Reply With QuoteJim'O...the eternal myopian
This reads better the second time around
Why Ron Paul can win
Posted by James Ostrowski at February 22, 2007 11:56 AM
I said "can." It's too soon to say "will."
First, because all the major candidates are deeply flawed.
Second, there are no good Republican candidates other than Ron Paul.
Third, he would be running against Hillary, which means he starts with an automatic 45 percent of the vote. You only need 49 as Bill taught us.
Fourth, he picks up those extra four points by outflanking Hillary on the war and on other issues that appeal to the left (drug war, financial populism, etc.).
Fifth, the internet will play its biggest role ever in a national election and Ron is strong on the web.
Sixth, any joint appearance will reveal a man of substance versus a number of shallow sloganeers. (I think Obama would be the only other candidate who would even understand what Ron is saying, not because he is obtuse but because he’s not!)
Seventh, contrary to what Rothbard called the Whig theory of history, things aren't always steadily improving. Sometimes, often, history regresses sharply, and then suddenly rebounds to a sane state of affairs. We've been on this imperial, welfare-warfare, corporate state road now for 110 years. It's time for a very sharp correction.
Eighth, he will be the only libertarian in a crowded field in New Hampshire, the most libertarian state in the Northeast.
Ninth, many of the coastal pundits who will dismiss him are out of touch with the heartland. Even in Buffalo, a capital of big government liberalism, Ron will have lots of support. It's the site of an ongoing, libertarian-inpired tax revolt.
Now, let me add point ten:
We knew he was a great public speaker; now we now he is a great debater!
Jim'O...the eternal myopian
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
This site has great potential if people would quit the juvenile insults and talk about issues and matters of substance.
Sorry...I know I'm always the one who asks people to refute arguments rather than just panning them, so here we go:
You mean declaring that the civil war should never have been fought, advocating a return to the gold standard, and being in league with racist anti-mexican organizations are good things?First, because all the major candidates are deeply flawed.
Sure there are. When McCain went belly up on the torture bill, he proved he was lockstep with the best of the Repubs. Now if you mean there are no good CONSERVATIVES, well maybe we can discuss that...Second, there are no good Republican candidates other than Ron Paul.
Without a good 3rd party candidate (like Perot in 92) you actually do need 50.1% Also, just because 45 percent of people polled right now may say they won't vote against Sen Clinton, that doesn't mean they will vote for another Texas style kook. (he may not be, but W hasn't done his state's repuatation any favors)Third, he would be running against Hillary, which means he starts with an automatic 45 percent of the vote. You only need 49 as Bill taught us.
With you on that one.Fourth, he picks up those extra four points by outflanking Hillary on the war and on other issues that appeal to the left (drug war, financial populism, etc.).
The Democratic web 'machine' has way too much backing and experience to not have a huge edge in the cyber world.Fifth, the internet will play its biggest role ever in a national election and Ron is strong on the web.
This would be a matter of perspective. But I'm guessing about the time he starts talking about how the Civil War shouldn't have been fought, he's going to lose everyone except the neo-Klansmen.Sixth, any joint appearance will reveal a man of substance versus a number of shallow sloganeers.
You really think you can argue that we've been headed straight downhill since 1900? The 'Greatest Generation' would probably be the first ones to bash your teeth in for that one... But by all means, let's go back and take away things like universal suffrage and equal civil rights...Seventh, contrary to what Rothbard called the Whig theory of history, things aren't always steadily improving. Sometimes, often, history regresses sharply, and then suddenly rebounds to a sane state of affairs. We've been on this imperial, welfare-warfare, corporate state road now for 110 years. It's time for a very sharp correction.
Winning New Hampshire will get you 2 electoral votes and a cup of coffee (minus the two votes if you don't win the general). Just ask John McCain, Pat Buchanan, Dick Lugar, and Paul Tsongas.Eighth, he will be the only libertarian in a crowded field in New Hampshire, the most libertarian state in the Northeast.
Well, no, he's not out of touch with the heartland, he's out of touch with reality. But yeah, how's that tax revolt going these days? I thought I noticed that my sales tax had been lowered....oops, never mind.Ninth, many of the coastal pundits who will dismiss him are out of touch with the heartland. Even in Buffalo, a capital of big government liberalism, Ron will have lots of support. It's the site of an ongoing, libertarian-inpired tax revolt.
Now, let me add point ten:
Someone would have to pay attention to him in order to figure that out. And other than a few libertine crusaders, an audience he ain't got.We knew he was a great public speaker; now we now he is a great debater!
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
"how's that tax revolt going these days? "
Too many asking that and too few helping out.
To be frank, for me, the tax revolt has shifted to the presidential race.
Jim I sent money for the bill board and I sent you a donation. Things are to far gone in this Fd up state to mention potential. Viva La Movement. Northern Idaho now thats New America.Originally Posted by Jim Ostrowski
Thanks, I will give a report on the billboard on Tuesday night at our meeting at Pott's Deli on Ogden. We need about a grand more. The design is ready and great.
