Big Romney fan here. This video sold me on Romney. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Big Romney fan here. This video sold me on Romney.


Pages : [1] 2

G19G20
04-19-2012, 02:53
I must admit that Mitt is what we deserve and he has my support. This is the greatest tribute to Mitt's views ever. Must watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W_pgfWK3sxw#!

Flintlocker
04-19-2012, 03:07
Hypocrisy will be on parade this election season. Watching Republicans defend and support this guy should prove quite entertaining. I can't wait for the show.

ricklee4570
04-19-2012, 03:16
Another dillusional Ron Paul supporter. I remember hearing how Ron Paul was going to run away with the nomination easily back in November. Well, as usual, it didnt happen and he wont be a significant player in this election either. Facts are facts.

G-19
04-19-2012, 03:32
Don't forget, They have a super secret plan to get him nominated.:rofl:

fortyofforty
04-19-2012, 04:57
Yep, and Romney is no better than Obama. Just like George W. Bush was no better than Al Gore or John Kerry, and Sotomayor and Kagan are no better than Roberts and Alito. To support Ron Paul you've got to check logic at the door. The only thing necessary is to believe what he says, ignore what he does, and tear down everybody else. Romney or Obama. Your choice. Your move.

Ruble Noon
04-19-2012, 05:04
Mitt was against guns before he was for them.

evlbruce
04-19-2012, 08:50
Mitt was against guns before he was for them.

Just like TARP, bail-outs, amnesty, cap-and-trade, individual health care mandates, lobbying/special interests, abortion, etc....

But judges! Governor Romney appointed liberal activists to the bench in Massachusetts, so as president he'll appoint strict constructivists to the SCOTUS.

Gundude
04-19-2012, 09:03
The only thing necessary is to believe what he says, ignore what he does, and tear down everybody else.Are you talking about Ron Paul or Romney? :dunno: It sounds like that phrase could become Romney's official running platform. :rofl: What else has he got?


Romney or Obama. Your choice. Your move.It's telling that nobody, nobody has actually defended Romey. Nobody says anything good about him in response to the attacks on him from Right, Left, and Center. All they say is, "we have no choice but to vote for him." Do you really think that's enough to win?

The Machinist
04-19-2012, 10:06
Anyone who would vote for Romney doesn't really care about their country. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

Paul7
04-19-2012, 11:44
Who is more conservative, Romney or Obama? Romney is just as much to the right of Obama as Reagan was to Carter.

Little Joe
04-19-2012, 12:08
I'm no huge fan of Romney, but I'll vote for him over Obummer, absolutely.

I do wish, at this point, I hadn't sent Newt the $200 I did. Do you think they'll send it back if I request a refund. :supergrin:

Restless28
04-19-2012, 12:13
Great video!

RC-RAMIE
04-19-2012, 12:19
Our guns are screwed if Mitt or Obama gets in.

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 13:26
I guess the remaining primaries should be cancelled. Does it bother anyone in the remaining 19 states--including Texas and California, the two most populous--that the candidate has been chosen already, before you've even had a chance to vote?

Snowman92D
04-19-2012, 13:39
Mitt was against guns before he was for them.

But...he might be for legalizing drugs after he was against it. Especially if RP cuts a deal with Mitt to send a legion of stoners to vote for him. :supergrin:

RC-RAMIE
04-19-2012, 14:08
But...he might be for legalizing drugs after he was against it. Especially if RP cuts a deal with Mitt to send a legion of stoners to vote for him. :supergrin:

:upeyes:...

Ruble Noon
04-19-2012, 14:53
But...he might be for legalizing drugs after he was against it. Especially if RP cuts a deal with Mitt to send a legion of stoners to vote for him. :supergrin:

If he does I guess you can start buying it legally. :smoking:

JBnTX
04-19-2012, 14:57
All you Obama supporters are making this far more difficult than it needs to be.

Ruble Noon
04-19-2012, 15:11
All you Obama supporters are making this far more difficult than it needs to be.

By obama supporters I assume that you are erroneously referring to us conservative Paul supporters and your comment about making this harder than it needs to be reeks of statist elitism.

CAcop
04-19-2012, 15:58
I guess the remaining primaries should be cancelled. Does it bother anyone in the remaining 19 states--including Texas and California, the two most populous--that the candidate has been chosen already, before you've even had a chance to vote?

It happens every election. CA is just an ATM for politicians. No one visits here just to make it on the news. They come here for a fundraiser and leave with cash. There are no political ads played endlessly on the TV. The last election the only time I saw election ads on TV I was in Reno on vacation.

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 16:16
It happens every election. CA is just an ATM for politicians. No one visits here just to make it on the news. They come here for a fundraiser and leave with cash. There are no political ads played endlessly on the TV. The last election the only time I saw election ads on TV I was in Reno on vacation.

It seems a little disenfranchising to millions of voters, as the nominee is crowned well before they get to vote. Even if they haven't actually won, like Romney. All I see here on GT are people saying they'll hold their noses for the Yankee progressive who bragged about the tough gun laws in his state and has said he doesn't believe anyone should own "assault weapons."

