See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Get Ready for a Major, Major Disappointment (Ron Paul's Built-In Loss)
Source:
Meself
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 24, 2007
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2007-12-24 10:19:48 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 7832
Comments: 264
Merry Xmas everyone and may your grandest wishes come true, for as long as they don't come into conflict with my own :). I haven't done a vanity in a long, long, long time but I felt that it's important to discuss the reality of where RP is currently heading. Disclaimer: I stand for just about everything RP stands for. 'Just about' stands for his continuing membership in the stupid, evil, dangerous GOP party. Now, on the topic of Ron Paul. I just watched a clip of him on the Tim Russert show where RP re-stated in the most forceful way that he has no intention whatsoever to run for US Prez outside of the GOP reservation. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that RP is really running for the GOP nomination and, of course, he is NOT going to get it. He is not even going to be a close third or fourth. In the end, you will find RP trailing Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and just about everyone else who stands for Bush, War and the fat State way because this is what the GOP membership is standing for these days. I am fully aware of the 'hijacking' theory. Its exponents believe that, somehow, the RP activists are going to show up all 100% of them to vote in primaries and everyone else's supporters are going to stay home and we will see RP winning state after state after state. This is, of course, nonsense. Reality is coming on Jan 3, I believe, and Jan 2 will be the last time you are going to hear about the hijacking theory. Then, I heard someone here stating that 'the 2 parties' are nothing but tools for whomever is seeking the presidency to get the presidency. This, my friends, is as naive as it gets. The parties are Mafia-like organizations whose aim is to seek, get and exercise political power for the benefit of the inner circles who own them and they as much a 'free' tool for the people the parties put forward for the voters to vote on as the Mafia is a tool for the Mafia bosses. The inner circle has no use for RP, he does not support the type of 'leadership' they are paying for. Now, RP is going to lose. He took millions of dollars from supporters who refused to accept that he can NOT win the US presidency under the stinky and filthy flag of the GOP. He was asked repeatedly whether he would consider running as an independent, OPPOSING the 2 monstrous political Mafias and, every time he answered the question, the answer was a strong 'NO'. THE FUTURE: the next US Prez is going to be Hillary, O'Bama, Giuliani, Romney or, maybe, Huckabee. Ron Paul will win ZERO primaries/caucuses and, if he is true to his words, he will get back to delivering babies and representing his Texas district. I suspect that RP is going to be very much at peace with himself but, what are his supporters going to feel about it? What are they going to do? They supported a campaign for the US presidency that was built from the ground up to lose the race - and they refused to see it because they liked the excitement. Are they going to be sad? Angry? What would be the consequences of RP's campaign? The main consequence that I see is that of legitimizing the 2-party system. RP is a saint among politicians. He says and does all the right things and, yet, he insists in staying inside the GOP party and he retreats when the GOP, as predicted and as expected, deals him a humiliating defeat in his attempt to represent the political Cosa Nostra - because he is not a made made and he is not from the families. However, staying as an 'unmade' member of the organization, he adds credibility to it. It would be something close to Jesus joining the Pharisees and seeking Caiafa's job. I will be watching with interest how the RP fantasy gets itself crushed by the inevitable political reality. Just you all keep in mind that, while 'the media' and 'the corrupt politicians' can be blamed for RP's inability to win the GOP nomination, the main problem is RP's seeking the GOP nomination instead of running for the US presidency and seeking the support of the people, not the nod of the GOP party bosses.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-204) not displayed.
.
.
.
#205. To: richard9151 (#202)
I've tried it and checked it really carefully and it still won't open. Is there another way to get there?
:) If only.
I'll be wearing a lavendar sprig and dragging a ice chest. :)
I'll probably have all the ice I need hanging from my eyebrows, at least until around May or so.
Wondering if the .info domain is the culprit here.
Go here; http://www.brainwashington.info/ Click on files, and open up 01 There is no Constitution...
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Got it, thanks. :) Haven't read one word yet, just wanted to let you know it worked.
See 210 & 211, please.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
LOL!
Well, aren't you two a pair. I'm astounded to discover that the Decider is not the only ignoramus that thinks the Constitution is just a damned piece of paper.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Teddy Roosevelt was immensely popular, a proven quantity, and had greater name recognition than his opponents. Perhaps he would have succeeded had he not been running for a third term. His example is not immediately applicable to Ron Paul. Of course it took another Roosevelt to succeed in winning a third term.
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
The Articles of Confederation went into full effect in 1781, when Maryland ratified them. It took five or six years before most Americans decided they were not working. The Constitution of 1787 went into full effect in 1789, when the new government started work. It took more than 200 years before large numbers of Americans decided that it was not working. (And that was after it had undergone signficant formal amendment and been significantly reinterpreted by court decision many times.)
