Ron Paul vs Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on Inflation

[MystikWizard]

Bernanke can't even directly answer Paul's question concerning the solution to inflation, is nervous responding (as you can hear in his voice), and is left in silence at the end.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting segment. Paul has proposed eliminating the Federal Reserve for a long time.

 

[NickCole]

Bernanke is silent at the end because Paul's question is badly constructed and his point is all over the place. Paul's speech was disjointed, and it's him who sounds nervous, not Bernanke.

That five or six minutes of video demonstrates why Ron Paul will never gain the nomination and will never be President.

I'm not saying he isn't a smart guy and a good guy - he is, on both counts. But that's not enough.

 

[MystikWizard]

That five or six minutes of video demonstrates why Ron Paul will never gain the nomination and will never be President.

You may be right. Because that's what happens when you have a candidate with the balls to actually stand up and challenge powerful people that are doing more harm in this country, than good. Right? Take your spin elsewhere.

Evidently, though, because someone is a Woman and has the last name "Clinton" ... that apparently IS enough for you, right? Be honest. Sure it is. It's obviously not because of the positions your candidate takes on issues, because quite honestly, we don't know what they are. Double Talk doesn't fly in this day and age. She can't even tell us in a straight forward fashion that she supports rewarding Illegal Immigrants ... I'm sorry ... "Undocumented Workers" with a Driver's License. Pathetic.

So Paul is a smart guy, but those 5 or 6 minutes of him questioning Bernanke on Inflation, with Bernanke providing less than satisfactory responses explains to you why he will never be President? Bullshit. Bernanke didn't answer shit.

And I will tell you this, Nick. Ron Paul has more honesty and integrity in his pinkie then your girl Hillary does in her whole body. You want to talk about your typical dishonest, double-talking, lobbyist-pleasing, Pro War Presidential Candidate In Disguise ... that is Hillary Clinton to a T. And she may fool a lot of people, because I constantly notice typically older and Elderly Americans in her audience, but she doesn't fool all of us ... especially those of us who are better educated and use the Internet.

At least Dr. Paul has the balls to take positions on very tough issues. And at least he will commit to having troops out of Iraq in 6 months after being elected. What was Hillary's date she committed to? Oh, that's right. She won't commit to having them withdrawn even by her first term. So we can rest assured that by electing her, we will be there for another four years.

So you're game is "let's hate Bush" for what he did with Iraq, but let's give Hillary a Free Pass for voting for the War, continuing to Fund the War, and not even committing to withdraw the troops by her First Term. In other words, 4 more years of this. For what? Oil. But that obviously suits you just fine. Sure, let's continue to protect Israeli interests, right? Let's get involved in another war and continue making this country even more dangerous simply to protect Israel, right? Disgraceful.

And at least Paul can proudly say that he was one of the very few Republicans that voted against the War to begin with. Why? Because he knew what the dangers were. That shows me that I trust his judgment over Hillary's any day ... because your candidate DID vote for the War ... didn't she?

You see, I don't support someone just because they're Democrat. I don't support someone just because they're Republican. I don't support a candidate based on gender. I support someone who has the interests of the American People at heart and has the courage to tell the American People the truth. I honestly wish I could say the same for your candidate.

 

[NickCole]

You may be right. Because that's what happens when you have a candidate with the balls to actually stand up and challenge powerful people that are doing more harm in this country, than good. Right? Take your spin elsewhere.

Ron Paul's performance in that video clip, which one can assume you thought showed him in a good light, indicates he is a disorganized thinker and uncomfortable with public speaking and/or confronting someone in authority.

Evidently, though, because someone is a Woman and has the last name "Clinton" ... that apparently IS enough for you, right? Be honest.

Your misunderstanding of my reasons for supporting Clinton borders on retarded.

So Paul is a smart guy, but those 5 or 6 minutes of him questioning Bernanke on Inflation, with Bernanke providing less than satisfactory responses explains to you why he will never be President? Bullshit. Bernanke didn't answer shit.

There was nothing to answer.

I'm no fan of Bernanke but I can guess what he had to be thinking but was too polite to say.

At least Dr. Paul has the balls to take positions on very tough issues. And at least he will commit to having troops out of Iraq in 6 months after being elected.

Paul reveals his naivetee if he commits to having troops out of Iraq 6 months after being elected. He has no idea what he would discover after being briefed by the current administration. No idea. To commit to something like that in such a vacuum of information is irresponsible in the extreme.

