Cock-Suckers for Ron Paul

I.e. me. Figured I'd just start a general Ron Paul thread instead of incessantly talking about him in others. Why start it now? he's gonna appear on The Daily Show.

Quote:

Presidential candidate, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) continues to be a "hot ticket" on nightly newscasts. On Friday, May 25, he is appearing on the Bill Maher program, "Real Time" and sources say that he may also appear on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and maybe The Colbert Report as well.

"The Daily Show seems to be wrapped up," said one source close to the campaign. "They just have to pick a date. Colbert may be happening as well."

Most amazing jew boots

One of the explanations I've seen for the newsletter and its racist overtones is that there tends to be a bit of overlap among racists and conspiracy theorists and libertarianism. Since Goldwater Conservatism has faded into obscurity and libertarianism is considered as the "conservative other" groups like 9/11 Truth and sociological racists have a few minor similarities with libertarians enough to the point that they think they're so.

More commonly a lot of libertarians simply use stupid rhetoric. The idea of 95% of DC blacks being criminal isn't that far-fetched considering the nature of Ghetto Economics and the real statistics being 85% (such stat-thumping doesn't necessarily have to be an indictement of blacks), but its presentation seems uncomfortably prejudiced. The kind of rhetoric used, for instance, by Lew Rockwell. What some libertarians derogatorily refer to as "Alabama racism."

Dr. Paul, even, is a contributor to lewrockwell.com, but mostly due to his history with Austrian economists than being a racist free market crazy.

With that in mind, it's not surprising that a racist ghost writer for the publisher would make his way into the libertarian circles to the point where he was trusted to write a letter in Paul's name.

Also:Press Conference tonight with Paul being backed up by Michael Scheuer for the purposes of "educating Rudy."

Here's also a speech Paul gave yesterday on the House floor on Patriotism and the nature of wartime rhetoric.

Paul on the World Bank:

YouTube Video

Edit edit: I was wrong about the conference, apparently it's already happened. Here's some coverage from Reason. No word on if there'll be a Youtube video.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm not the right kind of guy to ask, but if you're really interested, the David Weigel issue of Reason did exactly this for all presidential hopefuls from a small-L libertarian perspective.

Pros: Paul would scale back the power of the executive (I'm very much alluding to Packrat's thread). Would veto any bills he considered unconstitutional and actually read them. Make real overtures towards ending the drug war, and I believe he's even stated that upon being elected he'd pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Make a concerted effort to de-federalize institutions such as Education which have made massive headway under the Bush Administration.

Really though, I think the biggest pros to Paul is that as an anti-statist President, it would put a severe hault on the rapid expansion of power in the Presidency and the Federal government since the Wilson administration.

Cons: Fears concerning social safety nets implemented Federally would be heightened perhaps to the point of hysteria under a Paul administration. Congressional antagonism could seriously damage the nature of political discourse. Paul's immigration policy may cause a shortage of unskilled labor that will inordinately impact the earnings of women, particularly working mothers. Paul's attempts to withdraw the United States from the UN and other global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, etc., may cause negative international sentiment that may not be offset by a friendly foreign policy of trade and diplomacy.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Paul on Bill Maher:

YouTube Video

I don't know how I feel about Ben Affleck listening.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Ron Paul is appearing on the Colbert Report June 13th, no word on whether as a guest or for "Better Know Your District."

Also here's PJ 'O Rourke and Affleck talking shit about Giuliani after Paul left Maher's show:

YouTube Video

Additional Spam:
Paul is on The Daily Show June 4th, the day before the debate.

Quote:

Ron Paul- Congressman (R-TX) Libertarian Candidate

LOL COMEDY

I was speaking idiomatically.

It depends on whether or not Jon Stewart's disbelief in free markets overcome his disbelief in non-interventionism being conservative.

Seeing Paul run the talkshow scene is great. Here's his appearance on Dennis Miller:

YouTube Video

It's funny sad how commited Miller is to the war machine.

Also, in case anybody doubted that Rudy knows his security:

YouTube Video

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ron Paul on the Daily Show:

YouTube Video

Most amazing jew boots

It's like Supreme Court justices had their own interpretations, or something.

Quote:

And you get this, what, from your subscription to the NYT in the Universe Where Politicians Are Honest?

Not sure why one wouldn't think Ron Paul is being honest considering he's probably the most consistent and principled politician on the Hill.

Paul on NPR.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I feel like I've created a monster.

How ya doing, buddy?

Anybody who watched the CNN debates is going to know what I'm talking about, as these were by far the worst ones yet. CNN made no apologies in regards to favoritism. At the Democratic debate, Gravel and Kucinich were at the right and left wings while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards positioned in the center, with Clinton seated inbetween the other two (current front-runner). Now in this Republican debate, Tancredo and Paul were in the left and right wings, while Rudy McRomney were positioned in the center with Giulianni seated between the other two (also the "frontrunner"). Once Fred Thompson joins the race they'll have to invest in a wider lens so they can get all of them in one shot.

