Didn't really follow this when it was happening, but it seems like the media did a bang up job of ignoring and marginalizing Ron Paul in 2012.

I haven't watched the video but I can tell you the Ron Paul supporters had valid criticisms about the media and the buyout behind the scenes to keep Ron Paul off the front page.

Ron Paul is very popular with poor people.

Looks like the video got deliberately jammed at 3:31.

The commies sure hate him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002100108

Not sure how often you check that place out, but they loved chris cristy until he yelled at that teacher, not so much anymore. Says alot about the guy though.

He would be dead. Very sad to say.

Watched it, thanks. We may be beyond the ballot box, and with no recourse except the bullet box.

Obama appreciates his campaign.

Bob and Steve hate him with a passion.

Whoa. Looks like they've got some out of control rage that's just looking for a recipient, darn near any recipient I would guess.

I'm truly shocked that the politicians may have played dirty pool to try to keep Ron Paul out. I mean, he honestly and fairly swarmed some of the states caucuses in order to get a majority. What's America come to when one politician who gets votes unfairly gets unfairly kicked out?

Geez..


Anybody who thinks enough people would have voted in 2012 to make Ron Paul the president needs to move away from Colorado and quit smoking the funny stuff. It would have been a landslide against him.

The GOP destroyed itself to keep him from getting the nomination.

I think you over estimate Mr. Paul's appeal. The GOP is screwed up because it's a leaderless party with no vision and is constantly put on the defensive by Libturds..

It didn't die fighting Ron Paul...Not by a long shot.

As for the media treating him unfairly, I think you've forgotten Mitt Romney got a pretty raw deal as well.

It wasn't the media alone that scuttled Ron Paul's candidacy.

It was the RNC.

That's why the GOP is no longer viable.

You may not have paid attention to it, but Ron Paul's supporters watched it happen.

They won't be coming back to the GOP.

Consequently,...it's finished.

Disagree with most everything you just said.

I guess a good bye is in order then.

I'm sure the Paulists will continue to split the vote, run candidates without a snowball's chance in Hell of winning and continue putting W's in the Liberal column.

Now that's a record you guys can be proud of.

Maybe your slogan can be:

" We stood against the progressives' and socialists' agendas when no one else would and everything we did helped them succeed..."

3 cheers for the realists.

McCain and Romney are nominees I'm sure you're proud of then.

I'm proud of the fact that I don't to cut off my nose to spite my face.

yet your candidate still lost

the only stupidity is the attempt to blame RP voters for a democrat in the white house.

Ron Paul lost because only a tiny portion of American voters thought his ludicrous political ideas were of value.

then don't blame that tiny portion for the GOP losing the white house

you can't have it both ways

Jousting windmills and betting on 3 legged race horses is not a profitable strategy.

Congrats on helping the current turd get 5 more years.

congrats on your vote getting you a few meaningless cliche's you can roll out after the loss.

I look forward to you telling me how I should vote for the next RINO candidate because he's so different from the moderate Democrat he's running against.....

and then blaming me for another democrat in the White House.

Only the galactically stupid would waste their vote thinking this guy had a chance to win.

His campaign pulled from the candidate with the best chance to remove the current socialist.

That's a fact.

I don't blame you for not facing it. I would be ashamed as well.

when the cliche's don't work you move on to shaming me?

I can promise you that the same people that voted Ron Paul will not vote for a RINO GOP candidate in the next election.

Now knowing that, will you vote again for a RINO that has no chance to win the white house and then tell us how "galactically stupid" we are for not voting for the guy you tell us to vote for? Is there some cliche' you can pull out then that will make you more condescending in that case?

If I hold so much power in getting your guy elected to the white house, then maybe your guy should spend a bit more time listening to what I want from a president - and you should encourage him to do so.

The only thing that can top a stupid mistake is continually repeating it.

In an imperfect world, intelligent people pick the lesser of two evils.

You and the Paulette's might as well have voted for Obama, because you certainly helped his cause.

How does it feel knowing you chose to aid Barak Obama's re-election bid against a Moderate Republican that would have reigned in the IRS and squashed ObamaCare?

Nice going.

Hard to respond when you keep constantly editing your remarks.