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
We didn't get here in one administration and we won't get back in one. no one knows that better than Ron Paul. But you just sit it out or vote for the lesser of two evils and then you and your buddy can come back and crap on some more threads.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
That would be me. Thanks. That would be me too. Thanks again! Taking the R nomination is also a great way to eliminate a bunch of other candidates prior to the gen election. I think it amusing that you claim to know more about 3rd party politics than someone who actually ran as the Libertarian pres candidate 20 years ago. I don't claim to know with any certainty what will happen with RP during the primaries, which is what separates you and me. But if Ron does place first or second in NH, it will be interesting to see if you will admit being wrong or if you'll apply some spin on the results like Mr. No-Spin-Zone man himself.
Pinguinite.com EcuadorTreasures.ec
Well, yes, I do believe that we are. Thank you for noticing! I'm astounded to discover that the Decider is not the only ignoramus that thinks the Constitution is just a damned piece of paper. Perhaps it is because he actually read the document, and, some of the case law written on it? Could be....... Speaking for myself, as a student of the subject for the last, oh, 25 years or so, I have yet to met anyone who would honestly look at the subject, i.e., the CONstitution and the case law/history thereof, and fail to do one of two things; 1. Agree with me on the subject, or; 2. Refuse to talk any further on the subject. And where would you'll fit into this here subject? Ummmm? And by the way, before you bother to get ansty on the subject, I supplied two sources chock-a-block full of info on 'the subject.' Help yurself.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
LOL! But then he stuck Dubya right smack dab in the middle. Poor Dubya, he finally tells the truth and no one believes him. Actually though, it isn't just a GD piece of paper, its a piece of work. I'd go so far as to say it almost qualifies as an art form. I just finished reading part I, good job!!!
First off, most Americans WERE NOT of the mindset that the Articles of Confederation were not working. Which is why, by the way, that the Constitutional Convention was held in secret. And there have always been LARGE numbers of Americans who have been convinced that the Constitution was not working. Thousands and thousands of them gave their lives in the Civil War over just that subject. Or, are you of the mindset that the Civil War was about slavery?! And finally, just a little bit about those so-called Amendments; This is the first line of the 17th Amendment; The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. This is the final line of Artile V of the Constitution; ; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Shall I, or need I, point out that the 17th Amendment was NOT ratified 100%? Now, want to run some more 'stuff' about the Constitution by me?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
That was fast! Thank you. Usually takes people a couple of months to absorb it.... if they do. As for Dubya, you are correct. Of course, he so seldom does tell the truth, how is someone to know?! And yes, it is an artform; an attorney's word-smith art form, designed to confuse and hide what is actually there. A friend of mine did an education level assessment of it, and he figured that to understand the Constitution with a single reading, you would need 26 years of formal education. I have never found any reason to doubt his findings.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I wonder if you have any idea how many times that exact phrase has been repeated during elections of the past hundred years and counting. I've used it myself a few times. But sooner or later you realize, you keep doing the same things and you'll keep getting more of what you've got. I can't help you out there anymore.
Some of it I knew, so I'll admit to speed reading through those parts. The court cases will take me another go around or two when my eyes aren't crossed from exhaustion. I wasn't familiar with what you posted earlier about how the district states were created and how they overlaid the original states, but now I understand it. Sneaky fatherless sons, all of 'em.
Many many people in this forum have given much of their time and support for the ad itself to promote a good man. An accusation of immorality Did avrwc say that Ron Paul supporters are immoral? If he did. I missed it. Here's the only reference to morality that I saw him make and that was directed not towards supporters, but rather to Ron Paul's choice to run as a republican which he sees as lending legitimacy to the 2 party anti-people fraud: "Of course it is relevant. The goals do not justify the means. It's Morality 101." I didn't address that because that is avrwc's opinion. Also, it's impossible for me to read every post on 4um much less respond to them. I'm sure you understand that I can't be held responsible for what every member posts especially when I encourage free speech and my policy as far as moderating is pretty much a hands off one. Anyway, I don't wish to beat this to death or to perpetuate the dissention. I just wanted to make my position clear on that issue.
What?! What??! Beat what to death?! What dissention?!! There have only been 1,244 views in this thread and 225 posts!! I don figure but what we is only gettin started!!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Who could forget a name like Squeaky..........yikes....what a bunch of losers.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
How right you are. I will never forget, or forgive, the non-sense I was taught in the government schools about the so-called 'founding fathers.' And, esp. about his highness, ol George hisself. And how much searching I had to do before I finally began to catch on and stopped looking for 'the problem' in 1933 -- 1929 -- 1912 -- 1861 -- I just kept going farther and farther back, and every time I though, ah ha! THIS IS IT! Nope. Had to go all the way back to the father of the country to finally get it. What a disappointment! And not just him; his friends as well, cause he sure never did it all hisself. Just goes to show; to the victors, the spoils, and to the winners, well, they get to write the history books.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
richard... Why not write your view of "actual" history as correctly perceived by you. I think it would be interesting and I might even buy one.
