Wait.. did I read that right? The order went Romney, Paul, with McCain coming in third?

Even though McCain is the only one actually running at this point?

If that's what I'm reading at the bottom of that article there then... *snort, snicker, etc*

funny headline

I really hope he gets the VP nod.

We need a Veep who doesn't give a shiat about conventions against wearing Reebok tennies with suits.

Don't worry, everyone! Cliffs aren't in the constitution.

The actual caucus was held before romney dropped out.

The vast majority of farkers hate the republican party establishment.

Yeah many of the ron paul people (myself included) are whack-os, but at least cut them a little credit; they're the only ones actively campaigning to dismantle that establishment, and they're making a good show of it from only 4-8% of the electorate.

The conspiracy won't let anyone get in their way of imposing fascism on the American people. For to dismantle the conspiracy, we need to return to a real monetary standard, based on GOLD, and they would never go for that. RON PAUL.

/channeling Alex Jones

Falcc: Don't worry, everyone! Cliffs aren't in the constitution.

Thread over. Clear winner.

glutton: Falcc: Don't worry, everyone! Cliffs aren't in the constitution.

Thread over. Clear winner.

Agreed.

Ross Perot is cooler than Ron Paul, says Ross Perot

glutton: Falcc: Don't worry, everyone! Cliffs aren't in the constitution.

Thread over. Clear winner.

It was funny the first time. After having been posted within the first half-dozen posts of every Ron Paul thread in the past six months, it loses some of its humor.

I think the Ron Paul phenomenon deserves some attention, even if it wasn't successful this year. I have two aunts who are new-found libertarians, and are getting a taste for political activism because of it. I'm an Obama supporter and I think libertarianism is the wrong way to go, but I respect them for supporting a candidate that actually shares their views. You can sense the conviction that kind of consistency brings, and it's exciting.

We've all discussed how there are a lot of people out there in the republican party who are true fiscal conservatives and fed up with the way the party has changed. It might be a slow continuation of the sentiment behind Ross Perot, and the fact that Bush has done so much that people who supported him as the anti-democrat can't really ignore his flaws anymore.

I'm interested to see where this might lead in the next decade or two. I'm all for a multi-party system, so wedging in the green party and the libertarian party as viable options would be a dream come true for me.

I will say this-

I was a diehard Ron Paul supporter. He had his flaws, no doubt, but he was better than any one else seeking a major party nomination in my opinion. I am more pissed, by far, at the incompetence that pervaded his campaign and the whackjobs who were allowed to define its public image than I am at the media for not taking Paul seriously. People shouldn't take you seriously when you hang out with troofers and people like Alex Jones. One of the good things I like about Barr is that he has made clear he doesn't intend to associate with such people- even back when doing so could have really helped him secure the LP nomination (he barely beat out an anarchist troofer on the sixth ballot). Ideally, he'll start the ball rolling for taking the message of libertarianism and the LP, stripping away the fringe-movement craziness, and start reaching out to the 10-25% of the population that leans libertarian on an issues quiz.

Churchill2004: Chomsky isn't a member of the LP is he? You don't hear too much about leftist libertarians from them.

Churchill2004: It was funny the first time. After having been posted within the first half-dozen posts of every Ron Paul thread in the past six months, it loses some of its humor.

Sand? In YOUR vagina? It's more likely than you think!


Matt Damon!

Liberal Elite: Chomsky isn't a member of the LP is he?

No. His rejection, out of hand, of any conception of property rights is an anathema to the classical liberal tradition that forms the core of libertarianism. Like most libertarians, I'm more than happy to work with him on issues of common concern, but his worldview is in many ways at odds with "libertarianism" as understood by the LP and American self-proclaimed libertarians.

Liberal Elite: You don't hear too much about leftist libertarians from them

You weren't paying attention- the woman who almost beat Barr is a left-libertarian in that she focuses more on the "socially liberal" side of the libertarian coin. And Mike Gravel made a surprisingly strong showing, too, particularly considering that unlike Mary Ruwart (the woman Barr barely beat), Gravel had not only no respect for, but no apparent knowledge of basic libertarian principles like self-ownership and private property.

Boojum2k: Sand? In YOUR vagina? It's more likely than you think!

There's a difference between getting all snotty because some one made fun of your candidate (which I didn't) and pointing out that the exact same joke isn't funny the fiftieth time.

