Rand Paul on The Alex Jones Show today

[Anti Federalist]

[/B]

The fundamental difference is that AJ is for Peace and humanity, Limbaugh is a blowhard who thinks Assange should have a bullet in his head. I'm so sick of the tough guy BS persona. Guys who talk like that probably go home and dance around in pantyhose at night.

LoL

That would explain the four failed marriages.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This. Rand doesn't need to be associated with 9-11 conspiracy nuts.

Conspiracy nuts and "one trick ponies".

Pot - Kettle - Black

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm sure that I agree with most of his positions on the issues, but I'm not going to take anybody seriously who claims that world bankers are trying to kill off 80% of the world's population.

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." Ted Turner - 1996

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8030

A Department of State telegram, dated July 1969, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III, among others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program. The administrator of the UN Development Program reported confidentially that he preferred someone such as Salas who had the “advantage of color, religion (Catholic) and conviction.”

http://www.theinterim.com/july98/20nssm.html

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

Prince Philip If I were an Animal.

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

The Victorian-born immunologist, who headed the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1960. He died in 1985 but his theories on immunity and “clonal selection” provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/09/1015365752044.html?oneclick=true

I could on and on and on like this.

Think what you want, but ignoring the fact that the ruling class thinks there are way too many of us Mundanes, and would be perfectly happy killing a great deal of us off, is foolish and childlike.

 

[jmdrake]

You didn't mention the Georgia Guidestones.

http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

Billionaire club in bid to curb
overpopulation

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." Ted Turner - 1996

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8030

A Department of State telegram, dated July 1969, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III, among others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program. The administrator of the UN Development Program reported confidentially that he preferred someone such as Salas who had the “advantage of color, religion (Catholic) and conviction.”

http://www.theinterim.com/july98/20nssm.html

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

Prince Philip If I were an Animal.

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

The Victorian-born immunologist, who headed the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1960. He died in 1985 but his theories on immunity and “clonal selection” provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/09/1015365752044.html?oneclick=true

I could on and on and on like this.

Think what you want, but ignoring the fact that the ruling class thinks there are way too many of us Mundanes, and would be perfectly happy killing a great deal of us off, is foolish and childlike.

 

[vita3]

Rand said the mainstream media doesn't control the political process anymore. Like him or not, Alex Jones is part of the alternative solution.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Alex Jones is a liability, and no serious Presidential contender will ever be able to run without this popping up and ruining it.

Alex Jones' rants will be shown in every home in America. Rand = 15% of the presidential vote as a result

 

[Anti Federalist]

Alex Jones is a liability, and no serious Presidential Senate contender will ever be able to run without this popping up and ruining it.

Alex Jones' rants will be shown in every home in America. Rand = 15% of the presidential senate vote as a result

Rand appeared on the Alex Jones show many times before the election.

Just thought I'd fix that for ya.

 

[jmdrake]

Alex Jones is a liability, and no serious Presidential contender will ever be able to run without this popping up and ruining it.

Alex Jones' rants will be shown in every home in America. Rand = 15% of the presidential vote as a result

15% > what Ron got in 2008 >>>>>>>> what Ron got the first time he ran with no Alex Jones. Just sayin'.

 

[low preference guy]

15% > what Ron got in 2008 >>>>>>>> what Ron got the first time he ran with no Alex Jones. Just sayin'.

What a stupid comparison. Ron won the primary outright! And the internet wasn't around. You can't differentiate the effect from that factor from that of the other numerous factors in place with a simple comparison like that.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't see what the big deal is. If the media or whoever famous attempts to turn this in to a talking point against Rand, he can just say "fact is Alex Jones has millions of listeners, why would I turn his show down just because I disagree with him".

 

[jmdrake]

What a stupid comparison. Ron won the primary outright! And the internet wasn't around. You can't differentiate the effect from that factor from that of the other numerous factors in place with a simple comparison like that.

Ron won the presidential primary outright? What are you smoking? When Ron ran as a libertarian candidate he got royally stomped. And he got royally stomped because nobody had a clue of who he was. This last go round his biggest problem was not that people thought he was a "truther". His biggest problem was most people STILL didn't know who he was! If you're talking winning a congressional primary, that's WAY different from winning a statewide election like senator or nationwide presidential election. You can win a congressional primary with little or know name recognition. That just happened here in Tennessee last go round. Two of the candidates in the GOP primary were backed by big names (Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee). They were getting all of the media attention. At the end of the day they both got beat by a no name candidate who had no money for TV or radio advertising but just had signs up all over the district, knocked on some doors and made some robocalls. The difference is that if you are a major candidate for a statewide election or better, you get prime media coverage everytime you sneeze. The coverage for smaller elections, even important elections like congress, is MUCH less, so media favored candidates get less of a bump. Ron Paul needed as much media in 2007/2008 as possible and Alex Jones was one place he could always go to get favorable coverage at a time when many other media outlets either ignored Paul or were openly hostile. Jones helped far more than he hurt. The neocons in the media who attacked Paul did so for a variety of reasons and ultimately because they hated his foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't realize that is either just not being honest or doesn't have a handle on the facts.

 

[low preference guy]

Ron won the presidential primary outright? What are you smoking? When Ron ran as a libertarian candidate he got royally stomped.