McCain...Romney......

that's what I've been trying to tell you - but you can't see the forest for the trees

Poor answer.

Again, how does it feel to know you helped bring ObamaCare to fruition?

You vote for a man with no chance to become President and in the process helped re-elect the worst socialist to ever sit in the Oval office?

I can't wait to see the next 3 legged nag you boys lay your money on.

Gotta go to work. Have a good one. It's your vote, do with it as you please.

JM

I will.

But don't stop telling me I should vote for your guy. That's been a great approach so far.

Exactly.

Bingo. Logically inconsistent.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Ron Paul,..the 2012, and to a lesser extent, the 2008 GOP primary proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that only "approved" candidates have a hoot in hell chance of getting the nomination.

"Approved" candidates are owned.

The problem the GOP has is,..too many conservatives have wised up to the GOP game.

Vote for whoever you want.

I couldn't care less.

Presidential candidates who represent the people have no chance of getting elected in America.

,..and the reason is,...the American people, as a whole, don't deserve them.

That's the ultimate bottom line.

Picking the lesser of 2 evils is what I've been doing in almost every election over the last couple of decades.

It's become increasingly more difficult to determine which is the lesser evil...

I'm not certain that either has been the 'lesser' of late. Both parties it seems have the same final goal in mind. It appears that they are using different roads to get there.
And I agree, if the third party is so insignificant then please explain how it caused one or the other[R's & D's] to lose??

I regret voting for Romney. I should have just gone hunting.

Hate him? I don't think so, they just didn't see him as a viable candidate with any shot at winning and many of us here believed the same thing. I was one of them but I certainly don't hate the man and i'd bet SteveNO and isaac would say the same thing.

You guys love to throw the hate word around when someone doesn't see things in lock step with your views.

nah,...they hate him.

Steve_NO hates him because he doesn't kowtow to the Zionists,...Issac hates him because he won't accept money from the lawyer lobby.

The hard core communists at the Southern Poverty Law Center absolutely hates Ron Paul's guts.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/...tion-reportedly-stacked-with-extremists/

"You guys"? You mean conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and folks who generally just don't like government interference in their lives? Us as opposed to you big government supporters? Yeah, we throw the word hate around a lot because those who love big government hate us.

Do you have your application in to be a Concentration Camp guard or is it more like an appointment for good behavior?

I don't believe they do but they can speak for themselves on that subject.

Simple.

There was someone else on the ballot.

Democrats and Republicans both hate him.

Bristoe is right about having a party approved candidate. It gets more obvious on more local levels where the big wigs with the political parties are less slick and polished than the ones in the national party elections.

That is where the term RINO came from.

I have been trying to send a message to the RNC since George Bush the I stated "Read my lips . . . no new taxes!" I voted for Ross Perot. In the primaries I voted for Pat Buchanan every time he ran and for Ron Paul, every time he ran. Other than 1994, I have held my nose and voted R in the big enchilada. I have never voted for a D.

The media can certainly influence the choices people make, that's a given.

I'm afraid to get the guy we need - the right guy, it's going to take a melt down of the first order.

When the middle class and working folk in this country are pushed over their threshold of pain, then you will see some meaningful change.

That sounds about right. I voted for Perot too, but not the second time he ran.

============

Just saw this. I'm flattered some thought Steve and I have more power than the international bankers and wall Street when it comes to convincing the other 160 million voters who agreed that RP was one daft hanger-on. You fellers obviously weren't thinking clearly. Instead of feeding the blimp, you should have been blinging the pimps.

I can't even believe there's a thread on this. The first thing I did when I read this silliness was search Google to see if he was actually still alive.

PS...are the lawyer lobbies the same as the doctor and banker lobbies?

That right there is some funny a$$ $hit.

Yep the Party Boy hardcores will fervently support a socialist who cannot win even with an R in front of his name. Then they'll blame those who support a Conservative that a Conservative isn't in the White House, in spite of having supported a socialist.

Continually repeating the same stupidity? Um... Yeah...

Of course the fact is, their socialist Republicrat will have a better chance at losing by a smaller margin than the Conservative (largely because they won't vote for him) and that makes them vastly superior to those who do support a Conservative.