There are still 19 primaries to go, including the two most populous states. We don't have to settle for the anti-gun, healthcare mandate loving Yankee progressive.

Flying-Dutchman
04-19-2012, 16:37
All you Obama supporters are making this far more difficult than it needs to be.
1+ Agreed

All politicians say whatever it takes to get elected, Obama included.

I look at their actions.

Romney is a good man, a business man who leads a conservative life and donates a lot of money to charity.

Romney will work with the Tea Party Congress. Romney will be the best President since Reagan.

jakebrake
04-19-2012, 16:40
Romney will be the best President since Reagan.

ummm.....that's not saying much.

fortyofforty
04-19-2012, 17:10
It seems a little disenfranchising to millions of voters, as the nominee is crowned well before they get to vote. Even if they haven't actually won, like Romney. All I see here on GT are people saying they'll hold their noses for the Yankee progressive who bragged about the tough gun laws in his state and has said he doesn't believe anyone should own "assault weapons."

There are still 19 primaries to go, including the two most populous states. We don't have to settle for the anti-gun, healthcare mandate loving Yankee progressive.

And you may vote for whomever you like, if you live in one of those states. If the general election comes down to Romney versus Obama, you had better decide who gets your vote. You had better have a plan B. If you don't, look forward to two or three more Kagans and Sotomayors.

Flying-Dutchman
04-19-2012, 17:10
ummm.....that's not saying much.
I remember Reagan; times were good during Reagan.

My gut tells me Romney is really a conservative; he had to act Liberal to get elected in Massachusetts.

Romney promised to end Obamacare; he is a one-termer if he does not so he will keep his promise.

Romney will not be able to pass gun control laws with the Tea Party Congress even if he wanted to so like Obama he will not try.

Romney will focus on the budget and the economy; if anyone can fix this it is Romney.

fortyofforty
04-19-2012, 17:13
It happens every election. CA is just an ATM for politicians. No one visits here just to make it on the news. They come here for a fundraiser and leave with cash. There are no political ads played endlessly on the TV. The last election the only time I saw election ads on TV I was in Reno on vacation.

I wouldn't spend a dime on political advertising in California. Why not? Jerrry Brown. Dianne Feinstein. Barbara Boxer. If those are the types of politicians who win statewide office, there is no hope.

jakebrake
04-19-2012, 17:35
I remember Reagan; times were good during Reagan.

My gut tells me Romney is really a conservative; he had to act Liberal to get elected in Massachusetts.

Romney promised to end Obamacare; he is a one-termer if he does not so he will keep his promise.

Romney will not be able to pass gun control laws with the Tea Party Congress even if he wanted to so like Obama he will not try.

Romney will focus on the budget and the economy; if anyone can fix this it is Romney.

I agree about Reagan. he was the goods. end of statement, after him it all went to hell.

as far as romney and the tea party congress? well, the scary part, is finding out how many of them said what we wanted to hear to get elected, or, equally bad, how many will become part of the machine.

as far as the budget? i think i can give props to romney on that.

just starting to feel like alien vs. predator...no matter who wins, we lose.

fortyofforty
04-19-2012, 17:54
George W. Bush overspent terribly, but compared with Obama he was great, even on spending. His Supreme Court appointments alone would earn him high marks in my book. Reagan also overspent, for the record. Yet he was a great president. The reason Democrats constantly win battles like the one over Obamacare is that, when it comes to a crucial vote, they all band together. Vote after critical vote, it's 100% of Democrats voting as a bloc. Republicans always end up splitting their votes, and often can't get anything meaningful passed.

Take the recent Paul Ryan budget plan. From MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/15/6478024-ryan-budget-plan-passes-house-only-4-gop-reps-vote-no):

All Democrats opposed the Republican budget.

Republicans voting against the Ryan plan were Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, Walter Jones of North Carolina, David McKinley of West Virginia, and Denny Rehberg of Montana.

I mean, come on. Seriously? Not good enough, yet. Sure. Whatever. We are our own worst enemy.

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 19:17
And you may vote for whomever you like, if you live in one of those states. If the general election comes down to Romney versus Obama, you had better decide who gets your vote. You had better have a plan B. If you don't, look forward to two or three more Kagans and Sotomayors.

To be clear, I can pick either an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-mandate guy from Chicago who is backed by Goldman Sachs or an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-mandate guy from Massachusetts who is backed by Goldman Sachs. I think I'll stay focused on plan A for now thank you.

juggy4711
04-19-2012, 20:10
I agree about Reagan. he was the goods. end of statement, after him it all went to hell...


Reagan wasn't all he is chalked up to be. Gun control, amnesty, and spending issues. Yes he had a left congress, but he talked a good game and then compromised on major conservative issues. He was the best stop gap measure in my life time but he still allowed the country to slide to the left.

If Reagan couldn't stop the slide what chance does Romeny have?

