Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[Nickolai]

Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that I like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear or they would like him him to appear.

That is sad,but serves the purpose of pollarization.

Wish all of you peace and love,


Nickolai

[baddbob]

$2,695,316.11 almost there

[Arc]

Posted by Nickolai (here)
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear.

Nickolai

Well, I see your point. But, you have to recognize that RP is being ignored by the mainstream media mafia. What does that mean??

This is interesting, because if you are someone that the PTB want removed, from a public political scene, then you would be smeared!!!

They would dig up some dirt on any politician, as they do anyway against even there own competition. But, realize this - Why is Ron Paul ignored??? The answer is awesome!

He has NO DIRT - (to dig up on him politically).

It's like they had all of their dirt-diggers try to find anything negative on RP, but ... there is NOTHING! He is pure, and wholesome and truthful!!!

If you can't dig up any political or personal dirt - then what??

Well, then you IGNORE him (if you are his political opponent).

My analysis of the mainstream media's total blackout of RP is sooooo much to his credit!!! Because, they don't have sh!t on him, politically!! He is the real truthful article.

If he IS Truth, then the mainstream media MUST IGNORE....

Do you see it now, folks???

[modwiz]

Posted by Nickolai (here)
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that I like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear or they would like him him to appear.

That is sad,but serves the purpose of pollarization.

Wish all of you peace and love,


Nickolai

So, you are linking David and Ron Paul in the wet your pants category. Trying for a two-fer I see. That is, you are saying each of these two people will run when the going gets tough. You are saying they are pusillanimous . I would disagree with your statement.

Wishing us peace and love with a gloved fist.

Well folks, RP opponents are many and varied. He must be scaring the bejeezus out of the criminal class because they are sending them in here big time.

[Nickolai]

Well,

Mr Modwiz, I have not said someone would run. Have I? I just said that he seem to be very inproper for the country that killed presidents (!!!) with lots of safeguards around. That's it!
And what about "a two-fer"? No googling helps...(((
I feel compassion towards David, but then again, something felt not right about it.

N.

ps
Sorry, guys! Just fantasized...
David talked about gold... Does it matter to those in power?
I guess that if I am one of the Rotschild, I just would present my debit card to the shop and no question asked. Why gold? Am I stupid or what? I do not think the question of money relates to the family. It is all about power, am I wrong?

Help!SOS!

[modwiz]

Posted by Nickolai (here)
Well,

Mr Modwiz, I have not said someone would run. Have I? I just said that he seem to be very inproper for the country that killed presidents (!!!) with lots of safeguards around. That's it!
And what about "a two-fer"? No googling helps...(((
I feel compassion towards David, but then again, something felt not right about it.

N.

You said disappear. I said run. I was working with implications because that is a way to deny having said something. Now, English might not be your primary language, in which case it would be unkind of me to assert language nuances. I still have my intuition about things.

A two-fer is a situation where you get two for (fer) one. A two-fer. In this case the two-fer was putting David and Ron Paul in a similar case scenario. One where disappearance is a part of a reaction to 'serious trouble'.

David had a brush with the real world recently. He has led an insular existence, which is no crime. He has his back covered by the right kind of people. There is a real battle going on now that the cockroaches have some light on them. There have already been plenty of bodies dropped in the effort to bring light and openess to this planet. There will probably be a few more too. Some of us here at Avalon put in some serious pucker time for posting here. ( Pucker time is where your butt cheeks squeeze real tightly together). David has joined the club now.

Ron Paul, has gone up against the odds and held his own with the venom spewing, light bending and insinuating snakes who interview him. Questioning his courage, which you did with your 'disappear' remark, is an opinion you are entitled to. The behavior of the man does not seem to support a valid reason to question his resolve or bravery though.

No, my questions are about you.

[modwiz]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by Nickolai (here)
Well,

Mr Modwiz, I have not said someone would run. Have I? I just said that he seem to be very inproper for the country that killed presidents (!!!) with lots of safeguards around. That's it!
And what about "a two-fer"? No googling helps...(((
I feel compassion towards David, but then again, something felt not right about it.

N.

You said disappear. I said run. I was working with implications because that is a way to deny having said something. Now, English might not be your primary language, in which case it would be unkind of me to assert language nuances. I still have my intuition about things.

A two-fer is a situation where you get two for (fer) one. A two-fer. In this case the two-fer was putting David and Ron Paul in a similar case scenario. One where disappearance is a part of a reaction to 'serious trouble'.

