REP. RON PAUL is +1150 @ WSEX to win REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE

[robin]

great post indio.

i like ron paul alot but imo he hs zero chance. and when i say zero i mean less than zero. if the 1/100000 chance came through and he won he would never make it to the white house.

he is is to big a threat to the establishment.

[count zero]

As someone mentioned in another thread, it takes a long time to turn an ocean liner around, all the more so if you're a renegade within your own party. If Ron Paul were to become President, I doubt very much whether we would see any substantive changes anytime soon. In fact, the only likely changes would be precisely in the direction of greater social control, since in a Ron Paul presidency the only areas where all three branches of government were on the same page would line up pretty closely with the Bush/religious-right agenda. For example, he's never gonna get pot legalized; he's not in favor of pot, he's in favor of an ideology that happens to grandfather pot in. He probably couldn't/wouldn't even pull the troops out of Iraq, since a hundred Ron Pauls can be President but the multinationals and the MI-complex still run the country. But he's a declared opponent of abortion rights, sympathetic to big bidniss, and carries a lot of other conservative baggage, and in those areas he could easily find support in Congress. And if the religious-right's wish list is the only thing where the president and Congress see eye to eye, the only area where they can appear to be doing something, well...connect the dots.

The value of a Ron Paul victory would be in breaking the hegemony enjoyed by the two entrenched parties, in poking a sharp stick in the eye of the political establishment. It would be a starting point. It would not be likely in and of itself to produce tangible results. If he insists on doing what he thinks is right, they'll just give him the Jimmy Carter treatment, freeze him out, malfease deliberately at the crucial moments and leave him twisting in the wind, looking like a fool. If he plays ball, i.e. shuts up and doesn't make any sudden moves, then they'll give him the Bill Clinton treatment, throw him a few dinners and honorariums, send him out to do fundraising, etc.

As for indio's post being great: I've agreed with indio on more than one occasion here, and I certainly have no problem with anyone who thinks the government is run by chimps or worse. But calling Woodrow Wilson and FDR "traitors" relegates this post, IMO, to hyperbole. There are surely ways to make the same point that do not invite the reader to laugh dismissively and turn the page.

[Total Square]

where is ta???

[Hartley]

They talked about the momentum Paul was getting on Anderson Cooper tonight and called him "the internet darling"

[Mike Brennan]

Originally Posted by drunkguy

are you retarded? Or have you just been sniffing glue this morning?


if i am making the argument that it is a fair line than why the hell would i want to bet on it period?

and no I'm not on welfare but thanks anyway

No, apparently you are the one with the disability my friend. Do you not know what a "sucker's line" is? And you write for a gambling web site? If you think that's a "fair line" then it would appear the linesmaker who hung it got his desired effect.

[Mike Brennan]

Originally Posted by Buck Swope

My point was not a political one just a statement than Paul is more than a 8-1 shot; more like 80-1 IMHO

Exactly.

[indio]

I think one thing should be noted, that any bookmakers who take large bets on any event, and hence, has a lot at stake, should be taken seriously since they are usually fairly accurate because that's there business.

So i would give more credence to a good bookmakers odds than i would a mass media"poll". Especially since mass media moguls hate the thought of a "non sanctioned candidate" having success. The way Fox has tried to discredit Pauls overwhelming successes in 2 text in votes for their broadcast debates is shameful. I mean really, they spend all this time "hyping" their "you can vote for tonights winner" all through their broadcast, and then they discredit their own results when Ron Paul wins by a huge margin. One really needs to think hard about that because it says a lot.

As far as Ron Pauls odds being offered much shorter than actual probability, I must admit the conclusions offered by some in this thread seem credible.
Possibly, the bookmakers are getting many bets on Ron Paul for the simple reason that most gamblers, who are for the most part, libertarian in spirit, want to place a bet on Paul as a show of support, since it is rare to have a candidate who actually endorses the freedom to gamble amongst other things.
( I'm sure if Gus Hall was still running, Count Zero might throw a few bucks on him).

I would dearly hope, that no one would let the perception of having "no chance" be a deterrent for anyone to vote for the candidate that best represents what they believe. The whole "wasted" vote rhetoric, is more propoganda from the mighty 2 party monarchy, that never wants to lose it's grip on us. ( or i should say, the groups that control the 2 parties).

I will vote for Ron Paul, regardless of his percieved chances, just like i voted for Harry Browne ( R.I.P. Harry). But regardless of what happens, one thing is for sure, Ron Pauls message is being heard, something that Libertarians have never been able to do on a large stage before, and the internet is a big part of that. The Internet is like a fresh new world, mostly unregulated, unsensored, and largely untaxed as a grand new way to find different points of view, research many topics, entertain oneself, purchase and sell products internationally to a wide open market, and of course, earn money, and handle financial transactions freely.

Thats why the UIGEA is such a large issue, because it is much, much, more than just a non-gambling act. It is the federal government trying to gain a foothold of control on this wonderful new "world". They have stifiled the free market, slowed the free markets natural assendance of innovation, and they have done it under the guise of "protecting you" and even shamelessly trying to convince the gullible that this is a big step in the "war on terror". Thats why im so very suprised that more groups that could care less about gambling, have not joined our fight, since it has more to do with keeping the federal government out of our bank accounts, than just gambling.

