Ron Paul too old?

[Charles_Main]

He's not too old, he's too nuts and too unelectable.

Except that there are plenty of polls where he's ahead of the so-called "electable" candidates, so that nonsense doesn't hold much water.

There Most Certainly are not "Plenty of Polls" In almost every single National Poll He is in last or second to last place. The Straw Poll in Iowa was an exception and has always been meaningless.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul too old?

Nope.

They tried to write him off as a nutcase 4 years ago. He is still here. The detractors long gone. Who were they anyway?

He was so nuts four years ago that candidates are tripping over each other to steal his ideas. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich talking about the Fed? Michele Bachmann talking about reading Ludwig von Mises at the beach? Mitt Romney talking about getting troops out of Afghanistan? Of course they're all pale imitations, but the fact remains that Ron Paul has clearly made a mark on the Republican Party.

I'd pay good money just to watch Bachmann struggle with a Mises book.

I mean come on, how stupid does one have to be to buy that she's actually reading Mises?

She knows who she has to pander to. I just find it amazing that Paul has actually caused candidates to pander specifically to Austrians.

We ain't COMPLETELY screwed yet

 

[Woyzeck]

I don't like the word "communist". I believe in voluntary socialism and minimal statehood.

While I disagree with Paul on numerous areas, I support him. Anarchist socialists have more in common with Ancaps than disagreements. If you want to flesh out the details, then I will be more than happy to engage you. However, your question implies that I don't find a lot of common ground with AnCaps and that is utter nonsense.

It's just interesting. Most socialists wouldn't be able to support Ron Paul based on his support for free markets, whatever else they may agree with him on.

Socialism is not incongruent to the free market. You are confusing socialism with statism, particularly state capitalism.

FYI, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-capitalism.

 

[Auxous]

If you say so.

yawn....the first anarchists were mutualists.

Anything else from you?

Relax killer.

I am very relaxed, chump.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's not too old, he's too nuts and too unelectable.

Except that there are plenty of polls where he's ahead of the so-called "electable" candidates, so that nonsense doesn't hold much water.

The Most Certainly are not "Plenty of Polls" In almost every single National Poll He is in last or second to last place. The Straw Poll in Iowa was an exception and has always been meaningless.

Let's see these polls where he's behind Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Gary Johnson, Thaddeus McCotter, and Herman Cain.

 

[Wicked Jester]

It's just interesting. Most socialists wouldn't be able to support Ron Paul based on his support for free markets, whatever else they may agree with him on.

Socialism is not incongruent to the free market. You are confusing socialism with statism, particularly state capitalism.

If you say so.

Ya' see KK.........The loon you are going back and forth with, is a prime example of the nutters the ol' nutter attracts.

His supporters in many ways, are his own worst enemy. Not saying you are, you're one of the few i've encountered who is not a nutter........Just about every troofer loon i've encountered on this board are Paul zealots also.......The racist Stormfront types are Paul zealots.

When you add up the fact that Paul himself is a nutter, and then the fact that a large number of his supporters are nutters, it equals Paul packing his ass back to Texas where he belongs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

yawn....the first anarchists were mutualists.

Anything else from you?

Relax killer.

I am very relaxed, chump.

Then you wouldn't have gotten so defensive from a simple question. I wasn't attacking you or your ideology, just asking a question.

 

[Auxous]

It's just interesting. Most socialists wouldn't be able to support Ron Paul based on his support for free markets, whatever else they may agree with him on.

Socialism is not incongruent to the free market. You are confusing socialism with statism, particularly state capitalism.

FYI, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-capitalism.

Free markets =/= capitalism.

We have capitalism in our current economy in which the capitalists benefits nicely with their incestuous relationship with big government. And we are hardly a free market with governments spending 40% of gdp.

 

[Paulie]

He's not too old, he's too nuts and too unelectable.

Except that there are plenty of polls where he's ahead of the so-called "electable" candidates, so that nonsense doesn't hold much water.

There Most Certainly are not "Plenty of Polls" In almost every single National Poll He is in last or second to last place. The Straw Poll in Iowa was an exception and has always been meaningless.

Nationally, he polls 3rd in some of the mainstream polls.

When you break it down by states, he's got an RCP average of 3rd in New Hampshire and 4th in Iowa.

Pawlenty was "electable" if you base electability solely on what the media tells you, and he never polled as well as Paul is now.

I thought you had become more libertarian in your views the last year or two?

 

[Auxous]

Relax killer.

I am very relaxed, chump.

Then you wouldn't have gotten so defensive from a simple question. I wasn't attacking you or your ideology, just asking a question.

Did I not answer it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am very relaxed, chump.

Then you wouldn't have gotten so defensive from a simple question. I wasn't attacking you or your ideology, just asking a question.

Did I not answer it?

You did, and then got defensive about it.

