What's NOT to like about Ron Paul?

[Dr J Jones]

Top 3 donors to Ron Paul's presidential campaign:

1. US Army personnel $78,056
2. US Navy personnel $56,769
3. US Air Force personnel $55,405

2008 Top 3 donors to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign:

1. Goldman Sachs $235,275
2. Citigroup Inc $178,450
3. Merrill Lynch $176,125

2008 Top 3 donors to Barack Obama's presidential campaign:

1. University of California $1,648,685
2. Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
3. Harvard University $878,164



Speaks volumes....

[Dr J Jones]

A hands-off approach to personal matters

The central thesis of Paul’s stump speech is that the government’s singular role is to protect our liberties. And part of true liberty, Paul believes, is making personal choices without interference from the federal government. In every speech Paul reaches a moment in which he relays that We don’t have to agree on everything: people should have their own religion, their own intellectual pursuits and the right to live their private lives however they see fit. That last part strikes some as a tacit acceptance of liberal positions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage—and on some level it is. While Paul himself would support state bans for such things, his stay-out-of-people’s-business philosophy is absolute at the federal level. “I like that he’s for less governmental involvement in our lives,” said Erin Nevius, a 24-year-old who classifies herself as independent and attended a Paul town hall on Thursday. “For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.”

Non-interventionism

Jordan Leckband, a registered Democrat, came to check out Paul at a town hall in Newton on Wednesday, after hearing his father rave about the man. “I’m a little bit of a pacifist,” Leckland said. “So his whole anti-war strategy … I’m a big fan.” By the end of the talk, Leckband said he’d be willing to switch parties to caucus for Paul on Jan. 3.

Polls consistently show those on the left and center to be more wary of entering wars, and more supportive of ending them. A recent CNN/ORC survey, for example, showed that 73% of Democrats and 70% of independents now oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 38% of Republicans do.

Paul wants to bring troops home from both war zones, like the one in Afghanistan, and from bases in countries like Germany and Japan. He believes other countries should solve their own problems and that meddling in far-removed conflicts will only bring havoc to our own country. He also opposes foreign aid. “The easiest place to cut spending is to cut spending overseas and to deal with our problems at home,” he told a group assembled in Perry, Iowa, on Thursday. “There’s a lot of expense and a lot of killing, and it goes on and on.”

The Golden Rule

When explaining his foreign policy positions or his beliefs about personal liberty, Paul often explicitly invokes the golden rule. He also presents golden-rule scenarios. Imagine, he suggested on Thursday, that a country like China was treating us the way we treat Iran. “It’s natural for [Iranians] to say that they want defense,” he said in Perry. “What we need to do if you want to quiet things down is don’t put sanctions on them. It’s just going to cause more trouble.” Sanctions, he said, are painful for Iran, and American behavior that causes hardship abroad unites fractured countries against us, just as factions of America were all united after 9/11.

Studies have shown that certain “moral triggers” lead Democrats and Republicans to make different decisions. Democrats place more importance on factors like harm and fairness, while Republicans give more weight to values like loyalty, authority and purity. Paul’s appeal straddles both groups.


Drug Legalization

Paul’s support of states’ rights has its extremes: if Vermont wanted to legalize heroin or Alabama wanted to legalize cocaine, his ideal government wouldn’t object. But, with marijuana becoming increasingly popular for medical use, Paul’s argument for legalizing drugs is often music to liberal ears, and he frequently decries the so-called War on Drugs. “When it comes to personal liberties, and personal lifestyles, and the way people live—and the way they eat and drink and smoke, it seems like … we don’t trust people to make decisions on what do with their own bodies, and we should,” he told a standing-room only house on Thursday night, to hoots and hollers



He Doesn’t Blame Obama

While candidates like Michele Bachmann call for the repeal of ObamaCare, Paul also calls for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. In his dire warnings about the state of the country, he often points out that the problems in the country are not “three years old,” or even three administrations old. He doesn’t say it outright—and rarely even breathes Obama’s name—but his point is clear: this mess we’re in does not start and end with the current President, so don’t try to goad him into saying so. This, in fact, is about as raw as his criticisms of Obama usually got during speeches on the trail in Iowa this week: “People who are President right now are said to be working on getting more involved in Syria.” Paul disagrees with current policies of course, but his general restraint makes it easier for Iowans who caucused for Democrats four years ago to consider Paul this time around. (They’ve got no Democratic game to play, after all, and they can switch registration with a mere signature when they show up to caucus.)