LASTRESORT20
04-19-2012, 20:19
Liberalism is a cancer oozing deceit and lies.....Anyone voting for 4 more years of the same is naive ...

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 20:21
Liberalism is a cancer oozing deceit and lies.....Anyone voting for 4 more years of the same is naive ...

So I take you'll be abstaining or voting third-party?

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 05:09
If you think there is no difference between Obama and Romney, you are deluded, naive, or hopelessly devoted to Ron Paul. Even the worst Republican candidate would be better than Obama. If you don't think so, it was people like you gave us Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who are still in place trying to destroy traditional America. Thanks, Ross Perot. Thanks Perobots. You all can focus on plan A as long as plan A is viable. You'd better start working on a plan B for yourselves, though.

Ruble Noon
04-20-2012, 05:13
If you think there is no difference between Obama and Romney, you are deluded, naive, or hopelessly devoted to Ron Paul. Even the worst Republican candidate would be better than Obama. If you don't think so, it was people like you gave us Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who are still in place trying to destroy traditional America. Thanks, Ross Perot. Thanks Perobots. You all can focus on plan A as long as plan A is viable. You'd better start working on a plan B for yourselves, though.

Have you ever wondered why our overall trajectory remains the same even though we change the players in the game?

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 05:21
Have you ever wondered why our overall trajectory remains the same even though we change the players in the game?

No, I don't wonder at all. Government is too bloated, and the people inside the system have no real incentive to change anything. People who have served in Congress for years and other Washington insiders are hardly the best ones to rely on to make any real change, for example, no matter what lip service they pay to any grand ideas.

What I hope for in the next election is for our next President to slow the rate of expansion (or hold it steady, at best), while more conservative members of Congress can be voted in. A moderate or even liberal Republican President, working with a conservative, fiscally responsible Congress (where all spending bills originate), is much better than dealing with four more years of the Natsos. This is especially true with the President's power to make Supreme Court appointments.

Real financial change will come from Congress. By Constitutional definition, it must. And it will take time. If we can't even all get behind the recent Paul Ryan budget, Republicans are always going to appear weak, disjointed and disunited.

Restless28
04-20-2012, 05:50
Obama will wipe the floor with Mitt in a debate. He will lampoon Mitt's hypocrisy and finally Mitt will have to defend his record.

I'm no Obama fan, but Mitt has an L on his forehead.

Maybe Mitt should tuneup his skills by having a face to face debate with Ron Paul first.

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 15:18
Obama will wipe the floor with Mitt in a debate. He will lampoon Mitt's hypocrisy and finally Mitt will have to defend his record.

I'm no Obama fan, but Mitt has an L on his forehead.

Maybe Mitt should tuneup his skills by having a face to face debate with Ron Paul first.

And if Obama ever faced Paul in a debate, he would make Paul look like an extremist kook, on issues from foreign policy to evolution. That would be one way to make Obama actually look like the reasonable choice for president. The late night comedians (from whom many Americans get their political information) would have plenty of material on Paul, that's for sure.

GRIMLET
04-20-2012, 15:28
You all can focus on plan A as long as plan A is viable. You'd better start working on a plan B for yourselves, though.


May I suggest you take your own words to heart. When Romney loses, what will be your plan B?

G-19
04-20-2012, 15:32
And if Obama ever faced Paul in a debate, he would make Paul look like an extremist kook, on issues from foreign policy to evolution. That would be one way to make Obama actually look like the reasonable choice for president. The late night comedians (from whom many Americans get their political information) would have plenty of material on Paul, that's for sure.

That is how I pretty much see it. With Romney leaning more to the middle he would actually appeal to more voters in both paries and to moderates. A candidate can not win with just their parties support, they must win over the independents, that is how Obama won in 08. Romney has the best chance of that, Paul is to far right for most Americans.

GRIMLET
04-20-2012, 15:33
Its odd how Ron Paul supporters are made out to be cult like in their support of his IDEAS. And how Republicans don't agree on their candidate and his ideas but are willing to settle just because he is the party nominee.

The whole anything but Obama saying sounds like
I'm voting for the one who sucks less.

Snowman92D
04-20-2012, 15:34
And if Obama ever faced Paul in a debate, he would make Paul look like an extremist kook, on issues from foreign policy to evolution. That would be one way to make Obama actually look like the reasonable choice for president.

A big +1 on that. :thumbsup:

BORNGEARHEAD
04-20-2012, 15:58
George Carlin - Why You Are In Debt - YouTube

lancesorbenson
04-20-2012, 16:30
Real financial change will come from Congress.

Now who's being deluded and naive? There is nothing to suggest that financial change will come from Congress. Primarily because they have conceded control of the money supply to a private banking cartel.