 

[Woyzeck]

Socialism is not incongruent to the free market. You are confusing socialism with statism, particularly state capitalism.

FYI, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-capitalism.

Free markets =/= capitalism.

We have capitalism in our current economy in which the capitalists benefits nicely with their incestuous relationship with big government. And we are hardly a free market with governments spending 40% of gdp.

So Ron Paul doesn't believe in capitalism then?

 

[Charles_Main]

Except that there are plenty of polls where he's ahead of the so-called "electable" candidates, so that nonsense doesn't hold much water.

There Most Certainly are not "Plenty of Polls" In almost every single National Poll He is in last or second to last place. The Straw Poll in Iowa was an exception and has always been meaningless.

Nationally, he polls 3rd in some of the mainstream polls.

When you break it down by states, he's got an RCP average of 3rd in New Hampshire and 4th in Iowa.

Pawlenty was "electable" if you base electability solely on what the media tells you, and he never polled as well as Paul is now.

I thought you had become more libertarian in your views the last year or two?

I am talking about his electability, not my Person Views of the man. All your stats back up what I said. He is in last or second to last among the 4 Main candidates right now. I was responding to someone who claimed he was in First "Plenty of Polls"


I do in fact agree with a lot of his Ideas. He loses me on his Vision of US foreign Policy though. I am a firm believer in the Strong Offense is better then Defense approach. He wants to bring all our troops home, Close all our bases, and "stop meddling" in the world. I strongly Disagree with that part of his Platform, and don't think I could vote for him because of it.

 

[Auxous]

Then you wouldn't have gotten so defensive from a simple question. I wasn't attacking you or your ideology, just asking a question.

Did I not answer it?

You did, and then got defensive about it.

Please stop your hysteria.

 

[Auxous]

FYI, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-capitalism.

Free markets =/= capitalism.

We have capitalism in our current economy in which the capitalists benefits nicely with their incestuous relationship with big government. And we are hardly a free market with governments spending 40% of gdp.

So Ron Paul doesn't believe in capitalism then?

He does. I even believe in capitalism to a certain degree.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There Most Certainly are not "Plenty of Polls" In almost every single National Poll He is in last or second to last place. The Straw Poll in Iowa was an exception and has always been meaningless.

Nationally, he polls 3rd in some of the mainstream polls.

When you break it down by states, he's got an RCP average of 3rd in New Hampshire and 4th in Iowa.

Pawlenty was "electable" if you base electability solely on what the media tells you, and he never polled as well as Paul is now.

I thought you had become more libertarian in your views the last year or two?

I am talking about his electability, not my Person Views of the man. All your states back up what I said. He is in last or second to last among the 4 Main candidates right now. I was responding to someone who claimed he was in First "Plenty of Polls"


I do in fact agree with a lot of his Ideas. He loses me on his Vision of US foreign Policy though. I am a firm believer in the Strong Offense is better then Defense approach. He wants to bring all our troops home, Close all our bases, and "stop meddling" in the world. I strongly Disagree with that part of his Platform, and don't think I could vote for him because of it.

That's not what you said, and not what I said.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did I not answer it?

You did, and then got defensive about it.

Please stop your hysteria.

 

[Woyzeck]

Free markets =/= capitalism.

We have capitalism in our current economy in which the capitalists benefits nicely with their incestuous relationship with big government. And we are hardly a free market with governments spending 40% of gdp.

So Ron Paul doesn't believe in capitalism then?

He does.

And you support him?

 

[Auxous]

There Most Certainly are not "Plenty of Polls" In almost every single National Poll He is in last or second to last place. The Straw Poll in Iowa was an exception and has always been meaningless.

Nationally, he polls 3rd in some of the mainstream polls.

When you break it down by states, he's got an RCP average of 3rd in New Hampshire and 4th in Iowa.

Pawlenty was "electable" if you base electability solely on what the media tells you, and he never polled as well as Paul is now.

I thought you had become more libertarian in your views the last year or two?

I am talking about his electability, not my Person Views of the man. All your states back up what I said. He is in last or second to last among the 4 Main candidates right now. I was responding to someone who claimed he was in First "Plenty of Polls"


I do in fact agree with a lot of his Ideas. He loses me on his Vision of US foreign Policy though. I am a firm believer in the Strong Offense is better then Defense approach. He wants to bring all our troops home, Close all our bases, and "stop meddling" in the world. I strongly Disagree with that part of his Platform, and don't think I could vote for him because of it.

Ron Paul is un-electable since the media already declared that Perry is the winner. The media refuses, especially Fox, to discuss his ideas.

Fucking disgusting.

 

[Auxous]

So Ron Paul doesn't believe in capitalism then?

He does.

And you support him?

Yes, why would I not?

Again Ancap socialists have much more in common with AnCaps than disagreement.

Why is this such a surprise to you? Do you really think I support Obama?