are like peanut butter and chocolate.

I sure lorb that crazy old bastard. We could do a lot worse than Ron Paul.

/he's right ya know

"If we continue to do what we have been doing, we are going to run into a financial crisis," Paul added. "We spend too much money everywhere"

even blind, old, slightly unhinged squirrel with very unhinged supporters occasionally finds a nut

"If we continue to do what we have been doing, we are going to run into a financial crisis," Paul added. "We spend too much money everywhere"

Well duh!

Well, he is right. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

Nabb1: Well, he is right. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

We need to wrap some copper around his corpse and use it to power the national grid.

schnarff: Why does Ron Paul make so many Republicans uncomfortable? Because he's got the same position they used to on a ton of issues, before they all got into power and corrupted themselves.

Speaking as a Canadian, looking at it from the outside, some of Ron Paul's positions are a little out there. But for the most part he sounds closer to what I always had pictured in my head as an American Conservative than most of the maroons currently in that party.

Well, he is right. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

Where is Newt Gingich?

/cheating on his wife while shes on her deathbed.

vernonFL: /cheating on his wife while shes on her deathbed

well, he had no interns handy for office hummers

I'm interested, but not enought to click on Newsmax.

I haven't watched it yet, but for anyone interested here is his whole speech (all pops):

Intro
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Jaboobinator: "Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination," Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Cybercast News Service.

"He has a fanatical group of libertarians who stand behind him that account for the success he's had against all of the mainstream positions," added Herb London, president of the conservative Hudson Institute.


Fanatical Libertarians and the internet are like flies and road apples.

ftfy

This Ron Paul guy sounds really smart. I'm voting for him!

T-Boy: I'm not sure what he means by that. The last time the Dems controlled the White House we didn't just balance the budget, there was a freaking surplus that we were using to pay off the debt. Republicans, for all their talk of small government and reduced spending, always outspend everyone on other people's money, running up the largest budgets and deficits on record. I would like to see more people act like Democrats these days.

That's somewhat accurate. The republican party used to be fiscally conservative. You can't stand for big government and low taxes at the same time. The current crop of repub's are mostly in some delusion on what fiscally conservative means. That's why we have such massive deficit spending.

The democrats are for big government and high taxes. At least they're honest about it. I'd vote for a balanced budget before I voted for small government.

The fact is that fiscal-conservative low-tax advocates don't really have a party anymore.

Wendy's Chili: If you JUST came to this realization today I'm shocked, but I highly doubt it.... :/

Jaboobinator: Fanatical Libertarians and the internet are like peanut butter and chocolate.



so they stick their dick in the peanut butter?

/fark your own food. if it ain't got your name on it, don't fark it.
//how about just don't fark food?

schnarff: Why does Ron Paul make so many Republicans uncomfortable? Because he's got the same position they used to on a ton of issues, before they all got into power and corrupted themselves pretended to have so they could market themselves to people to inflate their own numbers so they could run rampant, knowing that the people who had those issues at heart were easily conned and too stupid to actually do the research themselves, eventually turning into party loyalists that would shout down anybody simply because they weren't part of the party.

FTFY.

sarcastrophe: he fact is that fiscal-conservative low-tax advocates don't really have a party anymore.

No, the sad truth is that they're part of the Democratic Party but don't really realize how small of a part they have in the whole scheme of things. And considering we're a nation run by corporations and their flunkies to a big extent, people are now relying on government more to supply the things that a corporation cannot. Within this, being fiscally conservative means that you're backing the corporations without really meaning to. If anything, fiscal conservation is no longer a real player in the game because it doesn't have a truly clear view of how it fits anymore.

It certainly doesn't help him when people go to vote and he isn't on the ballet.

Or voters get told he's dropped out of the race.

Or the fact that for the past 6 months he's had zero mainstream media.

Look at crybaby Hillary. Someone said she's pimping out her daughter and she's all a tiff saying she'll never be on MSNBC again.

They call Paul crazy and he just takes it like a man.

I'm glad to be called crazy if crazy means logical, sensible, and constitutional.

cltbuilder: Nabb1: Well, he is right. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

We need to wrap some copper around his corpse and use it to power the national grid.

I've been trying to do something like that with Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin throughout the Bush presidency. The electro magnetic vortex created by the sheer speed of their spinning makes it incredibly dangerous to get within 20 feet of their graves. Especially if there are any metallic objects nearby. 10 feet is guaranteed third degree burns. Under 5 feet is fatal after 30 seconds.