Party Boy logic writ large right there for all to see.

Upon this right here we agree for sure.

Throwing your vote away on an unelectable candidate is the most illogical choice a responsible adult can make.

Hope you like your ObamaCare, Benghazi and all the other Foreign policy failures since 2012... because you helped make it happen sport.

Romney wasn't my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice...but he was better than Obama.

Yeah you're right but after voting Romney in 12 I learned my lesson.

Doesn't sound like you did.

Could you show me where the logic in my post is incorrect by quoting directly from it?

That is in fact what continually happens.

I'll never be able to knock some common sense into the heads of wingnuts like efw and KFWA but I sure as Hell respect their allegiance, resolve and unwavering support of their high school treasurer vote getting candidates.

They sure do hold their ground and move alien-like forward on their convictions.

I really have to respect dumb-[bleep] like those two.

Like I said, I learned from my dumb-$$ed vote for Romney in 12 and won't vote for a liberal again.

You guys enthusiastically support Liberals over and over. Now that's allegiance.

But yours lose by smaller margins and that makes ya feel better. I get it.

Enjoy yer Obamacare counselor!

Enjoy yer Obamacare counselor!
=======

Enjoy being responsible for being able to say that.

Where's your candidate now? Chipotles?

You are such a friggin twit.

I VOTED THE SAME WAY YOU DID IN 12 MORON!

We're equally responsible, douche bag.

No candidate at this point. Would love to vote for a Republican but with a principled brain trust made up of dumb a$$es like you ain't counting on it.

We're equally responsible
======

For 2012, after your brain fart in '08, yes...we were equally responsible. I must have got inside your head.

There's hope for you. Keep up the good work.

Even Cruz and Rand are going to disappoint you over the next 2 years. Only a foolish, selfish man works towards accepting 0% over 60%.

Unless, of course, you're one of those who think Rand and Cruz are liberals, as well.

Not me.

I'm well beyond being disappointed by Presidential candidates.

Disappointment was a long time ago.

Ha ha don't flatter yourself.

I've come to realize there is no way for the system to be corrected from within. As JM pointed out (& I heartily agreed) there will be total collapse necessary for meaningful change.

In that sense, anyone who helps Obama along is indeed speeding us toward our desired outcome.

Nothing like hopes of a Presidential bid to get a man flamin Lib.

As Bristoe said, I am way beyond disappointing when it comes to Presidential candidates.

our desired outcome.
=======

And what's that?

Meaningful change.

Sorry... MY desired outcome.

Forgot who I was talkin to .

------

So, you think your change happens when a democrat is in office rather than the GOP?

You just say that to make yourself feel better.

I said I agree with JM:

No, it was the primary voters, who by huge margins chose other candidates

Naw... It was the jeeeeeeewwwwwsss and the money lenders.

I read it here.

the best part is when guys like you spit at the keyboard telling us how we are inconsequential - until your guy loses and then its our fault for not voting for your liberal war hawk.

Then when I can't think you can top yourself as a moron, you start posting quotes by Karl Rove as if that has some weight.

Now that ........is raising the bar around here.

Those who blame the RNC, Romney or the media conveniently forget that Ron Paul also could not beat Santorum or Gingrich. Hard to see any conspiracy there.

When Gingrich beat Romney in South Carolina, the GOP machine spend millions in places like Florida to make sure that did not happen again.

If they ever bothered to spend a dime to stop Ron Paul; I didn�t hear about it.

Romney and his people were never worried about the guy in last place in the primaries. Or that Paul�s small base might not vote for Romney in the election.

Obama lost about seven million voters from his base support in 2012 and nationwide, Romney actually won the independent vote by 5 points.
Romney won the independents by 10 points in Ohio and he still lost both Ohio and the nation.

Romney lost because he lost his base when millions of conservatives and evangelicals stayed home.

Romney lost Ohio�s 18 electoral college votes by the small margin of 103,480 votes
Same thing in Virginia, he lost those 13 votes by a margin of 115,900 votes.
Romney lost New Hampshire�s 4 votes by less than 41,000.
Worse of all was losing Florida�s 29 votes by less than 74,000. Less then 2 percent.
Those 64 electoral college votes would have given Romney a total of 270 to Obama 268.