Wolf Blitzer never had the balls to move the debate along, and since the top three in both parties were fielded the most questions they were able to dominate the longest amount of time without any formal limits. Obama and Hillary combined had 30 minutes in the Democrat debate while Gravel got little over 5. Now Tancredo was given a grand total, I think, of 4 statements which I doubt exceed 3 minutes in total.

I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with a Cable News Channel, and the way CNN formatted this catastrophe made Fox News seem credible by comparison.

More specifically as a Paul supporter, I found it highly suspect that they didn't look for Paul's insight on healthcare, despite being the only MD on stage. Those of you who might be interested in his take can find it in the NPR interview I posted.

Chris Dodd's blog reported on the time division as it did for the Democratic debate:

Quote:

Wolf 10:22

McCain 6:01

Romney 5:12
Rudy 4:48

Brownback 3:42
Hunter 3:01

Huckabee 2:23
Gilmore 2:18
Thomspson 2:04
Tancredo 2:02
Paul 2:00

Paul got less time than Tancredo? Really? I guess his "smash Mexican" diatribes took up more time than I thought.

Ok it looks like those were just the numbers for the first half of the debate, here are the Dodd numbers in full:

Quote:

Brownback........7:12
Gilmore..........5:59
Giuliani........12:35
Huckabee.........6:48
Hunter...........7:14
McCain..........12:44
Tancredo.........5:43
Thomson..........4:21
Paul.............5:51
Romney..........11:41

That sounds about right, and come to think of it Thomson really did get gipped. Poor guy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't think he's really arguing about the popularity of the decisions. The point is who's ultimately right, and I think the case can be easily made that a broad interpretation of the Constitution creates more problems than it solves.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

You'll be missing him when F. Thompson brings out that goddamn pickup truck.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

YouTube Video

That's not ron paul...

In real news, a pollster predicts a 3-5% surge for Paul in the polls:

Quote:

There is a natural boost of about 3% that we feel Ron Paul will get and it is not being reported. This is a very bold statement that even I did not believe until after looking through all the data. In fact, the boost can become as high as 5% in just 2 months.

Basically 18-29 year-olds don't represent a significant enough voting block for pollsters to bother going after since they more often lack landlines and don't really vote anyways. The theory is that Paul is inspiring a lot of young 'ins through the intercats, and once all these bums come home for the summer from college we might see a small surge in numbers for Paul.

Quote:

Update: 6/5/07

I have asked some pollsters to help me out with regards to polling 18-29 year olds specifically to measure the support Ron Paul has in this demographic. Thus far, they have each expressed disinterest because they claim that demographic is too tough to poll.

Too hot to pander, too cold to poll

I was speaking idiomatically.

But he makes me want to believe.

Youtube of Paul talking about Medicare and Nuclear power:

YouTube Video

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Anarchy is as anarchy does.

FELIPE NO

I liked how Bill O'Reilly and some other talking head couldn't wait to talk about how "Reaganesque" Fred Thompson is. How much is he like Reagan? Well... uh... he's an actor.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Moon bats who bother calling into CSPAN can be pretty awesome, yeah. The funniest thing is that CSPAN probably has more coverage of Congressman Paul since they actually broadcast the House floor.

This is superficially related to Ron Paul since either he or his people were at the speech, but Andrew Napolitano is endorsing Paul because he loves freedoms that have been violated as outlined:

YouTube Video

The really scary stuff is in Part 4.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Just for fun here's Paul from his 1988 campaign punk'n fatties on the Drug War:

YouTube Video

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The standing cash is only impressive insofar as it keeps him in the race, and makes him the leading financial 2nd-Tier despite having no presence in the polls.

Paul's been pretty up front about him having more money because he hasn't spent it.

YouTube Video

How ya doing, buddy?

Some neat statistics from Q2 filings:

Branch:         Army 	Navy 	USAF 	USMC 	VET 	TOTAL
 
Ron Paul 	6975 	7765 	4650 	1500 	1250 	22140
McCain 	        6225 	6480 	1570 	1600 	800 	16675
Romney 	        2051 	0 	1500 	0 	1000 	4551
Giuliani 	1450 	370 	250 	0 	250 	2320
Hunter 	        0 	1000 	0 	0 	0 	1000
Huckabee 	250 	0 	500 	0 	0 	750
Tancredo 	350 	0 	0 	0 	0 	350
Brownback 	71 	0 	0 	0 	0 	71
Gilmore         0       0       0       0       0       0
Thompson 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0

Received the most money from every branch except the Marine Corps, and received almost half of all money donated to Republicans from the military.

Half of all the money is from donations of less than 200 dollars.

He's got more Cash on Hand than all other 6 second-tier candidates combined:

RP: $2,354,855
Other 6: $1,959,358

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Obama Girl eat your heart out.

I was speaking idiomatically.