What was Hillary's date she committed to? Oh, that's right. She won't commit to having them withdrawn even by her first term. So we can rest assured that by electing her, we will be there for another four years.

Your conclusion has no relation to the information you lay out. Clinton saying she can commit to immediately beginning withdrawal of our troops but beyond that will be determined after she's been fully briefed and conferred with her advisors is an adult and responsible response, and it does not mean we can "rest assured ... we will be there for another four years." It means we don't know what is going to happen because it's all a big fat mess and figuring out how to straighten out a big fat mess needs information and is more complicated than saying "Everybody pack up and go home."

So you're game is "let's hate Bush" for what he did with Iraq,

Misconstruing my opinions the way you do only shows how little you pay attention. Which explains a lot.

 

[lancelva]

Evidently, though, because someone is a Woman and has the last name "Clinton" ... that apparently IS enough for you, right?

Hell, I'd support her if her name was Jane Doe.

Anyway, how is it that Senator Clinton was introduced into a thread about Ron Paul? This thread serves as an example of a broader problem: Why is it that those who support other candidates--in both parties--can't discuss that support without attacking Senator Clinton? If you're not able to stand up for your own candidate in his/her own right, how do you expect anyone to support him/her?

 

[MystikWizard]

Ron Paul's performance in that video clip, which one can assume you thought showed him in a good light, indicates he is a disorganized thinker and uncomfortable with public speaking and/or confronting someone in authority.

Paul's performance in that clip was nothing short of splendid. He was right on the Money, no pun intended, with the Fed and Chairman Bernanke offered no solution to inflation, whatsoever.

Paul admits to having shortcomings, and maybe he isn't the best speaker of all the Candidates running for office. But I'll tell you this much. I would rather have someone who isn't a World Renown speaker who is honest with me and tells the truth as opposed to someone who is a good talker that lies through her teeth.

Your misunderstanding of my reasons for supporting Clinton borders on retarded.

No, Nick. I think I nailed your reasons right on the head.

Qualifications for Nick to be President

1) Democrat
2) Female
3) Last name "Clinton"
4) Because the Media told me so

She has my vote.

There was nothing to answer.

Come again? Paul brought up the point about how our Seniors were affected by the devaluing of our currency and how the Rising Cost of Living was doing great harm to them. Bernanke nodded his head, and acknowledged it without offering a solution. Nowhere in that testimony did Bernanke truly disagree with anything Paul said.

I'm no fan of Bernanke but I can guess what he had to be thinking but was too polite to say.

Certainly. So why is Paul wrong in challenging the Fed?

Paul reveals his naivetee if he commits to having troops out of Iraq 6 months after being elected. He has no idea what he would discover after being briefed by the current administration. No idea. To commit to something like that in such a vacuum of information is irresponsible in the extreme.

Bottom line ... we committed an illegal war. We have no business being there. So because we committed an illegal war, we need our troops out now. We should have never gone in, in the first place. So we need to get out.

If the Iraqi People can't learn after 4 years how to take care of themselves, then that's too damn bad. Because every week, we the American People, have to pay 2 Billion Dollars to Finance this War. Why are we penalized because of this? Why should we continue funding this?

But you know, as well as I do, that we are there for other reasons.

But hey, since Hillary says "Let's stay for another 4 years minimum", that's fine to spin it around as such. Sorry, Nick. That is Not an acceptable option.

Speaking of naive, you are probably one of the ones who still think we went to Iraq for the Noble Cause of Liberating the Iraqi People, don't you? LOL!

Yep, sure we did. As I said. Not okay for Bush. But A Okay for Hillary.

You see, your conclusion has no relation at all to the information you lay out. Clinton saying she can commit to immediately beginning withdrawal of our troops but beyond that will be determined after she's been fully briefed and conferred with her advisors is an adult and responsible response, and it does not mean we can "rest assured ... we will be there for another four years." It means we don't know what is going to happen because it's all a big fat mess and figuring out how to straighten out a big fat mess needs information and is more complicated than saying in the dark, "Everybody pack up and go home."

Like I said. It was an illegal war. And I'm going to be honest with you. I don't really care what the excuses are why we are there now. I have my suspicions, but the War was Illegal and we were misled to get us there. Period.