David had a brush with the real world recently. He has led an insular existence, which is no crime. He has his back covered by the right kind of people. There is a real battle going on now that the cockroaches have some light on them. There have already been plenty of bodies dropped in the effort to bring light and openess to this planet. There will probably be a few more too. Some of us here at Avalon put in some serious pucker time for posting here. ( Pucker time is where your butt cheeks squeeze real tightly together). David has joined the club now.

Ron Paul, has gone up against the odds and held his own with the venom spewing, light bending and insinuating snakes who interview him. Questioning his courage, which you did with your 'disappear' remark, is an opinion you are entitled to. The behavior of the man does not seem to support a valid reason to question his resolve or bravery though.

No, my questions are about you.

PS. Credit cards for the criminals will stop working very soon. They will be losing control of their magic keyboards. Gold might matter for them.

[jackovesk]

Primary results are negated if the establishment candidate is beaten

Friday, December 16, 2011

The Iowa primary is widely acknowledged as a hugely influential indication of who the eventual victor will be in the Republican race. Two of the last three winners have gone on to become the successful nominee. But according to Fox News pundit Chris Wallace, if Ron Paul wins on January 3rd – it doesn’t count.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=a78bZL4dLcg

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” said Wallace. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee. So therefore, Iowa won’t count.”

From ignoring him, to making fun of him, to attacking him, the establishment media has bumbled from one failed approach to another when it comes to denigrating Ron Paul’s campaign. We’re still being force fed with endless editorials about how “Ron Paul can’t win” even as his numbers climb week after week. Now he has a genuine chance of winning in Iowa, they’ve resorted to ignoring the outcome of actual primaries if they don’t like the result.

Paul campaign spokesman Gary Howard quickly shot back; “Saying that Iowa would be discredited if Ron Paul wins is an insult to Iowans who truly care about where our country is headed and want an end to the status quo of elitist Washington, and those who would say such a thing only prove that they’re on the side of keeping the status quo.”

Of course, it goes without saying that a Ron Paul win in Iowa will be hugely influential and would provide the Congressman with the kind of momentum he needs to claim overall victory.

As the Daily Iowan points out, “The Iowa caucuses do hold weight. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee was the first person (Republican or Democrat) to win the Iowa caucuses and not secure his party’s ticket since 1992.”

Indeed, this year’s primary is seen as even more influential than usual because Florida has move their state’s presidential primary more than a month forward.

Perhaps if Ron Paul does eventually secure the Republican nomination that won’t count either?

Perhaps we should just hand Obama another four years right now and save a lot of time and bother with the whole “democratic process” thing, eh Chris?

In reality, polls have consistently shown that Ron Paul has the best chance out of all the candidates of beating Barack Obama.

Just last week an NBC News/Marist Poll found that among all competitors for the Republican nomination, Ron Paul has the best chance of defeating President Obama in a head-to-head race. Indeed, Obama defeats all the GOP competitors except for Ron Paul in a hypothetical matchup

“There’s actually a legitimate statistical argument that Paul would be the strongest GOP candidate against Obama, period,” writes Public Policy Polling in a tweet today, adding that if the GOP united around Paul he would have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney because of his strong support amongst Independents.

But none of that matters in the eyes of Chris Wallace, who seems to think that election results don’t count if the establishment pick doesn’t come out on top.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fox-pund...snt-count.html

PS - "Fox Pundit: If Ron Paul Wins Iowa, It Doesn’t Count..?"

The MSM are really getting desperate now..!

[STATIC]

I'm just guessing here, but all of us I think want the same thing.
The question is can the system that has failed us utterly and completely (Lies, lies, lies) provide us with something that it has never managed to provide us with before.
THE TRUTH
If RP is elected, what happens then?
Does a President in the United States of America have the power that we are told he does?
Even if RP is totally on track and has intentions of doing everything that he says, does that make it so?
Of course I will vote for him.... Just like I voted for Obama.
I had no other choice.
And That's it.
We never have a choice. My vote doesn't make a damn difference, cause someone else is rigging the whole dam thing.
I say lets stop kidding ourselves about having a political savior.

