Ron Paul for President of the USA

[PaleoPhil]

You're welcome, Raw-Al.

GS, thanks for the 2nd and 3rd videos though I could have done without a repeat of the 1st. It was pretty cool to see Ron recommend a Bastiat book in the 2nd vid. Haven't seen a politician do that before.

"In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them." -Frédéric Bastiat, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

Here is the book Ron recommended:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basLaw.html

[TylerDurden]

It was a joke and you recognized it as ridiculous, which was the intent, so it succeeded.

  Actually no, at the time, I thought you were just a truly sad geek("Star Woid") trying to come up with lame quotations from your most beloved  2 film trilogies, because you couldn't come up with a decent  valid point of your own. I mean, your lame citing of Alan Dershowitz who is infamous for getting OJ Simpson acquitted despite evidence to the contrary; his support for Jeffrey Epstein the prolific sex-offender and personal friend etc. , quite aside from a debate about Israel and Palestine in which he argued on Israel's side and lost convincingly.

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.

  The nuke comment was never meant to be literally taken, anyway, just being an aside comment, you merely seized on it and pretended it  to be literal. It was just made as a result of my frustration with how one tiny little country in the world has caused a lot of disruption, to the extent of even wasting my own personal time re travelling around, quite aside from a myriad other matters. Besides, given that Israel's own Ariel Sharon has made subtle threats re nuking others, :-
"“Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.",  I was merely copying him.

I said I have libertarian tendencies.

Ah, yes you actually did, now I recall. Forgive me for suggesting you might have claimed to have been  a full libertarian, that is clearly a case of slander/libel .  But then you shouldn't be posting here at all in this thread, for reasons of integrity.

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?

  Just because most of my views seem to fall in the libertarian camp doesn't mean I can't sometimes admire other political systems too. I have always had an admiration for monarchies, for various reasons. The problem is that the monarch has to be a good one, that's all. Plus, I am also well aware that a particular individual's actions can be beneficial even if that person's political views are unrealistic or whatever.

[PaleoPhil]

  Actually no, at the time, I thought you were just a truly sad geek("Star Woid") trying to come up with lame quotations from your most beloved  2 film trilogies, because you couldn't come up with a decent  valid point of your own.

Nice try. You could hardly be further from the truth. How many times do I have to repeat that you're one of the worst mind readers I've ever encountered before it registers? You're so bad it's hilarious.

I shared your accusation with my sister and she laughed her head off because she was the Star Wars fanatic and I turned my nose up at it and resisted her nagging me to see the movie for many years. She used to annoy me by quoting from the movie and re-enacting it. I was probably one of the last people of my generation from that area to see Star Wars.

When Star Wars was in the theaters and a bunch of us kids went to a duplex movie theater which, like pretty much all theaters at the time, was showing it, I and my friend went to see the other movie while she and the rest of the kids saw Star Wars for probably the umpteenth time. There were less than half a dozen other people in the movie theater I was in and we were the only kids watching that movie. LOL As far as I was concerned, I would watch anything BUT Star Wars. I didn't watch Star Wars until I happened to be watching TV with someone else and they wanted to see it. It sounds like you would have been one of the few other kids on the planet who might have gone with my friend and I to the other movie instead of Star Wars. It's actually kind of disturbing to me that we might have that in common. 

I mean, your lame citing of Alan Dershowitz who is infamous for getting OJ Simpson....

OJ Simpson? Good grief! You're using that tangent seriously and you criticized my use of Star Wars quotes to highlight ridiculousness? 

The nuke comment was never meant to be literally taken, anyway, just being an aside comment,

Earth to Tyler. Of course not, that's why I responded with a joke, Lord Tyler. Did you really take Star Wars quotes seriously?

you merely seized on it and pretended it  to be literal.

Wrong again. I treated it as ridiculous, which it was, and I didn't have to pretend. You're not really still trying to defend your use of the nuke nonsense are you? You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.

It was just made as a result of my frustration with how one tiny little country in the world has caused a lot of disruption, to the extent of even wasting my own personal time re travelling around, quite aside from a myriad other matters.

