Were there clouds in the studio?

I stopped about here:

REP. PAUL: I haven't even looked at them carefully enough. Somebody else worries about those kinds of things.

Probably the same someone that wrote the racist newsletters with his name on them in the '90s.

He's like a more-crazy, less-annoying Ralph Nader.

$10,000 sez there is some significant 3rd party challange from the right before we're done.

I'd like to take a cue here from Dr. Paul himself, who would like to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship, and propose a slight change in the language of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as it relates to eligibility for the office of President: Let's add those over 75 to the list of those ineligible to serve.

Why does his opinion on anything OTHER than "Are you going to run as a third party?" matter at this point? He won't be the republican nominee so unless he runs as a third party he has 0% of being president and should just go back to inserting earmarks for his district and voting no on them.

BFletch651: He's like a more-crazy, less-annoying Ralph Nader.

$10,000 sez there is some significant 3rd party challange from the right before we're done.

You're not fooling anyone, Mitt.

As someone who tends to have a libertarian streak in my voting habits, I think it is a necessity for the republican party to split apart. It's the only way to remove the far right fundamentalists from the party. Once they break off they should shrivel away in the next decade or so, allowing for an actual policy focused debate on what solutions should be undertaken to solve the problems facing this country. I don't think anyone on the left side of the isle would have a problem with open debate about where government intervention is necessary (which it is in certain cases) and cases where the private sector would be better equipped to handle a problem. It gets awful hard to have discussions like this when the party is being controlled by people whose primary concerns are the Rapture and Whar Birf Certificait Whar?

If there winds up being a significant 3rd party candidate this election cycle, isn't it a guaranteed win for the Democrats at that point?

I mean...not like the Republican offerings really have decent chances at the moment, but still....

USCLaw2010: As someone who tends to have a libertarian streak in my voting habits, I think it is a necessity for the republican party to split apart. It's the only way to remove the far right fundamentalists from the party. Once they break off they should shrivel away in the next decade or so, allowing for an actual policy focused debate on what solutions should be undertaken to solve the problems facing this country.

I think it would be interesting to see the US adopt a parliamentary style of Congress: rather than have two "one size fits none" parties and that crowd out smaller parties due to the way the system works, have a greater number of parties that form coalitions to get stuff done.

I suspect that such a move would allow for better representation. If the UK parliament is any example, it'd also make Congress a lot more fun to watch.

USCLaw2010: As someone who tends to have a libertarian streak in my voting habits, I think it is a necessity for the republican party to split apart.

Philosophically, maybe, but with our winner-takes-all system, more than two parties simply is not sustainable.

There won't be a third party candidate. This will be a race between Obama and Romney with Obama winning in a photo finish. It has already been scripted.

Ron Paul is out. He is not a friend of Israel he can't win in this ZOG.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude


Maybe, but I think a substantial portion of Paul supporters probably voted for Obama last time. They are pro-legalization and anti-war. Seeing how Obama is neither of those, it may end up being a wash as far as stolen voters both parties.

Frankly, the potential run as a 3rd Party candidate and it's possible impact on the general election is the only reason he's even relevant enough to interview. He has zero impact on the GOP Primary.

Death to New Rome: There won't be a third party candidate. This will be a race between Obama and Romney with Obama winning in a photo finish. It has already been scripted.

Ron Paul is out. He is not a friend of Israel he can't win in this ZOG.

It's the Jooos!

USCLaw2010: As someone who tends to have a libertarian streak in my voting habits, I think it is a necessity for the republican party to split apart. It's the only way to remove the far right fundamentalists from the party. Once they break off they should shrivel away in the next decade or so, allowing for an actual policy focused debate on what solutions should be undertaken to solve the problems facing this country. I don't think anyone on the left side of the isle would have a problem with open debate about where government intervention is necessary (which it is in certain cases) and cases where the private sector would be better equipped to handle a problem. It gets awful hard to have discussions like this when the party is being controlled by people whose primary concerns are the Rapture and Whar Birf Certificait Whar?

As a super lefty, I view the religious right as a danger to personal liberties. But even though I disagree with their system of morality, they at least have a system of morality. If the Republican party cleaves them off, they are cleaving off every hint of moral obligation. They will be completely unhindered in their psychopathic drive to make money, and that scares me.