Notes of Occupy Wall Street

Couple that with Paul’s support for the Occupy movement–its spirit, not its preferred tax policy–and you have a liberal-friendly message. “Wealth is being accumulated into smaller and smaller hands,” he said on Thursday. “Right now, big business makes more money paying high-paid lobbyists going to Washington to get a good deal than trying to satisfy you, the customer. And that needs to be reversed.” Paul’s message focuses on the weak economy, a grievance pretty much everyone can get behind. There is always the possibility that liberal voters will realize how conservative he is on issues like taxation, entitlements or abortion, but Paul’s libertarianism acts as a buffer. And that could make all the difference when voters caucus Tuesday night across Iowa.

[Rev. Johnny Tyler]

Yep. I like Paul. No candidate is really all that great though and honestly, as shitty as people consider Obama, I don't think anyone currently auditioning will beat him for position of lead singer. You gotta give Obama credit for the heads on platters he has in his trophy case right now. Even though he hasn't done much to help us out financially and whatnot, what I like about Obama is that he didn't do much to FUCK us either.

[Dr J Jones]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/3 ... 76103.html



GO USA!

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Top 3 donors to Ron Paul's presidential campaign:

1. US Army personnel $78,056
2. US Navy personnel $56,769
3. US Air Force personnel $55,405

2008 Top 3 donors to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign:
2008 Top 3 donors to Barack Obama's presidential campaign:

That's 2008. Here's 2012.

Top Contributors Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul for Congress Cmte $500,000
US Army $24,503
US Air Force $23,335
US Navy $17,432
Mason Capital Management $14,000
Microsoft Corp $13,398
Boeing Co $10,620
Google Inc $10,390
Overland Sheepskin $10,350
IBM Corp $8,294
US Government $7,756
DUNN Capital Management $7,500
Corriente Advisors $7,500
Greenstreet Co $7,500
Northrop Grumman $7,272
Lockheed Martin $7,208
Intel Corp $6,855
US Dept of Defense $6,524
United Technologies $6,316
Federal Express Corp $6,255

The largest contributor is "Ron Paul for Congress Committee" so it is not clear where that money comes from specifically. The fourth largest contributor is Mason Capital., which is a hedge fund.

2012 Presidential Candidate Fundraising Summary
Obama and Ron Paul both get 48% of their contributions from "small individuals." Romney gets 10% from "small individuals." Rick Perry gets 4% from "small individuals."

Romney top contributors 2012:
Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800

Obama Top contributors 2012:
Microsoft Corp $171,573
Comcast Corp $113,800
University of California $107,501

Rick Perry top contributors 2012:
Ryan LLC $186,800
Murray Energy $105,504
USAA $69,500

[cantstopthemusic]

The largest contributor is "Ron Paul for Congress Committee" so it is not clear where that money comes from specifically.

Hezzbollah, more than likely.

[Dr J Jones]

So, not much has changed in 3 years. The banks are still calling the shots...

thanks

GO USA!

[Dr J Jones]

I'm amazed by people who defend the status quo. We are in a world of trouble and apparently some folks are ok with that.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

From Haaretz:

U.S. presidential hopeful Ron Paul isn't anti-Israel, former aide says
Dr. Leon Hadar, an Israeli and U.S. citizen who advised the Republican presidential hopeful in 2008, rejects characterization of Paul by another ex-aide as wishing Israel 'did not exist at all.'
By Natasha Mozgovaya


Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is not anti-Israel and does not advocate Israel's abolishment as a Jewish state, a former aide told Haaretz on Tuesday.

The remarks by Dr. Leon Hadar, an Israeli and U.S. citizen, who used to be among Paul's foreign policy advisors during his 2008 presidential campaign, came a day after another former Paul aide, Eric Dondero, wrote in his blog that the presidential hopeful “wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.”

“His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer,” Dondero added.


Responding to the column, CBS News quoted Ron Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton as saying that, "Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues."

"He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously," Benton added.

Speaking with Haaretz on Tuesday, Hadar discounted Paul's characterization as anti-Israel, saying: "He is against Israel as I am against January. He is just against foreign aid, and does not see any reason to grant an aid to the country that is a member of OECD."