Yeah, I already got that you're seriously annoyed with Israel. That was pretty obvious from the get go.

Ah, yes you actually did, now I recall. Forgive me for suggesting you might have claimed to have been  a full libertarian, that is clearly a case of slander/libel .

LOL Hey, you actually are capable of some humor. Good for you. Tell me another.

But then you shouldn't be posting here at all in this thread, for reasons of integrity.

So people who are (or were) considering voting for Ron Paul and are interested in learning more shouldn't post here just because they aren't card-carrying members?  And I guess that pretty much cancels the possibility of any  debate, eh? I didn't realize that this was a yes-men thread.

Just because most of my views seem to fall in the libertarian camp doesn't mean I can't sometimes admire other political systems too. I have always had an admiration for monarchies, for various reasons.

And you're criticizing me for insufficient purity? This just gets richer and richer.

The problem is that the monarch has to be a good one, that's all.

Ah, that's it then. So monarchy can be a pretty good thing, eh? Have you ever tried to promote this view on a libertarian forum? Have you ever even participated in a libertarian forum?

Plus, I am also well aware that a particular individual's actions can be beneficial even if that person's political views are unrealistic or whatever.

So then why don't you cut me the same slack you give yourself? Unless you cherish hypocrisy too much. I've never implied that anyone has to be a purist libertarian to post in this thread the way you have and I didn't even claim to be a libertarian and you trashed me for being insufficiently sincere about libertarianism, then you did a 180 and tried to imply that I think being called a libertarian would be a slander. Make up your mind, they can't both be true. Or keep on playing the jester, it is a bit entertaining. Thanks for the laughs!

[goodsamaritan]

New Ron Paul Ad - BIG DOG

New Ron Paul Ad - BIG DOG

[PaleoPhil]

Nice kick-ass ad. Thanks for sharing it, GS.

[TylerDurden]

Star wars back-pedalling etc.

It really doesn't matter to me whether you are a star wars fanatic or not. Irrelevant. The very fact that you were so limited as to choose that star wars labelling rather than actually providing valid points to counter my arguments shows that you have no real imagination or logic.

OJ Simpson? Good grief! You're using that tangent seriously and you criticized my use of Star Wars quotes to highlight ridiculousness? 

That wasn't the only point, and OJ Simpson can hardly be compared to your incredible lame citing of Star Wars to cover up bad arguments on your part. There was also mention of his support for a dear paedophile friend of his, and that debate over Israel he lost convincingly. Naturally, you would need to omit those points, given disingenuousness on your part.

Earth to Tyler. Of course not, that's why I responded with a joke, Lord Tyler. Did you really take Star Wars quotes seriously?

  You cited star wars because you couldn't think of anything useful to say. Not the same thing at all.

Wrong again. I treated it as ridiculous, which it was, and I didn't have to pretend. You're not really still trying to defend your use of the nuke nonsense are you? You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.

I already successfully defended my nuke comments by pointing out that Israelis have been making similiar comments about nuking others.

So people who are (or were) considering voting for Ron Paul and are interested in learning more shouldn't post here just because they aren't card-carrying members?  And I guess that pretty much cancels the possibility of any  debate, eh? I didn't realize that this was a yes-men thread.

It is a let's vote for Ron Paul thread. Those trying to sabotage the thread, like yourself, should not be here.

And you're criticizing me for insufficient purity? This just gets richer and richer.
Ah, that's it then. So monarchy can be a pretty good thing, eh? Have you ever tried to promote this view on a libertarian forum? Have you ever even participated in a libertarian forum?

Now that's just incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. Obviously, one should, for reasons of objectivity, not totally exclude the possibility that other systems can work as well, under certain conditions. To claim that only one system ever works is just blinkered thinking and does not allow for the likelihood that every philosophy has its flaws, since perfection does not exist in Nature. As for being a member of an online forum, that's like stating that one can't be a Conservative unless one is a member of the Conservative Party. Just moronic.