We've been there for 4 years, which has put us in a grave amount of debt. Six Months is more than enough time to tie up any loose ends and get us the Hell out of there.

1) We threw a Dictator out of power.

2) We freed the Iraqi people.

3) Al Qaeda wasn't there until we invaded Iraq

and

4) The Iraqi People even want us out of there (last I checked ... it was their country)


So we tie up loose ends and we withdraw. Hillary Clinton or any politician who can not commit to withdrawing troops in 4 years Does Not deserve to be President. I'm sorry. Because if you can't even commit to doing this in 4 years, than you obviously aren't a strong enough leader to be in the position that you are looking to be nominated for.

Misconstruing my opinions the way you do only shows how little you pay attention. Which explains a lot.

No, sir. I think I pay more than adequate attention to have you and your little game of "Let's pick a President Just Because She Would Be Our First Woman President" figured out.

Hell, I'd support her if her name was Jane Doe.

Anyway, how is it that Senator Clinton was introduced into a thread about Ron Paul? This thread serves as an example of a broader problem: Why is it that those who support other candidates--in both parties--can't discuss that support without attacking Senator Clinton? If you're not able to stand up for your own candidate in his/her own right, how do you expect anyone to support him/her?

That's a very good question, Lance. Because Nick liking Senator Clinton was the only real reason he attacked Paul in the first place.

But, with all due respect, and I'm asking you very kindly, please keep out of this.

 

[Orlandude]

Campaign rhetoric should not be the basis of who is more qualified and who is not. Bush proved that. Studying each candidates entire agenda is more important than this one-issue crap. Fact of the matter is that you really can't blame Bush for the war or any successor who "says" he/she is going to do this or that. Blame the people for allowing a "rubber-stamping" Congress to brainwash them or totally disregard what the people want for the sake of political expediency.

As for Iraq...let's get real. This war has NOTHING to do with terrorism and/or the Iraqi people. That's all political lip service. It's an oil war...pure and simple. If the war was for reason of terrorism, why has it fostered more terrorism than we have ever seen before? As for the Iraqi people, if they don't "get it" by now, they never will. We just made them lazy and more than happy to suck off our money that "we the people" continue to allow to be spent.

Dems and republicans are morons, incapable of running anything. All of them have become fat, happy, complacent, greedy and unwilling to stand up and make hard decisions. We have elected a Congress of Wimps who don;t have the balls to tell a President to take his veto and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[MystikWizard]

As for Iraq...let's get real. This war has NOTHING to do with terrorism and/or the Iraqi people. That's all political lip service. It's an oil war...pure and simple. If the war was for reason of terrorism, why has it fostered more terrorism than we have ever seen before? As for the Iraqi people, if they don't "get it" by now, they never will. We just made them lazy and more than happy to suck off our money that "we the people" continue to allow to be spent.

Dems and republicans are morons, incapable of running anything. All of them have become fat, happy, complacent, greedy and unwilling to stand up and make hard decisions. We have elected a Congress of Wimps who don;t have the balls to tell a President to take his veto and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Could not agree with you more.

And candidate who can not commit to having troops out of Iraq within one year, much less one term, is simply stalling and curtailing to special interests. And you have to cut through the bullshit to see it.

There is absolutely no reason we can not be out of there within 6 months or a year. And yet we have candidates telling us that they can not even promise to be out in 4 YEARS!! This needs to register. This should be UNACCEPTABLE to the American People because this is a lie and more stalling to prolong occupation for our oil interests. And you have one chance to make it right or risk going down the same path as President Bush for another 4 years.

So keep that in mind. Our soldiers over there are dying in vain in a War for Oil. And that evidently sits well for some people, just because they would get a kick out of seeing a Woman President.

 

[MystikWizard]

Paul may be a nice guy -- they say George Wallace was nice. Paul may be smart, as was Jeffery Dahmer, according to news reports. Nice and smart won't make this Texas tempest president.

No, but someone who is cold, calculating, and double talks to the American People will, though, right?

The War and Foreign Policy is the #1 Issue for Most Americans today. The fact that your candidate, which let's be honest is the only reason you are blasting Paul, can not commit to have us out of Iraq in not just 6 months, not just 1 year ... but 4 WHOLE YEARS ... quite frankly is very disturbing to me. This is yet another example of the corruption in politics.