/snark away

Churchill2004: There's a difference between getting all snotty because some one made fun of your candidate (which I didn't) and pointing out that the exact same joke isn't funny the fiftieth time.

I agree, but couldn't resist the snark.

LOUD NOISES!

Churchill2004: I will say this-

I was a diehard Ron Paul supporter. He had his flaws, no doubt, but he was better than any one else seeking a major party nomination in my opinion. I am more pissed, by far, at the incompetence that pervaded his campaign and the whackjobs who were allowed to define its public image than I am at the media for not taking Paul seriously.

It made no sense for Paul to try to win this election. With the current and probable Congress that will be installed after the election, there would be an impasse. He'd veto everything, they'd override most of it just to prove they could. I think getting his message out was the goal, not the Presidency. 4 years from now, with a handful of Congressional members supporting the ideas he espoused, a candidate like Ron Paul might actually have a shot. I think a Democrat in the WH for 4 years would cause a lot of Republicans to rethink this bigger government that Bush has created.

/vote RP in the primaries.
//Will not be voting for Obama or McCain.

The revolution shall live on no matter what you libtards say! Ron Paul mearly ignited the fuse of libertarian ideas that will lead to an explosion of freedom minded thought among the new, younger voting crowd. people are tired of politics we have now, mccain and obama are just two sides of the same corrupt political coin. it is crucial to have people, like ron paul to remind us how far the apple of america has fallen from the tree of liberty and freedom from which we were seeded.

cltbuilder: It made no sense for Paul to try to win this election

It was unrealistic to expect him to win, but at the same time you can't really run a campaign if you're openly admitting that you don't intend to win.

cltbuilder: 4 years from now, with a handful of Congressional members supporting the ideas he espoused, a candidate like Ron Paul might actually have a shot

I'd love to see a serious "Ron Paul Republican" and/or Libertarian Party push for a few, selected House seats in 2010 and 2012. But even optimistically speaking, you're not talking about numbers that could push through any kind of agenda yet.

There won't be a libertarian in the White House in 2013, either. A more realistic goal would be, after Barr gets ~5%+, to reach Ross Perot levels in 2012 with a strong candidate who gets into the debates. And there's still the issue of whether or not a reformed and broadened Libertarian Party should be the focus of attention, or Ron Paul's pipe dream of saving the GOP. I'm more inclined to the LP route, simply because I think this election showed that there's no gain to be had from attacking head-on the institutional GOP opposition to this sort of message.


cltbuilder: I think a Democrat in the WH for 4 years would cause a lot of Republicans to rethink this bigger government that Bush has created

The opposition party is always the more libertarian of the two. Conservative-libertarian fusionism, within the framework of the GOP, should be treated as dead and buried as far as I'm concerned. The GOP has forsaken and disowned its libertarian wing, I don't see why libertarians should continue to follow the siren songs of SCOTUS appointments and tax cuts, particularly after 8 years of Bush has shown just how unlibertarian "strict constructionist" appointments can be.

This is where the Republican Party is headed. I don't see any other young Republicans making noise. It should be interesting.

Existensial dyslexia: The revolution shall live on no matter what you libtards say! Ron Paul mearly ignited the fuse of libertarian ideas that will lead to an explosion of freedom minded thought among the new, younger voting crowd. people are tired of politics we have now, mccain and obama are just two sides of the same corrupt political coin. it is crucial to have people, like ron paul to remind us how far the apple of america has fallen from the tree of liberty and freedom from which we were seeded.

This, even without any conspiratorial shenanigans, is exactly the kind of "You all suck, and the glorious revolution shall triumph in the end!" vitriolic rhetoric that I grew so tired off from the Lew Rockwell types who formed the core of Paul's support. It's obnoxious and counterproductive.

Churchill2004It's obnoxious and counterproductive.

only because the biased media painted it in such a light. some, like myself, see it as a political reformation so to speak. you don't get mad at preachers for espousing their faith on the street, yet you can feel free to spread the ron paul hate? politics is all about accepting those with points of view different than yours. "counter prductive" you say? i cite history when i say that non-comformist policies help shaped america to where we are today.

He's either a troll or too delusional to be worth bothering with.

Though I find the comparison to crazy street preachers to be amusingly apt, considering my perspective as a rationalist who despises religion and places it in the same category of delusions as 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories.

Existensial dyslexia: politics is all about accepting those with points of view different than yours.

O RLY?

