Dear Ron Paul, [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Dear Ron Paul,


JBnTX
04-08-2012, 01:08
Talk of a third party run for Ron Paul is already starting.:whistling:



http://austin.ynn.com/content/capital_tonight/capital_roundup/283995/grassroots-group-petitions-paul-to-switch-to-third-party-run

Dear Ron Paul,

Please run on a third party ticket until November 6th, 2012 to be the next President of the United States of America and to ensure you'll have the biggest stage to spread the message of liberty around the world.


:dunno:

Angry Fist
04-08-2012, 01:18
Gimme a wall, Ron Paul. I can get you 10k votes.

Angry Fist
04-08-2012, 01:18
As if.

NEOH212
04-08-2012, 03:40
The only reason he has the following he does is because he wants to legalize pot.

No thanks. America can do better.

Ron Paul = Fail. :faint:

Bren
04-08-2012, 03:47
Talk of a third party run for Ron Paul is already starting.:whistling:



http://austin.ynn.com/content/capital_tonight/capital_roundup/283995/grassroots-group-petitions-paul-to-switch-to-third-party-run

Dear Ron Paul,

Please run on a third party ticket until November 6th, 2012 to be the next President of the United States of America and to ensure you'll have the biggest stage to spread the message of liberty around the world.


:dunno:


I thought he was already running third party.

Let me help that make more sense:

Dear Ron Paul,

Please run on a third party ticket until November 6th, 2012 to help Barrack Obama continue to be the President of the United States of America and to ensure he'll have the biggest stage to spread the message of "change" around the world.

I might vote for him in the Republican primary, but I'd worrry that he hurts the chances of beating Obama, even as a Republican. I would seriously love to see Ron Paul become president, but with his popularity, if he runs third party, the outcome of the election is certain, beyond any sane doubt - Obama would win.

walt cowan
04-08-2012, 06:55
the gop is betting on "even a dog can beat obama" play. they used it before and it has worked well for them in the past but, it died under mc cains run. the " it's this guy's turn" got buried right next to it on the same day. your not going to get much a cross over vote for mitt as you would ron. second, the gop and the media burnt a lot of bridges in its own camp shafting the paul camp. the gop has lost this election not only for the top spot but,also for senate an congress as well. don't get mad at paul or independent voters for the hole this country finds itself in come nov 2 of this year. get mad at the gop, media and yourself for digging it. i'm sure barry has plans to push the dirt back into the hole. :wavey:

JBnTX
04-08-2012, 08:45
I might vote for him in the Republican primary, but I'd worrry that he hurts the chances of beating Obama, even as a Republican. I would seriously love to see Ron Paul become president, but with his popularity, if he runs third party, the outcome of the election is certain, beyond any sane doubt - Obama would win.


:goodpost: Words of Wisdom!

RCP
04-08-2012, 09:32
The only reason he has the following he does is because he wants to legalize pot.

No thanks. America can do better.

Ron Paul = Fail. :faint:

My support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with legalizing pot. If America can do better than why are we looking at another 4 years of Obama or Obamaromney? :dunno:

ZGlock #427
04-08-2012, 10:19
The only reason he has the following he does is because he wants to legalize pot.

No thanks. America can do better.

Ron Paul = Fail. :faint:

Snowman?

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:23
Ross Peroit lives again.

JBnTX
04-08-2012, 12:31
Ross Peroit lives again.


:rofl:

They wouldn't try the same tactic twice, would they?

Javelin
04-08-2012, 13:13
:rofl:

They wouldn't try the same tactic twice, would they?

Ron Paul is still the best of the unsatisfactory.

:wavey:

G19G20
04-08-2012, 15:54
See my sig. The Republican Party dies with the nomination of Mitt Romney.

JBnTX
04-08-2012, 16:00
See my sig. The Republican Party dies with the nomination of Mitt Romney.


Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

The republican party is the only thing keeping Barack Obama and his liberal cronies
from turning America into a Socialist/Communist country.

As ineffective as they are, they're better than nothing.
It's not an "all or nothing" situation. It never is in politics.

certifiedfunds
04-08-2012, 18:59
The only reason he has the following he does is because he wants to legalize pot.

No thanks. America can do better.

Ron Paul = Fail. :faint:

Ron Paul doesn't want to legalize pot.

certifiedfunds
04-08-2012, 19:01
Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

The republican party is the only thing keeping Barack Obama and his liberal cronies
from turning America into a Socialist/Communist country.

As ineffective as they are, they're better than nothing.
It's not an "all or nothing" situation. It never is in politics.

:rofl:Do you really want to revisit the bush legacy?

beforeobamabans
04-08-2012, 19:02
Typical Jeb in TX FAIL thread with poorly researched documentation. Do you even read the references you post? Because your one resource actually counterdicts the premise of your thread:

"Ron Paul's supporters in Austin have told us they do not think Paul will seek a third party nomination. They say they plan to support whoever is named the Republican nominee."

You continue to be a total maroon. You need to find another hobby because there aren't enough watts in your bulb to tackle politics.

certifiedfunds
04-08-2012, 20:22
Typical Jeb in TX FAIL thread with poorly researched documentation. Do you even read the references you post? Because your one resource actually counterdicts the premise of your thread:

"Ron Paul's supporters in Austin have told us they do not think Paul will seek a third party nomination. They say they plan to support whoever is named the Republican nominee."

You continue to be a total maroon. You need to find another hobby because there aren't enough watts in your bulb to tackle politics.

I suspect he has suffered some form of traumatic brain injury or lead poisoning as a child.

Yessir How High
04-08-2012, 21:42
I was amazed.

I attended the Republican Caucus in Texas County, Missouri back in March.

We Voted for whom to support and Santorum won with Paul coming in a strong second; (like 75 to 56).

I further ran as a member of the slate of delegates to the state convention and lost like 53 to 49.

The Texas County delegation to the Congressional district Republican Convention has been instructed to vote for Santorum. If, for some reason, Santorum is no longer a viable candidate, the delegation is instructed to vote for Ron Paul.

Many counties in Missouri have been won over to Ron Paul, like for instance Jackson County, the largest area of Kansas City.

There is a chance that Missouri will send its delegates to Tampa voting (on the first round) for Ron Paul.

Yo'uns that listen to the managed media should spread out your perusals.

JBnTX
04-08-2012, 21:51
Typical Jeb in TX FAIL thread with poorly researched documentation. Do you even read the references you post? Because your one resource actually counterdicts the premise of your thread:

"Ron Paul's supporters in Austin have told us they do not think Paul will seek a third party nomination. They say they plan to support whoever is named the Republican nominee."

You continue to be a total maroon. You need to find another hobby because there aren't enough watts in your bulb to tackle politics.

All I did was post the news story.

I didn't write the damn thing or make any comment on it pro or con.
If there's a contradiction in it then that's the fault of the writer, not me.

Maybe you should read the news report before you go slandering another poster.

I don't know why I continue to enlighten you Obama supporters with my superior intelligence?

:steamed:

JBnTX
04-08-2012, 22:04
You continue to be a total maroon. You need to find another hobby because there aren't enough watts in your bulb to tackle politics.


At least I know enough not to vote for Obama just to teach somebody a lesson.

:rofl:

G19G20
04-09-2012, 00:15
I was amazed.

I attended the Republican Caucus in Texas County, Missouri back in March.

We Voted for whom to support and Santorum won with Paul coming in a strong second; (like 75 to 56).

I further ran as a member of the slate of delegates to the state convention and lost like 53 to 49.

The Texas County delegation to the Congressional district Republican Convention has been instructed to vote for Santorum. If, for some reason, Santorum is no longer a viable candidate, the delegation is instructed to vote for Ron Paul.

Many counties in Missouri have been won over to Ron Paul, like for instance Jackson County, the largest area of Kansas City.

There is a chance that Missouri will send its delegates to Tampa voting (on the first round) for Ron Paul.

Yo'uns that listen to the managed media should spread out your perusals.

This is happening all over the country. Nice post. Glad to see Im not the only one talking about delegates here. Im one of those doing this same thing for Dr. Ron Paul. There may be more Paul supporting delegates than you realize.

At least I know enough not to vote for Obama just to teach somebody a lesson.

:rofl:

Or....you can vote for Romney and prove you haven't learned any lessons either. ever.

Stubudd
04-09-2012, 06:54
Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

The republican party is the only thing keeping Barack Obama and his liberal cronies
from turning America into a Socialist/Communist country.

As ineffective as they are, they're better than nothing.
It's not an "all or nothing" situation. It never is in politics.

:rofl:

eracer
04-09-2012, 06:56
Prediction:

Ron Paul convinces Sarah Palin to become his running mate.
JBnTX becomes a staunch Ron Paul supporter.

Bren
04-09-2012, 07:35
Or....you can vote for Romney and prove you haven't learned any lessons either. ever.

The only question is whether you prefer Romney or Obama. Whether you decide on purpose or because you don't understand that, the result is the same.

Snowman92D
04-09-2012, 07:52
There may be more Paul supporting delegates than you realize...

...and your aunt may have testicles and actually be your uncle.

JBnTX
04-09-2012, 08:51
Prediction:

Ron Paul convinces Sarah Palin to become his running mate.
JBnTX becomes a staunch Ron Paul supporter.