GAFinch
04-20-2012, 16:34
I'd love for the Paul supporters who are slamming Romney's moderate views on gun control to explain Paul's position on repealing the gun manufacturers’ liability bill, which could result in all types of guns being made illegal via lawsuits.

lancesorbenson
04-20-2012, 16:40
If you think there is no difference between Obama and Romney, you are deluded, naive, or hopelessly devoted to Ron Paul. Even the worst Republican candidate would be better than Obama. If you don't think so, it was people like you gave us Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who are still in place trying to destroy traditional America. Thanks, Ross Perot. Thanks Perobots. You all can focus on plan A as long as plan A is viable. You'd better start working on a plan B for yourselves, though.

And if Bush 41 had not lied about "no new taxes" we probably wouldn't have had Clinton. And Perot didn't cause Bush to lose. He took roughly the same amount of support from both candidates.

Cavalry Doc
04-20-2012, 17:19
George Carlin - Why You Are In Debt - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkWf9M3rUw&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

I laughed hundreds of deep belly laughs at George, he was an intelligent and amazingly funny guy.

But he was very liberal too.

There is more chaos than control in the system than he realized.

Stuff happens, due to millions of competing interests.

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 17:27
And if Bush 41 had not lied about "no new taxes" we probably wouldn't have had Clinton. And Perot didn't cause Bush to lose. He took roughly the same amount of support from both candidates.

Not quite so clear cut (http://race42012.com/2011/04/20/did-ross-perot-elect-bill-clinton/) as you present it.

What Perot did was shatter the Reagan/Bush coalition, allowing Bill Clinton to pick up the pieces.

And we are still dealing with the aftereffects of Clinton.

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 17:28
May I suggest you take your own words to heart. When Romney loses, what will be your plan B?

Loses what? The primary to Paul? :dunno:

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 17:32
I'd love for the Paul supporters who are slamming Romney's moderate views on gun control to explain Paul's position on repealing the gun manufacturersí liability bill, which could result in all types of guns being made illegal via lawsuits.

You just don't understand. Ron Paul is so brilliant he can be both for something and against it, and his supporters march in lockstep right behind. He can say one thing and do the opposite, and they're fine with it. He can do one thing and say the opposite, and that's fine, too. You just gotta believe!

Ruble Noon
04-20-2012, 17:35
Secondly, Perot was solely responsible for making the national debt a major issue in 1992.

You people should have listened.

fortyofforty
04-20-2012, 17:58
Now who's being deluded and naive? There is nothing to suggest that financial change will come from Congress. Primarily because they have conceded control of the money supply to a private banking cartel.

Since I believe we have a spending problem, and since Congress controls the purse strings, I believe Congress must solve the issue of overspending. Everything else is windowdressing.

GRIMLET
04-20-2012, 22:20
[QUOTE=fortyofforty;18871666]Loses what? The primary to Paul? :dunno:[/QUOTE

No, sir. You seem to be a Romney supporter. He will lose the election. What is your plan B to that?

GRIMLET
04-20-2012, 22:27
I am still not understanding why the Republican-Romney supporters are sounding off against Ron Paul.
Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama? If you are so worried a little old man with ideas outside of the box causing your nominee to lose......perhaps you should have chosen a better presidential candidate.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 07:06
I am still not understanding why the Republican-Romney supporters are sounding off against Ron Paul.
Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama? If you are so worried a little old man with ideas outside of the box causing your nominee to lose......perhaps you should have chosen a better presidential candidate.

I don't understand why Paulistas are spending so much energy attacking a fellow Republican when Obama is looming so large.

Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama?

I am not worried about anyone causing a nominee to lose, except where Republicans are forced to spend money during the primaries while Obama stockpiles mountains of cash that he can use for the general election. This election is pretty important, especially in terms of Supreme Court nominations.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 07:32
I don't understand why Paulistas are spending so much energy attacking a fellow Republican when Obama is looming so large.

Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama?

I am not worried about anyone causing a nominee to lose, except where Republicans are forced to spend money during the primaries while Obama stockpiles mountains of cash that he can use for the general election. This election is pretty important, especially in terms of Supreme Court nominations.

Because we don't see it as us against them. We want to vote in a person that shares our principles and supports the Constitution. Your earmarks retort simply won't compare to Romney's track record so save it for later.

Restless28
04-21-2012, 07:46
Romney is the same weak candidate in 2012 that he was in 2008. Look at how Santorum and Gingrich either won the red states and were very competitive in others.

Romney cannot rally the conservatives. No amount of anti-Obama will help.

This is why Mitt is pandering to women. He cannot get conservatives to support him.

The GOP needs to go the way of the Whig party. It has become nothing more than liberal-lite moderate. The establishment has its heels dug in though, and even the 2010 midterms look like a failure now. Boner and Mitch and Cantor are not what they appear to be. They are frauds and have no real interest in conservatives until its election time, just like Mitt.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 08:34
I don't understand why Paulistas are spending so much energy attacking a fellow Republican when Obama is looming so large.

Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama?

I am not worried about anyone causing a nominee to lose, except where Republicans are forced to spend money during the primaries while Obama stockpiles mountains of cash that he can use for the general election. This election is pretty important, especially in terms of Supreme Court nominations.

