Why are leftwingers and the lib media hyping Ron Paul?

[Liberty]

ron will get the nomination, and then dethrown obama. americans want a real "change" and this man is it.

 

[Patrick2]

Here's a current typical, non-critical lib media puff ball piece from none other than the New York Slimes:

Ron Paul, in Iowa, Declines to Gloat About His Prescient Warnings on Debt Crisis - NYTimes.com

 

[Patrick2]

Hey P2, why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

What is it about his beliefs that you find so objectionable?

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

 

[manifold]

Hey P2, why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

What is it about his beliefs that you find so objectionable?

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

Why do you insist that he is unelectable?

Would you not vote for him if he won the nomination?

 

[manifold]

In the 2008 primaries, the Hillary camp was hard at work peddling the same horseshit about Obama being unelectable, even going so far as to hint that Americans are still too racist to vote for a Black person for president. And how did that work out for Hillary? Oh yeah, Obama skull-fucked the shit out of her.

 

[dblack]

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

Fascinating. So, what exactly does 'electable' mean?

 

[Old Rocks]

ron will get the nomination, and then dethrown obama. americans want a real "change" and this man is it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody, except for a loyal cadre of inter web posters hypes Ron Paul

All too true. The notion that any political group invested in the status quo would 'hype' Paul is quite naive.

Flat contradiction of manifest reality - the lib media has ENDLESSLY reported on him favorably.

Nonsense. I've watched MSNBC this morning and virtually no mentions of Ron Paul. If anything, all of the mainstream media diminishes Ron Paul,

probably rightly so, because the past has proven that Paul's weird cultlike support never translates into mainstream support in the long run.

 

[Patrick2]

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

Fascinating. So, what exactly does 'electable' mean?

e·lect·a·ble (-lkt-bl)
adj.

Able to be elected, especially to public office: an electable candidate.

 

[Liberty]

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

Fascinating. So, what exactly does 'electable' mean?

e·lect·a·ble (-lkt-bl)
adj.

Able to be elected, especially to public office: an electable candidate.

by that definition, he is electable. so...i guess you need to work on your vocabulary?

 

[Patrick2]

Hey P2, why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

What is it about his beliefs that you find so objectionable?

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

Why do you insist that he is unelectable?

Because he is in fact unelectable.

Would you not vote for him if he won the nomination?

OF COURSE. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he were obama's opponent.

 

[Patrick2]

Fascinating. So, what exactly does 'electable' mean?

e·lect·a·ble (-lkt-bl)
adj.

Able to be elected, especially to public office: an electable candidate.

by that definition, he is electable. so...i guess you need to work on your vocabulary?

Uh, nooooooooo, ya see, he's not able to be elected.

 

[Liberty]

if someone can cast a vote for someone, then that person is electable. thats the definition...electable does not mean that it will happen, it means the chance of being elected is there, no matter how small...

 

[Patrick2]

if someone can cast a vote for someone, then that person is electable. thats the definition...electable does not mean that it will happen, it means the chance of being elected is there, no matter how small...

There's no chance. If he were nominated, then the lib media would go over all his libertarian remarks for the last umpteent years and use them against him. Very few people in this country have studied libertarianism - they don't know its arguments, its intellectual support, its history - nothing. In the hands of the defamation experts of the lib media, he'll be easily packaged to the uninformed, gullible public as an "extremist", etc. This will happen exactly like they did with McCain in 2008: they'll promoite him till he gets the nomination, and then turn on him - the net result? Four more years of obama.

 

[dblack]

There's no chance. If he were nominated, then the lib media would go over all his libertarian remarks for the last umpteent years and use them against him. Very few people in this country have studied libertarianism - they don't know its arguments, its intellectual support, its history - nothing. In the hands of the defamation experts of the lib media, he'll be easily packaged to the uninformed, gullible public as an "extremist", etc. This will happen exactly like they did with McCain in 2008: they'll promoite him till he gets the nomination, and then turn on him - the net result? Four more years of obama.

Though I think the notion that this is some kind of conspiracy is a bit much, your concerns about how Paul would be attacked are reasonable enough. Pretty much anyone who represents a real challenge to the status quo is going to get lambasted by the powers-that-be and the mainstream media.

If you're simply arguing that there's no way things are ever going to change, well, you may be right. But why give in that easily? I intend to vote, and campaign for, the candidates that I think are the best. If the country rejects them, then they reject them. I don't buy the 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap.

 

[manifold]

Not much, as I am a conservative with a libertarian tilt. You've missed the point - the lib establishment realizes he's unelectable, and knows (OBVIOUSLY) obama can't run on his disastrous record, and they want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by having the republicans nominate someone who can't win - exactly what they did in 2008 hyping McCain.

Why do you insist that he is unelectable?

Because he is in fact unelectable.

Would you not vote for him if he won the nomination?

OF COURSE. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he were obama's opponent.

He's already been elected to office, multiple times.

As Liberty said, indeed you do need to work on your vocabulary as well as your understanding of facts versus opinions.

 

[Patrick2]

There's no chance. If he were nominated, then the lib media would go over all his libertarian remarks for the last umpteent years and use them against him. Very few people in this country have studied libertarianism - they don't know its arguments, its intellectual support, its history - nothing. In the hands of the defamation experts of the lib media, he'll be easily packaged to the uninformed, gullible public as an "extremist", etc. This will happen exactly like they did with McCain in 2008: they'll promoite him till he gets the nomination, and then turn on him - the net result? Four more years of obama.

Though I think the notion that this is some kind of conspiracy is a bit much, your concerns about how Paul would be attacked are reasonable enough. Pretty much anyone who represents a real challenge to the status quo is going to get lambasted by the powers-that-be and the mainstream media.

If you're simply arguing that there's no way things are ever going to change, well, you may be right. But why give in that easily? I intend to vote, and campaign for, the candidates that I think are the best. If the country rejects them, then they reject them. I don't buy the 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap.

Things always change, given enough time, but right now in 2011, the liberal/left controls everything whereby opinion can be strongly influenced: the media, thae academy, even the K12 schools.

 

[Patrick2]

Why do you insist that he is unelectable?

Because he is in fact unelectable.

Would you not vote for him if he won the nomination?

OF COURSE. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he were obama's opponent.

He's already been elected to office, multiple times.

As Liberty said, indeed you do need to work on your vocabulary as well as your understanding of facts versus opinions.

Noooooo.......... I was referring to >>PRESIDENT<<, to which he's not and cannot be elected, my facts are completely valid, and I did use the word right.

 

[Liberty]

Because he is in fact unelectable.



OF COURSE. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he were obama's opponent.

He's already been elected to office, multiple times.

As Liberty said, indeed you do need to work on your vocabulary as well as your understanding of facts versus opinions.

Noooooo.......... I was referring to >>PRESIDENT<<, to which he's not and cannot be elected, my facts are completely valid, and I did use the word right.

 

[dblack]

Things always change, given enough time, but right now in 2011, the liberal/left controls everything whereby opinion can be strongly influenced: the media, thae academy, even the K12 schools.

So, I'm not clear what your point is then. Are you just trying to get us all to give up?

Hmmm... I suppose if I did indulge in conspiracy thinking, I might suspect you're liberal plant.