You want me to vote for Hillary, because that is your goal on here and the goal of select others .... than you tell her to grow a set and bring the troops home in her first term. Reasons being given to us on why this can not be done are BULLSHIT! Straight and pure BULLSHIT. And it is UNACCEPTABLE. This "War on Terror" has become such a farce around the Globe, and you want to continue it. Once again. Bush gets shit on. But Hillary gets a FREE PASS for continuing it apparently.

In addition, tell her to keep us out of this Holy War between Israel, Syria, and Iran. All over the events that neither can prove in their own Special Book. But we can't have that, though can we? After all, we must protect Israeli Special Interests at all costs ... even at the expense of the safety of the American people. Right?

Now, as far as Returning to the Gold Standard, I will present to you two quotes from Alan Greenspan.

This is a very interesting issue. This issue was debated, incidentally, in the United States in 1976, and the conclusion was that we should hold our gold, and the reason is that gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. It is interesting that Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold, not with fiat, money paper. And gold is always accepted and is the ultimate means of payment and is perceived to be an element of stability in the currency and in the ultimate value of the currency and that historically has always been the reason why governments hold gold.

The Architecture of International Finance May 20, 1999, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Financial Services

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the antagonism toward the gold standard.

Gold and Economic Freedom, The Objectivist (1966)

In the days of a free market, gold and silver were what the market chose as money. It is government interference in the market that is the true problem.

 

[cityboy-stl]

It's an oil war...pure and simple.

It's totally off topic but since it came up, I think this is only partly true. I think the other part is personal. I think GW Bush came into office, day one, with the intent of invading Iraq to finish Daddy's war for him. Bush the First left Iraq with Saddam still in charge. Bush the Second on a personal mission without regard to consequences started the current war to finish what he believed was left unfinished by his dad. Yes I agree oil is a part but I'm not seeing any oil benefit as a result. The rest I think is Bush's own personal egotistic war out of some sick family allegiance.

Just my opinion.

 

[MystikWizard]

General, with all due respect, your reputation on this Forum, as someone who is known to be malevolent, far supersedes my own.

And I'm sorry. I don't believe in the spin. If I feel that Ron Paul Fucks up in any way, I am going to tell you.

For example, when that one article was printed several years ago by his Ghost Writer that he fired, I do hold Paul responsible. If you are going to let an article be printed under your name, you damn sure better read everything that is written, before simply allowing the article to be printed without reviewing it. That was irresponsible and he has since apologized for it for years and years since. But I still hold him responsible and he knows that he is.

I did own up and give Hillary credit for owning up to the "planted question" per the discussion in the other thread. She did the right thing by doing so.

Understand that I simply want honesty and integrity returned to the White House. I want a candidate who I feel is going to shoot straight with the American People, who is going to take us off this dreaded course one of the Worst President's in our Nation's history has put us on.

This War and our Foreign Policy is unquestionably Issue #1 for me as a voter. I want a candidate that is going to do the right thing for the American People to ensure our safety. And this continuing alliance with Israel over Religious Views is doing far more harm to us as a country than good.

 

[MystikWizard]

And quite honestly, I have answered those points that were raised. You weren't satisfied ... and you never will be. You want to know why? Because you hate Republicans. And that's telling it like it is. You literally hate all Republicans. And you have made that abundantly clear, General, in your many, many postings. This is why you attack EVERYTHING Republican in all of your posts. Our Party can do no right, whatsoever, due to your biases.

I'm telling you that the Republican base isn't the problem. It is the Neo Conservatives in our Party's leadership that is the real problem. Not those who make up the base of the Party.

Now, in terms of answering your questions, I have in fact done so. But if you adopt the Closed Minded Ideology that everything Group "X" is evil and that you want everyone to only adopt the philosophies of Group "Y", then I would expect such a response from you, accordingly.

If one adopts the ignorant ideology that you have a Cat in front of you ... the animal in reality looks like a dog, barks like a dog, and has all the characteristics of a dog, but you insist that it's a cat ... then I can only expect a response like that from a Republican hater like yourself. And that you are, General.

Like I said, I don't look at things in that Closed Minded Fashion. I don't look at Republicans vs Democrats like you do. The "Us vs Them" Mentality. I look at in my heart, who do I feel is taking the stance that has the best interests of the country at heart. For you, it is apparently more of a game with which side can score the most points. Quite frankly, I'm tired of that game. And so are a lot of other people.