"We should remember it's the primaries, and the Republican party establishment is not happy about his popularity, because on many issues his positions run contrary to the traditional party's agenda," Hadar added.

The former aide also indicated that Rep. Paul was in favor of "economic cooperation with Israel, he was interested in the economic reforms in Israel."

"He will be glad to see the conflict resolved and he said it's the right of Israel to attack Iran if it thinks that is necessary - but it shouldn't expect the U.S. to clean the mess," he said, adding that Paul is "very familiar with Israel's history. I didn't hear his conversations with his former aide, but I personally have never heard him say anything against Israel or the Jews."

Referring to claims according to which Paul was in favor of "handing Israel back" to the Arabs, Hadar said it was "absurd to say he is more supportive of Arabs or Iran than Israel - he just thinks the U.S. shouldn't meddle in other countries issues."

"I think it's quite pro-Israeli, because the U.S. won't stay in the Middle East forever, and Israel should figure out how to deal with its challenges," Hadar said, adding that there "is little doubt the current campaign against him and the attempts to paint him as anti-Israeli might cause him harm among the Evangelicals, whose support is more significant during the primaries than the Republican Jewish support."

[Dr J Jones]

"His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer"


People need to come to grips with the fact that we're broke, and in debt to China up to our eyes. THIS is our greatest threat..Fuck everything else. Israel can deal with their own threats...If they need weapons..we'll sell them some..other than that...

Is Israel gonna bail us out of our financial crisis...nooooo


The days of the Empire are over...

[Dr J Jones]

http://youtu.be/QZediooFV7k

[EvilRockPosh]

And it's equally crazy for anyone to vote for Obama, Gingrinch,Romney, Santorum, Bachman, Perry....


We're so fucked....

This country continues to do the same failed shit over and over and expects a different result..that is REALLY crazy..

The sooner all the liberals and war mongers realize that we are broke and can't feed their addictions anymore the better off we'll be..until then..keep sucking the country dry...

Oh, I'm not disagreeing, it doesn't matter who you guys vote for, you'll still be controlled by the same interests. But it's even EXTRA crazy to vote for this guy, is all I mean

[KneelandBobDylan]

[Scoundrel]

Since it seems you never know what the fuck you're talking about, maybe this goofy little rap song will dumb down the very basics enough for you.

Regarding the video Ron Paul sides with Hayek. Many Democrats (and all of Europe) side with Keynes and many Republicans go back and forth between Keynes and Milton Friedman whose ideas are not explicitly represented in this video. Though to be fair, none of them are, as I said this is just the basics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk




There is a sequel to the video here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzm ... ure=relmfu



The arguments obviously go significantly deeper than this, but since few people know much about economics, let alone the differences between the various schools, this will have to suffice for the moment.


ETA: I figure I should add a bit of Friedman because he belongs here. In a nutshell, and keeping with the basic arguments from the videos, Keynes thinks monetary policy (Fed adjusting interest rates) is not enough to jump start the economy, he says we need additional government stimulus too. Friedman says monetary policy is enough to ease the severity of a recession and possibly ease the boom and bust of the business cycle when properly applied. He is against government stimulus because it causes malinvestment, and can't possibly distribute the money as efficiently as markets. Hayek agrees with Friedman on the government stimulus being bad and also points out that once started government involvement keeps on increasing. He disagrees with Friedman on monetary policy because he feels that artificial interest rates set by the Fed are what cause the boom and the bust cycle in the first place. He subscribes to the Austrian business cycle which I will quickly and poorly describe as that interest rates should be dictated by the market and are thus the result of the supply and demand between savings and investment.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Many Democrats (and all of Europe) side with Keynes

That's not true. The major European countries bought into expansionary austerity starting in 2009. UK started first, Ireland followed after that. They found out that cutting spending slowed down the economy. The countries on the Euro can't pursue a Keynesian stimulus because they don't have their own central bank and can't coordinate monetary and fiscal policy. Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy have to adjust via deflation since they can't rely on devaluation and Keynesian stimulus. Countries without a central bank have to adjust via deflation.

The country that provides the best example of Keynesian stimulus is China with 30+ years of real GDP growth between 8-10%.

ETA: I figure I should add a bit of Friedman because he belongs here. In a nutshell, and keeping with the basic arguments from the videos, Keynes thinks monetary policy (Fed adjusting interest rates) is not enough to jump start the economy, he says we need additional government stimulus too.

