T Nation

Rick Perry for TARP.


#1

#2

Interesting. Why isn't the letter dated? Are they referring to TARP or ARRA? It doesn't say. It's a rather vague and broad letter.


#3

Atta boy John you never disappoint. The polling has shown that Perry draws some Paul support so you guys go after Perry. LOL...get em John!

Ha ha...Who cares? If it isn't Perry it will most certainly be someone else, other than Paul, who gets the republican nomination. And it's only a matter of time before we all get to see who it is.


#4

Any comment on him supporting tarp? And Ron Paul is behind who in the polls, as you always say the polls this far out are nonsense. You know just as well as I do that the Blue Republicans(you know the movement I said would happen thenyou and fighting irish took turns bashing me) havn't switched over yet. lets also not forget about the people in the Libertarian party that are swtiching over once it get's close to primary time to vote for Ron Paul. Lets add all them to the polls and see where people rank.

And another thing, how is me pointing out that Rick Perry called on Nancy fucking Pelosi to do TARP attacking him? I am putting up something people may or may not know, you know like I do with every candidate. Because I like most Americans am/was/will always be against TARP and most independents are/where/will always be against TARP I am somehow acting as Ron Paul's attack dog for vetting this guy.

You know it is one thing to walk into my threads about Ron Paul and post a little jab, I enjoy them. But to come in here and not say one God damn word about this yet accuse me of being Ron Paul's attack dog is over the top. So now vetting a candidate and posting your findings is off limits, you sure do follow Reagan's 11th commandemt except when it comes to Ron Paul. I bash all the other candidates, doesn't matter where they are at this weeks polling or not. I have been busy the past few weeks working on the campaign so I havn't been able to post much and for some reason the MSM is not vetting Perry so I thought I could give people some insite into why people don't like him.

What is it that you have against me? Is it because I was right about Gold and you where wrong? Is it because I called the Blue Republican movement(I said that democrats and independents would vote for him)?

Have you even picked a candidate yet or are you still ABO(anyone but Obama)?


#5


STAY ON TARGET! STAY ON TARGET!

Come on ZEB! That is your response....Really? I know John is all about Ron Paul, but what about the point? Dang dude it gets harder and harder to defend you and your beliefs (I know you don't need me defended you and all but seriously). You do the same thing for the Repubs that I hate libs doing for the Dems. This isn't a freaking game!!! So tired of politics being the Dallas Cowboys vs the New York Giants. Stop picking a team and defending them no matter what, they can be wrong on some shit you don't have to pledge 100% allegiance to them!

Save the reply back downtalking to me, not needed. I enjoy and agree with 90% of your posts so you don't have to convert me!


#6

First things first, I never said gold was not going up. My vote was to buy and hold in the stock market and I have been proved right on that. I bought when the market was around 7000. And the panic stricken public of which YOU are a part of sold the market at that level and lost big time.

As for the other topics that you mentioned:

You accused me of having something against you, I do not. You are the typical naive wide eyed 20 something who, because of lack of experience and the proper political education thinks that Ron Paul can actually win. You're drinking the Ron Paul Kool Aide. It's a special blend for the 20 something naive. As form me I can't help but poke a stick at you for such sloppy political thinking, as I did in 08'. And every last thing that I predicted about Paul in 2008, right down to his ending numbers came true! It's not necessarily that I don't like the man (I'm sure he's a very nice guy) it's just that I KNOW he's not going to become President. It is obvious to me and others who actually understand the political process. And yet you rant on about how Paul is going to win. It's the best entertainment that I've had on PWI threads in years. So nothing personal John I think you're a smart kid on some other topics. But you have a Ron Paul blind spot which will only go away. You wouldn't do that now would you John?

Next, it matters not the small number of people who will switch to libertarian it will be too late for Paul by then as he will be out of the race.

And I critique republicans all the time, it's just that you don't get all teary eyed when I do that so you don't remember it. Or, giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you just haven't read the thread. I said that Bachman will not get the nomination and more over she should not get asked to be on the ticket. I think she is a net negative for the republican party this time around. And I gave a detailed response as to why. Interestingly enough one of the reasons (and only one) has to do with her being a Congresswoman. Not unlike Ron Paul Congressmen are usually not good leaders because of their lack of executive experience. In addition to that they represent a very tiny district compared to say Governors who get elected to the Presidency more than from any other background. So you can see some similarities between Bachman and Paul. Of course Bachman is not a shriveled up old man, in fact she's pretty nice to look at. However, that's not going to help her. In a general election Obama would defeat her easily.

