Ron Paul for President of the USA

[raw-al]

I remember reading one book that suggested stated the C. Columbus was a Jew who went (along with a crew of other Jews) to sea to avoid the apparently inevitable coming of anti-seminist forces which were spreading at the time in Spain. I don't remember the details but it had to do with the pope etc. It was quite the conspiracy theory. It's the only place I have read it.

[raw-al]

 

Not at all ( or should I say "rubbish"  ).  .

C'mon ease up the chokechain a bit, he hasn't said rubbish in a long time... 

[goodsamaritan]

I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is about RON PAUL for president of the USA.

The Jews topic can go on a different thread.  No more Jew replies on the Ron Paul thread PLEASE.

Ron Paul on CBS's Face the Nation 11/21/11

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Democracy (is not equal to) Freedom

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Democracy ? Freedom

[raw-al]

I say those who despise US are really envious.

This is a bunch of 'merican BS. Reminds me of George Bush's BS about people attacking America because they are "jealous of our freedom". Dah... what planet is he from.

People attack (US of) America because they attack everywhere else.

Just like Ron Paul says.

[goodsamaritan]

I say those who despise US are really envious.

Good grief.

I on purpose did not renew my 10 year US VISA because I cannot stand Orwellian 1984 crap in the USA. And the constant threat of terrorism and hate from more and more countries the USA murders.

I live in a house full of people who do not want to migrate to the USA ( my in laws already tried living there and returned here, because they didn't like the lifestyle there - having 1 child is hard, they wanted lots more so they went back and had 8 kids )

We've traveled around too and agree there are prettier countries to visit on the next and next vacation.

I don't see how I can be envious when I live in a compound of extended relatives, we have a combined 4 maids, 1 clothes washer, 1 ironer, 2 drivers, and 4 cars.  And chicks? Chicks are plentiful here.

Back to Ron Paul.

Maybe Ron Paul will stop the war mongering of the USA for a while.  That will be a relief of at least 4 years.  The world needs a rest from evil soldier invasions backed up by media lies. 

You may not have realized it yet but around the world when your USA military is shown in pictures, in videos, etc... you are the BAD GUYS, the INVADERS, the MASS MURDERERS.  Wouldn't it be nice to be called the GOOD GUYS for a change? (like in the days of WW2)

And if Ron Paul ends the FED, then maybe the world can have a more equitable money system.

[TylerDurden]

I don't see how I can be envious when I live in a compound of extended relatives, we have a combined 4 maids, 1 clothes washer, 1 ironer, 2 drivers, and 4 cars.  And chicks? Chicks are plentiful here.

I'm deeply envious of you, anyway. I mean, in developed countries like the UK, hiring 8  permanent servants is financially ruinous, you practically have to be a multi-millionaire  to support their lifestyles. Partly it's because of the high wages people demand over here, but also one has to pay towards their pensions etc.. If you give them a flat or house to live in, it's very difficult indeed to evict them once they stop working for you due to illness  or retirement etc.

As for Ron Paul, shouldn't we really be worrying about who will lead China, as the Chinese seem to be the only ones capable of running the world economy in the future?

As regards the US, empires which overstretch themselves, and start wars too far away from their genuine spheres of interest, usually are about to soon collapse.

[goodsamaritan]

As for Ron Paul, shouldn't we really be worrying about who will lead China, as the Chinese seem to be the only ones capable of running the world economy in the future?

Maybe if Ron Paul does get to be president and brings all the troops home as fast as the ships will take them... there will be peace... and then we can talk about China.

[cherimoya_kid]

In Spain maybe.  They had large number of Jews converted to Christianity and assimilate with locals.

Any European alive 1200 years ago or more who has descendants today is most likely the ancestor of several million European-descended people today.  You know that Charlemagne is the ancestor of about 50% of Europeans, right?  The Jews have been mixing in for a long, long time.  This gives plenty of time for that blood to make its way through all of Europe, the Middle East. etc..

Granted, none of the Spanish/Europeans Jews had as many children as Charlemagne individually...but as a group, they had far more than he alone did. Ergo, I'm right.

To TylerDurden--I don't see the point of calling someone a Jew if they are secular. That's like calling me an animist, just because I have couple of great-great-great grandparents who were Cherokee Indians.  You are either referring to those of Jewish BLOOD, or those of Jewish BELIEF. It's pointless and useless to conflate the two, no?