And as far as me "selling" Paul. Let's make something clear. I honestly don't need to "sell" Ron Paul. You know why? Because Ron Paul sells himself. Anyone who listens to the man for any length of time will realize his honesty and integrity far supersedes the other candidates.

And as I illustrated, if I feel that my candidate makes a mistake somewhere, I'll be honest, criticize it, and admit it ... like I did with the Newsletter Piece criticism above. I am not going to insult your intelligence by spinning it around like other candidates and their supporters will.

Now, do I put Videos and occasional posts of him up to "get the word out"? Sure, I do. But I am not going to "Sell You" Ron Paul, in the terms that other people on here are attempting to "Sell Us" another candidate on here by creating a dozen threads on her a day.

Where as I have made a couple of threads about Paul, it is entirely disproportionate to Every Other Thread on this board being about Hillary Clinton. It seems like that particular side is trying to sell us Hillary much more than I am doing with Paul.

I simply made a few posts to get the word out of his name, since he is obviously a Candidate that Mainstream Media has largely ignored up to this point. I do give credit for CNN for stepping up their coverage after the Huge November 5th Fundraiser.

But my promise is that I am not going to create 5 threads a day on Ron Paul. But I will put out an occasional message if I feel he has a good day. If someone really wants an "Anti War" candidate who adopts a "Non Interventionist Foreign Strategy in Global Affairs" approach to our country, the message is out there. All I'm doing is letting you know that those candidates do exist.

 

[RandomAccess]

I've been here longer and I have sharper claws and better tools. That's one. Two, you seem to struggle with answering questions: I asked why you smear and scorch every single person who disagrees with you or your candidate? After all, I'm not pushing a candidate, but you are, you are trying to gain support for a political figure. In short, you are selling, not me. My suggestion was, and still is, to lay off the attacks and instead deal with the points raised by posters who raise them. That's a tougher job, sure, and perhaps you just aren't up to it.

I'd love to get in on this fun. . . but I refuse to get my cursor anywhere close to "Remove user from ignore list".

 

[NickCole]

And after two terms of Dubya?

I don't understand the point you're making.

George Bush is a bad man who did bad things as President that literally millions of people will pay for for many years.

Ron Paul is a good man who would do good things as President but he'll never be President.

That's the way it is. The world is a practical place, not an idealized place.

And people who vote for Ron Paul are the same sort of thinkers who help vote in the George Bushes, the Rudy Giulianis and the Mitt Romneys to the Oval Office.

There's, of course, a lovely glow about idealism, but it doesn't elect Presidents and while the idealist is casting his vote, and sincerely thinking he's doing something good, he's in reality helping the bad guy win.

Ralph Nader was wrong that there'd be no difference between George Bush and Al Gore, and all along it was going to be either George Bush or Al Gore - never Ralph Nader - so people who voted for Ralph Nader were instrumental in giving the White House to George Bush. Is Al Gore flawed? You bet. Is Hillary Clinton? No question about it. But the Ralph Naders and Ron Pauls of America do not win the White House. It's great to have them in the Primaries because sometimes they force candidates to respond to questions they otherwise wouldn't, but on election day anybody who votes for them is not helping the nation, they're weakening it.

 

[RandomAccess]

I don't understand the point you're making.

George Bush is a bad man who did bad things as President that literally millions of people will pay for for many years.

Ron Paul is a good man who would do good things as President but he'll never be President.

That's the way it is. The world is a practical place, not an idealized place.

And people who vote for Ron Paul are the same sort of thinkers who help vote in the George Bushes, the Rudy Giulianis and the Mitt Romneys to the Oval Office.

There's, of course, a lovely glow about idealism, but it doesn't elect Presidents and while the idealist is casting his vote, and sincerely thinking he's doing something good, he's in reality helping the bad guy win.

Ralph Nader was wrong that there'd be no difference between George Bush and Al Gore, and all along it was going to be either George Bush or Al Gore - never Ralph Nader - so people who voted for Ralph Nader were instrumental in giving the White House to George Bush. Is Al Gore flawed? You bet. Is Hillary Clinton? No question about it. But the Ralph Naders and Ron Pauls of America do not win the White House. It's great to have them in the Primaries because sometimes they force candidates to respond to questions they otherwise wouldn't, but on election day anybody who votes for them is not helping the nation, they're weakening it.

Very, VERY well said! Thank you.