:rofl:

You might be half right?

walt cowan
04-09-2012, 10:32
Not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

The republican party is the only thing keeping Barack Obama and his liberal cronies
from turning America into a Socialist/Communist country.

As ineffective as they are, they're better than nothing.
It's not an "all or nothing" situation. It never is in politics.

watch wwwf, same thing. mad muftie v.s. randie savage.:rofl:

G19G20
04-09-2012, 13:58
The only question is whether you prefer Romney or Obama. Whether you decide on purpose or because you don't understand that, the result is the same.

The result is the same regardless of which you vote for. A Marxist globalist with shady history or a Mormon globalist with shady history. Hmm... that's a tough call. :whistling:

G29Reload
04-09-2012, 14:06
Lets see, run first with a more mainstream, well known party with lots of press coverage and debates and fail to excite anyone but the fringe and collect less than 9% of the available delegates….

Since that doesn't work, bail out, and with even less infrastructure, a fatigued electorate from a vicious primary cycle, take remaining mostly depleted assets and assume a kook-on-the-margin profile outside normal channels where the results will be even worse and THAT WILL FIX EVERYTHING!

HAve I got that right?

itstime
04-09-2012, 14:09
I thought he was already running third party.

Let me help that make more sense:



I might vote for him in the Republican primary, but I'd worrry that he hurts the chances of beating Obama, even as a Republican. I would seriously love to see Ron Paul become president, but with his popularity, if he runs third party, the outcome of the election is certain, beyond any sane doubt - Obama would win.

This to a T. I don't like everything he represents but he is different and that is what we need and nobody else is bringing to the table.

G29Reload
04-09-2012, 14:09
The result is the same regardless of which you vote for. A Marxist globalist with shady history or a Mormon globalist with shady history. Hmm... that's a tough call. :whistling:

A bit of intellectual dishonesty on top of generalizing and basically, well…wrong.


Romney is less than optimal, but Obama is downright dangerous. Choice is clear. Romney may actually turn out to surprise us. If he can fix things financially with his business acumen, a lot of follow-on stuff may just fix itself.

JBnTX
04-09-2012, 15:13
Romney is less than optimal, but Obama is downright dangerous. Choice is clear. Romney may actually turn out to surprise us. If he can fix things financially with his business acumen, a lot of follow-on stuff may just fix itself.

Be careful now, that kind of intelligent logic isn't welcome here.

The undercover Obama supporters will be along in a minute to
trash Romney and the entire republican party.

certifiedfunds
04-09-2012, 15:19
Be careful now, that kind of intelligent logic isn't welcome here.

The undercover Obama supporters will be along in a minute to
trash Romney and the entire republican party.

Seriously, you wouldn't know that if it bit you on the leg.

JBnTX
04-09-2012, 15:46
Seriously, you wouldn't know that if it bit you on the leg.


See, there's one now!:rofl:

They can be identified by how quickly they resort to personal attacks.

Personal attacks, bashing the republican party and babbling about Ron Paul is all they know to do.

certifiedfunds
04-09-2012, 18:03
See, there's one now!:rofl:

They can be identified by how quickly they resort to personal attacks.

Personal attacks, bashing the republican party and babbling about Ron Paul is all they know to do.

I only go after liberal progressives.

GAFinch
04-09-2012, 18:28
Ain't gonna happen. Ron is getting old as is shifting his focus to building a legacy for his son. If Ron caused O to get re-elected, Rand's career would be over.

G29Reload
04-09-2012, 18:36
Seriously, you wouldn't know that if it bit you on the leg.


Well, he found my post, didn't he? :supergrin:

My point is, one could list various annoyances about Romney all day long.

But I believe BHO is truly dangerous. We're already facing an unbelievable amount of lawlessness and it will worsen with a BHO not facing relelection:

-failure to prosecute the Black Panthers re Phila voting intimidation case
-Fast and furious
-failure to cease implementing Obamacare after the last circuit court ruling, pending outcome from the SCOTUS,
-failure to bring federal abduction conspiracy charges against the lynch mob in the trayvon martin case (sharpton, et al, and now the NBBP inciting a race war in FL)
-IRS abusive audits of certain anti BHO political forces.

etc, etc. Unrelenting criminal conduct, absolute lawlessness. Without question I do not see that type of thing happening under Romney. Or any more radical SCOTUS picks and you know at least one is gonna croak or retire in the next admin.

We will not survive another BHO admin, a Romney admin, at least theres hope…and not Dope like we have now.

G-19
04-09-2012, 19:08
Ross Peroit lives again.

My thoughts exactly.

beforeobamabans
04-09-2012, 19:30
I don't know why I continue to enlighten you Obama supporters with my superior intelligence?

:steamed:

At least I know enough not to vote for Obama just to teach somebody a lesson.

:rofl:
Two more moronic posts with no basis in fact.

Yessir How High
04-09-2012, 19:56
I have been an avid supporter of Dr. Paul because I honor, respect and have sworn to protect our constitution.

I am, and as many of you hope, probably an extreme minority.

I will not vote for the lesser of two evils.

I will not vote for Obamer, nor will I vote for Romney.

If those are the choices, I will not vote.

Yessir How High

JBnTX
04-09-2012, 21:05
I have been an avid supporter of Dr. Paul because I honor, respect and have sworn to protect our constitution.

I am, and as many of you hope, probably an extreme minority.

I will not vote for the lesser of two evils.

I will not vote for Obamer, nor will I vote for Romney.

If those are the choices, I will not vote.

Yessir How High


And what will that accomplish?
Will it change anything?
Will anybody notice or even care?

What it WILL do is play right into the politicians hands.
You see, they don't want you to vote.

One reason things in this country are so screwed up is because less than half the population votes.

Unfortunately it's the ones with their hands out that do vote.
That's how people like Clinton and Obama get elected.

By not voting you're literally guaranteeing that nothing ever changes.

Is that what you want?

..

The Maggy
04-09-2012, 22:18
And what will that accomplish?
Will it change anything?
Will anybody notice or even care?

What it WILL do is play right into the politicians hands.
You see, they don't want you to vote.

One reason things in this country are so screwed up is because less than half the population votes.

Unfortunately it's the ones with their hands out that do vote.
That's how people like Clinton and Obama get elected.

By not voting you're literally guaranteeing that nothing ever changes.

Is that what you want?

..
While I do not completely share Yessir's sentiments, you seem to be missing a very key point to what he said. No political party is entitled to his vote, or my vote, or your vote.

Voting for the same two parties has done nothing but continued the same series of failed ideas, time and time again. If the Republicans manage to win this election, the only thing that will actually change is who is signing the check and were the money is going.

By not voting, Yessir is acting, on principle, in the manner that he believes will maximize his voice in the election. If enough people don't vote, it is likely that the Republicans might actually rethink their direction.

JBnTX
04-09-2012, 22:36
If enough people don't vote, it is likely that the Republicans might actually rethink their direction.


Enough people not voting is what got us in this mess in the first place.

People vote to keep their welfare checks, free abortions, free healthcare
and whatever else the politicians promise them.

By refusing to vote, you enable that behavior.
Their vote counts. Yours doesn't cause you didn't cast it.

To say that any party or candidate doesn't deserve your vote is just selfish and immature, because you don't have a vote until you cast it at the ballot box.

A vote not cast doesn't exist and makes no difference.
You may as well be pissing in the wind.

..

RCP
04-09-2012, 22:53
A bit of intellectual dishonesty on top of generalizing and basically, well…wrong.


Romney is less than optimal, but Obama is downright dangerous. Choice is clear. Romney may actually turn out to surprise us. If he can fix things financially with his business acumen, a lot of follow-on stuff may just fix itself.

Now this is what I would call intellectual dishonesty mixed in with a pinch of wishful thinking.

G29Reload
04-10-2012, 00:39
Now this is what I would call intellectual dishonesty mixed in with a pinch of wishful thinking.

This is what I would call a reading comprehension problem

G29Reload
04-10-2012, 00:41
, I will not vote.

So, you approve of the current lawlessness. Glad you stand up for yourself.


Of course, RP is the ONLY person on the planet that understnds the COTUS. No one else is qualified. Only he can do it and if he can't get in, then we should keep the current lawless president trying to tear it down.

Makes sense when you think about it. Wait...:shocked:

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 05:35
Ron's a nice enough guy. He has some really good ideas. Barring a cosmic event, he won't be the republican nominee. I predicted long ago that there would be loud cries for him to run third party once that was evident to his followers. Even though many of them claimed Ron was a republican through and through and would never run third party. Even though he has run third party in the past and endorsed third party candidates in the last presidential election.

So here we are. He either will, or he won't. I guess the effect of that would depend on what his top priority is. He won't win, so he'd be running in a vain attempt to keep his message out there, revenge against the republicans, to keep his family gainfully employed, or some as yet unconsidered reason.

Maybe he will run, and try to get into the Mitt/Barry debates, then at the last minute tell all of his followers to vote for mitt to defeat barry?


Who knows? :dunno:


It will be interesting to watch. :popcorn:

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 06:27
And what will that accomplish?
Will it change anything?
Will anybody notice or even care?

What it WILL do is play right into the politicians hands.
You see, they don't want you to vote.