Voters did not like Obama or Romney and over 90 million eligible voters did not vote in the past election.

Half a million in those key swing states or a few millions of conservatives and evangelicals across the country who did not vote could have kicked Obama out of the White House.

Don't hit them with logic, facts or the consequences of their misguided "We'll Show 'em" mentality.

They will just light another candle around their Ron Paul shrines and scream how he was cheated.

If Ron Paul had been elected, guys like Putin and Kim Jung would have been in a race to see who could take a sh*t on the Whitehouse lawn first. They even respect Obama more than him, what a f*ckin' tool that guy is.

If Ron Paul had been elected, guys like Putin and Kim Jung would have been in a race to see who could take a sh*t on the Whitehouse lawn first. They even respect Obama more than him, what a f*ckin' tool that guy is.

Considering you guys can't distinguish between Israel and US territory, I'm not the least surprise you can't distinguish the Ukraine from it either.

I offered logic up above and asked you to show from what I said where I was wrong.

Crickets.

Shocking.

I've explained the result of your vote ad nauseaum.

Now go light your candle.

Didn't think you could construct a logical response but thought I'd offer you a 2nd chance.

Nice way to avoid it altogether with your version of events which is deconstructed rather directly in the post I asked you to address.

Sheesh.

Kinda reminds me how yer leader Isaac stepped around this one:



Non-answers coated in smugness seem to be the MO of your ilk.

You're just so damned smart!

First of all you asked no question.
Secondly, your post contains no logic.

You supported a candidate that had no chance to win - Fact.

Your support of that candidate directly aided Mr. Obama's re-election bid.

Another fact.

By wasting your vote on Paul, you chose to support Barak Obama instead of Mitt Romney, who was the only available candidate with a chance of defeating one of the worst Presidents in our history.

Sorry, but you're not so damned smart.

You're the one with no logic.

RON PAUL WASN'T ON THE PRESIDENTIAL TICKET YOU RETARD!

He ran in the Republican primary, lost, and did not run as a third party candidate.

So how did he take votes from the Massachusetts Liberal you voted for???

Yeah man you're friggin brilliant.

No schit? Could you tell us something we don't know for a change?

Many Paul supporters fell on their swords rather than support the Republican nominee in the general election. That's what I'm talking about poindexter....

It was all over this board. You accuse us of telling you how to vote, yet you tell us we should have supported Paul, who had little or no chance against Obama in the general election.

Why? Sour grapes.. Many Paulistas sat at home and refused to vote. ---

So tell me who the retard is dimwit. Those who voted for the Republican candidate in an attempt to remove Barak Obama from power?

Or

Those who sat at home and pouted because their boy didn't make the big show, thereby helping give the country 4 more years of this guys garbage?

Adult, responsible decisions obviously ain't your strong suit.

preach all you want about how smart you are but at the end of the day, you claim to be a conservative and didn't vote for one.


I can assure you until you convince those supporters you are serious about voting in a conservative president, then we think all your blustering is just self gratifying horseshit.

...and there it is.

In his world a man who votes for no one voted for a Liberal, while a man who voted for a Liberal voted for a Conservative.

Perhaps someday we will reach the high pedestal of enlightenment necessary to see the "logic" therein, but it may take a while. JM has been following Isaac around for a long, long time to have it all down this tight.

Huh???? You awake yet?

his issue is nuance , he believes that the .05% difference between Obama and Romney is a cause worth rallying for.

If your goal is to vote for anyone to replace Obama, then that's what you'll get - just anyone. The GOP knows this and will take you for granted every time with their bought and paid for candidate.

My goals are more specific. Real spending cuts, balanced budget, enforcement of immigration laws, reduction in size and scope of our government, reduction in regulation created by our government, reduction in taxation burden on the American people


I voted for a candidate that represented those issues - in both the primary and national election.

and what really infuriates the folks like Moses is - I'm gonna do it again in 2016.

I'm giving him fair notice so this time around he can tell his candidate that if he wants to win, he better try to get my vote instead of ignoring it.


Maybe that will motivate him to do something besides post condescending bullshit on a website - but I suspect he'll be blaming me for electing Hillary when I should have voted for Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

Only you two could fail to see that Romney was a better choice than Obama...

"I will stand on principle! I will not vote for the most conservative candidate in the election because he is not conservative enough!!!"

I think you two have been following that old foghead Paul around too long. You sound just like him.

Simple minded, clueless and perfectly content in that condition.

KFWA,

Don't flatter yourself, you're less than a gnat on my radar cupcake.

Trying to say Romney and Obama are with in .05% of each other is laughable and only further demonstrates the extent of your cluelessness.

Back away from the crack pipe.

yea, that's why you've posted like 8 times on this thread - because you don't care.

its easy to see why so few buy what your selling.

Yeah man it shows. You've nearly convinced yourself. Just keep repeating it...

So how is it again that those who amount to less than gnats are responsible for Romney's loss?

Again, logic ain't yer strong suit but continue showing us how little we rate by continuing your blather.

I am disappointed to say I voted Romney in 12 but learned my lesson.

It'll be Conservative or nothing in 16.

JM convinced me that this is the appropriate course by arguing he would do the opposite.

Thanks JM!!

C'mon, you guys, it doesn't matter.

Look here: Oligarchy, not democracy: Americans have �near-zero� input on policy � report

I read that yesterday. Quite depressing but not altogether surprising given what I've seen

such as Americans view on immigration, gun control - even soda consumption

That BLM thing does show however that Americans fuse of tolerance in these matters is getting decidedly shorter as life gets harder each decade.

If we continue on our current path, there will eventually be a straw that breaks the camels back.

Unless.....They string this out over decades and the American people slowly become accustomed to being told what to do and when to do it in exchange for goobermint goodies.

I'm sure they realize this, as it's been going on for decades already.

Obviously, the lessons of 2012 is that Obama is a lot worse than Romney would have been.
Any fool should be able to see that�

Second is that not enough conservatives believed Romney. Not enough evangelicals trusted him.
Moderate Mitt did rather well with the moderate voters. The Independents.

So it follows that Conservatives are more than ready to rally behind a Conservative they believe in and trust.
The numbers have never been better for our side than they are today.

GOP primaries tend to veer more conservative than the general election.
I believe than any Conservative who wants to win those primaries needs to start building that trust now in this year�s mid-terms.

Not just endorse, but get out there in the mud and the blood and work for Conservatives.
Hit the road, Jack and rebuild the base. Rebuild voter enthusiasm and bring the little people and their small donations back into the race where they belong.

How did Reagan win two landslides? Voters trusted him.
Conservatives like myself believed in his message.
Moderates believed in part of the message, but they liked the man.

We all turned out and voted.

It's painfully obvious that you don't hear about a lot of things.

Total Bull!
This is what I posted.
When Gingrich beat Romney in South Carolina, the GOP machine spend millions in places like Florida to make sure that did not happen again.

If they ever bothered to spend a dime to stop Ron Paul; I didn�t hear about it.

What the GOPe spent on ads against Santorum and Gingrich is an easy look-up.
Show me the money spent to destroy Paul. Show me the ads.

How about an example of them getting ready to do it for Rand for the same reasons?

-----------
Hawkish Republicans and hawkish Republican donors considered Ron Paul a nuisance, though occasionally a useful and amusing one. Rand Paul, on the other hand, is a real political talent. He is less stiffly ideological than his father. He more easily translates his libertarian instincts into words the GOP base understands.

And that means that Paul the son is a threat to the hawkish wing of the GOP. If it looks like he could win more than a few primaries in 2016, chances are he'll face a tidal wave of money from neocon donors opposing him.

Last month Zeke Miller reported on the speakers at the Republican Jewish Coalition who talked about Rand Paul in a kind of code. GOP hopefuls offered the usual euphemisms about fighting "a rising tide of isolationism" in their party, or pumping America's "need to be engaged." Translated roughly: "When the time and the checks come, I'll put a knife in Rand's larynx and make a big show of it." Are you not entertained?

The donors that spoke off the record were even more explicit about their willingness to take Paul down. From Miller's report:

Several prominent GOP donors at the conference suggested that [Sheldon] Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing Newt Gingrich and Romney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he appears to be well positioned in the Republican primaries. Adelson's spending is largely motivated by his strong concern for Israel, and Paul's positions may well put a target on his back. [TIME]

For Adelson, $100 million is a small fraction of his estimated $37.5 billion net worth. And with a Supreme Court very friendly to blowing by limits on political cash, Adelson could go wild. The strategy is already being field tested in the midterms. Paul-like GOP congressmen in the House are already seeing how hard the GOP establishment will push to take them out. For example, Walter Jones and Justin Amash, two reliably anti-war Republicans, are facing well-funded primary challengers.

we can also read about how the GOP potentially screwed themselves in the 2016 RNC because they created the "Ron Paul" rules in 2012

"While this might worked out nicely for those controlling the GOP convention in 2012, the amended rule now poses a serious change in how the game is to be played in 2016. What�s more, given that the rule cannot be changed until the next round of delegates arrive at the convention in 2016 and the Rules Committee convenes to establish the new rules of the convention, the Republicans are stuck with what they have wrought in 2012.

And that represents a very significant problem for anyone who believes the voters should have something to say about their party�s nominee or those who don�t favor a convention where the bosses and delegates get to decide who is the nominee, irrespective of what home state Republicans might have to say.

Based on the RNC issued memo in 2011 ruling that �winner-take-all� elections will only be permitted when a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary battle, and given the deep bench of candidates likely to seek the 2016 GOP nomination, it seems unlikely that there are going to be a whole lot of states producing majority wins for candidates.

Thus, a Republican candidate who receives 49 percent of the vote in a �winner-take-all� state will not be permitted to get 100 percent of the state�s delegates. And that means it is an almost certainty that there will not be a candidate walking into the GOP convention with the requisite eight states producing a majority of delegates supporting a candidate now required to have one�s name placed into nomination."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/

This has been posted before and my reply was�

The GOP seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the 2012 convention.
It was not just Ron Paul who was squeezed out. It was the Tea Party.
They did not want to hear about 2010 nor anything else from any Tea Party spokesperson.

The Mitt Machine spent millions destroying Newt after his South Carolina landslide.
Newt won that state after Todd and Sarah both went down there to lend a hand.

So the convention didn�t need them either. How dare they grab all the headlines at a New Hampshire clambake on the day Mitt announced.

That is what cost them the election. Millions of Conservatives said�Fine, you don�t want us�we don�t want you�

incidentally, the lawyer who worked for Mitt and headed the implementation of those conventions rules was appointed by Obama to head up a committee on voter reform.


you can't tell the players without a program.............

Don't thank me.

Only you can stop you from being stupid.

Thus,..the end of the GOP.

And what did that get you?

Both the Republicans and Demonrats can KMA. I'm not voting this year or in 2016. Neither party deserves my vote and I damn FedGov, this country is done.

It got us Obama as I have posted many times. My Conservative choices fell by the wayside one by one and I voted for Romney to stop Obama.

What I just posted was one of the reasons that not enough Conservatives did that.

The lesser of two evils...........is still evil......Think about THAT....

Not only is Ron Paul a walking contradiction; he's a [bleep] fruit cake of the highest order. Piss on the troops, but laywers for terrorists. What a loon.

It's much simpler. By voting for a rino you are endorsing and perpetuating big guvmint .
I refuse. Like I said, it's pretty simple.

I don't give a [bleep] that Romnoid lost. What the [bleep] is the difference?

I strongly suspect that Ron Paul knew that he wouldn't be allowed to win the nomination in 2008, but he wanted to speak truth to power and wanted to use the GOP primary to do so.

He was surprised at the level of excitement and the reception he received from the youth of America,...so he decided to push it even further and ran again in 2012.

Even then, he knew that he wouldn't be allowed to win the nomination, but he also knew that he had generated enough support to get the country's attention.

His 2012 campaign was directed to the young people.

His message was, "I'm going to tell the bold faced truth about what's going on in America,...and you young folks watch what happens".

The young conservatives in America saw what happened.

Essentially, Ron Paul demonstrated to the American people that their voice will be marginalized if they put their support behind any candidate that isn't "approved".

Some got it,...some didn't. (most who did were the young people)

In any event,..he changed the dynamics of American politics.

Candidates now know that they have to (once again) at *least* give lip service to the concept of liberty.

I very seriously doubt if it will be enough to stem the tide of tyranny that has engulfed America. But it's enough to shine a light on the fact that the tyranny is endorsed by the 2 dominant political parties and their propaganda spewing main stream media.

Pot and prostitutes got their attention for sure.

Idiots get a pass for not supporting Ron Paul's campaign for freedom and personal liberties. (watch4bear is off the hook)

But be very wary of anyone with an IQ above the median who condemns Ron Paul's ideas.

They have an agenda which doesn't have the common man's best interests at heart.

You'd have thought that youth vote would have somehow parlayed into some primary victories. Who/what prevented the youth faction from voting in the primaries? Keg parties?

At least rand Paul is pro immigration

There's one right there.

Maybe they weren't 18?

Bristoe said you're off the hook, so no worries.

+1

First, find me anyone with an IQ above the median who supports Ron Paul's ideas.

Last night, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin spoke with Fox Business Network�s John Stossel about how GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul �hit the nail on the head� when he warned Barack Obama to be careful when interjecting us in other countries� business.

..... on the domestic front, �he�s the only one who�s been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets.�

Knothead statement of the century,...right here.

Triple nine society:

http://www.triplenine.org/poll/press.htm

Yeah, well Palin is a moron talking head with a decent 50 year old face.

I'm so 'thrilled' she said something nice about Ron, thrilled I tell ya.

Got ganja? lol

Can�t you guys defend Ron Paul without twisting the truth?

�Last night,� was Jan 27, 2012 during the primaries and well before the election.
As always Sarah gives credit where it is due and pulls no punches where it is not.
And she fully understood that the GOPe attacks were focused on Newt.

Last night, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin spoke with Fox Business Network�s John Stossel about how GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul �hit the nail on the head� when he warned Barack Obama to be careful when interjecting us in other countries� business.

Being �careful� is good advice but Palin and Paul could not be father apart on foreign policy.

This is what she really said:

JOHN STOSSEL, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: Well, speaking of people not in that arena and on the opposite end of big government - Ron Paul, I think he makes sense. But he has been vilified by so many Republicans for what he says about foreign policy.
And I was pleased to hear you say Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when he said Obama better be careful when he interjects our country in other nation's business. So are you sympathetic to him?

SARAH PALIN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I sure am. You know, let me preface though with - my concern still about Ron Paul's foreign policies that he would like to see enacted in our country.
I still sense his desire to be more of an isolated-type country and not be as aware and active on the international scene when it comes to protecting our allies like Israel and doing all that we can.
That is my hesitancy there still with Ron Paul's candidacy. However, on the domestic front, he is the only one who has been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets - $1 trillion a year, he's been specific about until we get our hands around this - I respect that.

I appreciate it. His austerity measures that he wants to see Congress adopt in order to rein in government and let the private sector actually grow and thrive and hire more people.
It's absolutely spot on.

He's not the only one vilified though. Look at Newt Gingrich and what's going on with him. The establishments attack. They're trying to crucify this man and rewrite history, rewrite what is that he has stood for all these years.
So it's not just Ron Paul. I believe it's also Newt Gingrich that the establishment, that liberal media, certainly, that the progressives and the Democrats don't like.

The title of the thread shows that is not posssible

They can't admit he never stood any chance of winning, and they'll call people silly names for stating that truth

Just watch and see

Now John Bolton is running down Rand Paul. Rand made a very good point and Bolton's off base attack is the news story,

I read your link. October 5, 2000 For Immediate Release: SUPER-IQ GROUP CALLS FOR LESS GOVERNMENT

I did not find any reference to Ron Paul. I did find Pat Buchanan listed as the 6th most intelligent just ahead of Bush in last place in their Candidate IQ Summary. Allen Keyes was polled as the most intelligent.

Hell of a jump to call that support for Paul when all GOP candidates call for less government. Who on our side doesn�t support that?

I do admit than Ron Paul really means it.
So did other candidates who got a lot more votes.

How many super-IQ members polled were part of Ron Paul�s base?
How many of the Triple nine society signed up for the Paul newsletters warning about the government changing the color of our money?