Paul was nominated on the first ballot with 196 of the 368 votes cast, with his closest opponent, Means, receiving 120 votes.[16] He accepted the nomination and thanked the delegates with his wife, Carol, by his side.[17] Marrou was selected as his running mate as the candidate for Vice President without any opposition. The platform for the party was also decided, and included the removal of all nuclear weapons from Europe, termination of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, withdrawal of all American troops abroad, prosecution of anyone who knowingly spreads AIDS and the legalization of hypodermic syringe possession. A plank revealed a pro-choice stand on abortion, which was at odds with Paul's pro-life position.[16

He won the primary. That's why he was the candidate in the general election. What are you smoking? Nothing you said in your long post changes the fact that the comparison you made is really stupid.

 

[jmdrake]

He won the primary. That's why he was the candidate in the general election. What are you smoking? Nothing you said in your long post changes the fact that the comparison you made is really stupid.

You are the one looking stupid. I was obviously talking about Ron's first presidential bid (where he ran as a libertarian and got almost none of the vote) to his second presidential bid, where he got a reasonable amount of the vote. I was not comparing a congressional race to a presidential race. That's just silly.

Now as to my "long post", that was to explain to you the difference between a presidential election (or even a senate election) and a congressional election. Maybe you found my analysis confusing, so I will break it down for you point by point.

1) You can win a congressional primary with no mainstream media attention and no radio or TV advertising.

2) You cannot be competitive in a presidential primary (or a general election if you are running third party as Ron did the first time) without mainstream media attention and/or massive radio and TV advertising. The same is true for trying to win a senate race.

3) I know point #1 is true because I saw it happen. In the 5th congressional district a no name candidate beat out candidates endorsed by Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin in the GOP primary. This despite the free advertising and massive campaign contributions the other two received because of the endorsements.

4) Here's the main point that you are missing. Because of the nature of district wide politics, a little known candidate can win a district primary simply through putting up signs, knocking on doors and making phone calls. Is that easy? No. But it's possible. That strategy is not possible running statewide or nationwide. Ron didn't need massive name recognition to win his first congressional primary. He did need massive name recognition to even make a dent in a presidential race. Alex Jones (and a lot of others) helped him get enough name recognition to at least be in the running. Despite an active media blackout and even hostile media Ron made it much further than other "conservative" 2008 candidates such as Duncan Hunter. (The only reason I know about Hunter is that a local talk show host kept saying "Why don't more people support Duncan Hunter?") Ron's ultimate biggest problem was that despite everything he did and we did, and the end of the day a lot of voters never got the answer to our sign waving question "Who is Ron Paul"? I know that from the actual canvasing I did in 2008. Even those who knew he was "some guy running for office" had no idea about what he stood for. Alex Jones helped by getting the word out about Dr. Paul to one segment of the population. But a lot more needed to happen.

 

[low preference guy]

You are the one looking stupid. I was obviously talking about Ron's first presidential bid (where he ran as a libertarian and got almost none of the vote) to his second presidential bid, where he got a reasonable amount of the vote. I was not comparing a congressional race to a presidential race. That's just silly.

Ron Paul won the Presidential Libertarian Primary in 88, Jesus Christ. LOL at your thinking I'd read the rest of your post, considering the pure non-sense you continually post.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul won the Presidential Libertarian Primary in 88, Jesus Christ. LOL at your thinking I'd read the rest of your post, considering the pure non-sense you continually post.

And how hard is it to win a primary of an organization who's entire membership was smaller than many small cities? I mean really, don't be stupid. In the general election Ron got 431,750 votes TOTAL. By contrast Hillary beat Obama in California by 416,335. So Hillary's margin of victory in ONE STATE is almost equal to Ron's ENTIRE "libertarian" vote. Goodness you're just being freaking ridiculous.

Besides, most libertarian state parties don't even have primaries. They have conventions. Usually the libertarian party isn't strong enough to get on the state primary ballots. So basically its members who show up to vote. No "campaigning" is done in the traditional sense. You don't see any TV advertising saying "Vote for Ron Paul at the upcoming Tennessee state libertarian party convention". It's a whole different animal from what most people consider a "primary". It's not even called a primary.

 

[low preference guy]

And how hard is it to win a primary of an organization who's entire membership was smaller than many small cities? I mean really, don't be stupid. In the general election Ron got 431,750 votes TOTAL. By contrast Hillary beat Obama in California by 416,335. So Hillary's margin of victory in ONE STATE is almost equal to Ron's ENTIRE "libertarian" vote. Goodness you're just being freaking ridiculous.

So instead of admitting you were wrong in saying Ron didn't won a presidential primary in '88 (remember, you called me "drunk" because I said that), you keep calling me names? And the one you choose is "ridiculous"! LOL! You might want to read about projection. What a psycho.

 

[jmdrake]

So instead of admitting you were wrong in saying Ron didn't won a presidential primary in '88 (remember, you called me "drunk" because I said that), you keep calling me names? And the one you choose is "ridiculous"! LOL! You might want to read about projection. What a psycho.

A) You started with the name calling. (By the way. I didn't call you "drunk". I asked what you were "smoking". And I did that in response to you calling my comparison "stupid". So go take a long walk off a short pier.)

B) I'm not wrong.

C) You don't know the difference between a primary (voters go to the polls that are governed by state election laws) and a convention (people who are members of a party show up and vote for electors who go to the national convention but aren't actually pledged to anybody). There a reason why it took 6 rounds of voting to select Bob Barr last time.

Back to my original point. 15% of the total GOP primaries > Ron's total votes in 2008 >> Ron's total votes in 1998. Dance around these numbers all you want. Make a jackass out of yourself. But typically candidates get more votes in the general election than they do the primaries. Even if you count the libertarian party selection process as a "primary" (dishonest IMO but whatever floats your boat), that still doesn't undercut my argument. In fact it strengthens it. Ron Paul's primary votes in 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than his libertarian "primary" votes in 1998.