I'm not attacking Romney.
I agree the infighting amongst Republicans is detrimental to their cause. It seems odd how RP was attacking everyone except Romney towards the end. It would appear there was a back door agreement. Time may tell.
If cash wins an election, then those who are swayed by radio and tv ads deserve what they get. There will be winners and losers but no real change in the way our government operates.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 09:05
Because we don't see it as us against them. We want to vote in a person that shares our principles and supports the Constitution. Your earmarks retort simply won't compare to Romney's track record so save it for later.

I'll save it for when you Paulistas start crowing about how "pure" a "strict Constitutional constructionist" Ron Paul is. :rofl:

The Machinist
04-21-2012, 09:06
If we can't even all get behind the recent Paul Ryan budget, Republicans are always going to appear weak, disjointed and disunited.
The Paul Ryan plan that balnaces the budget in 2040? Yeah, that one's a real winner. I just can't understand why everyone's not onboard with that genius budget. :upeyes:

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 09:07
I'm not attacking Romney.
I agree the infighting amongst Republicans is detrimental to their cause. It seems odd how RP was attacking everyone except Romney towards the end. It would appear there was a back door agreement. Time may tell.
If cash wins an election, then those who are swayed by radio and tv ads deserve what they get. There will be winners and losers but no real change in the way our government operates.

Unfortunately, we will all have to live with the votes cast by idiotic Obama supporters, if he wins reelection. Like it or not, you will be living with the rulings made by Sotomayor and Kagan for decades to come.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 09:08
The Paul Ryan plan that balnaces the budget in 2040? Yeah, that one's a real winner. I just can't understand why everyone's not onboard with that genius budget. :upeyes:

Exactly my point. I don't know whether you even understand you just helped me make it again. Thanks. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 09:11
I'll save it for when you Paulistas start crowing about how "pure" a "strict Constitutional constructionist" Ron Paul is. :rofl:

Very well. You should have at least one reason not to support him.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 09:14
Very well. You should have at least one reason not to support him.

I've got plenty, so don't worry about me. Hypocrisy is only one of them.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 09:40
I've got plenty, so don't worry about me. Hypocrisy is only one of them.


Oh no I completely agree with you. The Republican party corners the market in regards to hypocrisy.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 09:52
Oh no I completely agree with you. The Republican party corners the market in regards to hypocrisy.

A Democrat can hold any position at any time, and yet, when it comes time for a crucial vote, they all stick together, nearly all the time, and get their agenda passed. Vote after vote in Congress, it's virtually 100% Democrats voting together, especially in the Senate.

They will always have this advantage unless Republicans can ever get beyond demanding strict, "all or nothing" ideological purity--pouting if they don't get it--and accept bills, budgets, and plans that are less than perfect but better than nothing. Ryan's budget is just one recent example.

lancesorbenson
04-21-2012, 09:54
I don't understand why Paulistas are spending so much energy attacking a fellow Republican when Obama is looming so large.

Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama?


I don't understand why you spend so much energy attacking the guy who apparently can't win. Because you are annoyed by his supporters? That makes no sense. People here aren't attacking Romney because of his supporters--I've yet to actually meet one--but rather his history of being pro-choice, pro-mandate, and anti-gun.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 10:21
I don't understand why you spend so much energy attacking the guy who apparently can't win. Because you are annoyed by his supporters? That makes no sense. People here aren't attacking Romney because of his supporters--I've yet to actually meet one--but rather his history of being pro-choice, pro-mandate, and anti-gun.

My quote was a response to another post, in case you didn't catch the reference. I just want to see a dose of reality from Paulistas. No one is perfect, no one is truly pure, no politician is above criticism. I disagree with Paul on many positions (including earmarks), mainly numerous foreign policy issues.

It's true that I don't like hero worship, mindless adulation, or cult-of-personality idolization on either side. I've seen Obama's cult-of-personality on display in many homes and neighborhoods. The only Republican candidate with that sort of personal support is Ron Paul. As a lifelong student of history, I recognize the dangers inherent in any cult-of-personality.

And, if your guy is running as the only true conservative or pure Constitutional candidate, it's fair to hold him to high standards on that subject. Romney is running as a good businessman, so it's fair to examine his record of running businesses and hold him to higher standards than Ron Paul in that regard.

lancesorbenson
04-21-2012, 10:50
My quote was a response to another post, in case you didn't catch the reference. I just want to see a dose of reality from Paulistas. No one is perfect, no one is truly pure, no politician is above criticism. I disagree with Paul on many positions (including earmarks), mainly numerous foreign policy issues.

It's true that I don't like hero worship, mindless adulation, or cult-of-personality idolization on either side. I've seen Obama's cult-of-personality on display in many homes and neighborhoods. The only Republican candidate with that sort of personal support is Ron Paul. As a lifelong student of history, I recognize the dangers inherent in any cult-of-personality.