One reason things in this country are so screwed up is because less than half the population votes.

Unfortunately it's the ones with their hands out that do vote.
That's how people like Clinton and Obama get elected.

By not voting you're literally guaranteeing that nothing ever changes.

Is that what you want?

..

Actually, voting blindly for your party's nominee is what the politicians want. Like a wolf isolating a lamb from the flock, you're guided into the corner they want you in.....so that nothing will change.

As for the one's with their hands out, that's pretty much everyone, including you.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 06:33
Enough people not voting is what got us in this mess in the first place.

..
Hardly the problem.

People vote to keep their welfare checks, free abortions, free healthcare
and whatever else the politicians promise them.

Like Social Security and Medicare

By refusing to vote, you enable that behavior.
Their vote counts. Yours doesn't cause you didn't cast it.

Progressive left, Progressive right....refusing to vote for one of those two means you refuse to vote for a Progressive.

Be a good little sheep and line up for the shearing.

To say that any party or candidate doesn't deserve your vote is just selfish and immature, because you don't have a vote until you cast it at the ballot box.

World-class stupidity right there.

A vote not cast doesn't exist and makes no difference.
You may as well be pissing in the wind. Sure it does....to a man with principles and a conscience.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 06:46
Actually, voting blindly for your party's nominee is what the politicians want. Like a wolf isolating a lamb from the flock, you're guided into the corner they want you in.....so that nothing will change.

As for the one's with their hands out, that's pretty much everyone, including you.

Or you could go in with both eyes open, and accept what you are getting is not what you wanted, but the alternative, Barry in an unfettered second term is clearly worse than Romney in a first term.


It ain't pretty, but it IS what it is.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 06:49
What will he do if the Congress offers him an AWB without a sunset? I wonder.

Bren
04-10-2012, 08:21
What will he do if the Congress offers him an AWB without a sunset? I wonder.

Romney? Assuming his anti-gun feelings are just as strong as Obama, he'd still have to worry about the backlash against Republicans and about a second term.

Obama heads a party that is more anti-gun, so less backlash, and he's never concerned about running for any elected office again.

Assuming Romney is as anti-gun as you think, he's still a much, much better choice than Obama.

Bren
04-10-2012, 08:24
Actually, voting blindly for your party's nominee is what the politicians want. Like a wolf isolating a lamb from the flock, you're guided into the corner they want you in.....so that nothing will change.

As for the one's with their hands out, that's pretty much everyone, including you.

And thinking like this is what the Democrats want, because Republicans and conservative third-partiers not voting for a Republican nominee, because he isn't conservative enough, guarantees them a win (the same being true in reverse, of course, but not an issue in this election).

Causing Obama to win a second term, in order to spitefully remind Republicans to be more conservative is pretty much what the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" means. If you want to stand on prnciple and vote htird party, do it when we are up against a 1st term democrat, at least.

It took us about 220 years to get the supreme court to say that the 2nd amendment protects our individual right to own guns. If Obama gets to appoint the ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE he needs to reverse that, you will never see the right again in your lifetime.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 08:24
Romney? Assuming his anti-gun feelings are just as strong as Obama, he'd still have to worry about the backlash against Republicans and about a second term.

Obama heads a party that is more anti-gun, so less backlash, and he's never concerned about running for any elected office again.

Assuming Romney is as anti-gun as you think, he's still a much, much better choice than Obama.

What backlash? As this thread indicates Republicans will line up to vote for whichever Republican is opposing a Democrat.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 08:25
And thinking like this is what the Democrats want, because Republicans and conservative third-partiers not voting for a Republican nominee, because he isn't conservative enough, guarantees them a win (the same being true in reverse, of course, but not an issue in this election).

What if he isn't conservative at all?

Bren
04-10-2012, 08:30
What if he isn't conservative at all?

As I pointed out - IT DOESN'T MATTER.

he's not more liberal than Obama and even if you want to dishonestly claim he is, he's not running for his second term.

The communist party nominee would be a less dangerous president than Obama.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 08:32
What will he do if the Congress offers him an AWB without a sunset? I wonder.

Not very likely, but take into consideration the fast and furious plan an the only likely use of that. To create a crisis to respond too. Again, Barry is worse. Bad is better than terrible.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 08:32
As I pointed out - IT DOESN'T MATTER.

he's not more liberal than Obama and even if you want to dishonestly claim he is, he's not running for his second term.

The Romney campaign should go ahead and make that their campaign slogan:

Mitt Romeny for President
Not as liberal as Obama

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 08:34
What backlash? As this thread indicates Republicans will line up to vote for whichever Republican is opposing a Democrat.

And honestly considering how bad Barry is, that's not so unreasonable.

Bren
04-10-2012, 08:35
The Romney campaign should go ahead and make that their campaign slogan:

Mitt Romeny for President
Not as liberal as Obama


That's fine by me. It's an "either/or" choice, so the only right choice is the one that is less liberal.

No matter how much you chatter about it, you will not be able to choose to have a third party president. You can only choose which of those 2 to help and even staying home on election day helps one.

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 08:40
What backlash? As this thread indicates Republicans will line up to vote for whichever Republican is opposing a Democrat.

That's because, unlike you, we want Obama gone.

Then we'll deal with the republicans.

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 09:04
That's because, unlike you, we want Obama gone.

Then we'll deal with the republicans.

No you won't. History simply doesn't reflect that sentiment in the least.

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 09:06
Seems a lot of folks are quite satisfied with holding turds up by the clean end while attempting to polish them.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 09:06
That's because, unlike you, we want Obama gone.

Then we'll deal with the republicans.

I want the country returned to its founding principles, unlike you.

I don't care who does it.

Neither of the two parties will do it.

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 10:09
I want the country returned to its founding principles, unlike you.

I don't care who does it.

Neither of the two parties will do it.


That's never going to happen, because this is not the same country
of the founding fathers in the 1700's.

The republican party will, at least, get you closer
to those principles than the democrat party will.

You know that, yet you relentlessly criticize ALL republican candidates
and try to influence republican voters NOT to vote.

That hurts the republicans and helps the democrats.
It helps Obama by decreasing the number of votes against him.

You never criticize Obama or the democrats in any of your posts, why?

It seems your desire to return to the principles of the founding fathers
and your condemnation of republican voters and their candidates
are at odds with each other.

You have all your big guns aimed at your best chance of achieving
anything near your goal.

Something just doesn't add up?:dunno:

..

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 10:12
Something just doesn't add up?:dunno:

..


Like.. you claiming to be a conservative?

snerd
04-10-2012, 10:19
Like.. you claiming to be a conservative?
:laughabove:

Gundude
04-10-2012, 10:21
It took us about 220 years to get the supreme court to say that the 2nd amendment protects our individual right to own guns. If Obama gets to appoint the ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE he needs to reverse that, you will never see the right again in your lifetime.Same could be said for Romney, only with a higher likelihood of him getting that chance.

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 10:24
Like.. you claiming to be a conservative?


That's what I'm talking about!

You demean and criticize me, call me names and insult my intelligence,
yet you never say anything bad about the democrats or Obama.

You never offer a workable solution to the problem, only condemnation
of the entire republican process including it's voters.

We both agree on the problems facing this country, but my side
is the only side that has offered any workable solutions.

You have NO way of knowing what Romney will do as a president.
Being governor of one state is vastly different from being president
of all the states.

Massachusetts is a liberal state. The people demand liberalism.
The United States is NOT a liberal country, and Romney will govern accordingly.

Romney is clearly the correct choice, yet you refuse to acknowledge that. Why?

Your mission here is becoming more and more clear with each of your posts.

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 10:26
Same could be said for Romney, only with a higher likelihood of him getting that chance.

How do you know that?

You have two choices:
1) Vote for someone will definitely WILL take all your guns.
No mercy, no Grandfathering currently owned firearms, he'll take them all.

2) Vote for someone with a liberal anti-gun record that MIGHT enact another AWB.
And he might not, cause it's very unpopular with the American people
and he wants a second term as president.

For me that choice is clear.
I'll take #2.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 10:34
That's never going to happen, because this is not the same country
of the founding fathers in the 1700's.

..

Spoken like a true liberal progressive.

If you understood the COTUS and the founding principles, you would realize why that doesn't matter.

The republican party will, at least, get you closer
to those principles than the democrat party will.



Like a hamburger will get me closer to a ribeye than a chicken sandwich will?

You know that, yet you relentlessly criticize ALL republican candidates
and try to influence republican voters NOT to vote.



I haven't criticized ALL republican candidates, only the Progressive ones.

I've never tried to influence republican voters not to vote. :rofl:That's absurd. I just don't want them voting for more Progressive Republicans.



You never criticize Obama or the democrats in any of your posts, why?



I didn't realize I had to state outloud that water is wet.

It seems your desire to return to the principles of the founding fathers
and your condemnation of republican voters and their candidates
are at odds with each other.



That's because your political compass spins like its inside of an MRI machine. When it comes to political principles, frankly, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Hell, you don't even support the Bill of Rights and want to remake the COTUS into some Progressive image.

You have all your big guns aimed at your best chance of achieving
anything near your goal.

Something just doesn't add up?:dunno:

Big guns?