 

[PER4MER]

I'd love to get in on this fun. . . but I refuse to get my cursor anywhere close to "Remove user from ignore list".

Agreed...who needs to wade into that morass of antagonism and misogyny?

 

[MystikWizard]

That right? Sixty-two percent of Republicans support Bush's war in Iraq.[/URL] Are they all neocons? No. Votes come before the Senate on ending the war, and how do Republicans vote? Almost unanimously, they vote to keep the war going. Are they all neocons? No.

This completely shows your true bias and Ignorance, General. Thank you for that post.

Because any one of your Democratic Nominees For President, who can not even commit to having the troops withdrawn by their first term (4 WHOLE FUCKING YEARS), are also SUPPORTING the War in Iraq. Yet, you have no problem voting for one of them, now do you? They can verbally say that don't support it all they want, but actions speak louder than words.

If you had any true leadership in your party, one of your Front Runners would take a stand and say "YES, if elected, I will commit to having our troops withdrawn in my first term. 4 WHOLE YEARS is more than enough time to do this."

But you don't have that happening with any of your Front Runners, now do you? No wonder people are disgusted by this 2 Party System. Is it even a 2 Party System anymore, or is that just the illusion to fool the ignorant?

So, I guess we mine as well rank you in that percentage of those that support the War, as well, because evidently you do support continuing it if you vote for one of those candidates, which we know you will be.

Good day, General.

 

[RandomAccess]

Agreed...who needs to wade into that morass of antagonism and misogyny?

Yeah. But I think we're using the ignore feature on different people!

When one understands that GA has his tongue deeply burried in his cheek with every post (even though he's usually right) it's not so bad. If you look past his impersonation of neocons (the misogyny bit) he's really quite funny (I loved his "kiss me where it stinks" comment the other day)! Don't believe for a second that GA's a misogynist. He's just throwing right wing tactics back at them. As we say in AA, "take what's good, and leave the rest."

Others on the forum use deep-seated hatred and self-loathing to season their venom. These I choose to "ignore."

 

[RandomAccess]

I have explained the reason I use feminine names and words when discussing Republicans several times. Sadly, some people want to ignore my argument and instead bash me for doing exactly what they do to Democrats as a matter of instinct, as a matter of strategy. You see, when THEY do it and get CALLED ON IT, well, they say "just kidding." But when I do it to, when I return fire against THEIR candidates, well, I'm anti-women!

Here's but two examples:

Originally Posted by letme
[STRIKE]Breck Gurl[/STRIKE] Edwards has shown her hypervelocity with the 2 Americas. as his is a gilded world.

Originally Posted by letme
Obamha saying to the Breck Girl: " And you have no split-ends ?"

And here is a post I made, one of several over the years, explaining my tactic, in a response to that Equal Rights advocate, chance1:

Originally Posted by General_Alfie
I gave these as but two examples of Republican attempts to feminize male Democrats -- the anti-gay Ann Coulter rants against Edwards (you know, she's called him a faggot, which of course wouldn't bother you, a stout, proud and out gay Republican of integrity), and the "Breck Girl" shit, which you, a proud and out gay Republican also have no problem with. (Anyone see a pattern here?) However, it goes back many years, back to Al Gore and the lie about his needing a woman to tell him how to dress like a man, the GOP-invented "Mommie Party" monker for Democrats, etc. Of course, you, being a well-adjusted and comfortable-in-your-own-skin Republican gay man would have no problem with that, either.

Now, I expect the greedy, hateful Republicans to ignore this rationale and to attack me for being 'tho mean!!! After all, that's what they are programmed to do, to lie and distort and to smear. But until they stop feminizing our men, I won't stop returning the favor, Per4mer or no per4mer.

Two things, Alfie: 1. You don't have to convince me, I understand. 2. Per4mer is a good Democrat, not a Republican. . . he just hasn't had the chance (I think) to learn why you do what you do.

Now, back to the topic at hand: Ron Paul is a fine, probably very honorable man. But, as has been said, he's too idealistic to EVER be elected President of the United States. A vote for Ron Paul is worse than wasted. It may get the wrong candidate nominated/elected. Come to think of it, if I were Hillary, I'd likely throw some money Ron Paul's way just to keep the Republicans splintered! Strategy, dontchaknow!

 

[opinterph]

A vote for Ron Paul is worse than wasted.

I don’t think any vote made in good conscience is wasted.