Ron Paul to have full-page ad in USA Today

[Timshel]

That would be a misleading characterization of Ron Paul, who is pro-capital punishment, anti-abortion, anti-choice, and is weak or absent on gay rights issues. Libertarian activists generally make rhetorical noises about social justice and some liberal causes, but their focus is on shrinking the federal goverment to its status in 1796, or on taxes, regulation, and property rights. Go on CATO, and tell me which way they are weighted: towards reactionary ecnomic theory? Or towards social justice for gays, minorities, and women?

He is pro capital punishment? You want to check that?

Absent on gay rights? He is as vocal against the federal marriage bans as any.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

And for the same reason he is against federal authority on abortion. There is no proper authroity for the federal government on the issue.

 

[blackascoal]

15% in a primary race is not "a monumental loser" by any standard. You are just throwing out any credibility you might have as a rational critic with silly comments such as this.

15% .. a supposed 15% .. demonstrates that this candidate, your candidate, LOST in that primary.

As usual, you lioke all Paultards will put lipstick on a pig and call it beauty.

He's a LOSER .. he will be a LOSER .. he has no chance of coming anywhere close to the nomination.

What's your point?

 

[Cypress]

15% in a primary race is not "a monumental loser" by any standard. You are just throwing out any credibility you might have as a rational critic with silly comments such as this.

This is do-or-die time for Libertarian ideology. You've got a national candidate with significant stature, an overflowing campaign war chest, and a relative mini-buzz in the media.

If libertarian ideology is the most principled, the most awesome, and the best and brightest ideology out there, then Ron Paul will have no problem placing in the top tier of GOP candidates as primary season commences.

As of now, he's still stuck at about 7 or 8% in New Hampshire, and around 4 or 5% in Iowa, and around 2 or 3% nationally. He has more money, and more media buzz than Mike Huckabee, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or Chris Dodd, but most of those dudes are still out polling him, or essentially even with him in polls.

I would say that after the money, stature, and media buzz Ron Paul has, if he comes out of this national primary season as one of the bottom tier GOP candidates, then you may want to fundementally evaluate how well the Libertarian message sells, or is accepted by voters.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

15% .. a supposed 15% .. demonstrates that this candidate, your candidate, LOST in that primary.

As usual, you lioke all Paultards will put lipstick on a pig and call it beauty.

He's a LOSER .. he will be a LOSER .. he has no chance of coming anywhere close to the nomination.

What's your point?

Edwards is currently polling at about 13%.... what a MONUMENTAL LOSER. HE obviously has no chance of winning. Time for him to pack it in.

May as well tuck Nader into a grave as well, because we all know he is not going to break double digits.

/sarcasm off

 

[blackascoal]

Nader definetely has no chance, what would you think if all of us kept making fun of you for your support of him?
IF you're honest, you'll admit it's nothing but being childish and knock it off.

Fuck your interpretation of "honest."

Are you suggesting I did not hear anti-Nader talk? What would I think .. I'd think people are expressing their opinons and I sure as hell did not, nor would not feel personally attacked because someone didn't like Nader.

Nor would I cover up an hide my head in the sand for anything Nader has said of did.

It's called POLITICS

 

[blackascoal]

Edwards is currently polling at about 13%.... what a MONUMENTAL LOSER. HE obviously has no chance of winning. Time for him to pack it in.

May as well tuck Nader into a grave as well, because we all know he is not going to break double digits.

/sarcasm off

I have ZERO problems with your interpretation.

 

[blackascoal]

This is do-or-die time for Libertarian ideology. You've got a national candidate with significant stature, an overflowing campaign war chest, and a relative mini-buzz in the media.

If libertarian ideology is the most principled, the most awesome, and the best and brightest ideology out there, then Ron Paul will have no problem placing in the top tier of GOP candidates as primary season commences.

As of now, he's still stuck at about 7 or 8% in New Hampshire, and around 4 or 5% in Iowa, and around 2 or 3% nationally. He has more money, and more media buzz than Mike Huckabee, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or Chris Dodd, but most of those dudes are still out polling him, or essentially even with him in polls.

I would say that after the money, stature, and media buzz Ron Paul has, if he comes out of this national primary season as one of the bottom tier GOP candidates, then you may want to fundementally evaluate how well the Libertarian message sells, or is accepted by voters.

Most excellent points

What they didn't learn about themselves when Paul ran before will be inescapable when he and his libertarianism are kicked out this time.

 

[TheDanold]

15% .. a supposed 15% .. demonstrates that this candidate, your candidate, LOST in that primary.

As usual, you lioke all Paultards will put lipstick on a pig and call it beauty.

He's a LOSER .. he will be a LOSER .. he has no chance of coming anywhere close to the nomination.

What's your point?

As I keep reading your comments, they just seem bizarre coming from a Nader (or Green party) supporter. Just sounds like the kind of stuff that the hardcore koolaid Dem party people would taunt people with.
Not to mention it directly contradicts your other posts where you call out Dems for not supporting more Liberal people (that have less of a chance of winning) and sticking with the status quo just because they can get in power.

I think it just cements your place as an emotional poster and not a rational one.

 

[DigitalDave]

Repost from another thread:

"BAC, I understand your hatred for Dr. Paul. You view him as a racist and view his policies to be detrimental. However, I do not view his policies to be. Our Federal government is too large and needs to be reduced in order to keep them in check to what their role should be. I don't see any of the Republicans that hold true to that philosophy, but may pay it lip service. The only one I see who does that is Ron Paul. I do not believe he will win the primaries, let alone the presidency (though I like to joke that he will). I do however, believe that the more votes he gets, the seriousness of his message will be amplified. That in turn may start to change the Republican party when they lose the presidency and more senate seats in the next few elections. They will need a new formula, constant losing will force the change, and seeing a growth in desire for smaller government will start to take hold. Feel free to slam me as delusional for this belief, but I think it can happen."