That's not correct. Keynes only calls for fiscal stimulus when the economy is in a liquidity trap. When the Fed cuts federal funds rate to zero and unemployment does not fall, then fiscal policy has to step in. Keynes also calls for the govt to run a cyclical surplus when the economy is at full employment.

Friedman says monetary policy is enough to ease the severity of a recession and possibly ease the boom and bust of the business cycle when properly applied. He is against government stimulus because it causes malinvestment, and can't possibly distribute the money as efficiently as markets.

The Chicago school also said there was not a housing bubble or a dot com bubble because markets are efficient. The Chicago school needs to go back to the drawing board.

So far as monetary policy, Friedman is the one who came up with quantitative easing as a response to a liquidity trap. Given all the complaining about quantitative easing from Republicans this year it's not clear they still subscribe to Friedman's theories. They seem to drop his name only when they want to get rid of the laws that prevent wealthy people from polluting and stealing.

Hayek agrees with Friedman on the government stimulus being bad and also points out that once started government involvement keeps on increasing. He disagrees with Friedman on monetary policy because he feels that artificial interest rates set by the Fed are what cause the boom and the bust cycle in the first place. He subscribes to the Austrian business cycle which I will quickly and poorly describe as that interest rates should be dictated by the market and are thus the result of the supply and demand between savings and investment.

In 2008, economists using Hayek's models predicted that when the Fed cut the fed funds rate to zero the dollar would fall dramatically, hyperinflation would take place and interest rates would sky rocket. Ron Paul said exactly that, in fact he continues to say it. Peter Schiff said so as well. The dollar got stronger in 2009 and interest rates fell which is what Keynesian models predict will happen when the economy is in a liquidity trap.

From Wall Street Journal in Jan 2009
--------------------------------------
Right Forecast by Schiff, Wrong Plan? Wall Street Journal JANUARY 30, 2009

Peter Schiff predicted a collapse of the U.S. financial system. The bust-up he didn't foresee was the one that made mincemeat of investors who took his advice in 2008.

Mr. Schiff's Darien, Conn., broker-dealer firm, Euro Pacific Capital Inc., advised its clients to bet that the dollar would weaken significantly and that foreign stocks would outpace their U.S. peers. Instead, the dollar advanced against most currencies, magnifying the losses from foreign stocks Mr. Schiff steered his investors into.

Most had one thing in common last year: heavy losses. A number of investors said their Euro Pacific portfolios lost 50% or more in 2008, worse than the 38% drop in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index last year. People familiar with the firm say that hardly any securities recommended by Euro Pacific brokers gained ground in 2008.

-------------------------------------
Schiff was merely following Hayek's model.

Austrian School Prediction in Oct 2008: Hyperinflation, high interest rates.
Keynesian prediction in Oct 2008: low inflation and low interest rates.

Headline inflation in Oct 2008: 216.573
Headline inflation in Oct 2011: 226.421

(226.421/216.573)^1/3 = 1.49% annual rate of headline inflation over 3 years. The dollar got stronger and then fell and is now about where it was when the zero rate policy was adopted by the Fed. MIT's billion prices project tracks price of goods and their numbers correspond to what is reported by the labor department which reports price of good and services.

30 year treasury Oct 1, 2008 = 4.22%
30 year treasury Dec 30, 2011 = 2.89%

As of Friday, the federal govt was borrowing money at negative real rates for 5,7 and 10 years.
Daily Treasury Real Yield Curve Rates
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... =realyield

So the Austrian model has failed and Keynesian model correctly explained the economic circumstances in 2008.

[RATTdrools]

He has some positive aspects but has no chance to be president!

[Dr J Jones]

He has some positive aspects but has no chance to be president!

Yep..

We're going to elect another corporate whore that will spend us into financial collapse, and start another needless war..


GO USA!!!

[Scoundrel]

Many Democrats (and all of Europe) side with Keynes

That's not true.

Yes it is.

The major European countries bought into expansionary austerity starting in 2009.

They didn't buy into shit. They were forced into austerity. Years of Keynsian policy left their economies completely exposed and unfortunately for Europe “we're all dead in the long run” only applies to Keynes himself in this case. I should be fair and point out that Keynes himself was far more conservative than current Keynesian and Neo-Keynesian economists (like Krugman). However since most people divide it up by the three schools I'll lump all the Keynesians together for simplicity of discussion.

They found out that cutting spending slowed down the economy

No shit. And since governments don't make money but can only take it (for the most part), making an economy reliant on government is very dangerous. Same thing with making people reliant on the government. It's works well... until it doesn't.

The countries on the Euro can't pursue a Keynesian stimulus because they don't have their own central bank and can't coordinate monetary and fiscal policy.

Actually the European Central Banks can do this, however they won't because (surprise) it wouldn't be getting at the root of the problem which is too much spending and debt without shifting various pressures onto the other countries (namely Germany), who would then be financing the spending of Greece et al..

The country that provides the best example of Keynesian stimulus is China with 30+ years of real GDP growth between 8-10%.

And it looks like they are next.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 92744.html

Here's a quote from the article:

“China is a poster child for the Austrian school of economics' theory of the business cycle. After undertaking the biggest stimulus program the world has ever seen in response to the global financial crisis, the country is drowning in unproductive investments financed with credit.”

ETA: I figure I should add a bit of Friedman because he belongs here. In a nutshell, and keeping with the basic arguments from the videos, Keynes thinks monetary policy (Fed adjusting interest rates) is not enough to jump start the economy, he says we need additional government stimulus too.

That's not correct. Keynes only calls for fiscal stimulus when the economy is in a liquidity trap.

Touche. Keynes himself does. However modern Keynesian economists and especially European governments use this as a get out of jail free card for when their government intervention starts dragging down on the economy. It grows until it either becomes completely unsupportable or an outside jarring of the economy exposes it's frail infrastructure.

When the Fed cuts federal funds rate to zero and unemployment does not fall, then fiscal policy has to step in.

But what does it do? The problems from and the reasons for government stimulus and it's failures are a thread unto itself. I would like to address them but it's too much for one post even though the empirical evidence of this is what finally convinced me the Austrian theory was (more) sound.

Keynes also calls for the govt to run a cyclical surplus when the economy is at full employment

Full employment. Yea, there's a fucking problem.

Furthermore full employment is a myth. At any point in time a small percentage of the population is in the process of being fired, laid off, looking for work, not looking for work, etc. for a whole myriad of reasons.

The Chicago school also said there was not a housing bubble or a dot com bubble because markets are efficient. The Chicago school needs to go back to the drawing board

Free markets are efficient, unfortunately many from the Chicago school neglected to accept that artificial interest rates are an interruption to the market. You and I both know that the housing market was heavily distorted by government intervention and easy credit. That along with your comment throwing the Chicago school under the bus after using their patriarch saint consistently in several different arguments made me start to wonder if I wasn't being trolled ever so softly by the master here...

They seem to drop his name only when they want to get rid of the laws that prevent wealthy people from polluting and stealing

And this confirmed it.


As for the rest, your article is from the beginning of 2009. His investments have done well since then. As for inflation, you know a major portion of that equation is velocity and right now nobody is spending. Furthermore inflation can be controlled by the Fed quite easily. No big deal. The problem is the aftershocks that ensue in the economy from that inflation taming process.



Timing is difficult to predict. In 2003 Paul predicted a housing crisis. People laughed. Four years later people were still laughing. Five years later, not so much.

[Skate4RnR]

He has some positive aspects but has no chance to be president!

Yep..

We're going to elect another corporate whore that will spend us into financial collapse, and start another needless war..


GO USA!!!

If I were a Republican I'd tell you to move to Iran if you don't like and question your patriotism but since I'm a Lib I like to hear your opposing ideas.

[Dr J Jones]

He has some positive aspects but has no chance to be president!

Yep..

We're going to elect another corporate whore that will spend us into financial collapse, and start another needless war..


GO USA!!!

If I were a Republican I'd tell you to move to Iran if you don't like and question your patriotism but since I'm a Lib I like to hear your opposing ideas.

My question to the Libs....How are we going to pay for the welfare state you desire?

My question for the Republicans...How are we gonna pay for the warfare state you desire?

[Skate4RnR]

I plan to just let the companies send all of the jobs overseas so we'll be in the same financial conundrum. I'm both a Republican and a Democrat.

[Rev. Johnny Tyler]

I'm just waiting for this little simmer to start boiling over. That whole Occupy movement was more than a fart in the wind I think. It's a sign that the fire is on and things are heating up. People are pissed right now. People are on to the tricks. People have the Internet and are more educated. People can see that corporations do indeed buy presidents and create policy, etc. People can see that this gov't is no longer of, by or for the people. It is completely run by corporations. People are starting to see that they are enslaved.