It doesn't add up because you're intellectually deficient.

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 10:34
That's what I'm talking about!

You demean and criticize me, call me names and insult my intelligence,
yet you never say anything bad about the democrats or Obama.

You never offer a workable solution to the problem, only condemnation
of the entire republican process including it's voters.

We both agree on the problems facing this country, but my side
is the only side that has offered any workable solutions.

You have NO way of knowing what Romney will do as a president.
Being governor of one state is vastly different from being president
of all the states.

Massachusetts is a liberal state. The people demand liberalism.
The United States is NOT a liberal country, and Romney will govern accordingly.

Romney is clearly the correct choice, yet you refuse to acknowledge that. Why?

Your mission here is becoming more and more clear with each of your posts.


Not true.

I've repeatedly pointed out your progressive tendencies and I offered to vote for Ron Paul.

All of which would be good for the country.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 10:35
How do you know that?

You have two choices:
1) Vote for someone will definitely WILL take all your guns.
No mercy, no Grandfathering currently owned firearms, he'll take them all.

2) Vote for someone with a liberal anti-gun record that MIGHT enact another AWB.
And he might not, cause it's very unpopular with the American people
and he wants a second term as president.

For me that choice is clear.
I'll take #2.

Thanks to YOU PEOPLE we only have those two choices.

The rest of us have been here advocating for the third choice.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 10:40
You have NO way of knowing what Romney will do as a president.
Being governor of one state is vastly different from being president
of all the states.



The how the hell can you ask someone to vote for him?

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 10:43
Spoken like a true liberal progressive.

If you understood the COTUS and the founding principles, you would realize why that doesn't matter.



Like a hamburger will get me closer to a ribeye than a chicken sandwich will?



I haven't criticized ALL republican candidates, only the Progressive ones.

I've never tried to influence republican voters not to vote. :rofl:That's absurd. I just don't want them voting for more Progressive Republicans.



I didn't realize I had to state outloud that water is wet.



That's because your political compass spins like its inside of an MRI machine. When it comes to political principles, frankly, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Hell, you don't even support the Bill of Rights and want to remake the COTUS into some Progressive image.



Big guns?

It doesn't add up because you're intellectually deficient.


The more you insult me, the more you prove me right.
All that rant and not one workable solution as to how to fix the problem.

Your battle cry of "just don't vote for a progressive republican" is pathetic
and very revealing about your true intentions.

:rofl:

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 10:44
The more you insult me, the more you prove me right.

All that rant and not one workable solution as to how to fix the problem.

:rofl:

Which problem do you want fixed. I have them ready.

BTW, if you want solutions:

http://www.ronpaul.com/

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 10:44
The how the hell can you ask someone to vote for him?


:rofl:


Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 10:45
The more you insult me, the more you prove me right.

All that rant and not one workable solution as to how to fix the problem.

:rofl:

If one is dealing with an imbecile is it an insult to refer to them as an imbecile or is it a simple statement of fact?

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 10:46
The more you insult me, the more you prove me right.



http://tvrefill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/50c.gif

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 10:48
Not true.

I've repeatedly pointed out your progressive tendencies and I offered to vote for Ron Paul.

All of which would be good for the country.


Ron Paul is NOT a workable solution.
It's a fantasy.

:rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 10:49
It's a fantasy.


Sort of like you leaning towards conservative values?

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 10:49
Ron Paul is NOT a workable solution.
It's a fantasy.

:rofl:

Proof that you don't want solutions.

You just want Not Obama.

Frankly, you and he agree on quite a bit so I'm not sure why you oppose him.

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 10:57
OK enough bashing me, Romney and the republicans.
Let's bash democrats and Obama for a while now.

You guys go first.:rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-10-2012, 10:57
OK enough bashing me, Romney and the republicans.
Let's bash democrats and Obama for a while now.

You guys go first.:rofl:

Tell that to the guy who started the thread.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 11:00
OK enough bashing me, Romney and the republicans.
Let's bash democrats and Obama for a while now.

You guys go first.:rofl:

I just can't figure out why you don't just admit you're a liberal progressive?

evlbruce
04-10-2012, 11:04
Massachusetts is a liberal state. The people demand liberalism.
The United States is NOT a liberal country, and Romney will govern accordingly.
Illinois is a liberal state. The people demand liberalism. The United States is NOT a liberal country, and Obama will govern accordingly.
Wait, what?

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 11:25
Come on, let's bash Obama and his socialist cronies for a while.
It'll be fun, you guys start off and I'll jump in.

:tongueout:

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 11:36
Come on, let's bash Obama and his socialist cronies for a while.
It'll be fun, you guys start off and I'll jump in.

:tongueout:

You're one of them. why do you want to bash them?

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 11:54
You're one of them. why do you want to bash them?



Can't do it, can you?:rofl:

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 12:19
Can't do it, can you?:rofl:

After all the posts of mine you've read -- and after criticizing you for being a liberal progressive posing as a conservative -- if you think I agree with any of the Obama administration's policies, actions or objectives, you're more stupid than I thought.

G29Reload
04-10-2012, 12:36
Assuming Romney is as anti-gun as you think, he's still a much, much better choice than Obama.

Yes, but also I don't think Romney is anti gun. I think he's just a populist.

For example, if he had run for governor of Montana, he's sign a law saying you can hand out M-4's at a 7-11. Its just wherever he is.

I could be wrong, and believe me I despise any GC. I'm nervous about it as long as politicians anywhere live and breathe. But I don't think we have a worry with him since the gun owning populace has been growing and voted with its feet and wallets in the run up to the last Inauguration and since.

He knows he would want to get re-elected,

The Congress will never send him anything.

The rise in pro- carry laws, the court rulings…even MARYLAND may be on the way to Shall-issue…we've got other fish to fry.

RC-RAMIE
04-10-2012, 12:52
Yes, but also I don't think Romney is anti gun. I think he's just a populist.

For example, if he had run for governor of Montana, he's sign a law saying you can hand out M-4's at a 7-11. Its just wherever he is.

I could be wrong, and believe me I despise any GC. I'm nervous about it as long as politicians anywhere live and breathe. But I don't think we have a worry with him since the gun owning populace has been growing and voted with its feet and wallets in the run up to the last Inauguration and since.

He knows he would want to get re-elected,

The Congress will never send him anything.

The rise in pro- carry laws, the court rulings…even MARYLAND may be on the way to Shall-issue…we've got other fish to fry.

If his gun defense is he will be to worried about reelection to pass another AWB what happens when he gets re-elected?

hamster
04-10-2012, 12:54
Come on, let's bash Obama and his socialist cronies for a while.
It'll be fun, you guys start off and I'll jump in.

:tongueout:

You'd have to start by not wasting half of every day posting anti-RP threads.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 12:58
Yes, but also I don't think Romney is anti gun. I think he's just a populist.

For example, if he had run for governor of Montana, he's sign a law saying you can hand out M-4's at a 7-11. Its just wherever he is.

I could be wrong, and believe me I despise any GC. I'm nervous about it as long as politicians anywhere live and breathe. But I don't think we have a worry with him since the gun owning populace has been growing and voted with its feet and wallets in the run up to the last Inauguration and since.

He knows he would want to get re-elected,

The Congress will never send him anything.

The rise in pro- carry laws, the court rulings…even MARYLAND may be on the way to Shall-issue…we've got other fish to fry.

If the mid term elections turn the house over to the dems, what are the chances that they'd send him an AWB, if for no reasons other than political?

beforeobamabans
04-10-2012, 13:10
Now that Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Cain, and Bachman have dropped out of the race and Romney still has a long way to go to get enough delegates for the nomination, there is only one way to stop him-vote for Ron Paul. You have a very clear choice in policy, principle and constitutional consistency. I say, lets stop Romney and get this party back on track. My primary is May 8 and I will do all I can to keep the GOP from committing suicide.

Remember: cut $1Trillion in Year One, balance the budget in four.
Remember: solid 2A supporter
Remember: solid Pro-Life
Remember: Liberty is first and foremost

There was a day when you couldn't call yourself a Republican without bleeding these basic principles of freedom. Let's get off our arses and stop this Romney highjack before it truly is to late. Your vote still counts. Do something the rest of the country hasn't been able to do and save the GOP from itself.

G19G20
04-10-2012, 14:28
Can Ron Paul win Texas with Santorum out? Santorum dropping out with a lot of time left and very little enthusiasm for Romney is a very interesting development.

G29Reload
04-10-2012, 14:42
If the mid term elections turn the house over to the dems, what are the chances that they'd send him an AWB, if for no reasons other than political?

Being a dem has turned out not to be a guarantee of anti gun sentiment. There was a rather large caucus of pro-gun dems recently, including BHOs first term. They have to get re-elected every TWO years and don't want the anti-gun thing stamped on their forehead. I think as an issue the writing is on the wall, we're pro gun and getting more so.

I think Romeny being elected and creating the "he's gone" (BHO) phenomena is going to be so stunningly good that the contrast thereby created and everyone getting back to work is gonna backwash a lot of dems outta here. Their fail is gonna be so big by comparison. Just being a CEO and knowing what it takes to get folks back to work is gonna fix a ton of ills.

