Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty much. I do think Sesame Street has had subtle liberal undertones for a very long time though.
The fact that DEMs can utilize the PC Card to guilt people's vote is ridiculous to me.

In a an unexpected twist. Sesame Street production company asks Obama to remove ad and refrain from any use of their characters....

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>In a an unexpected twist. Sesame Street production company asks Obama to remove ad and refrain from any use of their characters....

That is interesting!

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

Did anyone see Jon Stewarts improvisational satire skit of the Conservative Sesame Street. LMAO.. The guys a genius.
lol showing grover asking the little girl why she shares cookies and the grouch being a free loader. lol
God Romneys toast. You guys blew it for nominating another flip flopper war monger.
All one has to do is look at his cabinet..all left overs from the previous admin. hahah
Gary Johnson has my vote.

Gary Johnson? Whats that a new drive through hamburger joint. Well if some demented people in Ohio like it, it must be something the unions are backing. People in Ohio just are not that swift.
Just have to disagree on the John Stewart comment, he strikes me as being loud and over bearing. No joy there!
Some great cartoons out on the net about bozo getting his ass kicked. Romney looks better each and every day and I just can not wait for Biden to insert his foot in his mouth. All Ryan has to do is rattle his cage a little and Biden is toast.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
In a an unexpected twist. Sesame Street production company asks Obama to remove ad and refrain from any use of their characters....

LORAX, I just watched a TV program called "THE LAST RESORT", I am aware that it is fiction but what they are portraying is pure crap. The people that wrote that BS should be taken out and tared and feathered or at least keel haul them. Once again the military is a nicey, nicey group of men and women that never think about sex or want to hurt the feeling of all those around them. I was looking for the little pink curtains and fresh flowers in all the sub rooms. For over 20+ years never have I seen people with so much personal drama in their lives or military people that are so touchy feely. What they portray is once again the feminization of the military

UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:

<quoted text>Come on get with times , You outdated ... try new age of online Social sphere Vs Street voicing... Why you become so hatred-filled with the higher academia , u once one of them?

So that is your excuse for sitting on your butt
and doing nothing except sit at your keyboard?

"Hate-filled" isn't the word, Idiot. What I object
to about academia as a whole ... excluding a few places
where legitimate inquiry is considered the norm ...
is that original thought is discouraged. Academic
journals and reviews dictate what is expected of them
and they comply for reasons of acceptance and professional
advancement or security.

I was never "one of them." In many respects I was
stealth thru much of my academic years. I was a liberal
at a conservative university and a conservative at an
ultra-liberal graduate school. Life was interesting.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
It sounds to me like you are projecting again Bill. Me grow up? I think maybe you revert to juvenile flailing when you know you have been bested. I am the one who for years defended your right to your opinion. I am the one who has no issue with the entire range of ideological thought. You are the one that gets their panties and bunch and looses decorum at the first sight of any challenge. I indoctrinate no one and encourage them to open their minds just as I encouraged you. Some people just refuse to do so. I have little issue with you being a neocon. I have huge issue with you being neocon and claiming to be something your not - which you have done for four years now. Because I disagree with you I am somehow a leftist indoctrinator - HA that is kettle calling the pot black and that goes for all of your projected critiques of me. Look in a mirror pal and for once try apply logic evenly to all things. You sir have earned snotty disdain and I reserve it for folks that need a taste of it every once and while. I dont like bully's Bill and that is your classic albeit cloaked MO. It just took me a while to pull you out. Now that everyone knows your true views they call you on your bullshit and you cant handle that. Too f'n bad. Btw - I got five new recruits to liberty today - thanks for the motivation.

Apart from the observation that end of this post you essentially
confess to being a manipulator and utterly laugh at your
peculiar notion that "it just took you awhile to pull you
out."

I truly cannot see where you come up with the idea that I accuse
you of being a "leftist manipulator." Never said such a thing
or at the very least never intended such an idea. I view your
thinking as an idealistic sort, but I don't attach labels to
people.

Meanwhile you, lacking veracity, accuse me of being a "neo-con"
when, in fact, you haven't so much as a clue as to what I stand
for other than the fact I regard your support of Gary Johnson as
a kind of self-congratulatory narcissism.

I don't put labels on people. You do. I'll disagree about
perceptions and tactics, but I don't put labels on people. I
couldn't even venture a guess as to what camp you fall into
so I have avoided any attempts to do so.

