Ron Paul too old?

[Wicked Jester]

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.

The media, including FOX, reports he's unelectable because HE IS UN-ELECTABLE.

Any doubts about that were erased very clearly when he made his asinine comments about Iran and nukes.....But then, his foreign policy ideals have always made him un-electable.

Do you want do discuss ideas or do you just want to purport this "un-electable" idea which you get from your masters?

Let's discuss foreign policy. How is waging wars on lies and empire building in the best interest of America?

LMAO!

What empires have we built.......I don't see any empires........Name one empire or super power we've "built" besides our own......Once again, more Paul drivel.

How is allowing a country, who has promised to annhialate it's enemies, having a nuclear weapon/weapons in the best interest of our allies over there, and the world in general?

How is scuurying away and leaving our long established allies vulnerable, in the best interest of this great country.......Particularly when they are possibly invaded, and could very well cause WW3?

Ya see, i'll say it again, this isn't the 1700's.......Paul's ideals would have worked just fine back then......Nowadays, he's a nutter for even thinking they would in these times.

 

[Wolfmoon]

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

The politicians who are ruining this country and running it into the ground would like everyone to believe that the average American citizens are nuts unless they give them Carte blanche with the nations check book.

Ron Paul scares the BEJESUS out of the old school politicians. It's time to pull the pacifier out of the politician’s mouths and Ron Paul is just the man to do it. He’ll let them know the gravy train is over!!

 

[elvis]

I think we need an acceptable definition of what exactly "electable" is so that we're all on the same page.

Dictionary.com says:

"capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office."

Now the best way to determine this, in my opinion, would be scientific polling. And it's clear that Ron Paul is doing very well in the polling, which would indicate that he must be electable. Of course, being electable doesn't necessarily mean the person is going to win the election, which is what I think some of you are hung up on.

He's not doing well in the polling and he has no reasonable chance of being elected.

Come on man, he's getting up around Huckabee status at this same point in the last cycle, and Huckabee was immediately credited with electability by the media when he cracked the top 3 in polling, which Paul is either at or near, depending on the poll. RCP has him 3rd in NH right now. Why does he not get SOME kind of credibility when Huckabee (another nobody) did?

Because Huckabee wasn't the fucking nutjob that Paul is. You say he's third in NH. Big fucking deal. He's what? 20 points behind Romney? NH is Romney's state: meaning he's going to win it. It's a lock if there ever was one.
Which state is Paul going to win?

 

[The T]

I think we need an acceptable definition of what exactly "electable" is so that we're all on the same page.

Dictionary.com says:

"capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office."

Now the best way to determine this, in my opinion, would be scientific polling. And it's clear that Ron Paul is doing very well in the polling, which would indicate that he must be electable. Of course, being electable doesn't necessarily mean the person is going to win the election, which is what I think some of you are hung up on.

He's not doing well in the polling and he has no reasonable chance of being elected.

That is disturbing. The sheeple rather go with the status quo than actual change.

*DEFINE CHANGE* For the DUMBMASSES.

*I* Know YOU can do it and are UP to the task.

 

[Woyzeck]

I don't. Anarchists are against the power structure that capital create via usury.

However, anarchists are not against capital.

See the difference?

Anarchists are against anything that creates hierarchies or systems of authority. Capitalism creates various hierarchies, between labor and management, those with money and those with not.

You're a shitty anarchist, but a great modern-day libertarian.

Again, I am against usury and profiteering off of capital simply by ownership.

Capital itself is not the problem.

I am getting tired of your sophomoric antics and disingenuous behavior.

Capitalism still creates hierarchies without usury and profiteering. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalism. There is no marrying the two. To do that you would have change what capitalism is.

 

[Paulie]

The media, including FOX, reports he's unelectable because HE IS UN-ELECTABLE.

Any doubts about that were erased very clearly when he made his asinine comments about Iran and nukes.....But then, his foreign policy ideals have always made him un-electable.

Do you want do discuss ideas or do you just want to purport this "un-electable" idea which you get from your masters?

Let's discuss foreign policy. How is waging wars on lies and empire building in the best interest of America?

LMAO!

What empires have we built.......I don't see any empires........Name one empire or super power we've "built" besides our own......Once again, more Paul drivel.

How is allowing a country, who has promised to annhialate it's enemies, having a nuclear weapon/weapons in the best interest of our allies over there, and the world in general?

How is scuurying away and leaving our long established allies vulnerable, in the best interest of this great country.......Particularly when they are possibly invaded, and could very well cause WW3?

Ya see, i'll say it again, this isn't the 1700's.......Paul's ideals would have worked just fine back then......Nowadays, he's a nutter for even thinking they would in these times.

I'll admit that he definitely didn't present his Iran argument very well at that debate.