I personally think we've gone too far and the only way back is a complete uprising where the entire gov't is taken down and the rich get robbed blind. Gonna be a melee! Wealth will be redistributed one way or another. And I think this will happen because the only other option is enslavement and/or death. The current system will crush the middle class whom are now supporting both the rich greed and the poor need. If you break the middle class you have a big problem.

Don't underestimate the power of desperation.

[cantstopthemusic]

Don't underestimate the power of desperation.

You're gettin' the band back together?

[MurrayFiend]

Anyone know what the fuck Scoundrel and Joe are talking about? Someone call Nancy Pelosi ugly... this smart people talk is hurting my brain.

[Skate4RnR]

I'm just waiting for this little simmer to start boiling over. That whole Occupy movement was more than a fart in the wind I think. It's a sign that the fire is on and things are heating up. People are pissed right now. People are on to the tricks. People have the Internet and are more educated. People can see that corporations do indeed buy presidents and create policy, etc. People can see that this gov't is no longer of, by or for the people. It is completely run by corporations. People are starting to see that they are enslaved.

I personally think we've gone too far and the only way back is a complete uprising where the entire gov't is taken down and the rich get robbed blind. Gonna be a melee! Wealth will be redistributed one way or another. And I think this will happen because the only other option is enslavement and/or death. The current system will crush the middle class whom are now supporting both the rich greed and the poor need. If you break the middle class you have a big problem.

Don't underestimate the power of desperation.

No! No! No! and NEEEEEEEOOOOO!

Look, if we can beat Osama Bin Obama with Romney or Paul we'll get the goddamn government OUT of Wall Street, banking (home loans), corporations etc. all this will pass and we'll be in economic glee again.

Listen, don't you know when you start talking about things like a class war, that means you're against Amurrica. Stop being such a communist, you can see what horrible things it's done to China!

Anyone know what the fuck Scoundrel and Joe are talking about? Someone call Nancy Pelosi ugly... this smart people talk is hurting my brain.

They're talking about economics, I already solved our economic struggles with my post above. If you were LUCKY enough to be an Amurrican I'd tell you to do the same but you live in a commie country. Your doctors aren't half as bad ass as ours are since your over-taxed, over-fagged-out country, our doctors have guns bitch.

Whatever, fuck you.

[Cyd]

Ron Paul Second in New Hampshire Primary


Dr Paul survived a late surge in the polls by Jon Huntsman to hold on to the second place finish that surveys have forecast for weeks. After the disappointment of finishing third in Iowa, the result will give a boost to the maverick 76-year-old congressman. It will also cheer his legions of loyal supporters, who have lined the streets of chilly Manchester this week waving Paul placards at passing motorists. However questions remain about where Dr Paul goes from here. While he has held on to a stubborn sector of libertarian-leaning Republican voters, it is less clear that he can convince many more newcomers. Aides have suggested that after South Carolina he may skip Florida, whose influence on the electoral college has been halved as punishment for holding its primary earlier than instructed, and focus instead on western caucus states, whose looser format offer him higher hopes.

I'm glad. Sounds better than coming in last. "Legions of loyal supporters" sounds good too. Still nobody hardly mentions him on TV or anywhere else?

[Skate4RnR]

I saw him AGAIN doing another interview on CNN just yesterday. He's on there a lot.

[Rev. Johnny Tyler]

Doesn't really matter anyway because nobody will unseat Obama. Dude's been sitting there quietly, storing up his campaign funds. His machine hasn't even been turned on yet. Most importantly, he's got a bunch of heads on platters. Some good notches on his belt. I really don't see anyone touching him. Landslide victory for Obama is my early prediction.

[Skate4RnR]

Doesn't really matter anyway because nobody will unseat Obama. Dude's been sitting there quietly, storing up his campaign funds. His machine hasn't even been turned on yet. Most importantly, he's got a bunch of heads on platters. Some good notches on his belt. I really don't see anyone touching him. Landslide victory for Obama is my early prediction.

The first good thing Obama did for this country is he was the first to get young people and blacks out to vote.

[MickeyG]

I didn't realise Ron Paul was 76. About time they put an age limit for Presidents. No old cunts for President!