You blithely call me a "neo-con," a rather unfashionable term
in contemporary informed debate, ignoring all of the things I
have stood for and actually sacrificed time, money, and the
loss of a father's love for over a decade. As for me, the
need to put labels on people is a sure and certain sign of
uncertain intelligence.

I propose a drastic reduction in military spending and
presence. I propose diplomatic solutions as opposed to the
military options in the Middle East. I propose a drastic,
truly drastic reduction in the federal budget ........ but
you revert to calling me a "neo-con." If that is the new
definition of a neo-con, so be it. What is left is the question as to what the hell you stand for that has any meaning
beyond your principles and honor.

UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:

<quoted text>Bill don't understand left movement and he opposes the left thinking it invades on his property rights and capitalistic value system...
I not on left or right but why Bill can't understand left movement , i say he can't debunk it, i would like to get him to debate left vs right movement. BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Sonny boy, I understand this stuff more than you will
ever learn or know sitting at your computer terminal.
I live with it and deal with it every day. Meanwhile
you go down to the corner and buy a bagel and think you
are going international.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you have. And it happens that my tenure in teaching is State College probably equivalent to your junior college. I will admit I made more than $200 a class. I will also admit I did not donate if for the need of it. I also held a job and ran my business at the same time and for part of the time held political office, and ran and lost at others. Now your pulling the Ivory Tower bullshit? We are not all that different you and I. Just as an FYI and to your relief I had to stop teaching because I am now focused on creating a few new industries. Perhaps I have not allowed the cynicism eat my soul? I dangerously thrive on it. Perhaps in your estimation I am not capable of making a difference? Maybe and likely given your comments over the last couple of months. Perhaps it is your mission to make me give up? Since many views run contrary - probable You should by now understand that you have no chance of that. Perhaps you are truly unable to grasp that some men will prefer principles over pragmatism? Don't worry if I fix some of what is wrong with this bullshit - you'll still be able to do what you do --- even if I don't like it. Perhaps Maybe it is time to let this conversation expire?

Lorax, I have absolutely no quarrel with what you attempting
to do in terms of new businesses. That is the heart of who we
are as Americans. I (We) did it 10 years ago so I know exactly
what you feel. I don't discredit it one bit.

Where we disagree is where you presume that the battle is
between pragmatism vs. principles. I regard that as a truly
false dichotomy, Lorax. It is academically flawed because
you are attempting to put two completely different things as
at odds when they are not.

Simply put, it is entirely possible to be pragmatic and have
principles no less worthy or admirable as your own. On the
other hand it is entirely possible to have outstanding
principles without a clue as to how to achieve the ends or goals
without a pragmatic plan.

It is entirely unfair to lump me into a group which you
believe has the intent of unleashing a war in the Middle East.
It is entirely unfair for you to boast of your meager attempts
to sway people into supporting Gary Johnson when, in fact,
every national poll I have seen indicates that Romney now has
support of 89%(+/-) Republicans and a startling majority of
independents (that's me). You are in a shrinking minority.
People are beginning to understand that we cannot afford 4
more years of the bullcrap we have endured since 2008.

Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am right and Romney wins they
will owe absolutely nothing to Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or
anyone else. Then you have lost whatever traction you
may have had.

As it is I still give Obama an advantage because he can
control the media in ways Romney cannnot.

EASY MONEY wrote:

<quoted text>
LORAX, I just watched a TV program called "THE LAST RESORT", I am aware that it is fiction but what they are portraying is pure crap. The people that wrote that BS should be taken out and tared and feathered or at least keel haul them. Once again the military is a nicey, nicey group of men and women that never think about sex or want to hurt the feeling of all those around them. I was looking for the little pink curtains and fresh flowers in all the sub rooms. For over 20+ years never have I seen people with so much personal drama in their lives or military people that are so touchy feely. What they portray is once again the feminization of the military

