Ron Paul too old?

[Woyzeck]

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?

You support a capitalist who wants capitalist free-markets.

You're a shitty anarchist.

 

[elvis]

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.

The media didn't discuss Mike Gravel's ideas, either.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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?

You support a capitalist who wants capitalist free-markets.

You're a shitty anarchist.

No shit!........WTF

 

[Auxous]

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?

You support a capitalist who wants capitalist free-markets.

You're a shitty anarchist.

Proudhon supported self-proprietorship.

I have nothing wrong with owning capital. I have a problem that usury creates simply by owning capital.

 

[Paulie]

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.

He's polling 3rd in NH with over 10%. You can either spin it as he's doing well in an otherwise tough uphill battle for a candidate like him, or that he's "last or second to last".

I don't remember the media taking the latter approach with some guy named Mike Huckabee that no one had ever heard of outside of AK in 2008. In fact, it was the opposite. Once he cracked the top 3, the media began considering him electable and then magically he rised even farther in the polls to "top tier" status.

The reason his position in the polls right now is positive for him is this: The "top tier" will be heavily scrutinized by the media until the primaries start, and they have plenty of time to shoot themselves in the foot like we all know they're capable of. It basically becomes a battle of who can stay funded and avoid bad press vs. who can not.

Paul can stay funded because it's been proven. He's well funded already and his supporters will keep him that way. And since the media ignores him, he doesn't have to worry about bad press. He doesn't generate anything considered bad press anyway, he always says the same thing. It's the other candidates who continue to change their message around to pander to voters that have to worry about shooting themselves in the foot.

A great example of that is Perry and his recent Bernanke statement. Us Paul supporters just sit back and enjoy the ride while we watch these idiots run their own campaigns into the ground.

 

[Auxous]

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.

The media didn't discuss Mike Gravel's ideas, either.

Mike Gravel = Awesomeness.

Did you know that he was the junior Senator who introduced the Pentagon Papers. He read them all night with tears in eyes over our atrocious behavior in Vietnam.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ks8hz5Ulg]Mike Gravel - The Pentagon Papers - YouTube[/ame]

The media fucked him.

 

[Woyzeck]

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?

You support a capitalist who wants capitalist free-markets.

You're a shitty anarchist.

Proudhon supported self-proprietorship.

I have nothing wrong with owning capital. I have a problem that usury creates simply by owning capital.

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

 

[Auxous]

You support a capitalist who wants capitalist free-markets.

You're a shitty anarchist.

Proudhon supported self-proprietorship.

I have nothing wrong with owning capital. I have a problem that usury creates simply by owning capital.

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

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

However, anarchists are not against capital.

See the difference?

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

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.

 

[Woyzeck]

Proudhon supported self-proprietorship.

I have nothing wrong with owning capital. I have a problem that usury creates simply by owning capital.

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

I don't.

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

 

[Auxous]

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.

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?

 

[Auxous]

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

I don't.

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

I am more of a geo-libertarian, but thank you for the shitty conversation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Woyzeck]

Proudhon supported self-proprietorship.

I have nothing wrong with owning capital. I have a problem that usury creates simply by owning capital.

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

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.

 

[The T]

Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:

“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”

He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”

Any takers?

Cookies disabled? | Concord Monitor

Gary Johnson might take him up on that challenge being a triathlete, but the rest? I doubt it seriously.

Ron Paul too old? Really? And whom determines that shit exactly?

The VOTERS...and does AGE matter? NOPE.

 

[Paulie]

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?

 

[Auxous]

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

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.

 

[Auxous]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My points stands. Why do you think anarchists are against capitalism?

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.

Anarchists are against the state.