But knowing the man as well as I do since I've been studying and listening to him for almost 6 years now, I understand the point he was making a little differently than a lot of others do.

What he was saying about them pursuing a nuke was less about LETTING them have one, and more about trying to get people to think more critically about why they would want one.

I understand that some people are 100% convinced it's only because they want to annihilate someone with it and will never change their opinion, but he knows there are people who are open to hearing about it and forming their opinions instead of the media's spoonfed opinions.

You think they want to annihilate someone, he thinks they simply want relevance. If it got people thinking critically, then good.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anarchists are against anything that creates hierarchies or systems of authority. Capitalism creates various hierarchies, between labor and management, those with money and those with not.

You're a shitty anarchist, but a great modern-day libertarian.

Again, I am against usury and profiteering off of capital simply by ownership.

Capital itself is not the problem.

I am getting tired of your sophomoric antics and disingenuous behavior.

Capitalism still creates hierarchies without usury and profiteering. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalism. There is no marrying the two. To do that you would have change what capitalism is.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Auxous]

He's not doing well in the polling and he has no reasonable chance of being elected.

That is disturbing. The sheeple rather go with the status quo than actual change.

*DEFINE CHANGE* For the DUMBMASSES.

*I* Know YOU can do it and are UP to the task.

When liberals talk about change they go from:

to

Anyways, your point?

 

[Auxous]

Do you want do discuss ideas or do you just want to purport this "un-electable" idea which you get from your masters?

Let's discuss foreign policy. How is waging wars on lies and empire building in the best interest of America?

LMAO!

What empires have we built.......I don't see any empires........Name one empire or super power we've "built" besides our own......Once again, more Paul drivel.

How is allowing a country, who has promised to annhialate it's enemies, having a nuclear weapon/weapons in the best interest of our allies over there, and the world in general?

How is scuurying away and leaving our long established allies vulnerable, in the best interest of this great country.......Particularly when they are possibly invaded, and could very well cause WW3?

Ya see, i'll say it again, this isn't the 1700's.......Paul's ideals would have worked just fine back then......Nowadays, he's a nutter for even thinking they would in these times.

I'll admit that he definitely didn't present his Iran argument very well at that debate.

But knowing the man as well as I do since I've been studying and listening to him for almost 6 years now, I understand the point he was making a little differently than a lot of others do.

What he was saying about them pursuing a nuke was less about LETTING them have one, and more about trying to get people to think more critically about why they would want one.

I understand that some people are 100% convinced it's only because they want to annihilate someone with it and will never change their opinion, but he knows there are people who are open to hearing about it and forming their opinions instead of the media's spoonfed opinions.

You think they want to annihilate someone, he thinks they simply want relevance. If it got people thinking critically, then good.

Pure rubbish.

If you want to talk about the history of Iran, then I will be here.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Do you want do discuss ideas or do you just want to purport this "un-electable" idea which you get from your masters?

Let's discuss foreign policy. How is waging wars on lies and empire building in the best interest of America?

LMAO!

What empires have we built.......I don't see any empires........Name one empire or super power we've "built" besides our own......Once again, more Paul drivel.

How is allowing a country, who has promised to annhialate it's enemies, having a nuclear weapon/weapons in the best interest of our allies over there, and the world in general?

How is scuurying away and leaving our long established allies vulnerable, in the best interest of this great country.......Particularly when they are possibly invaded, and could very well cause WW3?

Ya see, i'll say it again, this isn't the 1700's.......Paul's ideals would have worked just fine back then......Nowadays, he's a nutter for even thinking they would in these times.

I'll admit that he definitely didn't present his Iran argument very well at that debate.

But knowing the man as well as I do since I've been studying and listening to him for almost 6 years now, I understand the point he was making a little differently than a lot of others do.

What he was saying about them pursuing a nuke was less about LETTING them have one, and more about trying to get people to think more critically about why they would want one.

I understand that some people are 100% convinced it's only because they want to annihilate someone with it and will never change their opinion, but he knows there are people who are open to hearing about it and forming their opinions instead of the media's spoonfed opinions.

You think they want to annihilate someone, he thinks they simply want relevance. If it got people thinking critically, then good.

Paul definitely has good ideas, domestically......Any true conservative agrees with a lot of what he says.......Foreign policy wise, the man is dangerous. And in many ways completely clueless.

It's time to stop getting behind the Pauls and Bachmann's who have zero chance, and get behind those who are not whacky extremist types.

Look, we've got some good conservatives out there whose domestic ideals are spot on, and definitely understand the foreign policy angle.......Those types are Rubio and West. And those are the ones conservatives truly need to get behind.

 

[Paulie]

He's not doing well in the polling and he has no reasonable chance of being elected.