[jackovesk]

Posted by STATIC (here)
I'm just guessing here, but all of us I think want the same thing.
The question is can the system that has failed us utterly and completely (Lies, lies, lies) provide us with something that it has never managed to provide us with before.
THE TRUTH
If RP is elected, what happens then?
Does a President in the United States of America have the power that we are told he does?
Even if RP is totally on track and has intentions of doing everything that he says, does that make it so?
Of course I will vote for him.... Just like I voted for Obama.
I had no other choice.
And That's it.
We never have a choice. My vote doesn't make a damn difference, cause someone else is rigging the whole dam thing.
I say lets stop kidding ourselves about having a political savior.

Its no so much about being a 'Political Savior', its about defending the (US Constitution & Bill of Rights) which Ron Paul has been trying to do for the last 30+ years...

Win or Lose in 2012, RP is getting the message out there to 'The People' now more than ever...

Rgs,

Jack

[NancyV]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by NancyV (here)
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

Pedant alert! Mohammed began to receive the Quran in 610 AD, with the actual religion taking form some time later. 1400 years ago. At 1500 years you could technically round off the number to two thousand to derive your couple of thousand years. I decided to pick on you here where opinion is not the consideration. We have very different opinions on the problem of radical Islam as a planet wide problem. I do not wish to pursue what I believe to be a conversation with no resolve between us.

You are a sharp intellect. You do yourself a disservice by working with numbers (couple of thousand years) that are far off of the mark.
Must have been your passion.

Thanks for picking on me! Since it's you it makes my plan even more fun. Of course when I looked up the date when Mohammed was active and Islam took form (before I made my post) I found the dates YOU found. Here is a peek into my thought processes. I said to myself "ok, it was around 1400-1500 years ago. I'll just round it off to 2000 and see if anyone notices". Lo and Behold, it was you! Very cool. Good catch. (and if you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn.....etc)
ps: I am extremely good at math and numbers and I usually look up dates so I don't make mistakes. We pedants thrive on minutiae. Now I hope you are confused and unsure which truth is the real truth...

[Unified Serenity]

Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

[STATIC]

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by STATIC (here)
I'm just guessing here, but all of us I think want the same thing.
The question is can the system that has failed us utterly and completely (Lies, lies, lies) provide us with something that it has never managed to provide us with before.
THE TRUTH
If RP is elected, what happens then?
Does a President in the United States of America have the power that we are told he does?
Even if RP is totally on track and has intentions of doing everything that he says, does that make it so?
Of course I will vote for him.... Just like I voted for Obama.
I had no other choice.
And That's it.
We never have a choice. My vote doesn't make a damn difference, cause someone else is rigging the whole dam thing.
I say lets stop kidding ourselves about having a political savior.

Its no so much about being a 'Political Savior', its about defending the (US Constitution & Bill of Rights) which Ron Paul has been trying to do for the last 30+ years...

Win or Lose in 2012, RP is getting the message out there to 'The People' now more than ever...

Rgs,

Jack

I agree with you completely...
Savior may have not been the right word to use, but the questions still stand.

[jackovesk]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

Yes, a fair summation of possibilities there Unified Serenity,

However there was 1 thing you left out, a real 'Dark Horse'...

...and that is the remote possibility that the sleeping Giant the 'American People' might actually 'Wake Up' to the MSM/PTW deception and decide they want to actually defend the 'US Constitution & The Bill of Rights' and get their Country back..?

A Long-Shot I know...But still a possibility

Rgs,

Jack

[Unified Serenity]

New game plan is in play, and I think this is what will happen if RP wins the nomination. I posted this on another RP thread, but since a lot are following this one, I think it's worth mentioning here if not having a thread of it's own.

Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

[risveglio]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
New game plan is in play, and I think this is what will happen if RP wins the nomination. I posted this on another RP thread, but since a lot are following this one, I think it's worth mentioning here if not having a thread of it's own.

Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

I welcome this idea. I think a large amount of independents would still vote for Paul and he would win the 3 way race. There is pretty good evidence that the surge in the Republican party numbers across closed primary states are a direct result of Ron Paul supporters and groups like the Blue Republicans. If Ron Paul has the republican nomination, he is guaranteed to be in the debates. If he ran third party, it is pretty much guaranteed he would not be in the debates. People are sick of more of the same and Romney and Obama would look and sound like twins in a debate with Ron Paul.

[Unified Serenity]

If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

[modwiz]

Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.
As the polls indicate, Ron Paul could beat Obama. That is not the plan. The clowns running are a dead giveaway.

Here is Ali on being president:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE

[jackovesk]

Posted by modwiz (here)
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE

To true Modwiz To true...

[modwiz]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

Monkey with? With the exception of RP all I see are monkeys.