MrGumboPants

"accepting" doesn't mean you have to like or support. just means you let others believe what they want without trying to silence them. *cough mainstream media/ all mainstream parties silencing Ron Paul cough cough*

Existensial dyslexia: MrGumboPants

"accepting" doesn't mean you have to like or support. just means you let others believe what they want without trying to silence them. *cough mainstream media/ all mainstream parties silencing Ron Paul cough cough*

No one was trying to silence anyone. Is my point.

MrGumboPants:
No one was trying to silence anyone. Is my point.

Tim Russert had more speaking time in the debates than Ron Paul and later, Mike Huckabee.

Churchill2004: I am more pissed, by far, at the incompetence that pervaded his campaign and the whackjobs who were allowed to define its public image than I am at the media for not taking Paul seriously. People shouldn't take you seriously when you hang out with troofers and people like Alex Jones.

9/11 truth people?

No biggie.

Alex Jones?

Never heard of him.

What killed Ron Paul's campaign was the legions of uncouth sociopaths who flocked to Fark & other message boards. For future reference; a group of psychos acting like hooting dickholes doesn't enamor much in the way of political support.

The candidate who accepted the new FISA bill as a compromise is in the lead for the Presidency while the candidates that would have rejected the bill on principle have been marginalized (Kucinich, Ron Paul, Gravel). Something's not right.

Pillager: 9/11 truth people?

No biggie
It's a big turn off for most people. It's not necessarily that what they're saying is necessarily so offensive- it's the fact that they keep saying it over and over again when it's been shown to be irrational nonsense.

Pillager: Alex Jones?

Never heard of him

He hosts a radio show, and never met a conspiracy theory he didn't take as the absolute gospel truth. Paul went on his show (albeit not to talk conspiracies).

Pillager: What killed Ron Paul's campaign was the legions of uncouth sociopaths who flocked to Fark & other message boards

More the fact that those same people had now idea how to reach the ~80% of the population who don't get their political news online.

The angry spammers didn't help, but message board postings isn't what undid Ron Paul.

Churchill2004: It's not necessarily that what they're saying is necessarily so offensive- it's the fact that they keep saying it over and over again when it's been shown to be irrational nonsense.

Heh, that's news. Personally, I'm curious why the 2 major terrorist attacks in the US and Britain occurred at the exact same time of readiness exercises targeting the exact same areas.

In addition to the "real" hijacking, there were about 18 other false radar blips running hijacking simulation exercises around Washington and New York.

As for the 7/7 attacks in the London subway, these also occurred precisely at the same moment as their own terrorism readiness exercises.

2 of the largest terrorist attacks in recent history in the heart of Western targets and they happen to occur at the exact moment of exercises simulating attacks on the exact same targets. That's funny and, to most objective investigators, might be considered "suspicious". Personally, I'm not a detective, but something like that might at the very least suggest an intelligence compromise or leak to be investigated

NORAD exercise (new window)

7/7 exercises (new window)

It's true he revised his position later. He seems pretty sure about what he did that day, but I guess everyone brain farts.

Still, the terrorists seem awfully smart to attack during times when readiness was most compromised.

I didn't notice that the Official statement had adequately addressed this coincidence.

Seems a bit premature to discount the relevance of asking questions about the event. These questions are not new, but they haven't been addressed in any convincing way.

Consider also that the accusation is not especially radical. They're merely suggesting that the US engineered a false flag operation on its own populace in order to effect social and political changes that support its own policies. Do you deny that this has been a regular feature of domestic and foreign policy in politics?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident (new window) features just such an attack attributed to enemies, although the truth of the event later revealed that no such attack had occurred.

The USS Liberty features such an attack by Israeli forces. The defense being that Israeli forces thought the most advanced intelligence ship in the US Navy was an Egyptian supply vessel. An initial mistaken ID could be plausible, except that they attacked for 2 hours.

Recently released documents concerning Operation Northwoods (new window) show that there have been plans for similar operations that have not been executed, but bear a striking similarity to the events of 9/11. Operation Northwoods calls for an airliner to be hijacked by American Special forces, and replaced with a drone aircraft. It's a very nasty document and lends credence to the notion that the US is given to generating reasons for war when none exist.

By presenting these items, I'm not making the claim that 9/11 was a false flag operation, I merely propose that investigation of the events should not have been lead by an appointee of the Whitehouse. In light of historical record regarding the intelligence community's willingness to act upon its own population, there exists the possibility that an investigation by the government into its own activities may have compromised objectivity.

