Paul vs Romney [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Paul vs Romney


Ruble Noon
04-18-2012, 21:14
http://paulversusromney.com/

RCP
04-18-2012, 21:16
Who cares. Earmarks, and haven't you heard about earmarks? We can only elect a liberal gun grabber cause of those earmarks ya know! EARMARKS I tell ya!!

walt cowan
04-19-2012, 05:50
http://paulversusromney.com/

take the blue pill, mitt and the club will take care of everything.

Restless28
04-19-2012, 05:59
That earmarks argument the haters use is pretty pathetic and desperate.

The Machinist
04-19-2012, 06:34
At first I thought it was a comparison between Obama and Paul, except Obama never signed a gun ban bill like Romney did.

Cavalry Doc
04-19-2012, 06:54
The race between RP and MR is still going the way it's going. You can't always get what you want. That's life for ya. Be sure to vote though, anyway you want to vote. What will happen will happen, then we will try again in 2016. Maybe Rand will take a shot at a run.

walt cowan
04-20-2012, 06:52
The race between RP and MR is still going the way it's going. You can't always get what you want. That's life for ya. Be sure to vote though, anyway you want to vote. What will happen will happen, then we will try again in 2016. Maybe Rand will take a shot at a run.

depends if the country is still here and who the rnc thinks gets the next turn. well theres always 2020.:supergrin:

frank4570
04-20-2012, 07:26
The race between RP and MR is still going the way it's going. You can't always get what you want. That's life for ya. Be sure to vote though, anyway you want to vote. What will happen will happen, then we will try again in 2016. Maybe Rand will take a shot at a run.

A lot of powerful people want an Obama or Romney for president. They won't permit a Rand or Paul. And with that much money they can buy enough influence to get what they want.

Cavalry Doc
04-20-2012, 07:56
A lot of powerful people want an Obama or Romney for president. They won't permit a Rand or Paul. And with that much money they can buy enough influence to get what they want.

Advertising only sways your opinion if you let it.

It'll be interesting to watch. Paul had a lot of baggage with his newsletters, kooky defense statements, the blame america first stuff and the earmarks. I know a lot of people defend him on those, but a lot of very reasonable people simply don't agree with him or think he is presidential material. He has some great ideas, and I hope he can influence the party to return to fiscal conservatism. If he stays in, he should be able to get some speaking time at the convention. We'll have to wait and see.

RC-RAMIE
04-20-2012, 08:10
Advertising only sways your opinion if you let it.

Paul had a lot of baggage with his newsletters, kooky defense statements, the blame america first stuff and the earmarks. .

:wavey:

lancesorbenson
04-20-2012, 08:40
Advertising only sways your opinion if you let it.

It'll be interesting to watch. Paul had a lot of baggage with his newsletters, kooky defense statements, the blame america first stuff and the earmarks. I know a lot of people defend him on those, but a lot of very reasonable people simply don't agree with him or think he is presidential material. He has some great ideas, and I hope he can influence the party to return to fiscal conservatism. If he stays in, he should be able to get some speaking time at the convention. We'll have to wait and see.

Whereas Romney's baggage was staking pro-choice, pro-mandate, and anti-gun positions while serving as governor of one of the most liberal states in the country.

frank4570
04-20-2012, 08:56
Advertising only sways your opinion if you let it.
The ones who do, badly outnumber the ones who don't.

He has some great ideas, and I hope he can influence the party to return to fiscal conservatism.

I'm pretty sure we are past the tipping point. In order for us to straighten stuff out, we would have to give up some stuff. There are now too many people who are not willing to do that, and they will believe whatever they have to in order to continue as we are. " I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."


Monsanto gives money to Obama. Obama uses that money to advertise the fact that he will take care of the people who vote for him. Once he is elected he appoints a former Monsanto lobbyist to the Food and Drug Administration.
The people get mad because they still have bills, so he blames Zimmerman and all is forgiven. Besides that, he can do whatever he wants because their only other choice is to vote for a republican.

eracer
04-20-2012, 09:07
I fear for an America that eats differently colored hard-boiled eggs every four years.