Well, yeah. Both parties spend money like restraint will give them AIDS. Democrats spend it on pork, social programs, enviromental regulation, corruption, and infrastructure. Republicans spend it on pork, Jesus, blowing shiat up, corruption, and blowing more shiat up. And at least the Dems have the decency to levy sufficient taxes to cover their costs, rather than borrowing it from China.

A Republican who'd actually support limited and decentralized government, well, it's not exactly my ideal, but it could work, and it'd make our current choice between tax-and-spend Democrats and borrow-and-blow-shiat-up Republicans somehwat more palatable.

damiandt: Or the fact that for the past 6 months he's had zero mainstream media.

that's insane. he's had more than his share of big media coverage for a guy who is pulling 5-8 percent of the vote in the primaries.

fark trying to campaign to the voting public. If you want to win the presidential election, you need to be blowing the electoral college. Who the voting public votes for means nothing.

T-Boy: I'm not sure what he means by that. The last time the Dems controlled the White House we didn't just balance the budget, there was a freaking surplus that we were using to pay off the debt. Republicans, for all their talk of small government and reduced spending, always outspend everyone on other people's money, running up the largest budgets and deficits on record. I would like to see more people act like Democrats these days.

One favoite form of right wing equivocation in America is the term "fiscal conservative". It is often used in the same breath as "sociual conservative", but "conservative" has two totally different meanings here.

Another Republican playing the Democrat = Republican card.

Most of the modern GOPher party are not wot you'd call Conservative by any stretch of the imagination. They are not fiscally conservative they are fiscal FAILures. Their Social Conservativism, such as it is, is mostly just a whack of immoral, regressive, unconstitutional un-American hate dressed up in Bible verses and called "Values"

Ron Paul is half crazy it is true but compared to the rest of the pack of totally addlepated party hacks he is the one eyed king in the land of the blind.

/Ever hear a Dem calling another Dem a Republican? Didn't think so.

albo: damiandt: Or the fact that for the past 6 months he's had zero mainstream media.

that's insane. he's had more than his share of big media coverage for a guy who is pulling 5-8 percent of the vote in the primaries.

Chicken, egg
Egg, chicken
hmmmmm

Uncoolest: Chicken, egg
Egg, chicken
hmmmmm

that's rationalization. the guy raised $20 million. any competent ad agency could establish national name recognition for that. he's got a dedicated volunteer mouse army to get out the vote.

result: the voters do know him. and they don't want him president

albo: that's rationalization. the guy raised $20 million. any competent ad agency could establish national name recognition for that. he's got a dedicated volunteer mouse army to get out the vote.

result: the voters do know him. and they don't want him president

No. No they don't. I convinced two people to vote for him in stump speech at caucus. They hadn't heard his positions before.

Can someone explain how Ron Paul is crazy? I see this being proclaimed time after time but no evidence is ever offered.
What kills me is dipshiates like Boortz (who continually claims to be a libertarian) say that there is no way he can vote for a "cut and runner". Seeing as how killing brown people is his only litmus test, he should gladly support Hillary. Besides, how can Paul be a "cut and runner" if he never voted for the war in the first place?

albo: Yea, I'm personally quite surprised how little ads he has gotten out there for $20 million, but then I consider Clinton has spent nearly $100 million and I've seen only a few of her ads I hear about her and Obama from the news a LOT more than I hear about her from her advertisements, that says a LOT. Thing is with most companies they generally try to rollout their advertising over time from State to State as their brand rolls out. No brand new company has ever had any success launching a national advertising campaign, its much more successful to do start in one place and work your way out depending upon word of mouth for some of it. Launching a national brand in a few months is very very hard.

Hey Ron Paul supporters, if you want to end the war in Iraq, balance the budget, and reduce the national debt, you should probably vote Democrat this fall. Just sayin...your party doesn't care about any of these things.

MindStalker: albo: Yea, I'm personally quite surprised how little ads he has gotten out there for $20 million, but then I consider Clinton has spent nearly $100 million and I've seen only a few of her ads I hear about her and Obama from the news a LOT more than I hear about her from her advertisements, that says a LOT. Thing is with most companies they generally try to rollout their advertising over time from State to State as their brand rolls out. No brand new company has ever had any success launching a national advertising campaign, its much more successful to do start in one place and work your way out depending upon word of mouth for some of it. Launching a national brand in a few months is very very hard.