Could it be all part of the programming so the sheople do not violently revolt when the troops roll in.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Apart from the observation that end of this post you essentially
confess to being a manipulator and utterly laugh at your
peculiar notion that "it just took you awhile to pull you
out."
I truly cannot see where you come up with the idea that I accuse
you of being a "leftist manipulator." Never said such a thing
or at the very least never intended such an idea. I view your
thinking as an idealistic sort, but I don't attach labels to
people.
Meanwhile you, lacking veracity, accuse me of being a "neo-con"
when, in fact, you haven't so much as a clue as to what I stand
for other than the fact I regard your support of Gary Johnson as
a kind of self-congratulatory narcissism.
I don't put labels on people. You do. I'll disagree about
perceptions and tactics, but I don't put labels on people. I
couldn't even venture a guess as to what camp you fall into
so I have avoided any attempts to do so.
You blithely call me a "neo-con," a rather unfashionable term
in contemporary informed debate, ignoring all of the things I
have stood for and actually sacrificed time, money, and the
loss of a father's love for over a decade. As for me, the
need to put labels on people is a sure and certain sign of
uncertain intelligence.
I propose a drastic reduction in military spending and
presence. I propose diplomatic solutions as opposed to the
military options in the Middle East. I propose a drastic,
truly drastic reduction in the federal budget ........ but
you revert to calling me a "neo-con." If that is the new
definition of a neo-con, so be it. What is left is the question as to what the hell you stand for that has any meaning
beyond your principles and honor.

You've lost it Billy boy. Go check the last 4 years of posts. I am not a manipulator - I discover them. Then and bullies - both happen to be. The neo con is an earned label as you have defended that status quo that is neo conservative at every turn over the last 4 years. I've made my case. You are obviously not listening (reading or remembering) So lets just get back to civil discourse or none at all. Deal?

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Lorax, I have absolutely no quarrel with what you attempting
to do in terms of new businesses. That is the heart of who we
are as Americans. I (We) did it 10 years ago so I know exactly
what you feel. I don't discredit it one bit.
Where we disagree is where you presume that the battle is
between pragmatism vs. principles. I regard that as a truly
false dichotomy, Lorax. It is academically flawed because
you are attempting to put two completely different things as
at odds when they are not.
Simply put, it is entirely possible to be pragmatic and have
principles no less worthy or admirable as your own. On the
other hand it is entirely possible to have outstanding
principles without a clue as to how to achieve the ends or goals
without a pragmatic plan.
It is entirely unfair to lump me into a group which you
believe has the intent of unleashing a war in the Middle East.
It is entirely unfair for you to boast of your meager attempts
to sway people into supporting Gary Johnson when, in fact,
every national poll I have seen indicates that Romney now has
support of 89%(+/-) Republicans and a startling majority of
independents (that's me). You are in a shrinking minority.
People are beginning to understand that we cannot afford 4
more years of the bullcrap we have endured since 2008.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am right and Romney wins they
will owe absolutely nothing to Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or
anyone else. Then you have lost whatever traction you
may have had.
As it is I still give Obama an advantage because he can
control the media in ways Romney cannnot.

The only thing you are correct in saying besides Obama has total control of the media is that if Romney somehow wins - he will owe nothing to Paul or Johnson. The rest especially about you being an independent given your statements in the last go round and this one is contrary to logic.

So the post# 29203 directly above is missing several important words and parts of sentences. I have no idea where they went but what it should say is that Romney has no less access to the media than Obama other than the obvious advantages of being the incumbent.
You,are correct in saying if Romney wins (which I believe will not happen) he will owe nothing to Paul or Johnson. I never expected he would. I do expect the GOP, however, to blame the Paul and Johnson supporters for their loss. The framing for that has already begun. And any traction we (I suppose you mean the independent liberty movement) have has nothing to do with establishment GOP. In fact there are just as many defectors from the Dems as from the Republicans.....

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Truthfully, my opinion is that after having seen Romney
clean Obama's clock on domestic issues and fully expecting
Paul Ryan to make Biden look ineffectual and foolish, the
Paul camp will be surprised how many defect and while
mouthing all the words and wisdom of Paul, will go to
Romney.

Without doubt many Paulies will vote Romney, just as many will retreat back to the donkies.
A net loss for the GOP.
At no time can a Paulie defect, that is a term that does not apply. To defect one must have allegiance.....Paulies are loyal to themselves. It requires an independent person to defy both parties and support Paul. Party allegiance was never a factor.

We know this race will come down to a few swing States so the mass of votes is not relevant. In those swing States Paul has appeal and influence, he brings people from across the isle and outside the mainstream. The question was why did Romney throw them out when he had already won ?