And, if your guy is running as the only true conservative or pure Constitutional candidate, it's fair to hold him to high standards on that subject. Romney is running as a good businessman, so it's fair to examine his record of running businesses and hold him to higher standards than Ron Paul in that regard.

Romney is also running a the former governor of a state, where he exhibited pro-choice, pro-mandate, anti-gun tendencies that would seem to be anathema to conservative values. He is the architect for the model used to craft Obamacare, he doesn't believe anyone should own "those types of weapons," and he adamantly supported Roe v. Wade. These are huge problems for me, never mind Ron Paul. I suspect a lot of conservatives feel the same way and resent having him essentially forced upon us by the establishment and the MSM.

I've said I'd gladly vote for him if he offered Ron Paul a cabinet position and I may vote for him even if he doesn't, though it's highly unlikely.

Javelin
04-21-2012, 11:01
Mitt was against guns before he was for them.

Agreed. But.... he is not for guns.

For all you Romney parrots just understand this.


Romney is not for anyone but Romney.

He is as hollow as a faberge egg.

Javelin
04-21-2012, 11:03
I don't understand why Paulistas are spending so much energy attacking a fellow Republican when Obama is looming so large.

Why is a wedge driven? Shouldn't you be focusing on Obama?

I am not worried about anyone causing a nominee to lose, except where Republicans are forced to spend money during the primaries while Obama stockpiles mountains of cash that he can use for the general election. This election is pretty important, especially in terms of Supreme Court nominations.

Romney is not for anyone but Romney!

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 11:10
Paul is not for anyone but Paul!

So, what's your point? This is what I was talking about, by the way. Thanks.

Snowman92D
04-21-2012, 11:26
A Democrat can hold any position at any time, and yet, when it comes time for a crucial vote, they all stick together, nearly all the time, and get their agenda passed. Vote after vote in Congress, it's virtually 100% Democrats voting together, especially in the Senate.

They will always have this advantage unless Republicans can ever get beyond demanding strict, "all or nothing" ideological purity--pouting if they don't get it--and accept bills, budgets, and plans that are less than perfect but better than nothing. Ryan's budget is just one recent example.

^^^ This is the best post of the thread, I think.

http://sc6.blogspot.com/2012/01/so-where-is-true-conservative-in-this.html

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 11:32
Romney is also running a the former governor of a state, where he exhibited pro-choice, pro-mandate, anti-gun tendencies that would seem to be anathema to conservative values. He is the architect for the model used to craft Obamacare, he doesn't believe anyone should own "those types of weapons," and he adamantly supported Roe v. Wade. These are huge problems for me, never mind Ron Paul. I suspect a lot of conservatives feel the same way and resent having him essentially forced upon us by the establishment and the MSM.

I've said I'd gladly vote for him if he offered Ron Paul a cabinet position and I may vote for him even if he doesn't, though it's highly unlikely.

I understand that. In the general election, if things trend as they look now, it will be Romney against Obama. If for no other reason than not having to deal with another Sotomayor or Kagan (such as Schumer or Clinton), the election is vital.

No one is forcing anyone on you. There are elections. If Romney wins enough delegates, he will win the Republican nomination. That is the nature of a representative democracy. You can fight to change the system, but for now it's the one we've got. I wonder if Paulistas can tell me which Republican presidents they like that served in the past 100 years.

As a governor, a person needs to govern by coalition and convince people of different philosophies to support his positions. It is not a dictatorship. So far, as one of 435 members of Congress, it is quite easy to lob bombs and act as an uncompromising extremist. Ron Paul has been unable to convince his colleagues to support his positions. How many votes did Ron Paul's budget proposals get in Congress? Where are Ron Paul's legislative achievements? I would like to see Paul govern a state like Texas, where he could hone his skills as an executive, before trying to lead the country. So far he's been unable to convince even a simple majority of Congressmen to go along with his ideas; there is no evidence that he would be more successful as president. Ironically, earmarks could be used to counter some of Paul's proposed cutbacks.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 12:31
Unfortunately, we will all have to live with the votes cast by idiotic Obama supporters, if he wins reelection. Like it or not, you will be living with the rulings made by Sotomayor and Kagan for decades to come.


Like how they smacked down barry the last time?
Those judges are in there now. There is no way a new president can oust them. Deal with it.
BTW, as bad as we may dislike other citizens beliefs or politics, they deserve a voice in our government. The same as conservatives. Everyone deserves representation.

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 12:42
Like how they smacked down barry the last time?
Those judges are in there now. There is no way a new president can oust them. Deal with it.
BTW, as bad as we may dislike other citizens beliefs or politics, they deserve a voice in our government. The same as conservatives. Everyone deserves representation.


There would be no need to oust Kagan and Sotomayor. But it would be nice to have someone in the White House that will not nominate people like that.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 12:48
Like how they smacked down barry the last time?
Those judges are in there now. There is no way a new president can oust them. Deal with it.
BTW, as bad as we may dislike other citizens beliefs or politics, they deserve a voice in our government. The same as conservatives. Everyone deserves representation.

