That's a thought alright. Here's another: has it occurred to you that Ron Paul does take money, just not from the usual suspects? He raised almost 3 million in one day not too long ago from something like 47000 donors and has the largest donor base in the GOP field to date. I don't know what you call that but I call it evidence of real support. Remember, he's done this in spite of a blatant corporate media campaign to marginalize him. Oh yeah, that study you asked for showing media bias...I never got around to it but the Pew Research center did. Here you go: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr Further, he receives more donations from the military, the only other branch of government that seems to take their constitutional oath seriously anymore, then the rest of the GOP combined (as well as more than the current Commander in Chief). To continue, some polls have him #1 in Iowa right now, which you may be aware is the first caucus state in the primaries. All the other candidates have experienced wild swings in their numbers but Ron Paul's numbers have been steady, and climbing. Does all of this make him a lock? Absolutely not. but to say he has no chance is to indicate you are woefully uninformed and are probably swallowing the corporate media's narrative whole. Finally, one of my best friends is big and he has no problem talking to hot chicks. He also married one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen. She's a doctor btw. Chicks dig confidence. You should get out more.
You misread my post. I said fat guys have NO problem talking to hot chics. The reason for this is when there is no sexual tension, people are at ease. It's only the possibility of sex that makes people nervous. Anyway, back to Paul. Ron Paul is a narcissist OK? Argue with me if you will, it is what he is. He likes the limelight. No, he LOVES the limelight. When a guy has no chance of winning, they can get away with not playing the system. If I were Paul, i would not be wasting my energy running for President at age 75, which is a joke. Instead I would be putting my support behind younger guys, guys who had a chance. But no, not Ron Paul. No, at age 75, he wants all the attention. Gary Johnson has learned this the hard way. Ron Paul has snubbed that guy so many times. And when asked for support from Paul, all he got was a dial tone. And Gary Johnson is with Paul on 99.9% of the issues! I know you are dogmatic in your love for Paul. And that is fine. I'm just giving you the straight dope. Gary Johnson has far better credentials then Paul. But Ron Paul won't give him the light of day. Ahh yes Mr. DAS, power is intoxicating isn't it.
No I didn't. You suggested that fat guys can talk to hot chicks because they have no chance of hitting the skins. When my buddy chatted up chicks, he always wanted to hit the skins. Hence, you've completely lost me. Can you prove he has no chance of winning? I mean you are entitled to your opinion but stating it as fact is way off the mark, as evidenced by the info I've provided. Gary Johnson believes in waging humanitarian wars. That was Obama's justification for Libya. Hardly the same if you ask me. Other than that huge issue, I like Gary Johnson. Dr Paul is a narcissist? Have you had your morning coffee? And what's with all this age stuff? The man rides his bike 20 miles a day. Can you do that? Great, now let's see you do it at 75. You want to know what my dogma is? I'll tell you, the Constitution of the United States of America, that's my dogma. Maybe that's where you and I differ because I swore an oath to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I hate to break it to you but the enemies are inside the gates. It should be your dogma because it is the framework for our society. All of our laws are based on it. Your civil rights, whatever's left of them, come from that document. It is what separated America from the rest of the world and made it a beacon of light...a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What kind of government do you think we have now? That's why Dr Paul is the only one running who will bring us real change. Decades of service have proven he is not a sell out. If Gary Johnson was not in favor of waging humanitarian wars I might consider him viable. That's why Dr Paul won't give him the light of day, as you put it. He is not a chicken hawk, like most of our politicians. No flyby for you today Maverick, the pattern is full!
DAS you really are blind to facts aren't you. Try looking at the polls. And no, don't give me any of that infowars conspiracy theories that the polls are rigged. LOL. Look, Ron Paul has a very loyal, extremely loyal group of about 10% that will follow him off a cliff. But that poll number has not moved in 5 years. It doesn't go down and it doesn't go up. He is not going to get any meaningful support and the reason is not because of his positions, believe it or not. It's because he is an absolutist. People in general don't like that. The funny thing is, the thing most people complain the most about (flip flopping) is the very thing that people really want. They want people to be malleable. As the famous quote goes, "when the facts change, so do I. What do you do sir" Labeling Gary Johnson as a supporter of humanitarian wars is a real cheap shot and quite frankly, you are digging. The fact that when Gary answers that question, he puts some open thought into it is reassuring. I would hope all Presidents do. And dude, please man, give it up. Trying to imply I don't support the US constitution because I support Gary Johnson is the dumbest thing I have read on 10 years on this web site and that includes all the shit coming out of Range Rover's mouth. As Jack Nicholson said, "go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all stocked up here."