Is this an indication of how a Romney administration would work ?
It is my gut feeling this snake in the grass will side with the liberals far more than the conservatives, he will be just like Clinton. Can we afford that, the hope of change to the right to find the middle being hallow words ? I have to disagreement with the argument that says Obama is that bad, I agree. Yet he is representing the left, he is expected to be that bad. What happens when Romney is left of W.......more of what brought Obama into power ? What will the lefts choice be then ?

Why did Romney intentionally alienate the Paulies by cheating when he had already won ? Romney will govern like Jefferson, not Washington.

My vote remains undecided, unlike Romney my word and fidelity is my face. He gets his chance but currently his supporters allegiance to PS purity is killing him.

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Without doubt many Paulies will vote Romney, just as many will retreat back to the donkies.
A net loss for the GOP.
At no time can a Paulie defect, that is a term that does not apply. To defect one must have allegiance.....Paulies are loyal to themselves. It requires an independent person to defy both parties and support Paul. Party allegiance was never a factor.
We know this race will come down to a few swing States so the mass of votes is not relevant. In those swing States Paul has appeal and influence, he brings people from across the isle and outside the mainstream. The question was why did Romney throw them out when he had already won ?
Is this an indication of how a Romney administration would work ?
It is my gut feeling this snake in the grass will side with the liberals far more than the conservatives, he will be just like Clinton. Can we afford that, the hope of change to the right to find the middle being hallow words ? I have to disagreement with the argument that says Obama is that bad, I agree. Yet he is representing the left, he is expected to be that bad. What happens when Romney is left of W.......more of what brought Obama into power ? What will the lefts choice be then ?
Why did Romney intentionally alienate the Paulies by cheating when he had already won ? Romney will govern like Jefferson, not Washington.
My vote remains undecided, unlike Romney my word and fidelity is my face. He gets his chance but currently his supporters allegiance to PS purity is killing him.

Lord love a duck! L B! What in the hell are you talking about? Do you really mean to say that obama is not that bad? He is and always has been a socialist, and my opinion a racist, and will always be one.
I will not willingly give one cent to someone whose is capable of working and earning a living and it makes no difference if it is at the bottom of the ladder. It's his job to work his way out of the bottom rung. As far as giving women money to have and support kids, not in my life time will I ever support that crap.
Never mind this soul searching crap, the hell with how you feel, it's Americas place in the world that counts, your just one clog in the giant wheel, because when we, America, gets back to the level of the 50's your life will be 1000% better. And so will mine if I'm still around, and that is all I care about.

EASY MONEY wrote:

<quoted text>
Lord love a duck! L B! What in the hell are you talking about? Do you really mean to say that obama is not that bad? He is and always has been a socialist, and my opinion a racist, and will always be one.
I will not willingly give one cent to someone whose is capable of working and earning a living and it makes no difference if it is at the bottom of the ladder. It's his job to work his way out of the bottom rung. As far as giving women money to have and support kids, not in my life time will I ever support that crap.
Never mind this soul searching crap, the hell with how you feel, it's Americas place in the world that counts, your just one clog in the giant wheel, because when we, America, gets back to the level of the 50's your life will be 1000% better. And so will mine if I'm still around, and that is all I care about.

The only two people running in this election that have talked about measures to return to the prosperity of the 50's is Paul and Johnson and you and others not only dismiss but ridicule any idea or person that would support them or their stated platforms. If Romney or Obama sit in the White house for 4 more years your chances of seeing America return to its greatness before you depart are severely diminished.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
The only two people running in this election that have talked about measures to return to the prosperity of the 50's is Paul and Johnson and you and others not only dismiss but ridicule any idea or person that would support them or their stated platforms. If Romney or Obama sit in the White house for 4 more years your chances of seeing America return to its greatness before you depart are severely diminished.

My apologies. I was not aware of the fact that Ron Paul
was still "running in this election."

Do you really expect anything but ridicule at the very notion
that Ron Paul is anything but an immeasurable factor in this
election? Even more, do you really believe that your Johnson
is known or cared about by more than half of one per cent of
the total electorate?

Whatever your claims, now or after the election, they will be
unsupported by facts. And the facts are Ron Paul will be
nothing but a blip in and "by the way" when the final numbers
come in.

For the record .... and I live near and about conservative
ground .... Ron Paul is not even a topic of discussion.

