Presidential primarys

[lisztisforkids]

So sorry for bringing politics to calm and serene piano street.  Anyways, I like to see Ron Paul kick some but.

[steve_m]

d

[retrouvailles]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell. He's pretty cool, but no chance.

[Derek]

Ron Paul is awesome. Anyway, I personally believe we should never say anyone doesn't have a chance. What if they really are the best choice for our country? We should all vote for what we believe in, and ignore cynicism. Ron Paul 2008

[communist]

hukabee and romney destroy everyone

[Bob]

None of the above? 

[lisztisforkids]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell. He's pretty cool, but no chance.

 Sadly I agree. But that dosent mean we cant support him!    If you ask me, I think he's actually done a helluva job saying what needs to be said in the Republican machine.

[amanfang]

I'm surprised by this.  Where are all the dems?

[maul]

Ron Paul. **** the media. One of these days we're gonna burn those ******* down. BTW where's Kucinich on that poll.

[jakev2.0]

Ron Paul is not cool. He's an evil, racist, bigoted, idiotic, insane, isolationist, revisionist, confederate-sympathizing, HACK. Everyone who thinks he's "cool" should grow up, learn about where his true politics come from (not from Ludwig Von Mises - who would be appalled by this little cretin) and get a life.

John McCain is where it's at.

[arensky]

I admire Paul but it's not going to happen this time. But he is waking people up and getting them to think. And across party and generational lines, most importantly.

A friend and Paul supporter remarked the other day that what we really need is about 150 Ron Pauls in Congress, to counter the two party institution. Hopefully Dr. Paul will inspire others to follow his path, if not in his footsteps.

Americans have been so brainwashed by the two-party oligarchy that they dismiss any independent or third party candidate as a fluke or crank, notwithstanding the success and impact of George Wallace and Eugene McCarthy in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000. All of these candidates affected the outcome of those elections by pulling support away from the incumbent President (in 1968 and 2000 the Vice President). The third party or independent candidates wield much more power than the media wants the people to know. So they always ridicule and ignore the third party candidates to negate their influence. Obviously, the media is in on the oligarchy. It's time we started thinking for ourselves, if we still can.

[jakev2.0]

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism."

What [these newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

https://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Read on! It gets far more shocking than that. Truly appalling stuff. People wonder why the media gives such little attention to Ron Paul...the man is an even greater embarrassment to the Republican party than a certain candidate who believes man and dinosaur coexisted.

[lisztisforkids]

Ron Paul. **** the media. One of these days we're gonna burn those ******* down. BTW where's Kucinich on that poll.

 There I added him, happy? Now my pretty poll is not in perfect order.  

[chopininov]

I agree. I support neither Democrats nor Republicans. Same goes with Liberals and Conservatives.
Nobody has completely Democratic views. Just as nobody can be completely Conservative.

[arensky]

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism."

What [these newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

https://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Read on! It gets far more shocking than that. Truly appalling stuff. People wonder why the media gives such little attention to Ron Paul...the man is an even greater embarrassment to the Republican party than a certain candidate who believes man and dinosaur coexisted.

So this is what a friend of mine was talking about. Scary stuff if true but why hasn't "the liberal media" picked up on this already? However this does not change the logic of Paul's antiwar stance which has resonated with many people, myself included. If these newsletters are real it's time for photocopies of them to be posted and for Paul to 'fess up as to their authorship and to take responsibility for that which bears his name. Paul is a conservative Texan (too conservative for me to vote for) so it would not surprise me if he held a lot of those opinions. We will see if the mainstream media vultures pick up on this, or ignore it, for whatever reason. The plot thickens.

The antiwar folks may have to go Democrat after all.

[shortyshort]

If they're all as crooked as British Polititions, it all makes no difference. 

They don't care about you, none of them. 

Fame and Power is all they want. 

[mephisto]

Anyone but Hillary Clinton!

[thalbergmad]

He's an evil, racist, bigoted, idiotic, insane, isolationist, revisionist, confederate-sympathizing, HACK.

Surely an ideal candidate then.

Obama seems to be getting some positive press in the UK and whilst i have no idea about his policies, i am impressed with the man.

Clinton looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp and that blues playing tambo banger is dangerous.

Anyway, surely anything is better than the trigger happy Texan in charge at the moment?

Thal

[maul]

Jake: Slurps up a smear campaign without knowing the full facts and supports John McCain. Respect = gone. My guess is he watches Fox News religiously as well. Laugh. What a sheep. *baahhhhhh* You'll wake up one day, bud.

[ahinton]

If they're all as crooked as British Polititions, it all makes no difference. 

You mean "politicians"...

They don't care about you, none of them. 

I think that you're wrong there, too; at least three or four MPs do just that. Not a great total out of over six hundred, admittedly, but...