[TylerDurden]

In the case of Jewish blood and belief, the 2 are more or less the same thing. Just like Mormon Fundamentalists, the Amish and similiar largely isolated religious sects. Sure, a few others may join every so often(often discouraged), but that doesn't change the fact that current Mormon Fundamentalists, for example,  are almost wholly descended from those who went on the Mormon trek. Almost all Amish are descended from just 200 people in the 18th century etc.

I really don't understand this bizarre American fascination with your one-drop-rule. The idea that a tiny, microscopic percentage of ethnic DNA makes one a member of that one ethnic group is just ridiculous, beyond  belief. I mean, for example, for all I know I might have one Mongol ancestor 800 years ago, but by now, after c. 32 generations, this represents such a  tiny amount(0.5 xy 31=0.00000000046566128730773926), that I could not possibly be considered to be a Mongol(well I'm pretty sure I don't anyway have such ancestry, as my plotted genealogical tree goes back a 1,000 years). Sure, if I had a Mongolian great, great-grandfather or whatever, then that's different, as that's reasonably close. I just find it amusing that people like to trace themselves back to Charlemagne or Genghis Khan or whoever,  when they share negligible amount of genes with them, after so many centuries.

Anyway, this topic has been hijacked. The thread is about Ron Paul.

[sabertooth]

http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme/

[goodsamaritan]

Ron Paul Has Won More Straw Polls Than Any Other Republican Candidate
Sunday, 04 December, 2011 05:27



Ron Paul has garnered 19 GOP Presidential Straw Poll wins -- more than ANY other GOP candidate -- and ALMOST FIVE TIMES AS MANY as establishment favorite, Mitt Romney. Flavor of the Month, Newt Gingrich, has won ONE straw poll. Ron Paul’s straw poll victories constitute 48.7% of the 39 GOP Straw Polls thus far.

2011 GOP Straw Poll Wins for Ron Paul:

1st - February 12, 2011, Washington, D.C. – CPAC Straw Poll
1st - February 27, 2011 Phoenix, AZ - Tea Party Patriots Virtual Summit Straw Poll
1st - March 20, 2011, Sacramento, California – Republican Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll
1st - June 16–18, 2011, New Orleans, Louisiana – Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll
1st - June 19, 2011, Clay County, Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll
1st - August 20, 2011 New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll
1st - September 12, 2011 Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll
1st - September 17, 2011 California GOP Straw Poll
1st - October 7–9, 2011, Washington, D.C. – Values Voter Straw Poll
1st - October 13, 2011, Los Angeles County, California - RPLAC Straw Poll
1st - October 18, 2011, Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston County Republican Party
1st - October 22, 2011, Columbus, Ohio - Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll
1st - October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 1
1st - October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 2
1st - November 5, 2011, Illinois - Illinois Straw Poll
1st - November 14, 2011, North Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston County Republican Party Straw Poll
1st - November 14, 2011, San Diego, California - San Diego GOP Straw poll
1st - November 15, 2011, Springfield, Missouri - Missouri Tea Party Straw poll
1st - November 19, 2011, North Carolina- NC Registered Republicans Straw Poll

Ron Paul's 2nd Place GOP Straw Poll results:

2nd - January 22, 2011, Derry, New Hampshire – New Hampshire Straw Poll
2nd - (Statistical Tie for 1st) - August 13, 2011 Iowa Straw Poll, Hilton Coliseum in Ames, Iowa.
2nd - (Statistical Tie for 1st) - August 27, 2011 Georgia State GOP Straw Poll
2nd - October 29, 2011, Tuscaloosa, Alabama; West Alabama Straw Poll
2nd - November 19, 2011, Rockford, Illinois - Memorial Hall Straw Poll

VOTE THIS UP!!!

THEN Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and caucuses!!!

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1459/345/Ron_Paul_Has_Won_More_Straw_Polls_Than_Any_Other_Republican_Candidate.html

[raw-al]

That says it all Sabertooth, they are afraid of him and thus will be the ones that try to bring him down or at least make his road rocky, which will make the taste of victory sweeter.

There are so many people who would lose if he succeeds, ie; military empire, manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction, Israel, and the huge government sector, that he has a large mountain to climb. Go team go!

[PaleoPhil]

http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme

Apparently, the "No more Jew replies on the Ron Paul thread" is not in force, or does it only apply to those that don't support the blame-the-Jews meme?

I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.
 
I don't personally approve of the extremist Islamic viewpoint, as of this time, but , compared to the Israeli/Zionist viewpoint, they seem like tame doves by comparison. I do often wonder  if the world's current problems could all just be resolved just by a few tactical nuclear strikes in the major Israeli cities...

