John Stewart on Ron Paul

[Pocketman]

Watched the video again. Stewart described the faux small government candidates as "Just moral majorities in a tricorn hat." Great quote!

 

[CarmelHP]

This article had me so ****ing confused. See it at:

Russian network host boasts of 'money bomb' for Ron Paul

See the comments following also. After reading it, i didn't know what the hell was going on.

 

[cbseniour]

Ron Paul has been a politician for 35 years. Is that what we need?????

 

[mrjarrell]

This article had me so ****ing confused. See it at:

Russian network host boasts of 'money bomb' for Ron Paul

See the comments following also. After reading it, i didn't know what the hell was going on.

It's World Nut Daily, what did you expect? RT is a pretty good source for freedom oriented and political news. WND, on the other hand, is run by a loon. For loons.

 

[rambone]

This article had me so ****ing confused. See it at:

Russian network host boasts of 'money bomb' for Ron Paul

See the comments following also. After reading it, i didn't know what the hell was going on.

A moneybomb is an organized donation day to bring large numbers of supporters at once.

Here's the 6/6/11 episode. Its a show about civil rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzZiNMDFwp8

 

[turnandshoot4]

That was HILARIOUS!

 

[turnandshoot4]

Ron Paul has been a politician for 35 years. Is that what we need?????

YES!

 

[CarmelHP]

A moneybomb is an organized donation day to bring large numbers of supporters at once.

Here's the 6/6/11 episode. Its a show about civil rights.

I know what a money bomb is, my confusion is all the **** about Russian intelligence services, etc.

 

[Expat]

I know what a money bomb is, my confusion is all the **** about Russian intelligence services, etc.

You forget that Putin is our friend.

 

[rambone]

I know what a money bomb is, my confusion is all the **** about Russian intelligence services, etc.

I guess the big money that controls the U.S. media hasn't bought out RT yet. From what I've seen I trust their coverage more than most 'news' shows on other corporate networks.

 

[rambone]

You forget that Putin is our friend.

About as friendly as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch, et al.

 

[MTC]

It's World Nut Daily, what did you expect? RT is a pretty good source for freedom oriented and political news. WND, on the other hand, is run by a loon. For loons.

Mr Jarrell calling WND (or anyone, for that matter) loons. Really? Joe Farah a loon? Haven't visited there in a long time. Let's see. Their commentator list includes (and people can pick, choose or ignore at will):

Herman Cain
Vox Day
Chuck Norris
Les Kinsolving
David Limbaugh
Dennis Prager
Dave Ramsey
Phyllis Schlafly
Thomas Sowell
Ann Coulter
Pamela Geller
Nat Hentoff
Burt Prelutsky
John Stossel
Walter Williams
Larry Elder
Pat Buchanan
Bill Press

Loons? Not ideologically pure enough for ya? There is even an In Memoriam section that includes former regular contributor Harry Browne. I seem to recall a large (L) next to his name when it appeared elsewhere. Did that 'L' stand for "loon"? A lot of voters might think so, though I didn't, while not agreeing with every last point on every last issue.

 

[CarmelHP]

It's World Nut Daily, what did you expect? RT is a pretty good source for freedom oriented and political news. WND, on the other hand, is run by a loon. For loons.

You must be right.

 

[Darral27]

Ron Paul has been in politics for a very long time and I would agree that we need to get rid of most lifelong politicians if there will be any real change. I do also think that Ron Paul is not your average lifelong politician and if he can get elected and even 1/4 of what he wants done it would help put us back on track. Major changes need to made and they need to be made ASAP.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Oh booooooo-hooooooo. Really? The press is not your friend. They haven't been your friend for a helluva long time now, over a century. Stop crying about it and do your own heavy lifting. If RP has as much support as his admirers claim it should be easy-breezy. Didn't he lose last time with millions still in the bank? There's no excuse for that. Either he actually plays to win or shuts up. The press will not carry his water, Obama has that locked up.

+1 and repped.