Our current constipated economy is the direct result of BHO and his social engineering, healthcare terror and uncertainty for business, overreach by the EPA in hurting the energy sector, when he is gone folks are gonna wonder why they didnt impeach him the first year.

This is SOOOO not about electiing the next president, but getting rid of the old one. Please let me live to see the day he is GONE.

JBnTX
04-10-2012, 14:51
You'd have to start by not wasting half of every day posting anti-RP threads.



Somebody has to do it.:tongueout:


I want Obama defeated and run out of American politics.

I'm going to do everything I can to prevent Ron Paul from
messing that up.

You ain't seen nothing yet, just wait till you see what I post if
Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate.

..

G19G20
04-10-2012, 16:44
Somebody has to do it.:tongueout:


I want Obama defeated and run out of American politics.

I'm going to do everything I can to prevent Ron Paul from
messing that up.

You ain't seen nothing yet, just wait till you see what I post if
Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate.

..

What you fail to realize is that it's not Ron Paul messing anything up. It's the GOP trying to nominate someone that nobody wants to vote for that's messing it up. Why do you insist that people that believe in fiscal conservatism, constitutionalism, and liberty should be shut out from having a voice in this election? If Ron Paul dropped out today and was never heard from again, Romney still loses because no one likes him, he's an elitist, a flip flopper and a Mormon to boot. Keep finding someone other than the GOP itself to blame if that makes you feel important. It also makes you look ignorant.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2012, 17:01
Can Ron Paul win Texas with Santorum out? Santorum dropping out with a lot of time left and very little enthusiasm for Romney is a very interesting development.

To answer your question. Not likely. I don't often make predictions on political outcomes, but that seems pretty reasonable today. Gingrich will probably get a leg up though.

A Liberal, a Libertarian, and a Conservative are still in the running for the nomination. None of them are perfect, all of them are better than the Socialist currently in the white house.

aspartz
04-10-2012, 17:21
What you fail to realize is that it's not Ron Paul messing anything up. It's the GOP trying to nominate someone that nobody wants to vote for that's messing it up. Why do you insist that people that believe in fiscal conservatism, constitutionalism, and liberty should be shut out from having a voice in this election? If Ron Paul dropped out today and was never heard from again, Romney still loses because no one likes him, he's an elitist, a flip flopper and a Mormon to boot. Keep finding someone other than the GOP itself to blame if that makes you feel important. It also makes you look ignorant.

This is SOOOO not about electiing the next president, but getting rid of the old one. Please let me live to see the day he is GONE.
When is the GOP going to lose the mantra of "at least we're better that THAT guy!" and run someone that most people really want to vote FOR.

I'm waiting for my GOP issued nose clip so I can vote while pretending that I am not holding my nose.

ARS

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 17:29
I'm waiting for my GOP issued nose clip so I can vote while pretending that I am not holding my nose.

ARS

You'll have to pay the tax before you can receive it.

Ruble Noon
04-10-2012, 19:32
To answer your question. Not likely. I don't often make predictions on political outcomes, but that seems pretty reasonable today. Gingrich will probably get a leg up though.

A Liberal, a Libertarian, and a Conservative are still in the running for the nomination. None of them are perfect, all of them are better than the Socialist currently in the white house.

I'd say that there are two progressives and one conservative libertarian in the race for the nomination.

certifiedfunds
04-10-2012, 19:50
I'd say that there are two progressives and one conservative libertarian in the race for the nomination.

purty much

there has always been but one conservative in the race

Slug71
04-10-2012, 20:59
The only reason he has the following he does is because he wants to legalize pot.

No thanks. America can do better.

Ron Paul = Fail. :faint:

:faint::faint:

He's the best candidate running!!

juggy4711
04-10-2012, 21:36
This whole debate has become just plain stupid. We were warned by the Founders exactly how this would go down. We were told by some of them that the warning would be ignored and that eventually, as history does, it would repeat itself. The truth is it's been a count down from day one to this point.

It's over. Both parties, and unfortunately the only ones that stand a chance at national elections for the most part, have been accomplices to our demise; again unfortunately with our consent, and that is not going to change. Don't argue with me. Argue with the words of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders.

If one want's to vote R over D no matter what as some form of speed bump I can understand the sentiment. But to seriously believe a Republican President, Congress or SCotUS is going to reverse and actually fix anything is completely insane. There is no historical evidence to suggest that would happen. Quite to the contrary. Every bit of history indicates otherwise.

What was accomplished by the American Revolution is no longer possible. The Founders knew that in the long run it would fail. It is now technologically, economically and socially impossible for such a feat to be repeated.

We've collectively been bought off: technologically, economically and socially. To borrow from Franklin voting R over D may make life more comfortable "for a course of years" but in the end the outcome will still be the same. Tyranny. To believe otherwise is either due to ignorance, wishful thinking, denial or some combination there of.

Just once it would be refreshing for someone from the ABO crowd to admit they are only concerned with making things easier for themselves and their kin for as long as they can. Because our course of years is up, there is no reversal. Voting for R's at this point won't change anything but the pace. Hell at this point Paul winning wouldn't change a damn thing years down the line. It's too late and as predicted it is our own damn fault.

Faced with this inevitable conclusion, the only thing I can do and go to my grave feeling good about my contribution, is to make sure I didn't compromise my values just to be more comfortable, for a bit longer.

And all of it driven by greed and fear. Too afraid of Obama and/or the left winning again, too greedy to sacrifice what would be needed to actually make a difference and all of it literally at the expense of unborn future generations.

G19G20
04-11-2012, 01:51
^^^^^
Nice post.

The Machinist
04-11-2012, 06:18
Great post, Juggy. Nailed it.

Gary W Trott
04-11-2012, 07:37
I want Obama defeated and run out of American politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwLedWzn18

walt cowan
04-11-2012, 08:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwLedWzn18

post of the day!:supergrin:

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 08:57
post of the day!:supergrin:

How can Ron Paul beat Obama when he can't even get the republican nomination?

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 09:23
How can Ron Paul beat Obama when he can't even get the republican nomination?

If you understood the political spectrum you wouldn't need to ask that question.

Gary W Trott
04-11-2012, 09:29
How can Ron Paul beat Obama when he can't even get the republican nomination?
Because a very low percentage of Republicans even participate in primaries or caucuses, and voters belonging to other parties or affiliations are not even allowed to participate in most if not all. All the nomination really shows is that a very small segment of a party supports the candidate. Ron Paul's ideas are attractive to many of the unaffiliated voters, and even some Democrats, so with those votes added to the Republican votes Ron Paul would have the best chance of putting a Republican in the White House.

Just being "Not Obama" which Romney would be isn't going to bring many over.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 10:02
Ron Paul's ideas are attractive to many of the unaffiliated voters, and even some Democrats, so with those votes added to the Republican votes Ron Paul would have the best chance of putting a Republican in the White House.
.


That's interesting!
How does Ron Paul add those votes to the republican votes?

By supporting the republican nominee, or some other way?

I don't think Ron Paul has any intentions of supporting the republican nominee.
I think he fully intends to run as a third party. How will that add any votes to the republican base?

In fact, I think we'll see a big "conflict" over his role in the election process
later this year.

OR, are you saying that Ron Paul will cause those "unaffiliated" votes
to eventually vote republican.

That would be good!

BUT, most Ron Paul supporters have voiced contempt and disdain
for the republican party. Why would they vote republican?

Will you vote for the republican nominee?

I just don't see how Ron Paul adds anything to the republican cause,
unless he drops out now and tells his supporters to vote
for the republican candidate.

..

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 10:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwLedWzn18

That's great :supergrin:

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 10:04
That's interesting!
How does Ron Paul add those votes to the republican votes?

By supporting the republican nominee, or some other way?

I don't think Ron Paul has any intentions of supporting the republican nominee.
I think he fully intends to run as a third party. How will that add any votes to the republican base?

In fact, I think we'll see a big "conflict" over his role in the election process
later this year.

OR, are you saying that Ron Paul will cause those "unaffiliated" votes
to eventually vote republican.

That would be good!

BUT, most Ron Paul supporters have voiced contempt and disdain
for the republican party. Why would they vote republican?

Will you vote for the republican nominee?

I just don't see how Ron Paul adds anything to the republican cause,
unless he drops out now and tells his supporters to vote
for the republican candidate.

..


Why do you still think people are going to abandon there principles just because you so easily do?

creaky
04-11-2012, 10:30
Somebody has to do it.:tongueout:


I want Obama defeated and run out of American politics.

I'm going to do everything I can to prevent Ron Paul from
messing that up.

..

Hang in there JBn. Our past disagreements aside, you have this one 100% correct.

It's a numbers game. Mitt Romney may have the numbers if everyone pitches in. Supporters of Ron Paul.... Take a bite of the sh** sandwich and help us out here! :cool:

Gundude
04-11-2012, 10:34
I just don't see how Ron Paul adds anything to the republican cause,
unless he drops out now and tells his supporters to vote
for the republican candidate.It's true Ron Paul isn't adding anything to the republican cause, insofar as the republican cause is to get a bigger place at the feeding trough. Being part of the republican party, that may make him a "traitor" to republicans, but are you more worried about what's good for republicans, or what's good for the country?