So then why don't you cut me the same slack you give yourself? Unless you cherish hypocrisy too much. I've never implied that anyone has to be a purist libertarian to post in this thread the way you have and I didn't even claim to be a libertarian and you trashed me for being insufficiently sincere about libertarianism, then you did a 180 and tried to imply that I think being called a libertarian would be a slander. Make up your mind, they can't both be true. Or keep on playing the jester, it is a bit entertaining. Thanks for the laughs!

  An interesting load of pure b*llsh*t and doesn't get round the fact that you have been sabotaging this thread deliberately. If you really had any integrity whatsoever, you would by now have let others get on with discussing Ron Paul's myriad other themes(I mean he is hardly a 1-theme politician).

[goodsamaritan]

How about some Peace man, Peace.

[goodsamaritan]

http://okgop.com/oklahoma-straw-poll-results/

RON PAUL WINNING WINNING WINNING --- BIG

Oklahoma Straw Poll Results

Ron Paul - 46%
 Herman Cain - 25%
 Newt Gingrich - 17%
 Mitt Romney - 6%
 Rick Perry - 3%
 Michele Bachmann - 2%
 Rick Santorum - 1%
 Gary Johnson - less than 1%

Poll was conducted online at www.OklahomaStrawPoll.com from November 21st to December 5th. For more details visit www.oklahomastrawpoll.com/faq or call (405) 528-3501.

[PaleoPhil]

It really doesn't matter to me whether you are a star wars fanatic or not. Irrelevant.

LOL, then why did you bring it up and go on about it yet again?  Bravo! You show some talent at this jesting business. Here are three sovereigns for you, laddy boy.

The very fact that you were so limited as to choose that star wars labelling rather than actually providing valid points to counter my arguments...

Blah, blah, blah, redundant same old same old. What happened to your love of brevity?

Let's actually get back to Ron Paul, rather than just tell others to do so after a long rant, shall we?

Paul is the real deal
Nathan Armstrong, Concord
For the Monitor
November 10, 2011

"With the shattered economy the central issue in this presidential election, why not vote for the one candidate in the race who not only predicted the housing bubble and financial collapse but also proposed a bill that would have prevented it?"

[TylerDurden]

So sad.. the sheer passive-aggressive behaviour of PP accusing me of the very same tactics he uses. Tut tut!   

Gasp*, could this mean that he will (eventually?) allow us to go on discussing Ron Paul's 1000-odd other policies without him trying to sabotage the thread, as usual?

[PaleoPhil]

Peeuu! Did someone fart in here?

Oooo, Ron went on the attack against Gingrich:
Ron Paul Ad - Newt Gingrich Serial Hypocrisy 60 second

[goodsamaritan]

[PaleoPhil]

GS, I'm curious why Ron Paul draws such strong support from veterans. I know that Ron is a veteran himself, but I suspect it's more than that.

[goodsamaritan]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread783402/pg1

Many like to claim Ron Paul's foreign policy is extreme but it seems he gets a vast amount of military support, dedicated I might add. Enough for them to actively participate in the Ron Paul Revolution.

Our troops on the ground and gathering intelligence around the world know Ron Paul is right, active duty military servicepersons cannot openly endorse a candidate, they can't even pledge their vote but they speak to us through their donations. Some that are not active have chosen to openly support Ron Paul all the way, which one of the other candidates have military support like Ron?

It is very clear and doesn't take much to see.

Veteran for Ron Paul: 2012 Randy Hilarski

Veteran for Ron Paul: Derrick Marble

[raw-al]

Thanks GS. Good links

[PaleoPhil]

Dorothy and Ionna, fair warning that sweet persons like you may wish to skip the following. I am pissed off at Western politicians.

Romney: Gingrich an "unreliable" conservative
CBS News - ?4 minutes ago?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57343259/romney-hits-gingrich-with-tiffanys-jab/
NEW YORK - In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, it's just under three weeks to the Iowa Caucuses. As the time grows short, the knives get long.

...  "I think people get to know that an individual like myself who has been a governor, served, has a record is a person who has the kind of consistency of conservative principles that distinguish me from someone like our Speaker, Speaker Gingrich.