The fact that he gets no earned media is indicative of the fact that he does nothing and says nothing interesting enough to viewers to deserve earned media. He appeals to a small percentage of Americans, and media outlets aren't going to give him a free pass.

The reason no one gives him [STRIKE]a realistic[/STRIKE] any chance of receiving the nomination is his positions on major issues. I agree with his basic stance on the Fed - but he can't or won't sell it in an elevator pitch. His isolationist stance is over the top and America isn't prepared to have a discussion around his drug position. A Republican kicking our military has a better chance of getting ice water in hell than the party's nomination for President. The bottom line is that when you want to create a market you have to sell the product. "Because I'm right" isn't selling, it's snarky.

If Paul want media attention he should pay for it. They're called political ads for a reason.

 

[rambone]

 

[IndySSD]

Ron Paul has been in politics for a very long time and I would agree that we need to get rid of most lifelong politicians if there will be any real change. I do also think that Ron Paul is not your average lifelong politician and if he can get elected and even 1/4 of what he wants done it would help put us back on track. Major changes need to made and they need to be made ASAP.

!!^^This can't be said enough^^!!

+1 and repped.
The bottom line is that when you want to create a market you have to sell the product.

This "truth" is what's causing the current downward direction of our nation.

"Because I'm right" isn't selling, it's snarky.

But isn't being Right a good enough reason for people who care about liberty, freedom and the future of our country to be enough to vote for him?

When "being right" isn't enough to get someone elected then the time has come where we as a people no longer deserve the rights and freedoms that RP advocate.

We as a country have let ourselves become slaves to big business. The fact that we've allowed big businesses to determine who we consider to be "acceptable" candidates for the one position that was designed to be the beacon of liberty just makes me physically ill.

If we as a people don't support what's right according to the constitution then we shall slowly lose all of the freedoms, liberties and prosperity that initially allowed our country to become great from literally nothing.


Those who hate the common mans liberty have studied well the art of boiling frogs. All I hear when people blast on RP's "crazy ideas" about the fed, marijuana and war is "Ribbet"

 

[jsgolfman]

+1 and repped.

The fact that he gets no earned media is indicative of the fact that he does nothing and says nothing interesting enough to viewers to deserve earned media. He appeals to a small percentage of Americans, and media outlets aren't going to give him a free pass.
Yet he finished in a statistical tie with Bachman in Iowa. Her victory and appeal is legitimate, but his is not?

The reason no one gives him [STRIKE]a realistic[/STRIKE] any chance of receiving the nomination is his positions on major issues. I agree with his basic stance on the Fed - but he can't or won't sell it in an elevator pitch. His isolationist stance is over the top his position is hardly isolationism and America isn't prepared to have a discussion around his drug position. Really? Says who? The state? Law enforcement? Certainly not the Americans I read and hear about everday who are sick and tired of the War on Some Drugs. A Republican kicking our military has a better chance of getting ice water in hell than the party's nomination for President. Tell me who got more donations from active military than Paul? The bottom line is that when you want to create a market you have to sell the product. "Because I'm right" isn't selling, it's snarky.
"Becasue I'm right" is what EVERY candidate does, but it's only snarky when he does it?
If Paul want media attention he should pay for it. They're called political ads for a reason. He's already released two this year. Pull your head out of the sand a little more.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This "truth" is what's causing the current downward direction of our nation.

Ron Paul is applying for a position. His vision is the product. He has to convince people that his vision is the correct one and that he is the right person to implement it - in other words sell himself and his product. There are people that genuinely disagree with him. Rather than sell them he steps back to esoteric and academic discussion points. He will not win if he doesn't sell.

But isn't being Right a good enough reason for people who care about liberty, freedom and the future of our country to be enough to vote for him?

By whose definition is he right? Face it, America is a welfare state. It has been for 40+ years. There is the power class, the welfarees, the self-hating guilt-ridden class that is convinced they must support the welfare state, and the rest of us. Selling the rest of us is easy, yet irrelevent - we are already all in. The power class will bite, claw and scratch to maintain their power. The battle must come in converting the self-haters and providing a vision to the welfarees that their lot will improve under his leadership. He doesn't do that with wonky speeches about the Fed or trying to convince us it's none of our business if Iran has nukes.