Bren
04-20-2012, 10:02
I'd love to have Paul for president. I'd love it twice as much if he got there running for a third party.

Sadly, I live in the real world, so priority one remains not letting Obama get reelected. That means voting for the Republican. I will vote for Paul in the primary, but I'll vote Republican in the general election, no matter who it is. Make Jessie Jackson the Republican nominee and he's got my vote.

Restless28
04-20-2012, 11:38
I'd love to have Paul for president. I'd love it twice as much if he got there running for a third party.

Sadly, I live in the real world, so priority one remains not letting Obama get reelected. That means voting for the Republican. I will vote for Paul in the primary, but I'll vote Republican in the general election, no matter who it is. Make Jessie Jackson the Republican nominee and he's got my vote.

That is absurd.

Javelin
04-20-2012, 11:40
Make Jessie Jackson the Republican nominee and he's got my vote.

That is ridiculous but very truthful of the typical GOP member.

The Machinist
04-20-2012, 12:02
I'd love to have Paul for president. I'd love it twice as much if he got there running for a third party.

Sadly, I live in the real world, so priority one remains not letting Obama get reelected. That means voting for the Republican. I will vote for Paul in the primary, but I'll vote Republican in the general election, no matter who it is. Make Jessie Jackson the Republican nominee and he's got my vote.
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she was running on the GOP ticket?

frank4570
04-20-2012, 12:13
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she was running on the GOP ticket?

Give it 15 or 20 years and she will be.

Bren
04-20-2012, 12:37
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she was running on the GOP ticket?

Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat.

1. Even if she is as liberal as Obama, she's no worse.

2. She'd be a first termer, which places some restraint on what she will do, since a second term is possible - Obama will be unrestrained after the election.

3. She'd be the candidate of the Republican party and I'd rather have a liberal president who owes favors to Republicans and is somewhat directed by them, than a president who owes favors to Democrats and is directed by them.

Either the Republican or the Democrat candidate will be the next president. I already know who the Democrat is, so, for the reasons, stated, any Republican is better.

I have posted this before. If anyone has an explanation why it's wrong, feel free to finally respond instea dof the one-liners like "that's absurd" (meaning: I can't say why it's wrong but I don't like it).

Bren
04-20-2012, 12:42
That is ridiculous but very truthful of the typical GOP member.

So explain either (1) why Obama is better or (2) why a rational person would believe that a third party candidate can be elected in 2012.

If not, your response is ridiculous. You have repeatedly made it clear that you are willing to re-elect Obama, either to be spiteful toward the Republicans or to deny your own responsibility for the outcome of the election.

RCP
04-20-2012, 13:19
Because if were going to have to deal with someone as liberal as Obama I'd rather only have to do so for another 4 years vs 8. It has nothing to do with spite Im choosing the lesser of 2 evils which is tolerating another 4 years of Obama instead of watching the Republican party go farther left for 8 which opens the door for even more liberal candidates in the future.

Ruble Noon
04-20-2012, 15:09
Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat.

1. Even if she is as liberal as Obama, she's no worse.

2. She'd be a first termer, which places some restraint on what she will do, since a second term is possible - Obama will be unrestrained after the election.

3. She'd be the candidate of the Republican party and I'd rather have a liberal president who owes favors to Republicans and is somewhat directed by them, than a president who owes favors to Democrats and is directed by them.

Either the Republican or the Democrat candidate will be the next president. I already know who the Democrat is, so, for the reasons, stated, any Republican is better.

I have posted this before. If anyone has an explanation why it's wrong, feel free to finally respond instea dof the one-liners like "that's absurd" (meaning: I can't say why it's wrong but I don't like it).