WTH? You lying scumbag, Romney! Few politicians in the USA have been more inconsistent than you! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What does Romney take us for? We need Ron Paul or Gary Johnson instead of either of these slick, ethically-challenged politicians. Priority #1 is reducing the enormous and unethical government debt--it's stealing from future generations and has already hurt us in the present. Debit is evil! And I say that as someone who's not even religious! And I would take even Newt over this lying chamelion Romney.

Damn it! Why are the Republican politicians (excepting Paul and Johnson, of course) so inept and unethical just when their opportunity is at hand? Assholes! Morons! It's looking like four more years of Obama and that ass Bernanke unless the economy collapses or Bernanke takes his ill-begotten money/prestige and runs.

Skinnydevil, please show us the silver lining in this crap. I've never been more pessimistic (though I was equally pessimistic before the recent crash, vs. quite optimistic in the early 90's, before Clinton and the Congress fecked things up), even as the economy recovers somewhat. Maybe random dumb luck will save us from these idiots?

I'll say one good thing about Tyler--if he were dictator, I think he would hang Bernanke, and I would be there to cheer him on! Maybe that's why I paradoxically like him despite his insults, LOL.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be." --Polonius (Yes, I know, Polonius was supposed to be comic relief in Hamlet, but he was actually right on the money on this--like many, Shakespeare was prone to common fallacies.)

Skinnydevil, I hope you will run for office some day. I'm fed up with these Republicans and Democrats.

----

Islamist parties won close to 70% of seats in the first round last month. Non-religious parties that included leaders of the protest movement that helped oust longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak won far fewer seats. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-14/egypt-islamists-lead-elections/51931194/1

Fecking naive liberals, as usual. They idiotically bring about their own destruction.

Euro Falls Below $1.30 as Italy Finance Costs Rise; Krone Slumps
San Francisco Chronicle
The increase was the biggest since June 2010 in absolute terms, signaling banks are struggling to access other sources of finance.

So long you moronic European politicians as you drive the European economies and government credibility down the drain. You're no better than the American politicians you sneer at you fecktards!

[raw-al]

OK I get the deal,

I nominate TylerD for Dictator

SkinnyD for President

and PaleoP for Speaker.


Only problem is that people might think that's nepotism TylerD and SkinnyD

I'll be the court jester. mu-ah-hahahah

[TylerDurden]

On a more serious note, I know that Ron Paul is in favour of raw dairy being legalised all over(and therefore likely to be more rawpaleodiet-friendly in general), but are any of the other politicians pro-raw dairy as well? Not Obama, judging from recent raw milk scandals, the raw-dairy advocates seem to hate his guts.

Since voting doesn't seem to work, I am surprised as to why people haven't thought of refusing to pay taxes en masse. Should just one percent of the population refuse to pay taxes due to disagreement over an issue, the government would have to kow-tow as it can't fill the jails with so many.

[TylerDurden]

"At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas. New conditions, it is claimed, require new remedies. Under such circumstances, the competent citizen is certainly not a fool if he insists upon using the compass of history when forced to sail uncharted seas. Usually so-called new remedies are not new at all. Compulsory planned economy, for example, was tried by the Chinese some three milleniums ago, and by the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was applied in Germany, Italy and Russia long before the present war broke out. Yet it is being seriously advocated today as a solution of our economic problems in the United States. Its proponents confidently assert that government can successfully plan and control all major business activity in the nation, and still not interfere with our political freedom and our hard-won civil and religious liberties. The lessons of history all point in exactly the reverse direction." - Henning W. Prentis, Industrial Management in a Republic, p. 22

[raw-al]

On a more serious note, I know that Ron Paul is in favour of raw dairy being legalised all over(and therefore likely to be more rawpaleodiet-friendly in general), but are any of the other politicians pro-raw dairy as well? Not Obama, judging from recent raw milk scandals, the raw-dairy advocates seem to hate his guts.

Since voting doesn't seem to work, I am surprised as to why people haven't thought of refusing to pay taxes en masse. Should just one percent of the population refuse to pay taxes due to disagreement over an issue, the government would have to kow-tow as it can't fill the jails with so many.