Furthermore, I said that Perry was going to give Romney a very tough time in the Primaries because of Romeny's religion. Since the republican primary voter tends to lean more right, (just as the democrat primary voter leans left), Perry will have an advantage and not just in the Bible belt states. However, in the general election Romney is a better bet to beat Obama than Perry because of Romney's more moderate positions. With the exception of Obama the more moderate the candidate the better his chances of winning a general election. That rule went out the window when the media didn't vette Obama. But I assure you the media will be in full force against whomever gets the republican nod.

Finally, I've already given you extensive lists of why Paul cannot win. All I am doing now is having fun reminding you on occasion about why I will end up being correct, and YOU John will be wrong about Paul AGAIN!

So buck up John we are only in August of 2011 we have a long way to go. There will be many more posts by me about Ron Paul and I predict that unless you suddenly gain a lot of political savvy, you are not going to like any of them.


#7

If you agree with 90% of what I post then there's no need for a reply to the bulk of your post. But you do need to be corrected on one fine point. Politics is in fact a game. A game with certain rules that need to be adhered to. And when those rules are broken a candidate is punished (as Ron Paul will be AGAIN). Now don't attack me for understanding those rules, I didn't create this game.


#8

Agreed it's hard to know what he's talking about. As far as TARP is concerned, it really didn't matter if you liked it or not, or if you were for it or not the economy would have completely melted down and you wouldn't have any money to pit your financial philosophy against.

ARRA, well we see how well that worked.


#9

I think we should believe anything that fits our agenda :slightly_smiling:


#10

I couldn't agree more!


#11

Ok. So why are we talking about Ron Paul in a thread about Rick Perry and TARP? Humans err, Politicans are Humans, therefore Politicans err. You urged me to keep an open mind about Perry, is this thread not important in me eventually forming my opinion of him? It isn't correct to go on and on about Obama and Tarp, but then when Perry comes up to change the subject. No different than Pelosi voting for going to war, then acting like she was against it right? You are correct tho, politics is a game, and that my friend is exactly why the whole system is messed up.


#12

dk44:

I'm still studying all this; but it seems as though the Paul supporters are "going after" Perry because of how he has surged ahead of Paul?

(Maybe someone can enlighten us a little more about what's going on).

Mufasa


#13

You've hit the nail on the head my friend. The Paul supporters didn't like Perry jumping in and immediately surging past Paul. So, one of the Paul supporters actually ran an ad trying to find women who slept with Perry. And the Paul people say that they are sick of politics as usual. Well, maybe they are since this brings it to a new all time low! Like all zealots they don't know when or where to stop.


#14

Dude, Paul supporters "go after" all of the candidates (kinda obvious isn't it?) because they rightly believe the rest are just empty suits out of the machine.

BTW people, this "anyone but Obama" or "anyone but Bush" mentality has gotten us all in a lot of trouble.


#15

Not nearly the kind of trouble that supporting an isolationist will get us into. Have you ever read any government/political history? I don't say that as a put down. I've found that many young men who support Paul don't have a real strong grasp of historical data. These easy solutions that Paul espouses have been tried by other governments and failed miserably. Yet, they fly the Paul banner because they are able to get their arms around his simplicity. And this is primarily because they're enthralled with the idea of curling up in a ball and hiding from the world. They are naive enough to actually think that would work. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be laughable.

But please do some reading if you have not already (again not trying to demean you in any way). Simple solutions to complex problems are great campaign lines, but they just don't stand the test of time in the real world.


#16

Could you please hold your anti -Swiss jealousy in check?

Thank you.

I know, you hate them for their freedom, but this is becoming ridiculous.


#17

And someone has to protect them so that they have freedom. Unless of course you are thinking that the USA is going to shrink to the tiny level of Switzerland and cease being important.

But then again no one is that stupid. You're a US hater anyway so I don't think I'm going to bother with you any more. Comparing the US to the Swiss is probably one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum since the last time you tried to bash the greatest country on the face of the earth (The US in case you couldn't figure it out).

Are you sure there are no Austrian sites that you can drool on?


#18

U so mad Swiss jelly, it is not even funny.

Cuckold clock envy is not attractive.

But I see that you are not able to overcome the deep seated feeling of inferiority that you are rightfully overwhelmed by when you contemplate Swiss taxes, Swiss freedoms and Swiss chocolate and try to overcompensate with mindless nationalism.

Pretty common in third world nations, please continue.


#19

Once again, the Swiss do what they do because we are here. Magically remove the US from existence POOF--See what sort of world you'd be living in.


#20

Yeah, I forgot how the US saved the Swiss over and over again.

Oh well, I guess there is only so much history you can pick up in your neck of the woods.