on no, tucker now pimping for john cox

[atilla]

tucker just had john cox on his show. he kept promoting him as the true conservative in the race. of course at some point i think he did say something about him being a reaganite. maybe he would still give ron paul the tag as the true conservative in the goldwater tradition.

this is truely the end, soon john cox will be surpassing ron paul in internets promotion and fundraising. we have meet our nemisis, true conservative john cox.

[Spirit of '76]

Who?

[LibertyEagle]

Hey atilla:

You're promoting Che Guevara? He was a Marxist, wasn't he? That's about as far away from Dr. Paul's beliefs as one can possibly get!

[shrugged0106]

Hey atilla:

You're promoting Che Guevara? He is a Marxist, isn't he? That's about as far away from Dr. Paul's beliefs as one can possibly get!




Gosh I'm so glad you said that!

[austinphish]

I had no idea who he was and had to look it up. There is good reason I don't know him b/c he is real nobody.
http://www.cox2008.com/cox/biography/

He might be an alright guy, but his message sounds kind of like a Ron Paul parody, yet this guy is all talk no walk.

[Spirit of '76]

Hey atilla:

You're promoting Che Guevara? He was a Marxist, wasn't he? That's about as far away from Dr. Paul's beliefs as one can possibly get!


Gosh I'm so glad you said that!

I've been wondering about that too. :confused:

[austinphish]

Hey atilla:

You're promoting Che Guevara? He was a Marxist, wasn't he? That's about as far away from Dr. Paul's beliefs as one can possibly get!

I agree and disagree. He was a marxist, but he wanted to return power to the people. If you read his biography he was a good well intentioned guy, just that he picked the wrong ideological stance.

[atilla]

Hey atilla:

You're promoting Che Guevara? He was a Marxist, wasn't he? That's about as far away from Dr. Paul's beliefs as one can possibly get!

dude, i'm not ron paul;)

che was also a doctor, maybe i have a physician fetish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

[LibertyEagle]

Well dude, you're talking about burning a house down. Why don't you tell us what you are referring to here?

[richard1984]

I've been wondering about that too. :confused:

Sorry (to feel the need to put my 2 cents in), but ditto.

[LibertyEagle]

So now you change your sig from

Che supporter since 2007

to

Hugo Chávez supporter since 1999

--------------------

I smell a TROLL.

[atilla]

I agree and disagree. He was a marxist, but he wanted to return power to the people. If you read his biography he was a good well intentioned guy, just that he picked the wrong ideological stance.

the movie "The Motorcycle Diaries" is available on DVD, it has english sub titles if you don't speak spanish.

[LibertyEagle]

Again, what do you mean by "let's burn the house down, we can rebuild it but they can't".

What are you referring to?

[atilla]

So now you change your sig from

Che supporter since 2007

to

Hugo Chávez supporter since 1999

--------------------

I smell a TROLL.


even though they probably don't know it, realize it, or understand it, Ron Paul, hugo Chávez and che all have fought the same group of people and are opposed by the same group of people.

vote for guilliani and burn down the house (constitutional government)

[angrydragon]

I smell another big government guy hidden behind the rhetoric. There's no depth to his issues and the last issue reeks of big government.

Free but Fair Trade

Also, the first issue, he says...

"We must win the war in Iraq and elsewhere so we are fighting terror over there, not over here."

Looks like he wants to continue this never ending war on terrorism.

[lynnf]

the movie "The Motorcycle Diaries" is available on DVD, it has english sub titles if you don't speak spanish.

Yes, I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, it is a glorification along the lines
of Hollywood fantasy and coverup. Guevara was a mass murderer and a screw-up. Seems they ignored that part in that movie.

Maybe the screw-up was fortunate or he might have murdered more people.

lynn

[LibertyCzar]

tucker just had john cox on his show. he kept promoting him as the true conservative in the race. of course at some point i think he did say something about him being a reaganite. maybe he would still give ron paul the tag as the true conservative in the goldwater tradition.

this is truely the end, soon john cox will be surpassing ron paul in internets promotion and fundraising. we have meet our nemisis, true conservative john cox.

When I think of John Cox, I am terrified. Much can be done to really ignore Ron Paul. Compared to John Cox, who will probably never be in a debate, or included by name in a poll, Ron Paul is a public superstar.

Tucker still likes Ron Paul, he was just giving Cox some attention.

[Mesogen]

I smell another big government guy hidden behind the rhetoric. There's no depth to his issues and the last issue reeks of big government.

Free but Fair Trade

Also, the first issue, he says...

"We must win the war in Iraq and elsewhere so we are fighting terror over there, not over here."

Looks like he wants to continue this never ending war on terrorism.

If Atilla is voting for Ron Paul then please don't try to alienate him.

Paul is a big tent candidate and has support from all walks of life and people of all ideologies.