You sign what paper with the state--if it isn't state owned land you've purchased or are buying from them? FWIW, you don't HAVE TO record a land purchase. It is in your best interest to do so. Clouded titles can get to be an expensive proposition.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
You could say that I have started. Check out 210 in this thread, and you can read the beginning.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
richard... I do hope you do not plan on retiring on the book sale proceeds?
I know about that website. It was not me who wrote: "These have been carefully passed along and are still in force, as illustrated by the railroads not paying any property tax on such land nor on any improvements that have been built on the land." thereby giving the impression that railroads do not pay property taxes.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
(Sigh.) Rowdee, that is the point, isn't it. If you do not have to record a land purchase, something should tell you that so doing is for another purpose. If you were REQUIRED to record a land purchase, then it would not be a VOLUTARY action. And to do that VOLUNTARY recording, YOU MUST SIGN A CONTRACT to complete the recording. That is the only recording of a public document that a signing of a contract is required. Before all of this 'property tax' non-sense started, people had ABSTRACTs, and there were no clouded titles, cause every action taken with that land, back to when it was first sold, was of record in that abstract. And if there was an error in that abstract, whoever prepared it was responsible. Errors were very, very rare. Much rarer than they are today. BUT, when the money system was changed in America, and credit became the 'money' of the realm, no banks would lend on property that they could not reposse. That is when everything started to change; title insurance was the biggest part of the scam; making sure people 'thought' they were getting a good deal. You may try this site; http://landrights.com/ They have a pretty good handle on what is going on. I do not thing that they have all of the answers, but they have a LOT of good info. So what was the problem?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
LOL!! Not hardly!! If I was going to do that, I would not deal in hard facts; I would deal in illusion as it is SO MUCH easier to sell!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Gee.... who could it have been then? ;) any property tax on such land I admit, I should have added as follows; any property tax on such land grant land On occasion.... my typing outproduces my intent/thought/thinking!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
richard.. Just maybe you are trying to sell personal hokum and not hard facts.
I am trying to find out what 'contract with the state' you think a property owner is signing? What is it called? Quit the condescending bullshit and talk like a real man instead of a conceited asshole who thinks he has a long on intelligence. Perhaps its in the way you word things.....but then, it seems as though this is how I've always found your character.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
Have you ever registered a piece of land? If you have, then you signed a contract to do so. What the paper is called varies from state to state, and at times, within the state. It depends on what system of land law you have in your area. In some, the presumption is that the property tax attaches automatically, recorded or not and you must file an excemption to be excluded. In others, it is the actual act of recording that attaches the tax. Now, I do not have my books on property tax here; they are packed away, and I find no reason to go dig them out to give you a short course in land tax law. To give you some simple idea of what the differences are, try here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Register United States of America In the USA, land registration is not required. Instead, there are laws that are commonly referred to as "recording acts." Each state in the USA has a different recording act. Generally speaking, however, recording acts come in three flavors, "race statutes," "notice statutes," and "race/notice statutes." Race Statute - Whoever records first wins. Race statutes are extremely rare because most people agree that it is unfair to protect a person who had actual notice of a prior conveyance. Currently North Carolina is the only state that employs this method. Notice Statute - A subsequent purchaser for value wins if, at the time of conveyance, that subsequent purchaser had no actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance. In short, a subsequent bona fide purchaser (BFP) wins. Race/Notice Statute - A subsequent purchaser for value wins if: (1) at the time of conveyance, that subsequent purchaser had no actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance and (2) the subsequent purchaser records before the prior purchaser. In short, subsequent BFP's win only if they record before the prior purchaser. Even though recording acts in the USA do not require recordation, they do create a strong incentive for recordation. At a minimum, recordation creates constructive notice to any subsequent purchasers that a prior conveyance occurred and therefore protects the prior purchaser in the event of a subsequent conveyance.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
And thank God for that. Keep up the good work!
Maybe... but I always... ALWAYS -- pre-release anything that I have written and ask for correction. The last paper, the one listed in 210; There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion, was out being read for about 6 months before I updated and declared it ready for distribution. No one could substaniate a factual error in the paper. And I do not just send to the public at large; it was posted to a couple of really, really sharp legal research groups. But who knows, maybe it is hokem. I mean, after all, we can easily see that America is doing just fine and nothing is wrong, right?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I have recorded land ownership in several ways. In more than one state. I'm trying to understand what it is you are trying to tell folks. I've not signed anything bringing the state into the picture. All my land record dealings have been through county agencies, and at that, the county is not involved as a participant in the matter, other than the registrar or some clerk making notations that the document was recorded on page such and such of document such and such in such and such a book. I've witnessed friends dealing with a clouded title issue that wound up involving numerous families, so I'm rather interested in learning how if they had just not signed some 'paper' with the state that all would be well and hunky dory, with hugs and kisses be tossed hither and yon. Alas, I guess that is for another day, too..... Regards
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
Case closed .... shut down the thread. Thanks for clarity, wakeup.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
There are many liars so I read that a lot. However, no one that states that is willing to put their money where there mouth is. That is, give 25 to 1 odds and if it is certain then the odds don't matter. Put up $100,000 or your house as collateral in Nevada where gambling is legal and I will put up $4,000 and a third party can hold the money and/or the deed to your house. I will not hold my breath.