Fame and Power is all they want. 

You mean they don't want the book deals and the loadsamoney that goes with them?

Seriously, I must agree with you in that what you write can be reasonably levelled at all too large a majority of British politicians of all persuasions; whether this situation is especially worse in UK than anywhere else in the Western world I cannot be sure, but even if it isn't so, there's no excuse for it here and it is indeed a sad reflection on our society that we appear to have arrived at a point at which all too many members of the electorate seem largely to have given up even on trying to vote some of these people out, let alone in.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Clinton looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp

Well, Monica Lewinsky never did that, did she?!...

and that blues playing tambo banger is dangerous.

One might well say that this is so by definition, since blues playing and tambo banging might seem at the very least to represent quite a conflict of interest and at most to be incompatible.

Anyway, surely anything is better than the trigger happy Texan in charge at the moment?

Whilst it would be almost impossible to disagree with you on this, one might nevertheless be tempted to adapt the old adage to "better the trigger-happy Texan you know than the tambo-banging non-Texan you don't"...

Best,

Alistair

[shortyshort]

Seriously, I must agree with you in that what you write can be reasonably levelled at all too large a majority of British politicians of all persuasions; whether this situation is especially worse in UK than anywhere else in the Western world I cannot be sure, but even if it isn't so, there's no excuse for it here and it is indeed a sad reflection on our society that we appear to have arrived at a point at which all too many members of the electorate seem largely to have given up even on trying to vote some of these people out, let alone in.

Thank you Hinty for putting it so nicely for me. 

[jakev2.0]

Jake: Buys into a smear campaign without knowing the full facts and supports John McCain. Respect = gone.

It's not a smear campaign - it's truth.  The article merely helps along his inevitable public perception from 'political irrelevant weirdo' to 'politically irrelevant PRICK'.

I've hated Ron Paul since I first heard his platform.
I hated Ron Paul when I first heard his lunatic rants.
All my suspicions about Ron Paul have been confirmed by the TNR article.

I've been a fan of John McCain since 2000.

[thalbergmad]

I think that you;re worng there, too

soe doo eye

[maul]

Yes, it is truth. Just like Fox News (your favorite channel?) is "fair and balanced". Laugh.

...and yes, when you first hear things that clash with the worldview that has been (so obviously) pumped into your brain, your first reaction will be "lunatic". Funny, I thought Paul would have opened your mind a little. Must have a stronger grip than I suspected. Too bad.

By the way, the views in those newsletters clash with anything Paul has ever said and obviously stands for. It was a ghostwriter. He is not racist. An actual quote from Paul on racism:

"Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations. In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us. The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms or groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”

I'm not going to waste my time and spoonfeed you the rest. Go do some research.

[arensky]

It's not a smear campaign - it's truth. 

So you say.

I've hated Ron Paul since I first heard his platform.

What don't you like about it? It's largely impractical but a lot of it makes sense. He is correct in advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy. Americans are increasingly sick of being the world's police, it's a waste of lives and resources, and of money that could be MUCH better spent at home. It's only a matter of time before we stop and it should be of our own accord, not from a military defeat.

I hated Ron Paul when I first heard his lunatic rants.

People said that about McCain in 2000. Get real, you may not like him but he's NOT a lunatic.

All my suspicions about Ron Paul have been confirmed by the TNR article.

We often believe what we would like to. Show me the proof. And why hasn't this come up before? Seems to me that he would have been squelched earlier if the articles' allegations were true. Show me the proof.

Why does Paul piss people off so much; he's clearly touching a lot of nerves in a lot of people, which is usually a good thing in my book.

I've been a fan of John McCain since 2000.

Me too 

[maul]

McCain seems like a fairly honest guy, and I prefer him over other douchebags (*cough* Romney especially) on the Republican side... but his pro-war stance is rather sickening. Having him in office would be a direct continuation of the nightmare Bush has created.

[steve_m]

6

[mattgreenecomposer]

"Anyone but Hillary"-Amen buddy

[prometheus]

Kucinich.

Huckabee and Romney need to be locked up if you ask me.

Ron Paul also one of the few politicians who seems to have some integrity. I like the Obama rhetoric. But it's just rhetoric, of course.

But US people generally vote for the candidate that propose policies that *** them over because they think that candidate is charismatic or 'likable', whatever that means.

And then the crazy religion stuff. The US used to be an example of a secular state for the rest of the world.

I don't think the constitution intended for Clinton to run. She already had her 8 years. But ignoring this what is so wrong with Clinton? "Anything but Clinton", what is that about? If she is too left wing or liberal, I am sure there's a third party candidate who is 5x as 'worse'. In Europe she would be right wing. It's not that the political spectrum in the US is limited. It's only limited when it comes to getting into power. Yes, the one-part-with-two-faces oligarchy.