This is why the republican party keeps migrating to the left with every election cycle. People will vote for whomever just because they have an R by their name. A shame really.
The republican establishment has shown that they are willing to compromise on principles to appease the left while alienating the right. If we keep lying down and accepting the premise that we must appease the left we are nothing more than a speed bump to roll over in their rush to liberal/socialism.

Cavalry Doc
04-20-2012, 16:23
:wavey:

I don't remember seeing MSM reports on most of that stuff. Most of it I learned about here, and did my own research.

He's got some outstanding traits, and some not so much. As a total package, I'm just not that into him. I wish him well, and hope that he does get some time at the convention to scold the living hell out of the party for letting things get so twisted that we are going to nominate Obama-lite.

But at the end of the day, if what I think will happen does happen, and it's Romney v. Barry, and possibly Paul running third party polling a distant third, I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. I'd rather have an injection of half strength rattlesnake venom that a full strength shot if those were my only two choices. Voting for Romney would be just about that painful of a choice. But being a committed pragmatist, I'll bet on a first term for Romney being better than a second term for Barry. And this is a big leap for a committed agnostic, but I actually might start praying (figuratively speaking) daily for Romney to be upset in the 2016 primary by a real conservative. No offense intended to you or the good Doctor, but Ron is a real libertarian in my personal and globally insignificant opinion.

Best bet is to be prepared for Barry or Romney to be president this time next year. You don't have long to start getting yourself in order for that. The precious metal market is very interesting. I'm going against the grain and opting to invest in Lead, Copper, Brass, hammer forged steel, and milled aluminum. A post hole digger and some large diameter PVC with appropriately sized end caps might also be useful. Don't forget the caulk.

Cavalry Doc
04-20-2012, 16:31
depends if the country is still here and who the rnc thinks gets the next turn. well theres always 2020.:supergrin:

Change takes time. Inertia is a very powerful force too. The RNC has influence, but not absolute control. I'm starting to think that the country has shifted to the left. We may be at the mercy of that trend, but only to a certain degree.

No doubt about one thing, hard times ahead for sure. Hang on, it's going to be a wild ride.

Cavalry Doc
04-20-2012, 17:00
This is why the republican party keeps migrating to the left with every election cycle. People will vote for whomever just because they have an R by their name. A shame really.
The republican establishment has shown that they are willing to compromise on principles to appease the left while alienating the right. If we keep lying down and accepting the premise that we must appease the left we are nothing more than a speed bump to roll over in their rush to liberal/socialism.

It's heading that way because no better alternatives decide to run. Ron just wasn't The GUY. If there were a few slight differences he may have been. A confident demeanor, slightly younger age, and lack of his comments on the submarines and if he hadn't let some guys write stupid stuff over his signature block on those newsletters. Close, but not quite enough to change the status quo.

Hopefully we get someone with the creds and intestinal fortitude to duke it out in the next go around.

This time, it seems like it's gonna suck. Most of us don't like it, but it is what it is.

Javelin
04-20-2012, 18:08
Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat.

1. Even if she is as liberal as Obama, she's no worse.

2. She'd be a first termer, which places some restraint on what she will do, since a second term is possible - Obama will be unrestrained after the election.

3. She'd be the candidate of the Republican party and I'd rather have a liberal president who owes favors to Republicans and is somewhat directed by them, than a president who owes favors to Democrats and is directed by them.

Either the Republican or the Democrat candidate will be the next president. I already know who the Democrat is, so, for the reasons, stated, any Republican is better.

I have posted this before. If anyone has an explanation why it's wrong, feel free to finally respond instea dof the one-liners like "that's absurd" (meaning: I can't say why it's wrong but I don't like it).

You really need to rethink yourself here. Like take a deep breath and go to a quiet place and just ponder your political ideology.