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 10:36
Why do you still think people are going to abandon there principles just because you so easily do?


Please answer my questions instead of just insulting me.

How does Ron Paul add anything to the republican Base.
How does he add votes to the republican nominee?
As alluded to in Gary W Trott's most excellent post.
(It got me to thinking anyway)

..

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 10:37
... are you more worried about what's good for republicans, or what's good for the country?

I'm more worried about what's good for the country.
That's why I want Obama gone.

Plan A would be to elect Ron Paul, but he can't get elected so we go to Plan B.

Plan B is to defeat Obama at all costs.
Romney is better than Obama. And if he's not, we'll throw his ass out in 2016.

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 10:39
Please answer my questions instead of just insulting me.

How does Ron Paul add anything to the republican Base.
How does he add votes to the republican nominee?
As alluded to in Gary W Trott's most excellent post.
(It got me to thinking anyaway)

Can you explain that?

I'll answer any question you have as honestly as possible and never ask you to wear the helmet again if you will just admit that what you want is in stark contrast to conservatism and aligns directly with the progressive movement.

After all we whould be honest in our debates agreed?











Until then.. http://www.bbkholdingsllc.com/images/3-4-visor-V558-Pink-Helmet.jpg

hamster
04-11-2012, 10:48
IMO a vote for Romney IS a vote for Obama. The two are identical. The only difference is that Romney has had more success at passing socialized medicine and gun control regulations. The kind of success Obama can only dream of.

Romney is the progressive that Obama spends his nights dreaming he could be.

I'd write in Mickey Mouse before I voted for Obamney

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 10:50
I'm more worried about what's good for the country.
That's why I want Obama gone.

Plan A would be to elect Ron Paul, but he can't get elected so we go to Plan B.

Plan B is to defeat Obama at all costs.
Romney is better than Obama. And if he's not, we'll throw his ass out in 2016.

Pragmatic acceptance of reality v. Purist idealism.

Only certain outcomes are possible. The pragmatic guy goes for the best achievable outcome, the purist idealist longs for the things they wish were possible.


But hey, let's be honest. Most people here are probably going to vote the way they want to vote, and since it is their right to do so, why waste energy arguing about it.

Voting for Romney or Ron Paul is a vote against Obama. And even if the number of votes for Ron Paul reach the margin of victory either way, what's going to happen is going to happen. The election is months away. A lot will happen between now and then. It could go either way. Barring a major event, either Romney or Barry will be president this time next year.

Best to plan and prep yourself for either possibility.

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 10:51
I'm more worried about what's good for the country.


No you aren't. You're concerned with remaking this country into the progressive mold you and progressive republicans envison.

Same as Obama, just different details.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:04
I'll answer any question you have as honestly as possible and never ask you to wear the helmet again if you will just admit that what you want is in stark contrast to conservatism and aligns directly with the progressive movement.

After all we whould be honest in our debates agreed?





Why put a condition on answering my questions?
This is your chance to set me straight.

Your request is just another way of calling me a liberal,
which seems to be the most popular response when someone
is right about something.

What's next, calling me a troll?

I'm a conservative who supports the republican candidate.
I've voted conservative all my life.

Just because (right now) I don't have a decent conservative
representative to vote for and choose to vote for the candidate
that can do the most good, doesn't mean I'm a liberal or not a conservative.

Now answer the question. Put up or shut up.

How does Ron Paul add anything to the republican Base.
How does he add votes to the republican nominee?

..

aspartz
04-11-2012, 11:06
That's interesting!
How does Ron Paul add those votes to the republican votes?

By supporting the republican nominee, or some other way?

I don't think Ron Paul has any intentions of supporting the republican nominee.
I think he fully intends to run as a third party. How will that add any votes to the republican base?

In fact, I think we'll see a big "conflict" over his role in the election process
later this year.

OR, are you saying that Ron Paul will cause those "unaffiliated" votes
to eventually vote republican.

That would be good!

BUT, most Ron Paul supporters have voiced contempt and disdain
for the republican party. Why would they vote republican?

Will you vote for the republican nominee?

I just don't see how Ron Paul adds anything to the republican cause,
unless he drops out now and tells his supporters to vote
for the republican candidate.

..
I don't care who anyone endorses, I vote on the issues. Advertising endorsements are the same for me. Why do I care what some famous person thinks, I prefer to think for myself.

ARS

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:13
No you aren't. You're concerned with remaking this country into the progressive mold you and progressive republicans envison.

Same as Obama, just different details.

There you are!
Did you eat too many crawdads last night and over sleep this morning?

Maybe you can answer the question:

How does Ron Paul add anything to the republican Base.
How does he add votes to the republican nominee?

..

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 11:15
Why put a condition on answering my questions?
This is your chance to set me straight.

Your request is just another way of calling me a liberal,
which seems to be the most popular response when someone
is right about something.

What's next, calling me a troll?

Is there any other reason for this thread YOU started or any of your other snide little attempts to prove your political ineptitude?




I'm a conservative who supports the republican candidate.
I've voted conservative all my life.

No you aren't. You are in denial. You are a progressive through and through and several people here have pointed it out. You are either in denial or safe from EVER becoming a Zombie snack.



Just because (right now) I don't have a decent conservative
representative to vote for and choose to vote for the candidate
that can do the most good, doesn't mean I'm a liberal or not a conservative.

Now answer the question. Put up or shut up.

How does Ron Paul add anything to the republican Base.
How does he add votes to the republican nominee?

..


For someone that can't figure out how he adds votes to the Republican base you sure spend an inordinate amount of time hoping he doesn't subtract Republican votes with these silly threads of yours. Independents and third party voters will swing the election one way or the the other. It may be a two party system but there are enough Americans that disagree with the primary choices to change an election outcome.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:22
Independents and third party voters will swing the election one way or the the other. It may be a two party system but there are enough Americans that disagree with the primary choices to change an election outcome.


Independents and third party voters do NOT swing elections one way or the other.

They swing elections in favor of the democrat candidate.
Ever heard of Ross Perot?

Doesn't it bother you that Ron Paul may be helping to get Barack Obama re-elected?
It scares the hell out of me.

Now about those questions...

How does Ron Paul add anything to the republican Base.
How does he add votes to the republican nominee?


..

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 11:26
Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for. I normally vote Libertarian. I am interested in seeing how Rand Paul does. So far so good.
So, yes. Ron Paul does bring people to the Republican Party.

Gundude
04-11-2012, 11:26
Independents and third party voters do NOT swing elections one way or the other.

They swing elections in favor of the democrat candidate.
Ever heard of Ross Perot?False. Ever heard of Ralph Nader? Florida? 2000?

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 11:29
Independents and third party voters do NOT swing elections one way or the other.

They swing elections in favor of the democrat candidate.
..
Stop.. helmet time.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PrU_eIimW9A/S-wNSW13TUI/AAAAAAAAAPg/uLSCetc657g/s1600/MC_Hammer_gif.gif

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:30
Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for.

That means either you won't vote this time or you'll vote for Obama. Which is it?

Not voting deprives the republicans of a much needed vote, and benefits Obama.

So, it looks like either way you're helping Obama get re-elected.
How do you feel about that?

Gundude
04-11-2012, 11:33
Here are the numbers for Florida 2000:

Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
Nader: 97,488

D'ya remember Florida was the deciding state? D'ya think Nader made a difference in Bush's favor

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:33
False. Ever heard of Ralph Nader? Florida? 2000?

I stand corrected, thank you.

But, if all those people who voted for Nader would've voted for Bush instead,
the election would have been a much clearer victory for Bush.

Nader damned near cost Bush the election.

..

creaky
04-11-2012, 11:34
Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for. .


You're not going to get that opportunity. He's not going to be the nominee.




So, yes. Ron Paul does bring people to the Republican Party.

Which means absolutely nothing if you don't vote.

The question was "How does he add votes to the Republican nominee?"

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 11:37
The question was "How does he add votes to the Republican nominee?"


Here are the numbers for Florida 2000:

Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
Nader: 97,488

D'ya remember Florida was the deciding state? D'ya think Nader made a difference in Bush's favor

Just in case this was missed.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:40
Stop.. helmet time.



Your childish responses are very boring.

I might not be as politically savvy as you and some of the others,
but at least I'm trying to sort all this out by asking hard questions.

Your demeaning and insulting replies tell me that I'm on the right
track in my opinions of Ron Paul.

..

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 11:43
Your childish responses are very boring.

I might not be as politically savvy as you and some of the others,
but at least I'm trying to sort all this out by asking hard questions.

Your demeaning and insulting replies tell me that I'm on the right
track in my opinions of Ron Paul.

No, you simply don't pay attention to the information given to you.

Then you start inane threads denigrating other people's opinions and then get mad when your ass is handed to you.

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 11:48
For one.

You are progressive in your ideas concerning the BOR. That is nothing more than fact based on your own statements yet you continue to claim that you are conservative with conservative principles.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:49
No, you simply don't pay attention to the information given to you.

Then you start inane threads denigrating other people's opinions and then get mad when your ass is handed to you.


I do pay attention and I'm not mad.

My ass gets handed to me on this forum nearly everyday and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I'm one of the most outspoken posters on this forum and I've taken a lot of flak for it.
Anyone else would have had their feelings hurt and quit posting long ago.