It's so sad that you have to resort to George Lucas's notoriously dismal attempts at dialogue in the movies, when you have nothing useful or valid to add to any discussion.

Tyler, are you really so obtuse as to take what I wrote as intended literally rather than as satire to highlight the ridiculousness of your extreme posts? The fact that I was quoting from a low-brow FICTIONAL movie and talked about human sacrifice was supposed to be a clue.
 
Do you consider your remark about wondering if the nuking of the major Israeli cities could resolve "the world's current problems" to be useful or valid? If so, how?

[PaleoPhil]

Congratulations to the Jew-focused Ron Paul promoters, you've managed to cost Ron Paul a supporter. My favorite candidate was Ron Paul, with Gary Johnson as my second choice, but the extreme language and focus on Jews is tilting me to Johnson. I wasn't aware of the depth and extent this negative element of Ron's support and it led me to investigate and find some rather naive and extreme foreign policy statements by Ron that I found Johnson took more sensible positions on. Ron is still my second choice, but you guys have contributed to giving his campaign a bad aroma and my enthusiasm is curbed. With supporters like you guys, Ron doesn't need enemies.

The negativity in this thread is not only counterproductive to Ron Paul's campaign, it's also counterproductive to the credibility of this forum and certainly is not welcoming to Jewish or Israeli members (including the Palestinian Israelis who live in the major Israeli cities and thus would also be killed by nuking of those cities). Of course, Tyler will remain as always blatantly ignorant of this and impervious to reason on the subject, so I don't expect to change his mind, but I do want Jewish and Israeli readers and supporters of basic human decency to know that not everyone here agrees with the more extreme of his and others' rants.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, are you really so obtuse as to take what I wrote as intended literally rather than as satire to highlight the ridiculousness of your extreme posts? The fact that I was quoting from a low-brow FICTIONAL movie and talked about human sacrifice was supposed to be a clue.

A low-brow satire to emphasise a low-brow point on your behalf. Not terribly impressive.
 

Do you consider your remark about wondering if the nuking of the major Israeli cities could resolve "the world's current problems" to be useful or valid? If so, how?

Well, I was exaggerating with the nukes comment, but for a good reason, because I am well aware of how my own life has been made more complicated by the incessant wars in the Middle-East etc. The point I was really making was that with Israel no longer existing, there would be far fewer wars in the Middle-East against other countries or freedom-fighter organisations, therefore more money around to fund economic initiatives to end our current recession/depression, I wouldn't have to routinely queue for ages at airport security nor would I have to wait for hours because a bomb-scare has  caused the authorities to shut down the Underground etc. etc.

[PaleoPhil]

A low-brow satire to emphasise a low-brow point on your behalf. Not terribly impressive.

Luckily your rants make my posts look reasonable in comparison and I was highlighting the ridiculousness with ridiculousness that you and others promoting the Jew-blame meme might recognize, which you did. So it succeeded, at least with you.

Well, I was exaggerating with the nukes comment

And that IS impressive?

but for a good reason, because I am well aware of how my own life has been made more complicated by the incessant wars in the Middle-East etc.

I agree with you on this and wish the USA could be relieved of this burden of empire, which makes it unfortunate that you undercut your good points by going off into la la land.

[TylerDurden]

You were the only fool making irrelevant moronic  statements(re the Sith etc.), so, actually, you failed quite miserably. Everyone else was just putting forward their various different views, making various additional points and debunking others' points, even ys, who I did not even necessarily  agree with, mostly. In future, please at least make an effort, however difficult that may be, to use logic and reason and back up your points with evidence etc., as you used to be able to.

By the way, I was pretty certain that you were deeply insincere re Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general, given your past behaviour/personality-type. I'm pleased to see I'm right in the first case, and I will probably turn out to be right in the 2nd case when you finally put in your vote in due course.

[TylerDurden]

Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...

I vaguely know someone who was born  as a result of a forced rape of her mother  during wartime 9 months before, and her life was a living hell because her Catholic mother treated her appallingly. I do think that women should be entitled to abort in cases of rape and the like, or in early pregnancy. Late-term abortion should apply in cases of disability, given the future burden on the child and family.

Still, he's against climate change budgeting wastage, against the war on drugs because of the waste of money involved, and so on and on... Other than abortion, I agree with virtually everything else he states.

[raw-al]

Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...