 

[blackascoal]

As I keep reading your comments, they just seem bizarre coming from a Nader (or Green party) supporter. Just sounds like the kind of stuff that the hardcore koolaid Dem party people would taunt people with.
Not to mention it directly contradicts your other posts where you call out Dems for not supporting more Liberal people (that have less of a chance of winning) and sticking with the status quo just because they can get in power.

I think it just cements your place as an emotional poster and not a rational one.

Again, you're an idiot who supported the horror that lies before us today .. so I have ZERO problems with .. and you have never read me admonishing democrats for not supporting "liberals" .. a term I run away from myself.

A republican chastizing democrats .. or anybody else with all that is known about the absolute and complete failure of the Republican Party is amusing .. and meaningless

 

[blackascoal]

Repost from another thread:

"BAC, I understand your hatred for Dr. Paul. You view him as a racist and view his policies to be detrimental. However, I do not view his policies to be. Our Federal government is too large and needs to be reduced in order to keep them in check to what their role should be. I don't see any of the Republicans that hold true to that philosophy, but may pay it lip service. The only one I see who does that is Ron Paul. I do not believe he will win the primaries, let alone the presidency (though I like to joke that he will). I do however, believe that the more votes he gets, the seriousness of his message will be amplified. That in turn may start to change the Republican party when they lose the presidency and more senate seats in the next few elections. They will need a new formula, constant losing will force the change, and seeing a growth in desire for smaller government will start to take hold. Feel free to slam me as delusional for this belief, but I think it can happen."

If you believe Paul will change the republicans .. then you don't know republicans.

Other than that, your post sounds quite sane.

 

[DigitalDave]

If you believe Paul will change the republicans .. then you don't know republicans.

Other than that, your post sounds quite sane.

Well, if they refuse to change then they will diminish to a point where they are on the same level of support or worse than those who support people like Paul. It will either give rise to a third-party from those who disband the republicans, or those with the same mentality as Paul will begin to dominate the party.

 

[blackascoal]

Well, if they refuse to change then they will diminish to a point where they are on the same level of support or worse than those who support people like Paul. It will either give rise to a third-party from those who disband the republicans, or those with the same mentality as Paul will begin to dominate the party.

I've said many times that the Republican Party is on its way to becoming the Whigs .. but they will not change into anything near what Ron Paul is about and their constituency does not want them to emulate Paul.

In truth, there aren't that many Americans who do want their political party to follow Paul's lead and Paul does not have that many supporters.

His last run at this gained him 0.04% of the vote.

Paul is in fact much ado about nothing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've said many times that the Republican Party is on its way to becoming the Whigs .. but they will not change into anything near what Ron Paul is about and their constituency does not want them to emulate Paul.

In truth, there aren't that many Americans who do want their political party to follow Paul's lead and Paul does not have that many supporters.

His last run at this gained him 0.04% of the vote.

Paul is in fact much ado about nothing.

Funny, similar projections were made about the Dems remaining out of power. All it takes for the country to swing back to Rep is time spent under Dem control. Same is true in reverse.

 

[Obfuscate]

His message is almost everywhere, a message seemingly lost these days. That's a victory for the advancement of ideas IMO. Just think about how much time Paul has made losers like BAC try{unsuccessfully} to discredit him?

 

[blackascoal]

His message is almost everywhere, a message seemingly lost these days. That's a victory for the advancement of ideas IMO. Just think about how much time Paul has made losers like BAC try{unsuccessfully} to discredit him?

Judging by his 2% and the FACT that he's merely the sideshow .. I claim success

 

[Obfuscate]

The fact people like my mom know about him and know his stances where they had never heard of him before is a victory for the exchange of ideas. The fact his #'s continue to increase is a victory. The fact he came from obscurity to raise $$ in the multi millions because of his ideas is a victory. The fact he's getting support from many people whom were never really interested in politics is a victory.

Your daily commentary and weak straw men is a defeat for free time..

 

[Cancel7]

You know, if these ronbots weren’t such dumb f’s, I’d really feel sorry for them. Would you listen to them? Poor Damo is going to have to institute a, probably quite costly, 24 hour suicide watch on this board when that bug-eyed freak goes down…and he is going down.

I mean, oh my mother's voting for him! Oh ok! That ties it!

 

[DigitalDave]

You know, if these ronbots weren’t such dumb f’s, I’d really feel sorry for them. Would you listen to them? Poor Damo is going to have to institute a, probably quite costly, 24 hour suicide watch on this board when that bug-eyed freak goes down…and he is going down.

I mean, oh my mother's voting for him! Oh ok! That ties it!

Ron Paul is god, when he dies, we all die! So yes, I will follow him to catch that comet taking us to heaven... /sarcasm

 

[Obfuscate]

My mom will not be voting for Paul. That's a sure thing, she hates him, my point is people who are not real political and had never heard of him have now and understand his views.

There are people all over the country trying to prove him right or wrong. As a great economists says "that's influence".

I don't think a suicide watch will be needed as most all Paul supporters I know realize it's not about winning now it's about spreading the ideas for the future as change never happens quickly.

If he and his ideas were worthless people like yourself wouldn't try so hard to discredit them.