This website can probably answer your questions.
Comments (246 - 264) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#206. To: Critter (#203)
Nah. There are like two naysayers. They just talk a lot. :)
#207. To: RidinShotgun (#204)
Well okay then. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Maybe I'll see you there.
#208. To: Peppa (#207)
#209. To: RidinShotgun, richard9151, Penguinite, coders here (#205)
I've tried it and checked it really carefully and it still won't open.
#210. To: RidinShotgun (#205)
Is there another way to get there?
#211. To: richard9151 (#210)
#212. To: lodwick (#209)
#213. To: RidinShotgun (#208)
I'll probably have all the ice I need hanging from my eyebrows, at least until around May or so.
#214. To: richard9151, RidinShotgun (#134)
Where have you been by the way?! While I was getting 'nailed to the wall' in 4um for posting on the non-sense of the CONstitution?!!!!!????!!!!
#215. To: aristeides (#107)
That's what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912. And he came close to winning the election that year.
#216. To: lodwick (#195)
(Edited)
#217. To: RidinShotgun (#186)
The systemic disease infecting this country and its people is so old and so deep rooted that one man could never heal it, short of declaring a dictatorship and ridding the government of its traitors the hard way. I feel pretty confident that no one wants that.
#218. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
I am fully aware of the 'hijacking' theory. Its exponents believe that, somehow, the RP activists are going to show up all 100% of them to vote in primaries and everyone else's supporters are going to stay home and we will see RP winning state after state after state.
Then, I heard someone here stating that 'the 2 parties' are nothing but tools for whomever is seeking the presidency to get the presidency.
#219. To: iconoclast, RidinShotgun (#214)
Well, aren't you two a pair.
#220. To: richard9151 (#219)
Well, yes, I do believe that we are. Thank you for noticing!
#221. To: aristeides, lodwick (#216)
(Edited)
It took five or six years before most Americans decided they were not working.
#222. To: RidinShotgun (#220)
I just finished reading part I, good job!!!
#223. To: iconoclast (#217)
We didn't get here in one administration and we won't get back in one.
#224. To: richard9151 (#222)
That was fast! Thank you. Usually takes people a couple of months to absorb it.... if they do.
#225. To: Peppa, a vast rightwing conspirator (#170)
(Edited)
I didn't attribute the immoral sentiment to you, but you rather did not acknowledge it's flat appraisal by Vast to those that support RP. Rather it was allowed to stand as a form of truth, and many posters seemed to support that.
#226. To: christine (#225)
I don't wish to beat this to death or to perpetuate the dissention.
#227. To: kiki (#185)
#228. To: RidinShotgun (#224)
Sneaky fatherless sons, all of 'em.
#229. To: richard9151 (#228)
they get to write the history books.
#230. To: richard9151 (#197)
If you go down to record the title to a piece of property that you just bought, again, of public record, you must first sign a paper.
#231. To: Cynicom (#229)
Why not write your view of "actual" history as correctly perceived by you.
#232. To: richard9151 (#231)
#233. To: richard9151 (#200)
#234. To: rowdee (#230)
you don't HAVE TO record a land purchase.
#235. To: Cynicom (#232)
I do hope you do not plan on retiring on the book sale proceeds?
#236. To: rowdee (#233)
(Edited)
"These have been carefully passed along and are still in force, as illustrated by the railroads not paying any property tax on such land nor on any improvements that have been built on the land." thereby giving the impression that railroads do not pay property taxes.
#237. To: richard9151 (#235)
#238. To: richard9151 (#234)
#239. To: rowdee (#238)
I am trying to find out what 'contract with the state' you think a property owner is signing?
#240. To: christine (#225)
I encourage free speech and my policy as far as moderating is pretty much a hands off one.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#241. To: Cynicom (#237)
Just maybe you are trying to sell personal hokum and not hard facts.
#242. To: richard9151 (#239)
#243. To: wakeup (#174)
It was ole' Ben Franklin that remarked, "We have given you a Republic... if you can keep it." We did not and here we be.
#244. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
RP is going to lose.
#245. To: rowdee (#242)
I have recorded land ownership in several ways. In more than one state. I'm trying to understand what it is you are trying to tell folks. I've not signed anything bringing the state into the picture.
.
.
.