Anyway, if Nader runs I prefer him over Kucinich, probably.

[jakev2.0]

Yes, it is truth. Just like Fox News (your favorite channel?) is "fair and balanced". Laugh.

...and yes, when you first hear things that clash with the worldview that has been (so obviously) pumped into your brain, your first reaction will be "lunatic". Funny, I thought Paul would have opened your mind a little. Must have a stronger grip than I suspected. Too bad.

Paul is WRONG.  He simply has no understanding of the nature of the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the West.  Islamists have shown time and again that they hate the West for what the West represents and not a host of imagined grievances against the Islamic world.  Yeah, Denmark had its embassies torched because of its virtually non-existent presence in the Middle East (*ahem* the corrupting cultural influence of cheese danishes upon traditional Muslim foods in Arab bakeries?)...or maybe the tiny Scandinavian represents more abstract notions of democracy, freedom of speech (including the freedom to make fun of religion in some fairly innocuous cartoons).

By the way, the views in those newsletters clash with anything Paul has ever said and obviously stands for. It was a ghostwriter. He is not racist.

That stuff was published under his name for DECADES. He either wrote that tripe himself, or gave it his tacit support. Pretty disgusting any way you look at it.

Paul said some politically correct things about racism to save face. Good for him. He's still anti-black, anti-gay, and anti-semitic under under that mask of platitudes. Time to grow up and smell the evil.

McCain seems like a fairly honest guy, and I prefer him over other douchebags (*cough* Romney especially) on the Republican side... but his pro-war stance is rather sickening. Having him in office would be a direct continuation of the nightmare Bush has created.

You're anti-war. That's fine. I respect that.  But in no way is McCain's stance on war "sickening" by anyone's measure.  He was in favor of the surge when few else were.  He got it done.  Now it's paying off.  If anything McCain is a experienced, thoroughly consistent foreign policy analyst.  He's a pragmatist who also has a regard for human suffering. He's about the best you can get.

[jakev2.0]

So you say.

The New Republic is not just any old opinion rag. 

We often believe what we would like to. Show me the proof. And why hasn't this come up before? Seems to me that he would have been squelched earlier if the articles' allegations were true. Show me the proof.

The article was published just yesterday. These issues are not old news.  The article is merely the crystallization of many old suspicions. For instance, the Paul campaign has not refused campaign support from White Nationalists. 

Why does Paul piss people off so much; he's clearly touching a lot of nerves in a lot of people, which is usually a good thing in my book.

In short, Ron Paul is a profound embarrassment to the right.

He pretends to be a big fan of the constitution, but cares little about federalism.
He pretends to be in support of individual rights, but regards some indivuduals as inferior to others (a nice little Orwellian idea).
He pretends to be a patriot, but denigrates America's greatest accomplishments and blames the USA for 9/11.

Paul is a fascist with a libertarian face.

[prometheus]

Whahaha, what a joke.

[jakev2.0]

Whahaha, what a joke.

I would ask you to elaborate were I convinced you were capable of constructing a coherent reply.

[prometheus]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell. He's pretty cool, but no chance.

What is up with this American idea of voting for the winner. You aren't supposed to use your vote as a prediction bet. If you try to vote for the one that ends up winning that won't gain you anything. Hell, you probably lose something; your vote.

Obviously Paul has no chance in hell. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for him.

[prometheus]

I would ask you to elaborate were I convinced you were capable of constructing a coherent reply.

Now that would be really stupid. Just read again what you posted.

[jakev2.0]

What's not to understand?

[prometheus]

Are you for real?

[jakev2.0]

Are you for real?

I would ask you to elaborate were I convinced ________

Convinced of what?

Your capacity to construct a coherent reply.

But oh wait, I'm not. So no need for you to reply.

This is irony.

[m]

I'm surprised by this.  Where are all the dems?

Hahaha,

Good question. Way down here after the question was asked, it is a good indication that the piano community is seriously fucked up.
Not much surprise I don't find much interest hanging out over here, anymore.

[jakev2.0]

Hahaha,

Good question. Way down here after the question was asked, it is a good indication that the piano community is seriously fucked up.
Not much surprise I don't find much interest hanging out over here, anymore.

Why not, marik? We luv u. 

[arensky]

McCain seems like a fairly honest guy, and I prefer him over other douchebags (*cough* Romney especially) on the Republican side... but his pro-war stance is rather sickening. Having him in office would be a direct continuation of the nightmare Bush has created.

This is how I feel about Giuliani. Except that I don't think he's honest. But he is sure effective.

What do I want, for the trains to run on time or health care?