I was quite surprised  by Ron's singling out raw dairy and lifting of sugar duties, but I get that he is just being consistent. His father owned a dairy so he is aware of the tide of government being swayed into following lockstep with somebody in the populace with a mission in life. In the case of raw dairy, he tells the stories about government agents swarming in on a dairy farmer like some Nazi Stormtroopers.

The whole Pasteurization law thing was brought about by one prominent businessman who had made his fortune and was casting about for some cause to spend his time and money on in retirement. He picked Pasteurization and he succeeded.

You can just imagine being a farmer getting up at oh dark thirty to milk the cows when you walk out of the house only to be surrounded by "The Milk Police" with machine guns, etc.

If you read the book "The Untold Story Of Milk", there was a problem with dairy back in the 1800s and 1900s when Louis Pasteur was alive and after, when feeding cows the effluent (corn mash) from the prolific number of distilleries was causing the cows to be very sick, which of course caused the milk to be essentially rotten.

This combined with the lack of proper refrigeration and decent transportation, meant that many small children in larger cities in the US died, although there certainly were other factors including the fact that these cities were overrun with horse manure and overcrowding, due to the intense immigration from people fleeing famine, war etc in Europe and Asia and farmers leaving to live in the city and the dirty thirties. New York was basically bursting at the seams. So pasteurization was a reasonable precaution at the time and it did save lives.

However we stopped burning witches and blaming disease on "Spontaneous Generation" long ago and it's time to give up enforced pasteurization.

[SkinnyDevil]

Nobody would like me as president.

Several things I'd do....but it makes folks on the left & the right (and everywhere else) squirm.

The left says its a revenue problem (meaning raise taxes), the right says it's a spending problem (meaning cut programs), but the reality is that we have a WASTE problem that sits atop another, deeper problem (the role of gov).

Day one of my presidency would look like this: Slash corporate tax to a flat 10% and abolish the federal personal income tax.

Slash federal budget by 43% (the amount we borrow on every dollar spent) WITHOUT cutting services...meaning we need gov to be efficient. Then we need to cut it again (again, without cutting services) to account for "printing" & debt.

Bring troops home from overseas. Immediately embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Immediate stay of executions. Immediately cease prosecuting  state/local-level drug crimes by federal-level authorities. Immediate pardons & release of all non-violent drug offenders from prison. End the War on Drugs.

Make moves to stabilize the currency (round table discussions of different commodity-based currency...gold, silver, mixed, time, etc), audit the Federal Reserve, and 1st steps to abolish the Fed. Begin removal of all federally-supported monopolies.

End ALL corporate welfare.

Abolish FEMA, Depts of Homeland Security, Education, Energy, ICC, and more. Withdraw from NATO, UN,  NAFTA, WTO, & other alliances, nullify all laws infringing the basic Bill of Rights (from censorship to gun rights to the Patriot Act), lift all sanctions & embargos (Cuba, etc) & re-evaluate, de-federalize airports/airport security,

Begin transferring stolen powers to the individuals & the states...along with the responsibilities!

Legalize dueling & personal combat as a method of settling disputes (hahaha!).

After lunch,  we need to look at what federal-level services can be better handled by the states, localities, individuals, and/or private sector. We need to maintain regulations that protect, and get rid of regs that hinder. We definitely need to get rid of regs that maintain artificial scarcity and/or monopolies (this is the root of why health-care, for example, is so expensive).

I'd probably need a nap after that.

[raw-al]

Nobody would like me as president.

Several things I'd do....but it makes folks on the left & the right (and everywhere else) squirm.

The left says its a revenue problem (meaning raise taxes), the right says it's a spending problem (meaning cut programs), but the reality is that we have a WASTE problem that sits atop another, deeper problem (the role of gov).

Day one of my presidency would look like this: Slash corporate tax to a flat 10% and abolish the federal personal income tax.

Slash federal budget by 43% (the amount we borrow on every dollar spent) WITHOUT cutting services...meaning we need gov to be efficient. Then we need to cut it again (again, without cutting services) to account for "printing" & debt.