I would just like to hear more from you than insults.
I know you're smarter than that.

..

Gundude
04-11-2012, 11:49
I stand corrected, thank you.

But, if all those people who voted for Nader would've voted for Bush instead,
the election would have been a clear victory for Bush.

Nader damned near cost Bush the election.

..Funny thing is Democrats were petrified in 2004 that Nader would again syphon votes away from Kerry. They were saying the same thing you guys are saying today: "Hold your nose and vote for the guy who can win." Looks like Nader lost about 2/3rds of his voters in 2004 out of that fear.

Florida 2004:

Bush 3,964,522
Kerry 3,583,544
Nader 32,971

But guess what. "Anybody but Bush" still lost. Kerry lost because he was pathetic. Romney is pathetic. He can't beat Obama, regardless of what Ron Paul does.

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 11:54
I stand corrected, thank you.

But, if all those people who voted for Nader would've voted for Bush instead,
the election would have been a much clearer victory for Bush.

Nader damned near cost Bush the election.

..

That's about the stupidest appraisal of that situation that one can come up with. Is stupidest even a word? Maybe not, but it applies to that opinion.

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 11:56
I do pay attention and I'm not mad.

My ass gets handed to me on this forum nearly everyday and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I'm one of the most outspoken posters on this forum and I've taken a lot of flak for it.
Anyone else would have had their feelings hurt and quit posting long ago.

I would just like to hear more from you than insults.
I know you're smarter than that.

..

Trust me when I say it isn't your opinions or outspokenness that people are laughing at -- its the fact that you're a progressive who thinks he's a conservative who contradicts himself in most every post.

Sendarr
04-11-2012, 11:58
Well, he found my post, didn't he? :supergrin:

My point is, one could list various annoyances about Romney all day long.

But I believe BHO is truly dangerous. We're already facing an unbelievable amount of lawlessness and it will worsen with a BHO not facing relelection:

-failure to prosecute the Black Panthers re Phila voting intimidation case
-Fast and furious
-failure to cease implementing Obamacare after the last circuit court ruling, pending outcome from the SCOTUS,
-failure to bring federal abduction conspiracy charges against the lynch mob in the trayvon martin case (sharpton, et al, and now the NBBP inciting a race war in FL)
-IRS abusive audits of certain anti BHO political forces.

etc, etc. Unrelenting criminal conduct, absolute lawlessness. Without question I do not see that type of thing happening under Romney. Or any more radical SCOTUS picks and you know at least one is gonna croak or retire in the next admin.

We will not survive another BHO admin, a Romney admin, at least theres hope…and not Dope like we have now.

Not saying I agree with you 100%, but I think you missed some of obamas unconstitutional maneuvers and power grabs. Didn't someone file an impeachment over the Libya thing?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 11:59
Romney is pathetic. He can't beat Obama, regardless of what Ron Paul does.

I think Romney can beat Obama!

That is if he runs an aggressive and hard hitting campaign.
He has to go for Obama's throat.

He has to give the people something to vote for, not just vote against Obama.

If he runs the usual old wishy washy, let's not piss anyone off, type republican campaign, he'll lose for sure.

creaky
04-11-2012, 12:02
Just in case this was missed.

No, I saw it. It just doesn't have any meaning here. Ralph Nader is an out and out Green/Communist/Progressive. He siphoned off votes from the Democrats, which is a good thing. Al Gore took a walk.

Ron Paul is a conservative/Constitutionalist who will siphon off votes from the Republicans. This is a bad thing. The Indonesian muslim will be president for four more long years.

I want obama and his racist goon squad gone and you should too.

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 12:02
You're not going to get that opportunity. He's not going to be the nominee.






Which means absolutely nothing if you don't vote.

The question was "How does he add votes to the Republican nominee?"

It seems Ron was playing blocker for Romney. Lets see if Ron or Rand get a vp spot.
I will then look at voting Republican.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 12:03
... its the fact that you're a progressive who thinks he's a conservative who contradicts himself in most every post.


Discrediting me doesn't raise Ron Paul's poll numbers or increase
his chances of getting elected dog catcher somewhere.

:rofl:

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 12:05
Discrediting me doesn't raise Ron Paul's poll numbers or increase
his chances of getting elected dog catcher somewhere.

:rofl:

No, but it might help in your therapy.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 12:13
No, but it might help in your therapy.


My therapist wants me to bring you and syntaxerrorsix with me on my next visit.

She thinks I'm making you guys up.

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 12:21
No, I saw it. It just doesn't have any meaning here. Ralph Nader is an out and out Green/Communist/Progressive. He siphoned off votes from the Democrats, which is a good thing. Al Gore took a walk.

Ron Paul is a conservative/Constitutionalist who will siphon off votes from the Republicans. This is a bad thing. The Indonesian muslim will be president for four more long years.

I want obama and his racist goon squad gone and you should too.

I do. The Republican's choice for an alternative however solves nothing. Either they produce a better candidate or we all suffer no matter which party is elected.

syntaxerrorsix
04-11-2012, 12:21
My therapist wants me to bring you and syntaxerrorsix with me on my next visit.

She thinks I'm making you guys up.


Do you Skype?

:supergrin:

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 12:24
My therapist wants me to bring you and syntaxerrorsix with me on my next visit.

She thinks I'm making you guys up.

I'll pay for the visit.

Yessir How High
04-11-2012, 18:45
I was amazed.

I attended the Republican Caucus in Texas County, Missouri back in March.

We Voted for whom to support and Santorum won with Paul coming in a strong second; (like 75 to 56).

I further ran as a member of the slate of delegates to the state convention and lost like 53 to 49.

The Texas County delegation to the Congressional district Republican Convention has been instructed to vote for Santorum. If, for some reason, Santorum is no longer a viable candidate, the delegation is instructed to vote for Ron Paul.

Many counties in Missouri have been won over to Ron Paul, like for instance Jackson County, the largest area of Kansas City.

There is a chance that Missouri will send its delegates to Tampa voting (on the first round) for Ron Paul.

Yo'uns that listen to the managed media should spread out your perusals.

I should have been more inclusive. Texas County, the largest in Missouri, has only about 12,000 +/- registered voters. At the caucus we had only about 150 republicans show up.

The vote totals were, to the best of my memory;

Santorum = 75
Paul = 56
Gingrich = 11
Romney = 4

During the caucus, a member of the Paul contingency was strongly arguing for the rule that would bind the delegate to only the FIRST ballot. The establishment republicans running the caucus (the good ole boys) held out and were successful in holding fast the rule requiring for the delegates to be bound for good. They knew they had the votes for Santorum.

Our county only gets 11 delegates to the congressional district meeting but since Santorum has dropped out the entire delegation is bound and TOTALLY bound to Dr. Paul and can only change their votes if Dr. Paul drops.

Then they are totally bound to Gingrich.

Those are Missouri Republican Rules for this election cycle.

I am aware that The Republican Party is also corrupt and just the other wing of the predatory bird that rules this country, so I fully expect some skullduggery. If the delegates hold to their principles, however, Missouri could be sending its delegates to Tampa with instructions to vote for Dr. Paul.

Read it and weep.

Yessir How High

juggy4711
04-11-2012, 22:43
Great post, Juggy. Nailed it.

There is a reason my post has been ignored by everyone but you and G19G20. It can not be argued with. There are folks that might try but in the end would only have to admit they want the stop gap measure. The real reason someone like Paul can't win and/or make a difference is because it would cost too many folks too much money and would not be in the best interest of those in charge.

What I do not get is that I do not even have children, yet many that do are perfectly willing to sacrifice their children's futures so they might have a more comfortable present. Pathetic isn't even a strong enough word.

certifiedfunds
04-11-2012, 22:52
There is a reason my post has been ignored by everyone but you and G19G20. It can not be argued with. There are folks that might try but in the end would only have to admit they want the stop gap measure. The real reason someone like Paul can't win and/or make a difference is because it would cost too many folks too much money and would not be in the best interest of those in charge.



Aw hell I loved it but didn't want to appear to be sucking up. :supergrin:

What I do not get is that I do not even have children, yet many that do are perfectly willing to sacrifice their children's futures so they might have a more comfortable present. Pathetic isn't even a strong enough word.

Few weeks ago I asked my inlaws how they could look my children in eye and collect their Social Security checks.

they were speechless.

Pathetic.

RC-RAMIE
04-11-2012, 23:01
http://img.tapatalk.com/63c32e5b-618e-9178.jpg


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

juggy4711
04-11-2012, 23:18
Aw hell I loved it but didn't want to appear to be sucking up. :supergrin:

Few weeks ago I asked my inlaws how they could look my children in eye and collect their Social Security checks.

they were speechless.

Pathetic.

No worries Cert. Read enough of your post to know where you stand. I also get where your inlaws are coming from. My grandmother can afford to buy a new Caddy ever 4 or 5 years in cash straight up and still feels entitled to her SS. That was the deal she signed up for so I get it. My grandparents saved and invested well in their life time and rightfully feel the government owes them what they committed to.

They just do not realize the big picture. If they did I imagine they would be willing to sacrifice so that we wouldn't (my grandparents did a lot for me at their expense). The problem is trying to get the WWII generation to see how much they got screwed and how bad taking what they can get will screw us in the end.