I mean, maybe you are a liberal democrat? Seriously. You can't just go vote for color. You can't say to yourself who would make the better candidate.... and then vote RED. Or vote BLUE. At least I would hope you have more thought process than this.

frank4570
04-20-2012, 20:02
It's heading that way because no better alternatives decide to run. Ron just wasn't The GUY. If there were a few slight differences he may have been. A confident demeanor, slightly younger age, and lack of his comments on the submarines and if he hadn't let some guys write stupid stuff over his signature block on those newsletters. Close, but not quite enough to change the status quo.

Hopefully we get someone with the creds and intestinal fortitude to duke it out in the next go around.

This time, it seems like it's gonna suck. Most of us don't like it, but it is what it is.

I hate to keep being the doom and gloom guy, but it sounds like it is 5 or 6 or 7 steps backwards while we keep hoping for 1 step forward.

juggy4711
04-20-2012, 21:28
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she was running on the GOP ticket?

Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat...

:faint: And folks wonder why some of us will not vote GOP just because they are not democrats. That is why. The support the GOP no matter what voters have no principles they are unwilling to compromise.

juggy4711
04-20-2012, 21:34
I hate to keep being the doom and gloom guy, but it sounds like it is 5 or 6 or 7 steps backwards while we keep hoping for 1 step forward.

Yep. Whether willing to admit it or not the conservatives that don't like RP have something to lose they are unwilling to give up should RP's platform become law. I'll admit I have a lot to lose also. I'm young enough I would likely lose everything I have ever contributed to the current system. Difference is I am willing to do so.

walt cowan
04-21-2012, 05:59
Change takes time. Inertia is a very powerful force too. The RNC has influence, but not absolute control. I'm starting to think that the country has shifted to the left. We may be at the mercy of that trend, but only to a certain degree.

No doubt about one thing, hard times ahead for sure. Hang on, it's going to be a wild ride.

tons of dry wood, just need a spark to set it off.

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 06:27
I hate to keep being the doom and gloom guy, but it sounds like it is 5 or 6 or 7 steps backwards while we keep hoping for 1 step forward.

Well our numbers differ. Barry would be a quarter mile back, romney a hundred yards.

I didn't create the situation, I can recognize what it is though.

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 06:29
tons of dry wood, just need a spark to set it off.

There will be incidents, but I sincerely doubt we are heading toward revolution. (that is what you were hinting at, right???)

walt cowan
04-21-2012, 07:39
There will be incidents, but I sincerely doubt we are heading toward revolution. (that is what you were hinting at, right???)

yes or as i like to say "darwin day".

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 12:32
yes or as i like to say "darwin day".

The fantasy of how that would look & end is much more palatable than the reality.



Think about it for a second, if the worlds best place to live has a revolution, what are the odds it will still be number one?

The reality, is that after a revolution, we could expect less individual freedom, not more. The odds of you being in the new privileged class is less than Herman Cain's of still being the nominee.

I've seen it in person, and it ain't pretty.

evlbruce
04-21-2012, 13:22
I really didn't care for Mittens in '08 and I like him even less now.

I didn't think the GOP could do it, but they're set to nominate a candidate that makes McCain look good.

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 13:34
I really didn't care for Mittens in '08 and I like him even less now.

I didn't think the GOP could do it, but they're set to nominate a candidate that makes McCain look good.

Yikes. :faint: Now that you mention it, McCain would be better than Romney.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 14:13
Yikes. :faint: Now that you mention it, McCain would be better than Romney.

That's why McCain was the 2008 nominee. As far left as he is, Romney was farther and now we are supposed to hold our nose and vote for someone that was deemed worse than McCain? Nope.

Bren
04-21-2012, 16:33
You really need to rethink yourself here. Like take a deep breath and go to a quiet place and just ponder your political ideology.

I mean, maybe you are a liberal democrat? Seriously. You can't just go vote for color. You can't say to yourself who would make the better candidate.... and then vote RED. Or vote BLUE. At least I would hope you have more thought process than this.

Your response says nothing - it doesn't even attempt to respond to what I said with any type of argument or address anything my post even hinted at. That is ridiculous. Well done.:upeyes:

Bren
04-21-2012, 16:36
:faint: And folks wonder why some of us will not vote GOP just because they are not democrats. That is why. The support the GOP no matter what voters have no principles they are unwilling to compromise.