Bring troops home from overseas. Immediately embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Immediate stay of executions. Immediately cease prosecuting  state/local-level drug crimes by federal-level authorities. Immediate pardons & release of all non-violent drug offenders from prison. End the War on Drugs.

Make moves to stabilize the currency (round table discussions of different commodity-based currency...gold, silver, mixed, time, etc), audit the Federal Reserve, and 1st steps to abolish the Fed. Begin removal of all federally-supported monopolies.

End ALL corporate welfare.

Abolish FEMA, Depts of Homeland Security, Education, Energy, ICC, and more. Withdraw from NATO, UN,  NAFTA, WTO, & other alliances, nullify all laws infringing the basic Bill of Rights (from censorship to gun rights to the Patriot Act), lift all sanctions & embargos (Cuba, etc) & re-evaluate, de-federalize airports/airport security,

Begin transferring stolen powers to the individuals & the states...along with the responsibilities!

Legalize dueling & personal combat as a method of settling disputes (hahaha!).

After lunch,  we need to look at what federal-level services can be better handled by the states, localities, individuals, and/or private sector. We need to maintain regulations that protect, and get rid of regs that hinder. We definitely need to get rid of regs that maintain artificial scarcity and/or monopolies (this is the root of why health-care, for example, is so expensive).

I'd probably need a nap after that.

Don't be hard on yourself. I'd vote for you...

I'd add - abolish the FDA (Force Drugs on All) in the morning. Don't wait for the afternoon. This alone would save lives.

All in favour say "Aye"

[ys]

Even if Ron Paul gets the nomination he has very little chance against Obama.

Some years ago he made a big mistake by publishing very colorful newsletters and other dubious claims.

Some quotes.  Full article is published on HotAir, far right news aggregate, http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/15/can-ron-paul-win/

"We’re already starting to see the “Paul didn’t write his own newsletter” response in the comments.  As Matt Welch notes, he actually acknowledged writing them in 1996, before they became a big liability, but even if he didn’t write them himself, he published them under his own byline, and made a profit on them.  As for them being 20 years old, well, you judge whether people will dismiss them as old news when Team Obama starts rolling out a Ron Paul Quote of the Day from the convention to the election."

I also recommend reading user comments.  Most of the readers are very right leaning.  That's should give you an idea how many of them are  supporting Paul.

[PaleoPhil]

Some years ago he made a big mistake by publishing very colorful newsletters and other dubious claims.

That's quite a coincidence. Sean Hannity brought up this same old issue today:

did he get a pass? He's had this newsletter in '80s and '90s and some unbelievable things written in it.

Would a Ron Paul Win in Iowa Hand the Election to Obama? http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/12/15/would-ron-paul-win-iowa-hand-election-obama#ixzz1gf98d03X

It looks like Fox is running scared and is shifting from the tactic of largely ignoring and dismissing Ron Paul to aggressive attack mode:

Sean Hannity And Bill Bennett Trash Ron Paul: ‘The Candidacy Isn’t Going Anywhere’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hannity-and-bill-bennett-trash-ron-paul-the-candidacy-isnt-going-anywhere/
We sensing a trend today? This evening on Fox News, Sean Hannity echoed (and added to) a thread begun by Chris Wallace and supplemented by Bill O’Reilly and guest Dick Morris: Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.

[ys]

Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.

That's the feeling I get from the right-wing community.  Kerry was much more popular than Paul and still ended up losing to Bush at the time when the Iraq war was hugely unpopular.  Paul's nomination will create a racist-fueled frenzy for Blacks/Hispanics, the same group that carried Obama, the same group that usually has very low turnout in other presidential elections.

Republicans don't want to nominate the best candidate to run the country.  They want to nominate the best candidate who can beat Obama.  And that would be Romney who you greatly despise (and for right reasons).   Gingrich is in the same unelectable boat as Paul.   They just sit at the opposite ends.  Cain had the best chance to beat Obama.  Oh well ..... Let's see how it goes.