When "being right" isn't enough to get someone elected then the time has come where we as a people no longer deserve the rights and freedoms that RP advocate.

Common, seriously? That's a catchy talking point and red herring.

We as a country have let ourselves become slaves to big business. The fact that we've allowed big businesses to determine who we consider to be "acceptable" candidates for the one position that was designed to be the beacon of liberty just makes me physically ill.

I disagree. If big business shaped the political landscape as much as you believe we would play Hail to the Chief when President Romney entered the room. People vote certain ways based upon many factors. Certainly economic interests are chief among them.

If we as a people don't support what's right according to the constitution then we shall slowly lose all of the freedoms, liberties and prosperity that initially allowed our country to become great from literally nothing.

Repeat of the talking point above. While I don't agree with them, there are a lot of people that want government to run their lives. You have to coax them out of their comfort zone and make them want to live in our world. You don't do that is huge steps. You do that a little bit at a time.

Those who hate the common mans liberty have studied well the art of boiling frogs. All I hear when people blast on RP's "crazy ideas" about the fed, marijuana and war is "Ribbet"

And herein lies the rub. The boiling frog analogy works both ways. In order to resecure our freedoms and liberties we are going to have to take incremental steps backwards. It won't happen with an in your face all at once movement.

Ron Paul is not the second coming. He's a retread with a plan that won't sell who has been on the same message for 25 years. He's John Hostettler. He's been a loon for years. No one except for the 1% of Americans that support him give him any credance. He's a gadfly. That's all.

Yet he finished in a statistical tie with Bachman in Iowa. Her victory and appeal is legitimate, but his is not?

A straw poll of Iowans paid to vote by their supports doesn't mean anything. Bachmann's victory is no more significant than the online polls that Paul's supports stack and he wins with over 50% of the vote. This guy's been running for President since 1988. His message is the same as it was 23 years ago. He polls no better now than he did then.

his position is hardly isolationism

Saying it doesn't make it so. Allowing Iran nuclear weapons, opposing trade agreements that open foreign markets to our products, and failing to recognize that good and evil that exists outside our borders impacts those within them is isolationist.

Really? Says who? The state? Law enforcement? Certainly not the Americans I read and hear about everday who are sick and tired of the War on Some Drugs.

Says the American people. Even fruitbags in California rejected the prohibition against drugs when given a chance. That says the voters aren't ready yet, and more education is needed.

Tell me who got more donations from active military than Paul?

Barack Obama and John McCain. Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

"Becasue I'm right" is what EVERY candidate does, but it's only snarky when he does it?

Because I'm right isn't how serious candidates get elected. It worked for Obama for God knows why last cycle. Hopefully this time a candidate will step up with a clear vision for America, present it to the American people, and sell themselves and their ideas.

He's already released two this year. Pull your head out of the sand a little more.

Pull my head out of the sand? Really? You expect to win people over by telling them to pull their head out of their sand?

So here's a homework assignment. Ron Paul supports Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons. Why is it in America's national interests for them to achieve their goal?

 

[IndySSD]

Ron Paul is not the second coming. He's a retread with a plan that won't sell who has been on the same message for 25 years. He's John Hostettler. He's been a loon for years. No one except for the 1% of Americans that support him give him any credance. He's a gadfly. That's all.



So here's a homework assignment. Ron Paul supports Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons. Why is it in America's national interests for them to achieve their goal?

Fair enough rebuttals and definitely some food for thought. I dislike the "loon reference" simply because "name calling" is a sophomoric debate tactic. I'd like to think that we as a people are capable of taking larger leaps back towards liberty and economic freedom than what you're willing to concede but I'm also sadly inclined to believe you may not be completely wrong on this point.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, I always appreciate well reasoned posts.

Oh and as far as the "homework" I'd say that a position of non intervention doesn't mean he's "Pro Nuclear Iran", I think it mean's he just not directly opposed to it since he doesn't see them as a direct threat to our nations security. I for one am inclined to agree with this position.