I vaguely know someone who was born  as a result of a forced rape of her mother  during wartime 9 months before, and her life was a living hell because her Catholic mother treated her appallingly. I do think that women should be entitled to abort in cases of rape and the like, or in early pregnancy. Late-term abortion should apply in cases of disability, given the future burden on the child and family.

Still, he's against climate change budgeting wastage, against the war on drugs because of the waste of money involved, and so on and on... Other than abortion, I agree with virtually everything else he states.

I struggled a bit on the abortion thing as it is a toughee.

Can't help but think that nowadays technology makes it easy to determine gender and other things (which will only expand as time goes on) which would make it tempting to abort, for say wanting a different gendered child or something else idiotic.

Abortion is not an easy topic to pass judgement on in any case. I do not believe we were put on earth to pass judgement anyways. (I'm wide open on that statement  )

There will always be girls having abortion whether it's legal or not. I guess making it legal just ensures the girl gets better quality medical attention.

[TylerDurden]

The way I see it, as science/technology advances, we will inevitably gain access to such technologies. In the case of those societies who frown on having female children, if they do reduce the number of girl children, that actually only benefits their societies since they(India, the Middle-East and China in particular) have too high a birth-rate already and need to reduce that in order to maintain a higher standard of living.

Now, people have argued that it is immoral to decide what physical or mental characteristics  child should have.  This idea has been rather conclusively debunked:-

http://web.archive.org/web/20060208032306/http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml

I mean, either we are just animals who do not manipulate ourselves or the environment, in which case we should just go back to living in the trees without technology, or we should go onward and choose what genes our children have.  In the case of abortion, I doubt it would be necessary if technology improved. For example, it might be possible, eventually, to redesign an embryo, mid-term,  to be female or male instead, rather than aborting it, or redesigning its future muscles to allow it to adapt to a high-gravity environment, or adding gills allowing it to survive in an underwater environment.... etc.

It should be obvious that I am a transhumanist and a science fiction aficionado.

[goodsamaritan]

BACK TO RON PAUL
=================

Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win?

Ron Paul Highlights in 12/3/2011 Presidential Forum

Ron Paul Refusing To Attend Debate Hosted By "Reality Television Personality"

Ron Paul Refusing To Attend Debate Hosted By "Reality Television Personality"

[PaleoPhil]

You were the only fool making irrelevant moronic  statements(re the Sith etc.), so, actually, you failed quite miserably.

It was a joke and you recognized it as ridiculous, which was the intent, so it succeeded. Your ridiculous pondering of nuking Israeli cities was neither logical nor reasonable and you eventually grudgingly acknowledged that you exaggerated, which was another success. Whether you acknowledge these successes or engage in sour grapes is irrelevant.

By the way, I was pretty certain that you were deeply insincere re Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general, given your past behaviour/personality-type. I'm pleased to see I'm right in the first case, and I will probably turn out to be right in the 2nd case when you finally put in your vote in due course.

There you go trying to mind read again, failing miserably, as usual.

No politician is perfect. I was sincere re: Ron Paul and still may vote for him if Johnson isn't on the local ballot or if more reasonable people like Skinnydevil persuade me that Ron is the better choice, and if you paid attention you'd know that I didn't claim to be a full-fledged libertarian. I said I have libertarian tendencies.

You're not claiming to be libertarian, are you? You seemed to give that impression in the past, but since then the running theme I've seen in your posts is more authoritarian than libertarian. Didn't you write something positive about monarchy and other authoritarian styles of government/leadership?

Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...

Then it sounds like you agree more with Gary Johnson than Ron Paul on that. Also, some other of Johnson's views seem more libertarian than Ron's (though Ron seems more strictly libertarian on others, which is not suprising given that governors tend to have to compromise more than congressmen): http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/gary-johnson-vs-ron-paul-respective.html

I'm still open to considering Ron Paul and my guess is he'll be the best option on the actual ballot by the time my state votes, but your posts are not doing him any favors. It's as if you're a mole planted by the conservatives to make Ron look bad. If you really support Ron Paul then if you had some sense you'd let Skinnydevil do the talking.

[goodsamaritan]

Geoff is a British "agent"... ha ha ha ha.

[PaleoPhil]

LOL, good one. Maybe he's 007? 

Oh yeah, and in case anyone's not aware of the peculiarities of American politics, the "conservatives" tend to lean more to the authoritarian side of the scale than libertarians. Here's a political quiz with an admitted libertarian tilt that can help to illustrate the orientations in American politics: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

[raw-al]

Thanks Phil,
I am a Libertarian. I wasn't ten years ago.