The neocons can’t win without the nutjob vote.
[quote=“spook”]Ron Paul is as about as likely to be elected President as Saddam Hussein was to attack the United States but he’s driving you neoanderthals crazy for some reason. What is it, TC? Why has Ron Paul got your goat? 
[/quote]Spook -
Nice try…buy saying it does not make it true…at least in the real world most of us live in.
But to coddle you I will just say that Ron Paul is one of the potential candidates for the 2008 US Presidential election. He, like so many other pols, has advisors that tell him what the ‘hot’ topics are and what to say to punch the right buttons with a selected demographic. So he does. He will fade into the woodwork eventually. He may even make it oto the ticket in some manner…and pull a Perot.
Some of his ‘sound bytes’ are target areas for ‘single issue’ voters and they tend to have a great deal of passion…if a lack of overview.
So why do you have the hate and derision for a simple discussion of candidates such as Ron Paul? Why have you joined the juvenile drive-by name callers? Boredom…or just stirring the pot for lack of a reasoned reply?
Taunting is below your age group.
Only truly poorly informed nutjobs would start a war that turned out to be about nothing and ended up a quagmire.
“So why do you have the hate and derision for a simple discussion of candidates such as Ron Paul? Why have you joined the juvenile drive-by name callers? Boredom…or just stirring the pot for lack of a reasoned reply?
Taunting is below your age group.”
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]Ron Paul is as about as likely to be elected President as Saddam Hussein was to attack the United States but he’s driving you neoanderthals crazy for some reason. What is it, TC? Why has Ron Paul got your goat? [/quote]Spook -
Nice try…buy saying it does not make it true…at least in the real world most of us live in.
But to coddle you I will just say that Ron Paul is one of the potential candidates for the 2008 US Presidential election. He, like so many other pols, has advisors that tell him what the ‘hot’ topics are and what to say to punch the right buttons with a selected demographic. So he does. He will fade into the woodwork eventually. He may even make it oto the ticket in some manner…and pull a Perot.
Some of his ‘sound bytes’ are target areas for ‘single issue’ voters and they tend to have a great deal of passion…if a lack of overview.
So why do you have the hate and derision for a simple discussion of candidates such as Ron Paul? Why have you joined the juvenile drive-by name callers? Boredom…or just stirring the pot for lack of a reasoned reply?
Taunting is below your age group.[/quote]
Taunting and name-calling seemed to be the appropriate theme in a topic entitled “Ron Paul: Not Just a Nutjob – a Poorly Informed Nutjob”. On the other hand, I’m all for a rational discussion of the pros and cons of Ron Paul’s message. Taunting and name-calling seems to be all I’m getting in response though so when in Rome . . . .
Whatever makes you feel good Spook. We’ve discussed trait before.
End of thread for me.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Whatever makes you feel good Spook. We’ve discussed trait before.
End of thread for me.[/quote]
Will you stay in the ring with me if I promise not to make fun of Duncan Hunter any more? 
Well, I for one am shocked to hear that an elderly white Southern conservative is not a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. Does Trent Lott know about this? How about George “Macaca” Allen? What would Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms say?
Why, this nutcase probably even supports displaying the Confederate battle flag- not as any kind of racist message, of course, just a salute to the brave boys who fought for the Southern way of life and the noble Lost Cause.
Actually, this way of thinking is not exactly extreme or unusual:
a) The Civil War was primarily about state’s rights, not slavery (usually throw in something about tariffs here)
b) The Southern states were within their rights to secede; it was the North that started it by calling up militias to repress the Southerners.
c) Of course slavery was bad, though not as bad as made out- most slave-owners looked after their slaves as investments, if nothing else.
d) Slavery was on the way out anyway, and either would have disappeared peacefully within the Union if the Abolitionists hadn’t been so pushy, or would have naturally died out in an independent Confederacy.
e)Reconstruction (just like the Civil Rights movement) caused a bunch of Northerners to stir up the local Negroes, which naturally created a backlash; the whole thing would have been better for both Southern whites and blacks if the outside agitators had left it to be handled locally.
f) The Civil War enabled the Federal government to take a dominating position that the Founding Fathers never intended; as the old observation goes, before the war you would say “the United States are…” , after the war you say “the United States is…”
You don’t think a large chunk of white Southerners (and others) wouldn’t agree with most of that?
TC, I’m sorry about calling you a “neoanderthal” and a “punching bag with legs.” Those were petty, mean-spirited remarks that demeaned me far more than they did you. I’m ready whenever you are to have that rational, mature discussion I know you want to have just as much as me about exactly why Ron Paul is or is not a “poorly informed nutjob.”
‘neoanderthal’ was pretty good, though, as far as insults go. Credit where it’s due.
‘punching bag with legs’ is a bit off the mark tho.
not that any of this actually applies to TC or anyone, i should add.
Of the Republicans:
I like Ron Paul for his anti-war stance, but I don’t believe in the entire libertarian thing. A lot of it makes sense, ending the war on drugs is another thing I like. I don’t think that totally doing away with government is progress. And I’m a little concerned about the white nationalist backing he has.
I like Chuck Hagel for his anti-war stance. He’s less radical than Paul, so I wish he was running. I don’t think I would vote for him, but it would be nice to have another straight talker in the race.
If Ron Paul is a ‘nutjob’, then bush and his bandits, the clintons, obama and the rest of the pro war crowd are criminally insane.
"The New Hampshire Republican Party announced Saturday that it was withdrawing as a partner of Sunday’s primary debate on FOX because of the exclusion of two GOP presidential hopefuls.
"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures,” New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said in a statement.
“The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed.""
Rasmussen Reports NH Phone Survey, Jan. 4
John McCain 31%
Mitt Romney 26%
Ron Paul 14%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Rudy Giuliani 8%
Fred Thompson 5%
Some other candidate 2%
You think he’ll get third, eh? Well, good luck. But there’s still no way in hell that he’ll win, either in New Hampshire or generally. So FOX News is right.
Apparently the New Hampshire Republican Party doesn’t agree with your and Fox News’ criterion for who should be heard. Presidential campaigns aren’t only contests of candidates anyway but are also contests of ideas – or at least should be in a free and open society.
I don’t think third is out of reach. He pulled 10% in Iowa and the general feeling seems to be that he’s still gaining momentum. Enough to get the nomination? I doubt it, but then again Huckabee wasn’t supposed to fair much better.
As for me, just as I was about to jump on the bandwagon, Paul drove me off by falling in with the party obsession with border security. When you run as an honest, straight talking guy and then contradict yourself to that extent, the whole image kind of falls apart.
It won’t be long before Ron Paul supporters start carrying around little books of Ron Paul quotations and wearing armbands. They are freaky.
Heh heh–if somebody shoots him, then his successor will have to name himself “Ron Paul II.”
The latest polls are showing Paul at about 8 % in NH. The anti-fundy vote seems to be gravitating instead toward John McCain, who boasts the significant virtues of being more qualified, and more normal-appearing.
Somebody told me that Paul has Alaska sewn up. That sound right?
By the way, what’s this “nutjob” that appears on the top of my post? I don’t remember voting to call Paul this. (Or does it refer to me?) I think the technical term we’re looking for is “crank,” though “ideologue” would also fit. (For him–HIM!!!)
If the only choice we have in this modern world is between fatalism and fanaticism then we indeed live in hopeless times.
Ron Paul supporters go after Sean Hannity. They keep yelling that FOX news sucks.