Of course, Lorax, that makes me "sheople," an infantile
word you have created ... by your own pronouncement or
announcement that your have invented ... to describe
anyone who so happens to disagree with you on any major
or moot point. Anyone who disagrees with the high and
mighty and never humble Lorax is a "neo-con." For you,
a child in business politic, a neo-con is anyone who is
in disagreement with you.

I'm now involved in the election or re-election of 4
local and state candidates. All are conservative. None
have any effect on the end result in Afghanistan or
Syria, or anywhere else. They live and deal local.
That is American politics. Live with it or die with it.
In time or one or ore or none will emerge to have a
voice.

Not one needs your precious Ron Paul. If you claim
ownership of his values you delude yourself. The values
you profess or proclaim pre-exist your life on this
planet. They will continue to exist despite your
devout worship of the man. Freedom is. Easy attests
to it. We don't need you.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
The only two people running in this election that have talked about measures to return to the prosperity of the 50's is Paul and Johnson and you and others not only dismiss but ridicule any idea or person that would support them or their stated platforms. If Romney or Obama sit in the White house for 4 more years your chances of seeing America return to its greatness before you depart are severely diminished.

Sorry, no brass ring for that statement. Those two wantabes will never in your life time amount to a hill of beans. They don't have what it takes for the average American or for that matter for anyone that understands that they will only appeal to a select few. Sort of like Mc Govern, or Humprey, just too far out there to catch and hold the American public. The next four years with my man I'll have at least a chance, with bozo and his cabal of merry men and lesbians I'll have none and neither will you.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>The only two people running in this election that have talked about measures to return to the prosperity of the 50's is Paul and Johnson and you and others not only dismiss but ridicule any idea or person that would support them or their stated platforms. If Romney or Obama sit in the White house for 4 more years your chances of seeing America return to its greatness before you depart are severely diminished.

Some of us have figured out that Romney+Obama=more of the same

Some of us don't want that stale formula any more.

It's obvious that people like sleazy and Billy are in charge of local and state politics.
The collapse of America is happening on their watch.
When Romney reneges on all this campaign rhetoric, just as Obama did in 2008, my voice will become louder and stronger. Except I won't be on topix...

javy wrote:

<quoted text>
Some of us have figured out that Romney+Obama=more of the same
Some of us don't want that stale formula any more.
It's obvious that people like sleazy and Billy are in charge of local and state politics.
The collapse of America is happening on their watch.
When Romney reneges on all this campaign rhetoric, just as Obama did in 2008, my voice will become louder and stronger. Except I won't be on topix...

Promise! You are going go away, sure? You douche bag? How in the hell can I be in charge of local and State politics. I live in Thailand 24/7, 365 days a year, have not been back to America in 11 years going on 12. I see now your going after your hero obama, come on we all know that you voted for him the last time and now your pissed that he turned out to be a bigger douche bag than you.
Now go away, stay away, and sit in a corner sucking your thumb, day dreaming about, if only.

EASY MONEY wrote:

<quoted text>
Lord love a duck! L B! What in the hell are you talking about? Do you really mean to say that obama is not that bad? He is and always has been a socialist, and my opinion a racist, and will always be one.
I will not willingly give one cent to someone whose is capable of working and earning a living and it makes no difference if it is at the bottom of the ladder. It's his job to work his way out of the bottom rung. As far as giving women money to have and support kids, not in my life time will I ever support that crap.
Never mind this soul searching crap, the hell with how you feel, it's Americas place in the world that counts, your just one clog in the giant wheel, because when we, America, gets back to the level of the 50's your life will be 1000% better. And so will mine if I'm still around, and that is all I care about.

No,no,no....Easy.
First off - I mistyped my words. I wrote I had to disagreement.....It was intended to type I have no argument that Obama is that bad, he is.

Secondly, you should have given me a pass on that one ! Come on, man ! Are you serious ? I carry no water for Obama, although I see him just like all the rest, especially Bush.

In my view the utopia you want was brought on by two things, fear and respect. Not fear out of respect but genuine respect. Now all we have is fear and the more we misuse our military the less fear there is. The respect issue is the thing missing.

Easy, explain how winning a war anywhere except China will create manufacturing, industry and self reliance from the States ? My life will be 1000% better when my nation begins to produce their way out of debt. You say military fear and respect can change that, how ?

I totally agree the US military needs to regain the fear and respect of the world, just dont see how doing more of what we are doing will get us there.