In Denver, he had a number of ads on CNN. Maybe about 1 per hour or so. I think he only really advertised in the non-winner take all states. Being grounded in reality is a good thing.

Though Paul was greeted by cheering crowds, many political analysts say he is unlikely to get the Republican Party nomination.


"Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination," Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Cybercast News Service.



And that right there is a sad commentary on the state of the Republican party today. Ron Paul is only advocating a return to the core principals of the party, and he's roundly rejected by the party insiders.

Shaggy_C: Hey Ron Paul supporters, if you want to end the war in Iraq, balance the budget, and reduce the national debt, you should probably vote Democrat this fall. Just sayin...your party doesn't care about any of these things.

...as with any statement about Republicans, you forgot to add the "except Ron Paul" qualification.

All those things are good, but limited government is a big part of the philosophy as well. A budget that's balanced with higher taxes isn't preferable, but it's definitely better than deficit spending.

there was a freaking surplus that we were using to pay off the debt.

Nope. Never occurred. There would have been if Bush had continued down the path Clinton started, but Clinton didnt hang around long enough to ever actually run a surplus.

Tjos Weel: there was a freaking surplus that we were using to pay off the debt.

Nope. Never occurred. There would have been if Bush had continued down the path Clinton started, but Clinton didnt hang around long enough to ever actually run a surplus.

So long as social security is hanging over our heads we'll never run a surplus.

Who's Ron Paul?

sarcastrophe: All those things are good, but limited government is a big part of the philosophy as well. A budget that's balanced with higher taxes isn't preferable, but it's definitely better than deficit spending.

The fact is that when you take the cost of paying interest on the national debt into account, the long-term ability to lower taxes becomes almost nil. The Democratic platform is one that says that higher taxes on the top 5% of income earners are preferable to across the board taxes that target those who can least afford them.

he's had more than his share of big media coverage for a guy who is pulling 5-8 percent of the vote in the primaries.

He didnt get as much as Guiliani got.

Paul has great ideas, but no exposure. Yeeeah, that's why he's failed to even break into the double-digit percentage in the primaries so far. Even though I see his name everywhere I go. And, of course, there's always these constant news articles centering on him. But, other than that, no exposure. Well, that and the American public are obviously just sheep that can't handle voting for someone so insanely awesome. Yeeeah, that's it.

Weaver95: Tjos Weel: there was a freaking surplus that we were using to pay off the debt.

Nope. Never occurred. There would have been if Bush had continued down the path Clinton started, but Clinton didnt hang around long enough to ever actually run a surplus.

So long as social security is hanging over our heads counted in the general budget we'll never run a true surplus.

There, FTFY.

Shaggy_C: The fact is that when you take the cost of paying interest on the national debt into account, the long-term ability to lower taxes becomes almost nil. The Democratic platform is one that says that higher taxes on the top 5% of income earners are preferable to across the board taxes that target those who can least afford them.

Yep. And I'd think that'd be a great idea if I believed they didn't already have plans to spend that extra money on social programs instead of the debt.

So long as social security is hanging over our heads we'll never run a surplus.

As long as we are using cash accounting (which the Feds do) and SS continues to run a surplus (a few more years), social security actually makes it EASIER to run a (bogus) surplus. And still it hasnt been done.

You want ugly, check out the GAAP analysis of our financial situation.

Also, while Clintons budget numbers were good on a cash basis, they were gawdawful (less gawdawful than our current dipshiat in charge, but I aint grading on a curve) under GAAP.

/Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
//For those wondering

sarcastrophe: Yep. And I'd think that'd be a great idea if I believed they didn't already have plans to spend that extra money on social programs instead of the debt.

The fact is, Democrat social spending does far less to grow the budget than Republican military spending. This is the way that it has been for 30+ years. Your options are spend a moderate amount on things to help our own people, or spend a ton of money to blow up other people. I would rather spend a smaller amount of new money, especially if it is done by PAYGO rules. Anyone who would vote for a mainstream Republican president based on fiscal matters is woefully ignorant.

Anyone who would vote for a mainstream Republican president based on fiscal matters is woefully ignorant.

I agree. Anyone who would vote for a mainstream Democratic president based on fiscal matters is also woefully ignorant.

Which is why I dont. For either.

/Ron Paul
//or LP (again)