I am dealing with it. So are you. No one is speaking about "ousting" anyone. They are in for life. However, when four out of nine Supreme Court justices can fail to see an individual right to keep and bear arms, including Sotomayor and Kagan, for one example, I fear our rights can be taken away by judicial fiat and thousands of law enforcement officers will fight to enforce those rulings, no matter what those of us on GT might think.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 13:00
Why did you bring them up if you know they are in for life.

Yes......law enforcement is ready to pounce on gun owners as soon as the courts let us loose!!! Seriously, lighten up a little. Life is short.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 13:09
Why did you bring them up if you know they are in for life.

Yes......law enforcement is ready to pounce on gun owners as soon as the courts let us loose!!! Seriously, lighten up a little. Life is short.

What are you talking about? That's what makes the next election so important. Even if you think Romney is a New England liberal, he still would likely nominate better Supreme Court justices than Obama has done. Get it?

Do you seriously think you or your fellow law enforcement officers have the stones to reject a Supreme Court ruling? I've seen many anti-gun law enforcement officers, and I'm sure you have too. I've seen many guys who think only cops should have firearms. Do you think New York City cops, or Washington, DC, cops enforced anti-gun laws with relish? So for me it's not much of a stretch to visualize law enforcement officers enforcing anti-gun rulings without hesitation. You need a dose of reality, and Ron Paul isn't providing it, obviously.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 13:36
What I am talking about is YOU bringing up Soto and Kag. Lets move past that.

I don't attack Romney. He does not represent my views or my idea of the direction I think the government should take.

You think I am a RP nutjob. I have met a couple. I'm not that guy.

I was not aware any of the SC justices were leaving. Are they? I really don't know.

You support your guy. I will support and vote for the candidate that best represents my views on the USA.

Good luck on unifying your party.
It still won't work with Romney at the helm.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 14:01
What I am talking about is YOU bringing up Soto and Kag. Lets move past that.

I don't attack Romney. He does not represent my views or my idea of the direction I think the government should take.

You think I am a RP nutjob. I have met a couple. I'm not that guy.

I was not aware any of the SC justices were leaving. Are they? I really don't know.

You support your guy. I will support and vote for the candidate that best represents my views on the USA.

Good luck on unifying your party.
It still won't work with Romney at the helm.

Only an Odumbo supporter would argue that we should "move past" the nomination of Supreme Court justices that will be ruling against our interests for decades to come.

In case you haven't noticed, Odumbo had two chances to appoint justices in his first term and he gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, two of the most partisan judicial activists anyone can imagine. There is no guarantee that he would have the chance to appoint any more, but there is no guarantee that he would not, either. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's respect for limited government and equal rights for all is safer with Odumbo out of office.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 14:17
Sir, read YOUR post about YOUR comments about living with Soto and Kag. Lets move on, is my statement that we dont agree about YOUR post as mentioned above.
Now....take a breath.....focus, focus
...your accusation I am an Obama supporter is inaccurate.
I notice how you put anyone that doesn't agree with you as your political enemy.
Sad. Having a closed mind is not my idea of choosing my next leader.
You carry on. You deserve representation.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 14:26
Sir, why should someone "move past" a situation that still influences his daily existence? You have yet to explain yourself, or why anyone should do so. Sure, let's "move on". We could even form an organization by that name, so we remember to do so. I'll await another display of your brilliance. You can also add how we can move on or move past September 11, the holocaust, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, right?

When Odumbo might have the chance to appoint another one or two Supreme Court justices, it takes a high level of density to pretend that we should ignore history and give Odumbo another go, rather than change presidents. Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 14:50
If you want to debate each thing you mentioned, please start a thread for each. You might be surprised I agree with you on some things.
Nice reference to the Hitler war atrocities. People like you normally jump to it earlier in a losing debate. I can't believe Ronald Reagan hasn't been mentioned yet.

Don't worry Jesus still loves you.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 15:31
You're telling me to move on from Sotomayor and Kagan, when they are sitting on the Supreme Court and voting on issues that affect all of our lives every day. How does that make sense?

You're telling me to move past Sotomayor and Kagan when my point was and is that Odumbo might, if reelected, get the chance to nominate one or more new Supreme Court justices. Such a move will have repercussions for decades to come. Given Sotomayor and Kagan, we can have a pretty good idea of the types of people he'd nominate. How does that make sense?

You are simply illogical, and asking someone to "move on" or "move past" a situation that is still quite relevant is ludicrous. Supreme Court appointments is one of the most important and long lasting moves a President can make. Deal with it.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 15:36
You're telling me to move on from Sotomayor and Kagan, when they are sitting on the Supreme Court and voting on issues that affect all of our lives every day. How does that make sense?

You're telling me to move past Sotomayor and Kagan when my point was and is that Odumbo might, if reelected, get the chance to nominate one or more new Supreme Court justices. Such a move will have repercussions for decades to come. Given Sotomayor and Kagan, we can have a pretty good idea of the types of people he'd nominate. How does that make sense?