Just think how wonderful it was to have an innovative company like Neteller, and many like them, only to have the DOJ decimate various companies who were liscenced and operating legally in their various jurisdictions. So maybe it is just an appeasement to the zealots theocratic base, but i think it is much deeper and much more sinister. So yes, i will be voting for Ron Paul and i believe, although he more than likely will not be nominated, has awoken a large, large contingent of Americans who are sick and tired of our 2 party monarchy, and is sick and tired of being told what to do, what to say, what to think, and are fed up with government being part of every facet of their day to day lives. And we can now, thanks to the ease and convenience of the internet, educate ourselves to the reality that government power is not a natural or divine reality, but rather something that has slowly evolved through a process, and that we the people, although with the odds stacked against us, do and can have the power to reclaim our lost liberty in this wonderful, although sometimes cruel and often tainted and poisoned with corruption,system of self-governence called the United States of America.

[Buck Swope]

The sharps have spoken!

2008 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE (1-Pay) $100 WIN
Series Name Sell Buy
RUDY GIULIANI 35 40 +150
MITT ROMNEY 23 28 +257
FRED THOMPSON 20 25 +300
REP. RON PAUL (TX) 3 6 +1566

[count zero]

Another indio post I agree with completely, although of course I'm devastated to learn that Gus Hall is not running.

Worth noting that anyone with any political viewpoint, from the radical right to the radical left, probably agrees with 99% of what indio said. The problem is not this political theory or that; any political or economic philosophy works with honest, capable leadership. The problem is 60 years of venal and incompetent control of the government by self-interested Republicrats.

[indio]

geez zero, if we can agree on some things, maybe there is hope for mankind after all

I always enjoy discussing political philoshophy with you, although i must admit a fault for taking some things more personally then they are intended. I am sure we will have some heated discussions in the future, but i'm going to take a bit of a break from political, and passionate posts. I have been on the wagon for a couple of weeks, and i will officially resume drinking at my tee time tommorow morning, and have no desire for any cogitating , or political expression while i'm ingesting large quantities of Stolichnaya .

I will close with a link to something i stumbled onto yesterday, that had me laughing in tears. I believe i actually saw this when it was aired originally, 30 years ago.

YouTube - Andy Kaufman: "I Trusted You"

[Tommyjay]

I agree completely with Indio and CZ, except for the part that the citizenry can, with effort and a Ron Paul type leader, change the governmental system back to a free lifestyle. There is way too much at stake for the string holders to ease up, in fact it gets worse in the future.

Revolutions are carried out with 10 or less percent of the people. Say 5%. That would mean you would have 15 million angry, screaming, armed, tea tossers running around this country. Say 1%. 3 million. Do you know how much change 3 million banshee zealots could invoke? They would be hard to deal with, even by the military. Military men have an abhorrance to killing their own citizens, they just might sit it out.

I actually thought that the internet was going to be the answer to the congressional power grab. How in the world could anyone control what's going on in a world wide medium? Find a place where it's legal to do whatever you want to do, and set up shop there. Sounds simple to me. I was wrong, as I see now.

There is an answer out there. I know it. I don't know what it is. I do know Ron Paul won't be able to do a damn thing, it has to come from the people. National referendum would be a good start. Stick these issues on the ballot. Let the citizens vote on them.

[degenerategambler]

If I was an American I would make a contribution, vote and campaign for Ron Paul.

[Hartley]

There's a libertarian party here in Ontario also but I have no idea who the candidates are

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by Hartley

There's a libertarian party here in Ontario also but I have no idea who the candidates are

usually the local and state candidates are all hippy potheads on the libertarian ticket


I'm thinking of running next year

[Hartley]

Ontario Libertarian Party Official Home Page

[nino brown]

ron pauls support is way underreported. i am in tn, and fred thompson gets news coverage, but yard signs and bumper stickers for paul are sprouting up nicely.

[degenerategambler]

Here is where a lot of Ron Paul's support comes from. He speaks out against the federal reserve and is outside of "the establisment". This is a very interesting documentary:

Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007

Its long but it is very interesting.

[robin]

down to plus 900

sell sell sell

[count zero]

A representative of Ron Paul said recently that, were Paul to become president, he would neither pardon Marc Emery nor (if Emery hasn't yet been handed over by the Canadian government) call off US demands for his extradition, even though the guy's "crime" (mail-order cannabis seed business) was repeatedly deemed unworthy of prosecution by the Canadian government, normally sufficient grounds in and of itself for denying extradition.

The reason given was that "Ron [Paul] believes in the rule of law." Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director went on to say "I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free." Mind you, this is a Canadian citizen who has committed what Canadian authorities consider a parking-ticket level offense, in an area that Ron Paul says comprises an unwarranted and unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government into the lives of private citizens. A guy who the Canadian authorities clearly are uncomfortable handing over (several deadlines have come and gone) despite repeated bullying by the feds. But Ron Paul sides with the bullying feds.

Ironically, the guy (Emery) has been handing out Ron Paul bumperstickers and pamphlets for several years. Apparently he thinks Paul is sympathetic to cannabis users. But Ron Paul believes instead in the rule of law. He's anti-choice too. I mean, freedom only extends so far, right? I think I'm beginning to see what a Ron Paul presidency would look like.

I wrote in another thread about the extreme unlikelihood that Paul would be able to get much of his agenda accomplished if elected, but a pardon could be easily done unilaterally. Other presidents did it for scumbags like Marc Rich and Scooter Libby. But of course those were just simple criminals who happened to commit their crimes at the behest of the US government, not major threats to our nation's security like a guy who sells pot seeds.

If this is how the guy treats his friends, I think my infatuation with Ron Paul is over.