So your principles say you must vote for Obama because you want to make a "statement" of some sort? The end result is you get Obama for a president, with your support, so that is the preference you are choosing. If lying to yourself is "principle" I don't want any.

Bren
04-21-2012, 16:40
Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat.

1. Even if she is as liberal as Obama, she's no worse.

2. She'd be a first termer, which places some restraint on what she will do, since a second term is possible - Obama will be unrestrained after the election.

3. She'd be the candidate of the Republican party and I'd rather have a liberal president who owes favors to Republicans and is somewhat directed by them, than a president who owes favors to Democrats and is directed by them.

Either the Republican or the Democrat candidate will be the next president. I already know who the Democrat is, so, for the reasons, stated, any Republican is better.

I have posted this before. If anyone has an explanation why it's wrong, feel free to finally respond instea dof the one-liners like "that's absurd" (meaning: I can't say why it's wrong but I don't like it).

I have posted this same thing in several threads, yet the "principled" voters, like Ruble Noon, Javelin and juggy4711 are still unable to state an argument that shows it is wrong. I realize that side of the "Romney debate" isn't exactly weighted down with political science majors, but I thought somebody would at least make a bad attempt.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 20:07
I have posted this same thing in several threads, yet the "principled" voters, like Ruble Noon, Javelin and juggy4711 are still unable to state an argument that shows it is wrong. I realize that side of the "Romney debate" isn't exactly weighted down with political science majors, but I thought somebody would at least make a bad attempt.

The thought was so asinine that I thought you were joking. You were serious? Really? :shocked::wow: :faint:

G-19
04-21-2012, 20:20
Bren, because then they would have to admit they and Paul are shills for Obama. They want to divide the GOP the insure Obama's win in 2012.

Restless28
04-21-2012, 20:23
Bren, because then they would have to admit they and Paul are shills for Obama. They want to divide the GOP the insure Obama's win in 2012.

Genius. Sheer genius.

G-19
04-21-2012, 20:28
Genius. Sheer genius.

Thanks.:wavey:

frank4570
04-21-2012, 20:28
Bren, because then they would have to admit they and Paul are shills for Obama. They want to divide the GOP the insure Obama's win in 2012.

Yep. The Teaparty works for Obama, too.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 20:31
Yep. The Teaparty works for Obama, too.

Yep, we sure do.

G-19
04-21-2012, 20:33
Yep, we sure do.

I thought it was just Paul and his subjects.

frank4570
04-21-2012, 20:42
I thought it was just Paul and his subjects.

You really need to look deeper. Tip of the ice burg.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 21:22
You really need to look deeper. Tip of the ice burg.

It's a grand conspiracy.

lancesorbenson
04-21-2012, 21:31
It's a grand conspiracy.

He's got it all figured out. I've learned from g-19 that, while I may be a rabid gun-lover, totally pro-life small government fanatic, I'm also a secret shill for Obama. So secret even I didn't know what I was.

G-19
04-21-2012, 21:39
He's got it all figured out. I've learned from g-19 that, while I may be a rabid gun-lover, totally pro-life small government fanatic, I'm also a secret shill for Obama. So secret even I didn't know what I was.

I did not say you knew it, but that you are being led around by your nose by those that do want Obama to win, namely Soros and Paul.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 21:42
I did not say you knew it, but that you are being led around by your nose by those that do want Obama to win, namely Soros and Paul.

Man you should have listened to Nancy Reagan.

RCP
04-21-2012, 21:43
Apparently the GOP also wants Obama to win, how else would you explain such a crappy nominee as Romney?

Javelin
04-22-2012, 00:18
Apparently the GOP also wants Obama to win, how else would you explain such a crappy nominee as Romney?

It almost seems this way doesn't it? Either way, either candidate the result is the same. Big business and big corrupt government wins.