Merely electing Ron Paul would probably result in a federal budget cut of $500 billion, a lot more than we save locally. The local machine has up stalled out as they have millions of dollars compared to our thousands and thousands of troops compared to our hundreds. So, what you do is, move the battlefield to where you have a better chance.
That means he'll have a shot a 1% of the vote in New Hampshire instead of .01% in the other states.
I think I'll take a line from Bill Maher, who once said on his program to one of your conservative think tank associates and his inability to be correct: "OK Nostradamus, time for you to sit this one out."
The top elected officials in New Hampshire are:
Jim Lynch, Governor – Democrat
Carol Shea Porter – Congresswoman – Democrat
Paul Hodes – Congressman – Democrat
Sylvia Larsen – State Senate President
Terrie Norelli - State Speaker of the House
And, you should have taken some govenment course when in school. The president doesn't control the budget, The House of Representatives. But, we know what you mean. You are pretty much undemocratic and fascist oriented along the lines of long dead, Fulgencio Batista (Cuba), Francisco Franco (Spain), Antonio Salazar (Portugal), Augusto Ponochet, and Chang Kai Shek (Nationalist China)
Last edited by mikewrona; May 19th, 2007 at 03:33 PM.
I count two factual errors there and one foot in mouth.
I'm not a conservative. Libertarian as I used the term did not refer to a party, but a philosophy.
And Ron Paul is now Bill Mahr's "hero."
http://studentsforpaul.org/bill_maher_changing_his_tune
Oh yeah, he's already at 3% in NH.
You are very conservative. There is nothing progressive, liberal, or advanced about you or other libertarians. You are what is called an anachronism out of touch with the modern world and hero of a Jeffersonian agrarian society ruled by an elite who determines what population groups are capable of being civilized and which are not.
Like I said, Nostradamus, time to sit this one out. Read this and weep. It is from a Libertarian politician who supports Ron Paul.
http://ladyliberty.wordpress.com/200...ns-soundbites/
Disclaimer: I am the chairman for the Libertarian Party of Collin County, TX.
Republican congressman Ron Paul was interviewed on Bill Maher last night. Maher, a self-described libertarian (Maher is a single issue libertarian), attempted to throw Dr. Paul under a bus. I think Dr. Paul did quite well under pressure and described the libertarian viewpoint beautifully. Please watch, try to avoid the slavery soundbite distraction (Maher’s), and do your own research.
I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. Thank God almighty I'm not a progressive as that's the worst of the three.
I was a libertarian liberal for several years who became a libertarian, period.
One capitalist pig did more for the world than every liberal hero put together: Thomas Edison.
Read TJ's two big speeches--the declaration and his first inaugural and tell me where he talks about agrarianism. He was an inventor, scientist and pro-technology. He opposed corporate welfare, not industry.
Slavery? Libertarianism is based on self-ownership. I always wondered why non-libertarians opposed slavery but that's why we do.A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye—when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue, and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking.
We're still living with the horrendous consequences of the progressives’ third big war: WW I. You had to be a really bad president to be far worse than George Bush.
[QUOTE=Jim Ostrowski]I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. Thank God almighty I'm not a progressive as that's the worst of the three.
I was a libertarian liberal for several years who became a libertarian, period.
One capitalist pig did more for the world than every liberal hero put together: Thomas Edison.
Read TJ's two big speeches--the declaration and his first inaugural and tell me where he talks about agrarianism. He was an inventor, scientist and pro-technology. He opposed corporate welfare, not industry.
Slavery? Libertarianism is based on self-ownership. I always wondered why non-libertarians opposed slavery but that's why we do.
We're still living with the horrendous consequences of the progressives’ third big war: WW I. You had to be a really bad president to be far worse than George Bush.[/QUOTE
I see you've resorted to a temper tantrum and rant.
Forgot the smiley face
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefflife.html
The eighteenth century was a time of extensive migration in Virginia as settlers in the Tidewater pushed beyond the rivers to the West. In these western uplands, called the Piedmont, the settlers replicated, as best they could, the land use patterns, labor systems, and social structures they had left behind. The Jefferson family, led by Thomas's father Peter, was part of this western movement.
At least three hallmarks of Thomas Jefferson's character and interests date to this background: his interest in western exploration and settlement; his belief and participation in public service; and his lifelong adherence to the plantation-slave system of agriculture.
Throughout his life at Monticello and Poplar Forest, his country retreat, Thomas Jefferson sought to create a classic example of the country gentleman's estate, based on his personal experiences, his reading, and a broad network of correspondence. Thomas Jefferson's world of books provided him with opportunities throughout his life to experience other aspects of the world and learn selectively from them to create an idealized realm, sometimes untempered by the reality of life experiences.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions