Bitcoin Forum

I could not stop laughing.

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=7XR3WG1B6WZ67PTZ&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

Seen here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-scolds-media-for-ignoring-rep-ron-paul-i-mean-fck-that-guy-right/

It is funny how Ron Paul comes within 200 votes of winning Iowa and is not even mentioned in the news. Then the press awards second place to a guy who wasn't even there. ???

I also heard that Ron Paul spent 1/10 of the money she did. He should be declared a landslide winner.
I think he is getting the same treatment Howard Dean got from the Democrats.

It's mind boggling how this guy is getting shafted. I'm in awe.

The only way you Ron Paul supporters will get people to take you *seriously* is if you win the Caucus. If you guys can't even pull off a caucus victory in Iowa please just stop there. I really don't want to hear 9 months of nauseating Ron Paul rhetoric if his supporters can't even win him the Iowa Caucus.

Mike Huckabee won the Republican Iowa caucus in 2008. Enough Said...

So this proves.....?  McCain won the nomination in 2008, remember?  So winning the Iowa Caucus didn't seem to help Huckabee.  I guess I don't understand your point.

If Ron Paul can't win a caucus, he sure as hell can't win a general.

But I'm saying your standard of success (Iowa Caucus) is a false one, as winning the Caucus doesn't prove you can win the nomination, nor does losing it mean you will lose the nomination.  Your example shows exactly this.

Entirely irrelevant.  There is a reason there is still a general election in the fall.  Iowa doesn't pick the winner for the entire nation.  Politicians that appeal to Iowans probably don't appeal the the voters of California.  Winning or losing one primary does not decide the fate of a candidate.  Get a stack of 4-5 victories going and then you have some momentum.

Whether you like it or not Ron Paul is the dark horse candidate. He barley has a chance now, and loosing a caucus (which primarily has to do with organization and strategy) only sets him deeper into the dark horse corner. His supporters demand media attention like they deserve it! Well, now it's time to show the country that you guys are there to win it for your man. Bachmann and Romney should not be hard to beat, I mean seriously look at them... One said "I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this [the national debt]", and the other was for universal healthcare before he was against it (HCR being unpopular among Republicans).

What a joke! You're watching the media stick knives in RP's back, then you turn and tell his supporters they are asking too much when they ask for fair coverage.

Give me a break.

The PRESS-titutes have spoken. They need Ron Paul to lose.

Paul needs to get mad, he is still so soft spoken when he does get any media attention. Saw Fox basically try to trap him into some anti-war peacenik jacket today, sad that they are so obvious about it anymore.

I don't think he has a chance and this Perry crap is just theater with Bachmann being the bone tossed to the Tea Party to make them think they get to actually pick who wins. Romney was chosen by the party in 2008 to be the nominee in 2012 and that ain't gonna change folks, not unless you get mad, stand up and say something and that doesn't mean posting on a few message boards.

Get social, connect, offer to help a campaign.

Stephen Colbert had a great segment about the media shitness over Ron Paul.

He actually used the AP media posted material where they mentioned Ron Paul except it was named Mr. XXX and published as such, wtf ??

Last time I checked media attention is not something you "deserve" or have to "earn"; the purpose of the media is to fairly cover topics and issues, to inform people on the reality that is going on around them.  If the media stray from this, we the people have a right to cry foul and demand equal coverage.  The fact that people assume the media has the right to choose the candidates is appalling.


Ok, listen carefully all of you who say he has no chance to win, I'm going to explain something to you.  If you don't vote for a candidate, then they are unelectable.  If you vote for a candidate, then they are electable.  The spurious reasoning of "unelectability" is horse shit cooked up by people who want to control elections for their special interests.  Do not buy into it.


Ron Paul supporters all over the nation are already doing this.  Watch us rip apart the single party system charade that is American politics.  The dark horse has now become the white stallion, and he's thirsty for corrupt elephant and donkey blood.
 

I'm no zoologist, but I don't think a horse could kill an elephant. Even a corrupt one.

 :D

I got a little carried away with the analogy.  I get cranky when I'm tired and hungry and people say stupid things on the internet.  "Honey, I can't come to bed yet....someone is wrong on the internet!"    :)

I will bet anyone right now 10 BTC that Ron Paul dosen't win the republican nomination.

Friendly bet  ;D . Lets put our money where our mouths are gentlemen.

10 BTC is $100.  To a broke student like me that's significant moola.  I'd rather give the $100 to the Ron Paul campaign to help him achieve victory.  :)  However, I would consider a small, symbolic bet, 1 BTC or so.

Winning or not, do you really feel anyone else running atm is more worthy to win than Ron Paul ? They are all a bunch of crackheads compared to Ron Paul.

Yeah, but by election day 2012, it'll probably be like 50 cents.

Or $5000.   ;)

Fact of the matter is that The Power That Be will do anything needed to make sure he doesn't win the nomination let alone the election.  The fact he is more popular than ever now will just make it more blatent than it already was 4 years ago. 

They cannot abide a President who is not under their thumb and will do anything to avoid it.  Even JFK him.

What's with the love for this guy? I thought he was supposed to be smart and honest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

"No evidence in either direction"? Really? He's either dishonest or dumb.

You make a lot of great posts in this forum, but I'm not going discard all your valid points simply because you are wrong about one of them.  My default position is that I tend to think that evolution isn't as clear-cut as most people make it out to be, but I'm not going to try to defend this position as I have spent very little time researching it.  The main point is that I believe Ron Paul to be correct about the Wars, the economy, the Federal reserve, taxes, the Constitution, States' rights, abortion, the war on drugs, US foreign policy, the history of Iran, etc.  This single point where he is stuck on his religious ideology in regards to evolution is a very minor point and will have negligible effect on his policies and actions as president.  It amazes me that people would be willing to disregard all his other positions because of a personal belief on a fairly inconsequential issue. 

Thanks. I'm not trying to make great posts, I'm trying to break up a bit of the circlejerk going on in these forums. It annoys me.  ;D
I agree that evolution isn't clear cut in all areas and that there are errors or omissions in the theory, however when it comes to Evolution vs "God did it" then it's very clear cut.

Ron Paul seems to have similar views to me when it comes to certain things, wars and balanced budget seems to be two issues where we agree, but to be fair I haven't studied his policies to any greater extent. Withdrawing from NAFTA and WTO seems to be something to be expected with someone with political asbergers, and not something I agree with at all. Same for the minimal state, however less regulation in certain areas doesn't sound like a bad thing.
As a non American I really hope he's not elected since his policies seems to revolve around the "Me me me" ideology. And with the status that the US still has in the world, that wouldn't be good.

To be honest I just think he's trying to make himself electable by appealing to the god-crowd, and that's not what I call honest. I hope that's the case, because if not then he's not connected to reality and having people with life and death decisions in their hands listening to their imaginary friend is just scary.

JA37 its quite clear that you have not researched Ron Paul a lot. It really seems like you are trying to rationalize some sort of irrational dislike towards Ron Paul.


Expand.


Actually, its the other way around. Ron Paul is one of the most policy oriented and less egomaniac guys in the USA politics. Actually he is accused of not being agressive enough and being too ideological. So is basically the contrary of what you are saying.


Again, false. Ron Paul does believe what he says and his faith is real (something I dont like about him). He has a long time tradition of conservative values, although he does not want to impose them through the government (which is what makes me like him). Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mitt Rommey, they all have skeletons in the closet. In that regard Ron Paul is even boring. He has been married with the same woman for decades, has no sexual scandals, etc...


Well, Obama is religious and believes in the imaginary friend. Obama has said that God guides his decissions. I dont see noone, not even atheist democrats getting all worked up because of it. But somehow is used against Ron Paul.

What if God did it.....through evolution?   :D


Because you're not American I don't expect you to research his positions, but I do expect you to not to bash his policies when you don't know what they are.  His policies would be good for America and good for the rest of the world.


No he is actually a sincere, faithful Christian.  If this is a big issue you might want to examine your prejudices. 

There is never going to be fair and equitable news coverage in all the media because its a matter of property rights.

Most of you have very solid stances on property rights, correct ?

You think your property is yours and you can do anything with it so long as you do not infringe on anyone elses rights, correct ?

Using that logic, is it not media owners right to do whatever they want with their property ?

Should they be able to say anything legal they want in their media ?

Should they not be able to omit whatever they want ?

Unless, of course, it concerns Ron Paul ?

You have a couple of weapons for this fight:

• your wallet. You boycott their advertisers and let the advertisers know why you are boycotting them. The unfortunate thing is that there would be little you could buy considering all the media forgot about Ron Paul.
• The power of the state forcing media to recognize Ron Paul, but doesnt that go against what you believe in ?
• Buy enough stock in media companies to control the board of directors and force the change.

It's a shitty deal but thats America.

For the record, I think Ron Paul is the best candidate.

[edited for grammer]

Problem is that "property" was not adquired justly therefore is not really their property. When a televission receives subsudies (money taken by force from the citizens by the government and given to this corporations) and the corporations that own them are protected by government regulations, well... you can not apply the logic that its their shit so they can do what they want, because one has to question if its really their shit.

Depends how you define "justly" I suppose. After all we are not talking about land taken hundreds or thousands of years ago by force, are we? As far as I know all media companies purchased, created, or grew their media empires from meager beginnings. If you have source data stating otherwise I would love to see it.


IF a media source has received public funds (our tax money), then absolutely the public should have a say in how it is run. I do not know of any media empires who have been offered and accepted public funding (our tax money). If you have source data stating otherwise I would love to see it.

For example NBC is property of GE which has received a lot of money from the government lately. But I was talking about more than direct subsudies. If I enact regulation limiting the competition for you, how is that different from giving you money? Im giving you more business when the people might have choosen something different.

If I have not answer to the part of what is justly adquired property is because I had that same debate here some weeks ago and dont want to repeat it.

If I owned lots of different companies and the government decides to do business with one of them, I would not feel they deserve to regulate a different unrelated company of mine because of that fact.

As to your other info, I would need to see some source data.

Its not that you own different companies, its that a NBC is owned by GE.


Here is the thread where I discuss my view on property: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38169.0 It was sane until the trolls arrived.

Yeah, that's a great argument. If you want to call natures laws for "god" then you're in great company. Einstein did the same apparently.

Too late, I'm already researching him a little. US policy have a tendency of affecting the rest of the world. Also, I would like to know why the guy is so loved. I don't see anything great about the man (yet?).

Yes, I'm prejudiced against religious people. I know this. And shit like this is why: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/22/ron-paul-would-sign-planned-parenthood-funding-ban/
Why on earth would anyone want to punish poor and uneducated women? But then again Christians have a long tradition of misogyny.   

Ron Paul votes against any funding from government to anything that its not authorized by the constitution. He has voted against giving money to religious entities that promote anti-abortion (and got flac from the republicans from doing so).

The point is not that Ron Paul is in favor or against something, its that he thinks the government should not interfere outside of what the constitution allows. He has his own opinion about particular issues, but he does not let that opinion influence how government should act. Its a bit of a change for people that are used to the left-right type of thinking, it takes them a while to get it (probably your case).

And what its so special about this guy? What got me, an atheist former social-democrat, to change my political views after almost 3 decades of life?

For starters the guy has integrity. And I mean integrity like you have not seen in a politician before. This is what impressed me more about the guy and make me start to look into what he said. The guy has been saying the same things in Congress for 20 years and nobody listened to him. Its not that Ron Paul has changed to become popular, is that the people is chaging towards Ron Paul, mainly because reality is validating his views. Watch speeches of this guy 10 or 20 years ago, when nobody listened to him. Its amazing.

For example, he has been always against the wars. A lot of times that meant him being the only republican voting with a few democrats on some issues in the middle of the crazyness that USA became after 9-11 (which is understandable, no offense intended). Even voting alone. And let me tell you at those times that was a polical suicide, specially if you were republican. I remember one recent vote about the USA government sending some agents or blocking trade against some arab country because some Al-Queda bullshit. He voted against it alone. Everybody voted in favor, except one congressman that was of arab origins and voted blank. Not even the guy of arab origins had the balls to vote against it, yet Ron Paul, a republican, did, dammed electoral consequences. This is the reason he is so hated by both neo-cons and some democrats.

Its getting a bit long, you can ask if you want to know something. But basically the guy is a rock, specially in his main issues: economy and specially the central bank and foreign policy. I follow politics more than the average person, and I have not seen in my live nobody with the integrity Ron Paul has. Even his detractors have to admit this, and some try to paint him as some kind of utopian/quixotic guy to attack him.

This is a failure of realpolitik. It would be great if government was based on rationality, analysis, principals, and integrity. But unfortunately, that is not how democracy works.

I kind of agree with this, and thats why I am so amazed by the level of support Ron Paul is getting on this election. Maybe there is hope after all.

There were scandals in the past in which citizens sold their votes on ebay, but both transaction parties were easily traced. Such a market with bitcoin would be less easily traced and halted, would generate (negative) exposure to bitcoin, and most likely benefit web-popular candidates like Ron Paul. Of course this is illegal and can not be condoned.