The points raised by the truth movement have not been refuted to the extent where even the idea of an independent investigation could be said to be ridiculous. Personally, I think in light of past US operations and the anomalous timing of events to coincide with readiness exercises, as well as the similarities to planned operations from the past, there seems to be ample reason to call for an investigation where the members have not been appointed by the Whitehouse.

Churchill2004: It was unrealistic to expect him to win, but at the same time you can't really run a campaign if you're openly admitting that you don't intend to win.

The more I think about it, the more sorry I feel for Dr. Paul. I mean, he basically (IMO) got into the campaign for the same reason Kucinich and Gravel did for the Dems- to try and shape the message, especially in the early debates.

Dennis and Mike got the support they expected and, more importantly to them, got to say their piece. Whether or not they won, they performed up to their own expectations.

Ron Paul wanted to do the same thing- get a couple of big-name Republicans to go on the record with some pro-libertarian stances. He just had no idea that his campaign would resonate with some of the more interesting members of our society, as well as so many people on the 'net.

He had no plan to deal with rabid supporters. Let's face it, no one really saw that one coming.

Gonz: Dennis and Mike got the support they expected and, more importantly to them, got to say their piece. Whether or not they won, they performed up to their own expectations

Dennis? Maybe. The more I saw of Gravel the more I became convinced what a dick he was, though, even if positions-wise he was a reasonably civil libertarian Democrat. And he by no means just quietly went home, either. He also fought for, and resoundingly lost, the Libertarian nomination.

Other than I think you're spot-on. I'm just less forgiving of Paul for taking all that money and wasting on a campaign team that had no idea what it was doing.

Churchill2004: Dennis? Maybe. The more I saw of Gravel the more I became convinced what a dick he was, though, even if positions-wise he was a reasonably civil libertarian Democrat.

shiat, I thought Gravel was running because he was a dick.

"Look at me! Um... Pentagon Papers!... I'm bored, I'll keep running..."

I began to dislike Gravel strongly when he made some (IMO) very racist comments in a Dem debate in (I think) Summer of '07. I was just using him as an example of a candidate who gets in just to shape the debate.

Also, Kucinich ought to punch Ralph Nader when Ralphie says "I'm running because no one is willing to say..."

I really liked Ron Paul for the most part, especially when it came to domestic affairs, but I feel that isolationism and protectionism are relics from a bygone era that would do serious damage to our country. I know you a lot of you guys have given up hope on the GOP, but you don't accomplish policy changes by losing elections. You accomplish things by winning elections. I know its all in vogue these days to play the virtuous victim, the martyr that stands by his/her beliefs until death, but the small percentage of people that will vote LP could be the edge that the GOP needs to beat Obama. By working with the GOP instead of splitting votes for the principle of it, you can be in a better position to affect the process. The fact (or at least very large probability) is that the current parties have huge entrenched political machines and fundraising capabilities that will be enormously difficult to overcome.

I myself hate a lot of what the Republican party has come to mean, but I still think its the best means to achieve our ends of small government, personal liberty, and powerful economic production.

Gonz: Also, Kucinich ought to punch Ralph Nader when Ralphie says "I'm running because no one is willing to say...

To be fair, even though Nader is rarely if ever "the only one" saying anything, Kucinich was running in the Democratic primaries, and ended his campaign a while back. Nader is running as an independent in the general election.

reimanr06: but I feel that isolationism and protectionism are relics from a bygone era that would do serious damage to our country

Paul is neither an isolationist nor a protectionist.

reimanr06: but the small percentage of people that will vote LP could be the edge that the GOP needs to beat Obama.

...

I myself hate a lot of what the Republican party has come to mean, but I still think its the best means to achieve our ends of small government, personal liberty, and powerful economic production.

I voted Harry Browne in 2000. I would probably be a Republican if they actually followed up on their promises.

I am supporting Barack Obama in this election, primarily because of his stance on government transparency.

And I disagree with your initial premise. If you teach the GOP that running away from libertarian principles will still get your vote, you give no incentive to change. If, however, you make the case that libertarian = votes, while anti-libertarian != votes, you are providing an incentive to change.

The GOP propaganda machine cracks me up. Their intention is to have every single delegate at their national convention vote for John McCain, as if McCain won 100% of the votes at every primary.

Stalin would be proud.

How could you have expected to get your point across in a rational manner by "debating" with this guy?!