Come on man, he's getting up around Huckabee status at this same point in the last cycle, and Huckabee was immediately credited with electability by the media when he cracked the top 3 in polling, which Paul is either at or near, depending on the poll. RCP has him 3rd in NH right now. Why does he not get SOME kind of credibility when Huckabee (another nobody) did?

Because Huckabee wasn't the fucking nutjob that Paul is. You say he's third in NH. Big fucking deal. He's what? 20 points behind Romney? NH is Romney's state: meaning he's going to win it. It's a lock if there ever was one.
Which state is Paul going to win?

I don't claim to know what state someone will win or not, because the primaries are a long way away. Too much can happen at this point. Romney didn't win NH last time, so how could I just automatically assume he will this time? For all I know something will cause his exit from the race by then.

And everyone has their own idea of what constitutes nut job. To me, a nut job is someone who thinks they're doing the work of God and has executive power in a government to carry out that "work".

 

[Auxous]

I love how war mongering and nation building brings "conservatives" together.

You people are such flamboyant hypocrites.

 

[Paulie]

LMAO!

What empires have we built.......I don't see any empires........Name one empire or super power we've "built" besides our own......Once again, more Paul drivel.

How is allowing a country, who has promised to annhialate it's enemies, having a nuclear weapon/weapons in the best interest of our allies over there, and the world in general?

How is scuurying away and leaving our long established allies vulnerable, in the best interest of this great country.......Particularly when they are possibly invaded, and could very well cause WW3?

Ya see, i'll say it again, this isn't the 1700's.......Paul's ideals would have worked just fine back then......Nowadays, he's a nutter for even thinking they would in these times.

I'll admit that he definitely didn't present his Iran argument very well at that debate.

But knowing the man as well as I do since I've been studying and listening to him for almost 6 years now, I understand the point he was making a little differently than a lot of others do.

What he was saying about them pursuing a nuke was less about LETTING them have one, and more about trying to get people to think more critically about why they would want one.

I understand that some people are 100% convinced it's only because they want to annihilate someone with it and will never change their opinion, but he knows there are people who are open to hearing about it and forming their opinions instead of the media's spoonfed opinions.

You think they want to annihilate someone, he thinks they simply want relevance. If it got people thinking critically, then good.

Paul definitely has good ideas, domestically......Any true conservative agrees with a lot of what he says.......Foreign policy wise, the man is dangerous. And in many ways completely clueless.

It's time to stop getting behind the Pauls and Bachmann's who have zero chance, and get behind those who are not whacky extremist types.

Look, we've got some good conservatives out there whose domestic ideals are spot on, and definitely understand the foreign policy angle.......Those types are Rubio and West. And those are the ones conservatives truly need to get behind.

I don't know enough about Rubio or West. I do know there's a congressman in AZ named Jeff Flake who's running for Kyl's senate seat in 12. He's not perfect but he's still better than any of the other "choices".

But it's ironic that you mention 2 guys not running, while talking about electability.

 

[Woyzeck]

Again, I am against usury and profiteering off of capital simply by ownership.

Capital itself is not the problem.

I am getting tired of your sophomoric antics and disingenuous behavior.

Capitalism still creates hierarchies without usury and profiteering. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalism. There is no marrying the two. To do that you would have change what capitalism is.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't like Paul's views on the USA's status as a world power.
Paul believes the US should isolate itself and let the other nations deal with their problems. In other words, Paul believes we have no national interests in foreign countries.
I also think a 76 year old man were he to be elected to the Oval Office would not be inaugurated until he was nearly 78 years of age. That means he would be almost 82 at the end of his admin.
Those who've served as POTUS age very rapidly.

 

[dblack]

Paul definitely has good ideas, domestically......Any true conservative agrees with a lot of what he says.......Foreign policy wise, the man is dangerous. And in many ways completely clueless.

This is the common refrain from modern conservatives (mainstream Republicans) when confronted with Paul views. But it's basically an admission that you have no fucking clue what his views are all about - or what the real freedom and constitutionally limited government entail. Better to just label him a pariah and get it over with. You want authoritarian rule. Embrace it. And quit short-selling libertarianism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Capitalism still creates hierarchies without usury and profiteering. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalism. There is no marrying the two. To do that you would have change what capitalism is.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

 

[Woyzeck]

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

The reasons anarchists are against the state in the first place, is because the state is a source of authoritarianism and hierarchical institutions. They are systems of controlling people and anarchists are against that.

 

[Auxous]

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

No its not. Anarchy has a rich philosophy outside of your nascent understanding.

Lets talk about Egoism vs Natural Rights.
Egoism and Anarchy | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

 

[Auxous]

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

The reasons anarchists are against the state in the first place, is because the state is a source of authoritarianism and hierarchical institutions.

The state combined with a central banking system is responsible for most of the world's atrocities.