G29Reload
04-22-2012, 00:24
Apparently the GOP also wants Obama to win, how else would you explain such a crappy nominee as Romney?

Again with this.


We get who SHOWS UP. That's it.

It's not like the GOP and Dems each have a farm somewhere where they grow people like corn or rice and then select what they think is the best candidate and shove him out on stage.

A bunch of aspirants ball up around the time the primaries are set to begin and from what's available, camps form. Grass roots, old School, party faithful, machine politicians, party hacks, policy wonks, technicians, pollsters, talking heads, bundlers and fundraisers…who's got a chance? what does he feel about xyz?…and the most likely gets a majority of that forming around him like…like….algae.

And the crowd roars. Hey! He's got the most algae! lets vote for that guy!

walt cowan
04-22-2012, 06:46
The fantasy of how that would look & end is much more palatable than the reality.



Think about it for a second, if the worlds best place to live has a revolution, what are the odds it will still be number one?

The reality, is that after a revolution, we could expect less individual freedom, not more. The odds of you being in the new privileged class is less than Herman Cain's of still being the nominee.

I've seen it in person, and it ain't pretty.

your mistake is thinking i want to start it, wrong. the goverment wants to start it for the very reasons you state above. remember hitler had the matches and started the fire.. take it from me, i lived it.

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 07:40
your mistake is thinking i want to start it, wrong. the goverment wants to start it for the very reasons you state above. remember hitler had the matches and started the fire.. take it from me, i lived it.

Chicken and the egg??

OK, who fires the first shot with a plan to change things? What would the plan be from there. Force on force battle? Insurgency? Striking civilian targets until the government surrenders? Unless you have a vast amount of support, none of those choices work.

I'm thinking education and voting would be a better way to go. May not be possible either, but we haven't tried that, and I generally think that all other options should be at least considered before anyone participates in a plan where people get hurt.

evlbruce
04-22-2012, 08:08
Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat.

1. Even if she is as liberal as Obama, she's no worse.

2. She'd be a first termer, which places some restraint on what she will do, since a second term is possible - Obama will be unrestrained after the election.

3. She'd be the candidate of the Republican party and I'd rather have a liberal president who owes favors to Republicans and is somewhat directed by them, than a president who owes favors to Democrats and is directed by them.

Either the Republican or the Democrat candidate will be the next president. I already know who the Democrat is, so, for the reasons, stated, any Republican is better.

I have posted this before. If anyone has an explanation why it's wrong, feel free to finally respond instea dof the one-liners like "that's absurd" (meaning: I can't say why it's wrong but I don't like it).

You could use this line of reasoning with just about any candidate including a hypothetical clone of Obama. Which leads to the interesting conclusion that Republican Obama > Democrat Obama.

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 08:19
You could use this line of reasoning with just about any candidate including a hypothetical clone of Obama. Which leads to the interesting conclusion that Republican Obama > Democrat Obama.

Even clones would be different. They would be no closer than any other set of identical twins, and they would have had different experiences.

Still, your point is well made.

The difference is that each party has a platform, and a base that supports them based on how well they stick to that platform. At least there would be some pressure from the people that got a Republican into the white house to do the right thing.

No guarantees, but I just can't forget Harriet Miers.

walt cowan
04-23-2012, 15:16
Chicken and the egg??

OK, who fires the first shot with a plan to change things? What would the plan be from there. Force on force battle? Insurgency? Striking civilian targets until the government surrenders? Unless you have a vast amount of support, none of those choices work.

I'm thinking education and voting would be a better way to go. May not be possible either, but we haven't tried that, and I generally think that all other options should be at least considered before anyone participates in a plan where people get hurt.

i was once where you are. no shame in that. in time with an open mind that will change.:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 16:12
i was once where you are. no shame in that. in time with an open mind that will change.:wavey:

So convince me, what's the plan, and how does it end in a better life for my children and grandchildren?