From a Ron Paul supporter: I overheard someone ask Gary Johnson to clarify his support for "humanitarian wars" as has been mentioned several times. He denied that he supported humanitarian wars and didn't believe he's ever said anything like that. He mentioned that such a term has such a wide definition that anything could be considered a "humanitarian war" if spun right. He said does not support going to war. He was asked about whether he'd go to war to prevent genocide. He said that genocide is like pornography, that you can't really define it but you know it when you see it. He said he'd have a hard time sitting by if genocide were occurring but even though he believes we should get out of the UN, he didn't believe it would be possible during his watch and that preventing a genocide should be a role of the UN. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?279650-Gary-Johnson-and-quot-humanitarian-wars-quot
I am basing my assertions on not just polls but straw polls, and fundraising. The numbers are real, you seem to be the one with blinders on. Hardly a theory and what the hell does Infowars have to do with this. Have I ever quoted Infowars? Your use of that strawman is inappropriate unless you can point to a single instance where I linked to an Alex Jones article...can you? No, very well then. Also, and this is an honest question, would you agree or disagree that poll questions can be framed in such a way as to achieve a desired result? Why do you think his following is so loyal? Because he is not full of ****, that's why? I mean seriously, a politician who doesn't lie and who is not for sale...I would never have thought one existed. As to flip flopping I think you are blurring the lines. Ron Paul adheres to his oath of office. Do you know what an oath is? You raise your right hand and swear or affirm something. It's like the ultimate giving of your word....you promise to do X. That Ron Paul keeps his word is what inspires loyalty. When it comes to our representative republic an oath is REQUIRED to serve and there should not be any deviation from it whatsoever. If I was a representative, I would adhere to my oath. Would your candidate? I never said he wasn't thoughtful, just wrong on the issue. If you truly support humanitarian war, then I recommend you join the military and walk the walk. In this regard, Johnson has no idea what he is talking about. Also, how is it a cheap shot to call a spade a spade? âIf thereâs a clear genocide somewhere, donât we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?â he says. âIsnât that what weâre all about? Isnât that what weâve always been about? But just this notion of nation buildingâI think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.â-Gary Johnson I say we use diplomacy in this issue but putting American lives at risk is not the way to go. If you and Gary disagree then join up and walk the walk. I'm sure we will use that bs pretext to invade Syria soon enough. IF you hurry you'll just make it. Otherwise, you are both just chicken hawks who don't know what you are talking about. I said it should be your dogma, not that it wasn't. You need to work on your reading comprehension. If you are trying to convince me that like "Mr Udall", Jack Nicholson's character in "As Good As it Gets", you are full of crazy, I think you just succeeded.
As you already know, there is no cap in politics. But if you use current instances to base such comments as I did, dial back a bit to 2008 and how McCain (who was only 72 on election day) was treated by the press and populace because of his "advanced" age. Paul is currently a year older than McCain is now. (currently - seems rather redundant as he will always be a year older until one of them kicks)
And yet that did not stop McCain from getting the republican nomination. Also, Dr Paul appears to be in far better physical condition. Age does not affect everyone the same.
OK, I'll tell you what DAS. I'll do what I always do on this site when someone seems so sure of themselves. Put your money where you mouth is at. I'm on the offer betting Paul does not get the nomination. Are you willing to lift? Don't pussy out on me now sir. You are a believer right? So time to get paid then right? How much should we bet? Let's make this easy. I'm willing to back up my posts with hard cash, are you? Oh wait, I already know your response. You would bet me, but you know that the powers that be won't let Paul win. That would be a very convenient excuse for you. Well, what do you say you bet anyway in spite of that. As a matter of character. What do you say?
I really need you to work on your reading comprehension. You suggested he has "no chance". I suggested he does have a chance. I never said he was a lock. Now, in the spirit of your assertion that Dr Paul has "no chance of winning" here's what I am willing to do: I will put Ron Paul up against your candidate, Gary Johnson. Whoever gets more delegates in the primary wins. What terms are you comfortable with?