Existensial dyslexia 2008-06-21 02:57:31 PM
The revolution shall live on no matter what you libtards say! Ron Paul mearly ignited the fuse of libertarian ideas that will lead to an explosion of freedom minded thought among the new, younger voting crowd. people are tired of politics we have now, mccain and obama are just two sides of the same corrupt political coin. it is crucial to have people, like ron paul to remind us how far the apple of america has fallen from the tree of liberty and freedom from which we were seeded.

Asking Ron Paul to cut back on government is like asking Jack the Ripper to perform liposuction. Even if you think you need it, it's still not a good idea.

And it seems as though all the accusations of Obama being corrupt seems to revolve around the idea of him being too uppity successful and elitist, as opposed to specific accusations. "Oh look, Barack Obama is doing so well compared to Ron Paul, it must be because he cheated! There's no way he could have beaten Ron Paul otherwise!"

There's also a lot of "pot calling the kettle black." e.g., criticizing Obama of promoting catch phrases like "hope" and "change," while praising Ron Paul for his similar catch phrases like "hope for America" and "r[evol]ution." At least "change" is an actual word. What the fark is "r[evol]ution" supposed to mean?

Paultards are basically trying to define things so that honesty and integrity are basically measured in failure. Ron Paul is a massive failure, so obviously, he must have buttloads of integrity.

Churchill2004 [TotalFark] Quote 2008-06-21 06:34:24 PM
reimanr06: but I feel that isolationism and protectionism are relics from a bygone era that would do serious damage to our country

Paul is neither an isolationist nor a protectionist.

That was the main idea I got from reading his platform of repealing NAFTA, CAFTA, and other free trade agreements, as well as withdrawing from NATO and the UN and other international bodies. While I do think that we aren't getting all we should be getting out of our investments in say the U.N., I do also feel that we have better control from within the system than from outside, and that we do have an international responsibility to openly oppose and fight real and definite evil in the world (genocide, megalomania, and other gross violations of human rights), or at least lead the world to aid our own interests.



Gonz: And I disagree with your initial premise. If you teach the GOP that running away from libertarian principles will still get your vote, you give no incentive to change. If, however, you make the case that libertarian = votes, while anti-libertarian != votes, you are providing an incentive to change.


It makes perfect sense. However, I'm more concerned that a switch to full Democrat control of the government could lead to "change" that could prove much more difficult to undo than you might think. Just look at Roosevelt's New Deal or Johnson's Great Society plans. I think that a lot of these plans account for far greater assaults on freedom (please excuse the semi-flagotry), at least in the ideas that they promote, than anything the most recent Republicans have perpetrated, and yet they have become embedded in our governmental system. My view is that the risk of sacrificing far more than can be regained after 2012, as well as the risk that the GOP may not change at all, demand that we support, but demand results from, people who are in a position to be in power NOW and more closely represent our beliefs.

reimanr06: Just look at Roosevelt's New Deal or Johnson's Great Society plans. I think that a lot of these plans account for far greater assaults on freedom (please excuse the semi-flagotry), at least in the ideas that they promote, than anything the most recent Republicans have perpetrated, and yet they have become embedded in our governmental system.



Yeah, it's not like this guy did anything to assault freedom or anything.

Existensial dyslexia 2008-06-21 03:10:31 PM
only because the biased media painted it in such a light.

The "media" wasn't the one who was paying for a Ron Paul blimp and producing Ron Paul stamped currency. They also were the one chasing political pundits down the streets like the zombies from "I Am Legend," rigging online polls to their favor, and spamming any board they could find with an open comment thread. That was all you.

some, like myself, see it as a political reformation so to speak. you don't get mad at preachers for espousing their faith on the street, yet you can feel free to spread the ron paul hate?

Actually, where I come from, people do get mad at the Preachers who espouse their views on the streets. Are you really going to compare yourself to those guys who walk around with signs saying that we're all sinners who are going to hell? Because it's pretty apt, but I'm surprised to hear you admit it.

politics is all about accepting those with points of view different than yours. "counter prductive" you say? i cite history when i say that non-comformist policies help shaped america to where we are today.

Except that Paultards generally expect other people to bend over backwards in order to support their candidate, without ever making any concessions of their own. That's just stupid.

"Vote for Ron Paul even if you're a democrat! Ignore party lines!" "Why should I, when I disagree with nearly his entire platform?" "Because Ron Paul is a man of integrity, who's unwilling to yield! You should respect that."