Comments on: Ron Paul is Back! http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:41:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-133478 Bill K. Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:27:36 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-133478 Well it seems odd to me that one could be "back" when one was never really "out" to begin with. I seriously think it is time to revive the "Bull Moose" Party of 1912 because I am sick of McMussolini(Lil' Duce), Hitlery, Obomber, and Hugabible. The Political Elite will never allow him to win. I don't think Diebold allows "write-ins". So the only real possibility is to bring back the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, funny thing how his platform in 1912 almost seems a reflection of today. "To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." I know, he was no saint, but I think many people see him as a positive historical figure and using him and his platform would gain support. Well it seems odd to me that one could be “back” when one was never really “out” to begin with. I seriously think it is time to revive the “Bull Moose” Party of 1912 because I am sick of McMussolini(Lil’ Duce), Hitlery, Obomber, and Hugabible. The Political Elite will never allow him to win. I don’t think Diebold allows “write-ins”. So the only real possibility is to bring back the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, funny thing how his platform in 1912 almost seems a reflection of today.
“To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
I know, he was no saint, but I think many people see him as a positive historical figure and using him and his platform would gain support.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-133469 Bill K. Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:10:59 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-133469 Well it obviously seems you are doing your best to discredit him. You and Media, and don't tell me they are not. The article's wording proves it! Well it obviously seems you are doing your best to discredit him. You and Media, and don’t tell me they are not. The article’s wording proves it!

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-133458 Bill K. Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-133458 Well "God" will have to take a number since Buddha and Zoroaster already got in line and the heart has no vacancies open. Seriously God is not going to make Ron Paul win, it will take actual actions not prayers to win.(and the Political Elite in the US are working against him) Well “God” will have to take a number since Buddha and Zoroaster already got in line and the heart has no vacancies open.

Seriously God is not going to make Ron Paul win, it will take actual actions not prayers to win.(and the Political Elite in the US are working against him)

]]> By: John Lowell http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-133010 John Lowell Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:01:39 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-133010 I'm simply quoting an article of theirs quoting Paul, Ball. It's all factual enough whether or not they've been gunning for him. I’m simply quoting an article of theirs quoting Paul, Ball. It’s all factual enough whether or not they’ve been gunning for him.

]]> By: Ball http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-132791 Ball Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:29:24 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-132791 John Lowell, the Houston Chronicle has been anti-Paul for the past 30 years. Ron ought to sue their ass. I'm 100% serious here. John Lowell, the Houston Chronicle has been anti-Paul for the past 30 years. Ron ought to sue their ass. I’m 100% serious here.

]]> By: Ball http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-132790 Ball Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:28:13 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-132790 Ron Paul was never out, so how can he be back? You can't run a credible presidential campaign if you lose your congressional seat. With a million in the bank for that race, he can afford to campaign Texas-wide. Actually, he's been doing just that non-stop (just in case anyone hasn't been paying attention). The GOP insiders <i>hate</i> McCain here in Texas, and if we pull just a *little* we can get some massive support and all 140 delegates here. Please consider helping us. We have a plan for success here in Texas: http://ocati.org Ron Paul was never out, so how can he be back?

You can’t run a credible presidential campaign if you lose your congressional seat. With a million in the bank for that race, he can afford to campaign Texas-wide. Actually, he’s been doing just that non-stop (just in case anyone hasn’t been paying attention).

The GOP insiders hate McCain here in Texas, and if we pull just a *little* we can get some massive support and all 140 delegates here.

Please consider helping us. We have a plan for success here in Texas:

http://ocati.org

]]> By: John Lowell http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-132068 John Lowell Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:47:20 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-132068 And this from the Houston Chronicle: “AUSTIN (AP) — Acknowledging his imminent failure, maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Saturday that he won’t get back into the race for the White House as an independent candidate once a GOP nominee is solidified. “'I have no plans to do that,' Paul told a small group of reporters before a rally. 'I would suspect that if we don’t win, if the trends continue we’re not likely to win, that I will run for Congress.'" And who were those here holding out hope that Paul felt he could still win the Republican nomination or that he still might launch an independent bid when he announced his stand-down about a week ago? Anyone remember the names? For all the talk of Paul's integrity, someone apparently forgot to inquire whether he meant "principle" or "principal" when he used the word. At this point his preferred meaning ought to be crystal clear to anyone but those for whom a guardianship of some kind would be suitable. And, please, spare me any further talk about Ron Paul's character, his "revolution", or his movement. I just hope his opponent in the primary - or in the general if he survives - makes minced meat out of him. And this from the Houston Chronicle:

“AUSTIN (AP) — Acknowledging his imminent failure, maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Saturday that he won’t get back into the race for the White House as an independent candidate once a GOP nominee is solidified.

“’I have no plans to do that,’ Paul told a small group of reporters before a rally. ‘I would suspect that if we don’t win, if the trends continue we’re not likely to win, that I will run for Congress.’”

And who were those here holding out hope that Paul felt he could still win the Republican nomination or that he still might launch an independent bid when he announced his stand-down about a week ago? Anyone remember the names?

For all the talk of Paul’s integrity, someone apparently forgot to inquire whether he meant “principle” or “principal” when he used the word. At this point his preferred meaning ought to be crystal clear to anyone but those for whom a guardianship of some kind would be suitable. And, please, spare me any further talk about Ron Paul’s character, his “revolution”, or his movement. I just hope his opponent in the primary – or in the general if he survives – makes minced meat out of him.

]]> By: Chris Baker http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-131789 Chris Baker Sun, 24 Feb 2008 06:24:53 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-131789 He definitely needed to fire Snyder months ago. Many agree with that. He definitely needed to fire Snyder months ago. Many agree with that.

]]> By: jkhutz http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-131767 jkhutz Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:30:07 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-131767 Based on what a "statement"? When we start seeing some ACTUAL campaigning (outside of Texas... you know like in the states that are having primaries) and some REAL advertising (and not that "He's catching on!" crapola)... Oh, and when he FIRES Snyder & Moore and hires someone competent. Then maybe I'll believe there is even a remote possibility. Otherwise it's just blowing more smoke up people's backsides... making sure he has sufficient donations to keep his day job; and sufficient suckers to buy his latest book (hey gotta have something to retire on, right?). Based on what a “statement”?

When we start seeing some ACTUAL campaigning (outside of Texas… you know like in the states that are having primaries) and some REAL advertising (and not that “He’s catching on!” crapola)…

Oh, and when he FIRES Snyder & Moore and hires someone competent.

Then maybe I’ll believe there is even a remote possibility.

Otherwise it’s just blowing more smoke up people’s backsides… making sure he has sufficient donations to keep his day job; and sufficient suckers to buy his latest book (hey gotta have something to retire on, right?).

]]> By: John Lowell http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-131755 John Lowell Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:44:48 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/21/ron-paul-is-back/#comment-131755 In a move that can only make Ron Paul appear just that much more irremediably weak and ineffectual, the New York Times reports today that Ralph Nader plans to appear on one of the network news shows tomorrow and might announce an independent bid for president. I'd guess that that would be almost certain, given the circumstances. Having spat in the face of the right-wing anti-war, anti-system crowd, Paul, rather than offering a way toward unity with them, now enables a greater cohesiveness of those on the anti-war, anti-system left. Has it been this man's sole purpose over the last year to embody the processes involved in one's evolution from schlub to schlamazel? At this juncture, you can almost hear the air coming out of the "revolution". In a move that can only make Ron Paul appear just that much more irremediably weak and ineffectual, the New York Times reports today that Ralph Nader plans to appear on one of the network news shows tomorrow and might announce an independent bid for president. I’d guess that that would be almost certain, given the circumstances. Having spat in the face of the right-wing anti-war, anti-system crowd, Paul, rather than offering a way toward unity with them, now enables a greater cohesiveness of those on the anti-war, anti-system left. Has it been this man’s sole purpose over the last year to embody the processes involved in one’s evolution from schlub to schlamazel? At this juncture, you can almost hear the air coming out of the “revolution”.

]]>