I agree, Paul has some peculiarities but who doesn't, huh. I understand your concern over his WWII comments but if you take the time to look at what he says about it you might change your mind. I remember a big argument I had over the Korean conflict. I wasn't real pissed at first ... except he used one of my old time favorite classic SF movies in a disparaging way (The original, The Day the Earth Stood Still). So my mood was tainted. My Father had fought in Korea and I took this guy’s insults personally … instead of logically. Well, we eventually went our own ways vowing to never speak to each other, hahaha just like children. Later, I started going over things more specifically and decided we just never had a meeting of the minds and were always behind or ahead in the conversation with each other.  

When it comes to the general … I am going to be forced to accept the republican candidate, suck it up and grimace my way through the polls again. Obama needs to go…

I don't think there's any misunderstanding, when Paul says weird stuff he usually means it. Then there's some other disturbing stuff like his newsletters and his acceptance and refusal to return 500 bucks donated to him by the racist website Stormfront. He claimed it would be "pandering" to return the money while most people contend it would simply have been the right thing. Something like that is enough to injure a candidate fatally especially when a guy like Obama and his billion dollar Chicago propaganda machine get their hands on it. The best bet is likely the squeaky clean Mormon with no skeletons falling out of his closet. Obama has nothing positive to run on as he has failed on almost every level so we can expect the most scorched earth , swiftboat campaign imaginable. Bush's swiftboating of Kerry cost just a fraction of what the Democrats are amassing for Obama, one can only imagine what type of ugliness, real or imagined they can purchase with it.

That is one thing I do question. I have not seen him answer to that one in a way that is acceptable to me. That kind of thing is very similar to some of the things Gingrich does. They are both examples of provocative politics and it is hard to discern whether that is all it is. I have never liked that kind of thing.

Squeaky clean? Are you sure? What about lying? Or do you think he changes his positions overnight because he has revelations every time he sleeps? Do you vote on appearance only? How about tax policy? His tax rate is already lower than mine and his tax plan raises mine and lowers his. I pay less on the income I make sitting on my ass than I do on the income I actually work for. And trust me the money I make sitting on my ass is not creating many if any jobs in this country.

Too polished for me. He has no concept who the average Joe is or what they deal with in life.

No imagination necessary. They will go after Bain. It's about time the public learns how venture capital and tax shelters actually work. Then there is the flip flopping of course.

 

 

I guess we just see different things as important. To pick out a questionable donation (one) doesn't even begin to make some pattern. And newsletters do not make policy or establish they have his approval. (But they are on my mind too). I am of course thinking along other important aspects like this:

… not within their purview …hahaha???

Well its not. That's only within the purview of the administration  lawyers who craft their legal opinions around the outcome they desire. 

I always have concerns over electionc because they are always manipulated so much so that we only perceive we are accomplishing something constructive. I am way past donations and past odd comments ... don't we really have bigger problems?

How can people be so smart and stupid at the same time???

The problem is our "bigger problems" are all tied together with this one. To deal with the other problems we need to keep the economy going and the economy runs on oil.

If you have been following the sanctions game here is a recent snippet from reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/29/us-iran-oil-exports-idUSTRE80S0HC20120129

Speculate from there....

 

Smoothseas, this is precisely what I am saying. “In a remark suggesting Iran would fight sanctions with sanctions, Iran's oil minister said the Islamic state would soon stop exporting crude to "some" countries.” If we had not added these additional sanctions (because of our own fear mongering?) … do you think this would be happening? The world oil market will not be overly dislocated if Iran passes this. However, if the USG takes this to a physical conflict … That will adversely affect the world’s oil supply and much worse. This election is going to happen ... this stuff might not.

Well I am not going to pester you guy(s) with any more Ron Paul stuff … but … this last one seems to show some of the leadership qualities we need. Consider this speech was delivered to Congress in Apr. of 2002 as we were gearing up for war … please watch, it is not very long … how do they get so much in there in so little time?

This made a big impression on me and besides, I already voted for him ... but I do thin my husband did huh...

Everything is guesswork. It's a cat and mouse game. Notice at the end of the article that Iran postponed their decision? Iran supplies about 2.5mill bbls/day and experts guess about 4mill/day current worldwide excess production capabilty. Oil prices would probably hit a new record high and we would possibly see something worse than what happened in 2008 if all of their oil supply was cut off.

The truth is none of the candidates want a war with the exception of maybe Gingrich, but even though I think he is an idiot I don't think he is that irrational? Hard to tell. It's all mostly chest thumping and not a bad thing in all to add to the show since we are slowly tightening the sanction noose and UN inspectors actually went in today.

I watch a lot of his stuff. He is very good at calling things how he sees it. The question is whether his solutions are good or not or even more so whether he could deliver on them. He won't have the congress to do much of anything in the first place?

I applaud anyone who votes for Paul. To me its a non establishment vote and that sends a message. It also could give him some political capital because he will be holding delegates. Not a bad thing if the primary ends up close enough to use it. Hypothetically (since he is such a longshot) if Paul won, Israel has plenty of sack,plenty of muscle, and plenty more reason to deal with the issue. We would at least want to make sure the Straits of Hormuz are kept navigable if Israel thought they needed to send a powerful message.

 

This kind of stuff really humors me. Don't these people know they are basically being used as lab mice so politicians can learn how best to lie pander to them.

Amazing is right. You don't have to listen to much past "Newt isn't just another Washington Insider", hahaha. With the exception of Paul, I don't know of any candidate who doesn't alter their 'beliefs' based on the polls and that should be plane self-defeating if morals or honesty are a major consideration. So maybe people are just incapable of discovering things for themselves and just have to have a nose ring to function, go figure. Just think of the fun we could have hahaha, were we there. Bet we wouldn't get a second question though.

PS: I did not make the title block hahaha. We need our Constitution back, whaaa...

There are maybe a handful of politicians (at the national level) left who are willing to say it like they actually see it. If you don't walk the same walk and talk the same talk you don't get support from "The Party". Paul is in a unique situation. His is established and he gets enough financial support from outside the Republican Party. He gets it from libertarians. The Republican Party ( Democratic Party as well) as an institution is all about money and power and not much more. Since Paul walks the same walk on many financial issues they accept him to a certain degree. The social issues to the parties are simply game play to buy voters so the Republican Party  can look the other way with Paul on social issues because they really don't care about the social issues aside from keeping them unresolved so that the public might actually think they have a  reason to vote for them.

Morals and honesty are of little concern to most politicians. It's strictly about money and power for many. Another example of an institution gone wrong. If you don't lie cheat and steal you don't win. Same thing as the corporation. If you don't lie cheat and steal to max profits you don't have a job if because the competition is more willing to lie cheat and steal.

I bet I'd get edited out of the video and you'd get thrown out with police escort

We have been playing this political game forever. Would have, could have or should have … and this leads us to where we are now … nowhere. The mind set in our government is corrupt beyond salvage unless we do something drastic. Electing more of the (about) same is not going to help in the long run. I do not think Paul would be anyone’s ‘mouthpiece’ and that sure would be refreshing for a change. The Constitution may be old but what do rights have to do with age. I for one would not like to let the smooth talking buffoons that pretend to be politicians get their slippery claws into a rewrite … would you? And if we are not foolish enough to allow this … what else is there to champion? He wasn’t the only one to see what was coming down the pike. But he was the only politician (?) that went on the record in advance of the events. What if he were at least listened to way back then … or now?