Besides, Che Guevara isn't in the running.

[BuddyRey]

Don't worry, Atilla. There are more than a few left-wing supporters of Ron Paul on the board (including myself), though I'm not really sure why they keep us here. Comic relief maybe? :D

I once pondered getting one of those Che Guevara T-shirts, but I eventually decided it wasn't the best idea where I live (Stallings, North Carolina!) I don't know much about the guy either. Hugo Chavez seems like the real deal to me, which is why the American neocon media delights in vilifying him so much, IMHO.

[angrydragon]

If Atilla is voting for Ron Paul then please don't try to alienate him.

Paul is a big tent candidate and has support from all walks of life and people of all ideologies.

Besides, Che Guevara isn't in the running.

Huh? I didn't try to alienate anyone. I was referring to the original subject matter, John Cox.

[MBA2008]

Hugo Chavez is the real deal?! By "the real deal" do you mean neo-communist deal? He is in the process of nationalizing Venezuela's major industries, efectively stealing the property of others. He is also getting very close to Mahmoud "Let's Get the Apocolypse Started" Amhadinejad. If ever there was a freedom-stifling leftist demagogue, he's it. And, I'm sure that he fully intends to make good on his word to spread his proto-communist influence throughout Latin America. Does that not sound like the same nonsense that Bush (except proto-fascist) talks about?

Look, I loathe Bush and Co. just like the next guy, but you have to see Chavez is absolutely just as bad as Bush when it comes to freedom. The only difference is is that Chavez is not our leader. I find it very difficult to consider credible anybody who promotes freedom and plays cheerleader for the likes of Chavez.

Yeah, he's the real deal, the real scary deal.

[OURPLAN]

There will never be a PRESIDENT COX.
No worries...

[BuddyRey]

Hugo Chavez is the real deal?! By "the real deal" do you mean neo-communist deal? He is in the process of nationalizing Venezuela's major industries, efectively stealing the property of others. He is also getting very close to Mahmoud "Let's Get the Apocolypse Started" Amhadinejad. If ever there was a freedom-stifling leftist demagogue, he's it. And, I'm sure that he fully intends to make good on his word to spread his proto-communist influence throughout Latin America. Does that not sound like the same nonsense that Bush (except proto-fascist) talks about?

Look, I loathe Bush and Co. just like the next guy, but you have to see Chavez is absolutely just as bad as Bush when it comes to freedom. The only difference is is that Chavez is not our leader. I find it very difficult to consider credible anybody who promotes freedom and plays cheerleader for the likes of Chavez.

Yeah, he's the real deal, the real scary deal.

Forgive me for being Chavez's cheerleader here, but the thought of nationalizing oil or other industries doesn't exactly strike me as the most abhorrent affront to liberty. All that means is that predatory multinational corporations won't be able to steal it all from the indigenous people and slap a hefty price tag on it (as we've let oil companies do with us in the U.S.) Maybe that makes me a Commie, but I happen to think certain resources should be shared communally rather than selfishly hoarded by modern-day robber barons.

[MBA2008]

Nationalization is by definition a limitation of liberty. It is the government taking privately owned resources. Why is the government any better a caretaker of resources than business? I hear this time and time again:

"Well, if business doesn't use resources responsibly, then government has to step in to stop the (insert "predation", "greed", "rape", etc.)"

Government is made up of the same people that business is made up of. Why does anyone think that government is less subject to the corruption of theft, abuse, murder or anything else than business is? It doesn't matter to me whether those things are done "in the name of the people" instead of "in the name of the dollar." How may people have died in the name of "the people"? Too many. Think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Jong-Il. All acting "in the name of the people." I get very scared when I hear a national leader start talking about "the people." It usually means a lot of "people" are going to die. Cruelly.

The only reason that big businesses (take oil, for example) can continue to plunder as you say is because we continue to elect individuals that demonstrate time and time again that they are in the government business to enrich themselves. The monkeys in our government continue to accept lobby money from these large corporations, and then give the corps. big subsidies and protections which promote the activities that you lament. It's the government that permits business abuses!

You can't blame business. They EXIST to profit. There's no dishonesty in that. They are going to do everything that they LEGALLY can to profit.

Blame our fabulous Republicans & Democrats who continue to sell your economic freedom to corporate and other private interests.

It always amazes me how people are for liberty until it's for something or someone they don't like. I'm sorry you don't like corporations, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Remove subsidies. Change the rules to forbid corporations (not individuals) from contributing to to political campaigns. After that, let companies do what they're supposed to do (and what they will do absent un-needed gov't interference): allocate resources efficiently throughout the economy.

There is no way (ever) that Chavez (or any other government) will be able to more efficiently allocate resources than the market. Besides when leaders start taking away private property rights, personal freedoms like expression, and due process are not far behind.