InmanRoshi: Frankly, the potential run as a 3rd Party candidate and it's possible impact on the general election is the only reason he's even relevant enough to interview. He has zero impact on the GOP Primary.

Remember, You need 1100+ delegates to secure a nomination. Newt isn't eligible for about 500 of them. The possibility of a brokered convention is still very real. If that were the case, and Newt and Mittens were both within 20 percent of the nomination, Paul could have a very large impact on which person his delegates may throw support behind, if they support anyone at all.

Xythero: USCLaw2010: As someone who tends to have a libertarian streak in my voting habits, I think it is a necessity for the republican party to split apart. It's the only way to remove the far right fundamentalists from the party. Once they break off they should shrivel away in the next decade or so, allowing for an actual policy focused debate on what solutions should be undertaken to solve the problems facing this country. I don't think anyone on the left side of the isle would have a problem with open debate about where government intervention is necessary (which it is in certain cases) and cases where the private sector would be better equipped to handle a problem. It gets awful hard to have discussions like this when the party is being controlled by people whose primary concerns are the Rapture and Whar Birf Certificait Whar?

As a super lefty, I view the religious right as a danger to personal liberties. But even though I disagree with their system of morality, they at least have a system of morality. If the Republican party cleaves them off, they are cleaving off every hint of moral obligation. They will be completely unhindered in their psychopathic drive to make money, and that scares me.


That's why I think the Democrats need to be actively rebuilding the religious left -- before they become inundated with neoliberals from the Republican party.

Philip Francis Queeg: It's the Jooos!

Most of the zionist in the U.S. are christ tards, not jews.

DarnoKonrad: Xythero: USCLaw2010: As someone who tends to have a libertarian streak in my voting habits, I think it is a necessity for the republican party to split apart. It's the only way to remove the far right fundamentalists from the party. Once they break off they should shrivel away in the next decade or so, allowing for an actual policy focused debate on what solutions should be undertaken to solve the problems facing this country. I don't think anyone on the left side of the isle would have a problem with open debate about where government intervention is necessary (which it is in certain cases) and cases where the private sector would be better equipped to handle a problem. It gets awful hard to have discussions like this when the party is being controlled by people whose primary concerns are the Rapture and Whar Birf Certificait Whar?

As a super lefty, I view the religious right as a danger to personal liberties. But even though I disagree with their system of morality, they at least have a system of morality. If the Republican party cleaves them off, they are cleaving off every hint of moral obligation. They will be completely unhindered in their psychopathic drive to make money, and that scares me.


That's why I think the Democrats need to be actively rebuilding the religious left -- before they become inundated with neoliberals from the Republican party.

Going to be hard with a platform that's pro choice and one that allows for gay people to get married. You subtract those two items and the Catholic Church in this country would still be 100% behind Democratic candidates. However, the real problem is the inability of folks to see in shades of Gray. If I am a staunch Catholic, there isn't any reason for me to oppose social welfare programs promoted by a party while at the same time opposing the issues of gay marriage and abortion. Labor and the environmentalist factions of the democratic party oppose themselves more often than not and seem to be able to both function under the same tent.

RON PAUL 2012

'cause I've got five dollars bet on our country dissolving by 2015...

USCLaw2010: If I am a staunch Catholic, there isn't any reason for me to oppose social welfare programs promoted by a party while at the same time opposing the issues of gay marriage and abortion.

From a theological perspective, it's wrong to place your finger on scales of sin.

It's true the current religious 'climate' isn't conducive to rebuilding a religious left, but the only reason religious people got into bed with amoral free-market capitalists in the first place was their mutual enemy in atheistic communism -- which has been dead for 20 years. So I think it's only a matter of time.

I for one support a RON PAUL third party run...

... so I can watch the SPLC and NAACP go after the old crank with both barrels. Just wait until every newsroom in America is showing RON PAUL in front of the Stars 'n Bars. The FARK threads will be glorious.

Ron's Giant is still shilling for him

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Ron's Giant is still shilling for him
[i280.photobucket.com image 640x426]

So, he's not a friend of the little man?