Why can't I have both 

*** oligarchy 

[maul]

Yay. Another neocon regurgitating the same fear-mongering filth that we've had to gag on for the past 7 years. Keep tuning into Fox News for your daily braindump of idiocy. Can you do us a favor though? Please don't sh*t it out all over the place in here. We smell enough of the putrid concoction on a daily basis.

[jakev2.0]

Yay. Another neocon regurgitating the same fear-mongering filth that we've had to gag on for the past 7 years. Keep tuning into Fox News for your daily braindump of idiocy. Can you do us a favor though? Please don't sh*t it out all over the place in here. We smell enough of the putrid concoction on a daily basis.

I'm not a neocon. I don't watch Fox News.

I'm Canadian.

Ahh...Ad-hominem - the surest sign all ones arguments have been exhausted. 

[arensky]

The New Republic is not just any old opinion rag.

It is an opinion rag, certainly in this case.

The article was published just yesterday. These issues are not old news.  The article is merely the crystallization of many old suspicions. For instance, the Paul campaign has not refused campaign support from White Nationalists. 

I noted the publication date. If this is old news I'm surprised to hear of it only now. I am a pretty heavy news junkie.

I don't want crystallization, I want PROOF. And about the white nationalists, too.

In short, Ron Paul is a profound embarrassment to the right.

He pretends to be a big fan of the constitution, but cares little about federalism.
He pretends to be in support of individual rights, but regards some indivuduals as inferior to others (a nice little Orwellian idea).
He pretends to be a patriot, but denigrates America's greatest accomplishments and blames the USA for 9/11.

Paul is a fascist with a libertarian face.

Again, these are your opinions. Post the sh*t to back 'em up!

Perhaps we should agree to disagree  

[m]

Why not, marik? We luv u. 

I luv u 2.

But the core of the problem is that there might be some deeper issues.
You see, for me either democrats, or republicans are the same poop--you know, some loosers who have enough dough, but did not have enough talent in what they wanted to do... and so on. In short, with all that $$$ they had the only way to stand out is to run for a president...
Fine for me...

But think carefully, Do you really think they give a sh*t about you and me? I dont' think so, as you would not either if we had that kind of endorsement  

Do you really think they are who they are? Hopefully you are not so naive thinking that all that sh*t they are talking in the media is from deep of their heart. Hopefully, you understand, all they talk is what their party told them to say.

Now, think of Hillary--she was the one who once really wanted to pass a  bill of total medical care--it did not work then through.
Now look at this thread--"Anybody but Hillary".
Do you really expect me to care what that person thinks or says about my playing after that remark?
 
It is unbelievable to see how church people get up...
I am wondering Pianistimo did not chime up... yet. All that evangelistic or mormonic ideas...
Yet other loosers....

I only could think what it is gonna be...
but hopefully, we don't want to go there.

Best, M

P.S. Yet the question is up. After all that 8 years, are the people still want to stay republicans?

I cant believe it...

[maul]

Jake, you have more issues in your brain than could ever be solved with my "arguments" (aka sense). A lobotomy would be more suitable.

[arensky]

What is up with this American idea of voting for the winner. You aren't supposed to use your vote as a prediction bet. If you try to vote for the one that ends up winning that won't gain you anything. Hell, you probably lose something; your vote.

Obviously Paul has no chance in hell. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for him.

I don't know. Some of us wonder why. In high school my band director once told a group of students "in three thousand years people will look back at our society and wonder why the people in this land turned everything into a football game for no good reason."

I think he was right about that. It's always seemed pointless to me, the American obsession with winning. And usually we haven't considered what we're winning and why. It's strange...

You are right, people should vote for who they feel is the right person, not someone who they think can win. If they all did that, the person they like would win, instead of the "USDA approved" candidates.

Oh well...

[arensky]

P.S. Yet the question is up. After all that 8 years, are the people still want to stay republicans?

I cant believe it...

Well based on what you said, that "either democrats or republicans are the same poop" (and it's true) why do you think the democrat poop will be any better than the republican poop? 

Sure the health care and no more war poop seems preferable now, but that poop will engender it's own poopy mess, just like the republican poop 

Order or health care, again why can't we have both?

Different poops are the spice 'o life 

Great... 

[m]

Well based on what you said, that "either democrats or republicans are the same poop" (and it's true) why do you think the democrat poop will be any better than the republican poop? 

Maybe just for sheer reason of change after 8 years of complete sh*t. Isn't it a good enough reason so far?

Sure the health care and no more war poop seems preferable now, but that poop will engender it's own poopy mess, just like the republican poop 

Not sure, but here you seem to stay under the poop whcih is closer to your skin. Is it what you want? Have you ever thought or lived under the "european way of poop"?

Order or health care, again why can't we have both?

Indeed, why can't we have both? Are you REALLY sure we can get both under republicans?

Best, M