Gary W Trott
04-12-2012, 06:47
No, I saw it. It just doesn't have any meaning here. Ralph Nader is an out and out Green/Communist/Progressive. He siphoned off votes from the Democrats, which is a good thing. Al Gore took a walk.

Ron Paul is a conservative/Constitutionalist who will siphon off votes from the Republicans. This is a bad thing. The Indonesian muslim will be president for four more long years.

I want obama and his racist goon squad gone and you should too.
Ralph Nader ran as a third party candidate in the general election, Ron Paul is running for the Republican nomination. There is no reason to believe that he will run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination so he won't be siphoning votes from anyone.

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2012, 08:31
Ralph Nader ran as a third party candidate in the general election, Ron Paul is running for the Republican nomination. There is no reason to believe that he will run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination so he won't be siphoning votes from anyone.

Well, that's not absolutely true. Ron has explained that he does not like to deal in absolute statements, so has refused to absolutely affirm that he will not run third party. He did say in the past that he didn't have any current intention of running as a third party candidate. So unless he has made an absolute statement that I have missed, he's left the door open just a crack to allow for the possibility that he might develop an intention to run third party.


I'm sure we will know before November what he will ultimately do.

PawDog
04-12-2012, 08:58
Well, that's not absolutely true. Ron has explained that he does not like to deal in absolute statements, so has refused to absolutely affirm that he will not run third party. He did say in the past that he didn't have any current intention of running as a third party candidate. So unless he has made an absolute statement that I have missed, he's left the door open just a crack to allow for the possibility that he might develop an intention to run third party.

I'm sure we will know before November what he will ultimately do.

It depends on what his handlers, i.e., Soros, Code Pink, Moveon.org, etc. tell him to do.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 09:00
It depends on what his handlers, i.e., Soros, Code Pink, Moveon.org, etc. tell him to do.

Right...

GRIMLET
04-12-2012, 11:17
I understand code pink and move on may be in agreement with rp on the war. How is soros in alignment with rp? It is only a question. I see soros as a socialist, one world government kind of guy. Rp is more of limited government, isolationist. Does soros support rp financially in order to split the republican vote?

G19G20
04-12-2012, 11:56
I understand code pink and move on may be in agreement with rp on the war. How is soros in alignment with rp? It is only a question. I see soros as a socialist, one world government kind of guy. Rp is more of limited government, isolationist. Does soros support rp financially in order to split the republican vote?

There wouldnt be any point since Soros would be just fine with either Obama or Romney. Both are puppets that stand for the same globalist agenda.

Paul has never absolutely ruled out a 3rd party/independent campaign because it's been his biggest leverage point against a GOP establishment that's been hell bent on marginalizing him every chance it gets. A Paul 3rd party bid is a guaranteed loss for the GOP and everyone knows this. It's one of his biggest political bargaining chips.

GRIMLET
04-12-2012, 12:03
I agree

certifiedfunds
04-12-2012, 16:42
It depends on what his handlers, i.e., Soros, Code Pink, Moveon.org, etc. tell him to do.

Now I've heard it all :rofl:

G-19
04-12-2012, 16:54
Aw hell I loved it but didn't want to appear to be sucking up. :supergrin:



Few weeks ago I asked my inlaws how they could look my children in eye and collect their Social Security checks.

they were speechless.

Pathetic.

And you wonder why Paul has no chance of being elected. With friends like you it would be a landslide for Obama. It is the mentality of RP supporters that guarantee he don't stand a chance.

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2012, 17:53
It depends on what his handlers, i.e., Soros, Code Pink, Moveon.org, etc. tell him to do.

Code pink? Maybe.

Move on and Soros? Very Doubtful.

certifiedfunds
04-12-2012, 18:28
And you wonder why Paul has no chance of being elected. With friends like you it would be a landslide for Obama. It is the mentality of RP supporters that guarantee he don't stand a chance.

Friends like me? What'd I do?

PawDog
04-12-2012, 18:37
Code pink? Maybe.

Move on and Soros? Very Doubtful.

A one minute Google search reveals a lot of information not being reported.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/02/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/rep-paul-codepink-camp-israel-aid-opposition/

There are also many Paul cultists involved in the Communist/Marxist sponsored Occupy Wall Street protests. Again, a one minute Google search reveals many pictures and information.

Obviously, you won't find this reported on the spooky, weird titled cult webpage, "The Daily Paul.":faint:

certifiedfunds
04-12-2012, 18:48
A one minute Google search reveals a lot of information not being reported.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/02/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/rep-paul-codepink-camp-israel-aid-opposition/

There are also many Paul cultists involved in the Communist/Marxist sponsored Occupy Wall Street protests. Again, a one minute Google search reveals many pictures and information.

Obviously, you won't find this reported on the spooky, weird titled cult webpage, "The Daily Paul.":faint:

Good Lord.

You people have lost your minds.

Stubudd
04-12-2012, 19:03
A one minute Google search reveals a lot of information not being reported.

There are also many Paul cultists involved in the Communist/Marxist sponsored Occupy Wall Street protests. Again, a one minute Google search reveals many pictures and information.

Obviously, you won't find this reported on the spooky, weird titled cult webpage, "The Daily Paul.":faint:

you want the media to report that some anti-war organization and ron paul are both anti-war? Wow that's big news. Nice "reveal". Paul doesn't want to start any more pointless wars. Neither do whoever these people are. Gee whiz, stop the presses.

:rofl:

PawDog
04-12-2012, 19:23
Good Lord.

You people have lost your minds.

Nope. the Paulinistas have. You can continue to believe the propaganda and hype expelled and spewed by the Paul campaign, or use your own resources and keep and open mind on the information that's available. I didn't report the information, just provided sources for anyone who isn't blinded by the "Paul-fantasy" to see the truth.

Or, you can continue to fawn over the old guy, and remain starry-eyed and blind to facts, keeping your head buried in the sand because it doesn't fit your ideological dream of Paul as your messiah.

Your choice, and your own ignorance to facts.

Stubudd
04-12-2012, 19:30
Nope. the Paulinistas have. You can continue to believe the propaganda and hype expelled and spewed by the Paul campaign, or use your own resources and keep and open mind on the information that's available. I didn't report the information, just provided sources for anyone who isn't blinded by the "Paul-fantasy" to see the truth.

Or, you can continue to fawn over the old guy, and remain starry-eyed and blind to facts, keeping your head buried in the sand because it doesn't fit your ideological dream of Paul as your messiah.

Your choice, and your own ignorance to facts.

What facts, what truth? What are you telling me? That both code pink and ron paul are against more pointless wars?

I don't care man. I could not care less who happens to agree with Paul on any issue. What other people do doesn't have any bearing on my own views. And please spare me about having my head buried in the sand- it's you voting for a yankee liberal for potus, not me. How you get your head buried far enough to reconcile yourself with that fact is beyond me completely.

certifiedfunds
04-12-2012, 19:56
Nope. the Paulinistas have. You can continue to believe the propaganda and hype expelled and spewed by the Paul campaign, or use your own resources and keep and open mind on the information that's available. I didn't report the information, just provided sources for anyone who isn't blinded by the "Paul-fantasy" to see the truth.

Or, you can continue to fawn over the old guy, and remain starry-eyed and blind to facts, keeping your head buried in the sand because it doesn't fit your ideological dream of Paul as your messiah.

Your choice, and your own ignorance to facts.

Mitt Romney supports a central bank. So does George Soros.

Mitt Romney supports Social Security. So does George Soros.

Is Romney a Soros puppet?

Get a grip.

certifiedfunds
04-12-2012, 20:04
What facts, what truth? What are you telling me? That both code pink and ron paul are against more pointless wars?

I don't care man. I could not care less who happens to agree with Paul on any issue. What other people do doesn't have any bearing on my own views. And please spare me about having my head buried in the sand- it's you voting for a yankee liberal for potus, not me. How you get your head buried far enough to reconcile yourself with that fact is beyond me completely.

You'd think they would find it to be a positive thing when the leftists agree with the only conservative in the race.

:dunno:

RCP
04-12-2012, 20:39
It's entertaining watching all the "conservatives" try and defend Romney now, it reminds me of the kind of people who keep telling the same lie so often that they actually start to believe it as truth. Interesting to say the least.

G19G20
04-12-2012, 22:18
A one minute Google search reveals a lot of information not being reported.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/02/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/rep-paul-codepink-camp-israel-aid-opposition/

There are also many Paul cultists involved in the Communist/Marxist sponsored Occupy Wall Street protests. Again, a one minute Google search reveals many pictures and information.

Obviously, you won't find this reported on the spooky, weird titled cult webpage, "The Daily Paul.":faint:

Building coalitions of voters across the political spectrum to win elections? That's crazy talk. Don't those people realize that everything is supposed to an echo chamber where everyone conforms to exactly the same views and anybody that disagrees on any particular issue is the enemy? Building coalitions between different groups that are all angry at the central bank's policies? Those moonbats. They need to put down the Kool-aid and accept that everybody needs to have exactly the same idealogy, otherwise they're just political enemies and you can't work with them toward a common goal. Divide and conquer is so underrated.

:upeyes: