taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.

I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Yeah, the Republican establishment doesn't want Ron Paul to win, and they don't even want him to be taken seriously. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that they won't give him the status of a serious candidate until it's absolutely undeniable that he is one. And that will take more than one early primary win. Chris Wallace is completely right about the the establishment will react. And he should know, he works for them.

I hope you choke on a chicken bone or something this christmas..

But refuse the help of the marxist EMTs who were spent by NObama the socialist kenyan and the rest of the taxocrats in order to increase spending on hard working Corporate Persons like Goldman Sachs.

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Love the ending.


The aftermath:

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-Hate-From-Establishment-Republicans

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.


Have your read Marx? I just want to know if you understand what that means, or if you're just talking out of your ass.

QM: Does not agree with me? Marxist.

The problem of Paul isn't about Paul at all, it is about a system that does not allow for differing principles. Liberal, conservative, progressive or libertarian should all be concerned with this problem as it threatens the very values of democracy and meritocracy.


‎"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences...if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality..."

- Pericles

This was the dream of 2000 years ago, it still fails to be perfectly realized.

I get the feeling that Ron Paul doesn't vote based on party strategy. He's concerned with what he thinks is right, not what will benefit Republicans.

In that light it makes sense that the "establishment" would want to minimize his chances of winning. Obama vs Paul would be lose/lose for the Republican party.

Christ, I feel a little sick just typing this, but I think Fox might be right on this one.

/cleans puke off keyboard

I'm not saying they are morally correct, simply that their appraisal of the situation is probably accurate. I don't think anyone really believes Paul will get the nomination. He is simply too far from what most Republicans want (esp on drugs and foreign policy).

It's a shame he's such a nutjob, because some of his policies are interesting.

edit: Actually, I take it back. Having watched the outcome, Cenk makes some really good points.

This dude is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANGRY.

LOL LOL I love it LOL

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.

I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.

I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.

But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.

I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

>> ^artician:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Have your read Marx? I just want to know if you understand what that means, or if you're just talking out of your ass.


QM thinks Karl Marx was the one who honked a horn instead of talking.

When I saw the Politico piece about this, I just about blew a gasket. I mean, why should we let a little thing like popular vote get in the way of our Democratic process? ...Oh, wait.

Republicans are happy to have Paul bump up their seat numbers in the Senate, but when it comes to a Presidential election, he can't be "one of them"? Maybe the GOP bigwigs in their smoke-filled rooms should take note of Ron Paul's popularity as a sign that maybe *some* of their base would prefer some shifts in the direction of Libertarianism rather than the continual creep further and further into the raving/religious right. Hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, me included.

Agree completely. Fox is saying that IF he wins Iowa then it's basically null and void because Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. They are NOT saying that in general the Iowa caucus is meaningless, which is what TYT implies.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Christ, I feel a little sick just typing this, but I think Fox might be right on this one.
/cleans puke off keyboard
I'm not saying they are morally correct, simply that their appraisal of the situation is probably accurate. I don't think anyone really believes Paul will get the nomination. He is simply too far from what most Republicans want (esp on drugs and foreign policy).
It's a shame he's such a nutjob, because some of his policies are interesting.
edit: Actually, I take it back. Having watched the outcome, Cenk makes some really good points.

I think the whole notion that Iowa gets invalidated if Paul wins is bogus.

That said, Paul is not a threat at all to Obama in the general. He has too many fringe views on domestic and foreign policy. Even aside from my pet peeve (civil rights), most Americans, despite their lip service otherwise, are for big federal government programs, departments, and institutions that Paul would abolish or severely cut.

It would also be easy to portray Paul as a lame duck president on day one, one that would have problems rallying his own caucus in congress to enact his policies.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.
I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.
But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.
I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.

Then we get this from His Earness:

“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."

Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong

Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?

Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.

As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.

And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.
Then we get this from His Earness:
“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."
Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong
Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?
Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012

Hey QM, who is your favorite nominee so far to go against Obama? What makes them your favorite?>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.

Of course you're going to blame "capitalists" for socialism's downfall, what choice do you have? Norway? Great example! The were smart enough to stay OUT of the EU. However, in 30 years, when the oil runs low...

As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.

The quote is quite apt. A king decides who may and who may not prosper in his kingdom. A US President daring to decide the same? TYRANNY.

And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!


Everything I've written about marx is accurate. Please point to some real-world examples of free, prosperous marxist nations.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.
As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.
And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.
Then we get this from His Earness:
“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."
Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong
Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?
Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012