You are simply illogical, and asking someone to "move on" or "move past" a situation that is still quite relevant is ludicrous. Supreme Court appointments is one of the most important and long lasting moves a President can make. Deal with it.

All the while defending a progressive liberal to make those next choices. Brilliant.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 15:55
All the while defending a progressive liberal to make those next choices. Brilliant.

I suppose you'd say George W. Bush was not a true, Paulesque conservative, either. How'd he do in that regard? By the way, despite what you're claiming, all I've said is that, if the general election pits Romney against Obama, I'll support Romney. Unless you want more Kagans and Sotomayors, you'd be wise to do the same. Conservatives have a much better chance of influencing Romney's nominees than we do Obama's.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:07
I suppose you'd say George W. Bush was not a true, Paulesque conservative, either. How'd he do in that regard? By the way, despite what you're claiming, all I've said is that, if the general election pits Romney against Obama, I'll support Romney. Unless you want more Kagans and Sotomayors, you'd be wise to do the same. Conservatives have a much better chance of influencing Romney's nominees than we do Obama's.

Not even close. Bush was just as progressive as the next.

Romney has the propensity to elect worse SCJ's with a decidedly anti-gun slant.

There is no track record of him supporting the 2A

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:10
Oh an I see you down there Snowman92D.

This has nothing to do with drugs so try to remain calm.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 16:21
Not even close. Bush was just as progressive as the next.

Romney has the propensity to elect worse SCJ's with a decidedly anti-gun slant.

There is no track record of him supporting the 2A

Thanks for proving my point. Kagan and Sotomayor or Alito and Roberts. Your choice. Your move. Thanks again. :wavey:

(Romney wouldn't "elect" any SCJs, but it's a minor point.) Romney faced difficulties (http://gopprimary2012.com/a-look-at-romneys-judicial-philosophy-conservative-reform-in-the-most-liberal-state/)as governor that Paul can't even fathom.

Romney was faced with the reality that every judicial pick he made as governor would go for approval before the Governorís Council, where Democrats held 8 of 9 seats.

Romney's credentials were enough to convince Robert Bork in 2007:

No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. . . Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation.

Bork is once again on Romney's Justice Advisory Committee (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RomneyPicksJudgeBorkasJudicialAdviser/2011/08/06/id/406349).

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:24
Thanks for proving my point. Kagan and Sotomayor or Alito and Roberts. Your choice. Your move. Thanks again. :wavey:

(Romney wouldn't "elect" any SCJs, but it's a minor point.) Romney faced difficulties (http://gopprimary2012.com/a-look-at-romneys-judicial-philosophy-conservative-reform-in-the-most-liberal-state/)as governor that Paul can't even fathom.



Romney's credentials were enough to convince Robert Bork in 2007:



Bork is once again on Romney's Justice Advisory Committee (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RomneyPicksJudgeBorkasJudicialAdviser/2011/08/06/id/406349).

Those are opinions. Not actions.

Show me evidence that he defended 2A. Show me evidence that he doesn't support abortion, TARP, gun control, time limits on military actions, mandated health care.. You know.. show me he's a conservative Republican.

Snowman92D
04-21-2012, 16:46
...Odumbo might, if reelected, get the chance to nominate one or more new Supreme Court justices. Such a move will have repercussions for decades to come.

If that happens, the GOP would deserve it for not nominating Ron Paul in 2012. If Obama gets back in and destroys this country maybe then people will finally wake up and SUPPORT RON PAUL! :smoking:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:50
If that happens, the GOP would deserve it for not nominating Ron Paul in 2012. If Obama gets back in and destroys this country maybe then people will finally wake up and SUPPORT RON PAUL! :smoking:

The GOP should deserve it for not providing us a conservative nominee.

Oh.. and I knew you couldn't resist.

One trick ponies run rampant when discussing Paul. It's cute, really.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 16:52
Those are opinions. Not actions.

Show me evidence that he defended 2A. Show me evidence that he doesn't support abortion, TARP, gun control, time limits on military actions, mandated health care.. You know.. show me he's a conservative Republican.

Seriously? Have you read anything I've written? I never argued that Romney is a "conservative Republican". My point, once again, is that even less-than-Conservative Republicans can and do nominate decent Supreme Court justices, such as Alito, Roberts, and Thomas for that matter. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Four more years of Odumbo and one, two or more Kagans and Sotomayors will devastate the country for decades or longer.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:54
Seriously? Have you read anything I've written? I never argued that Romney is a "conservative Republican". My point, once again, is that even less-than-Conservative Republicans can and do nominate decent Supreme Court justices, such as Alito, Roberts, and Thomas for that matter. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Four more years of Odumbo and one, two or more Kagans and Sotomayors will devastate the country for decades or longer.

What you fail to grasp is that he isn't "less conservative".

He is a liberal progressive just like Obama.

That's exactly why you can't provide evidence to the contrary. Don't you see the conflict here?

Restless28
04-21-2012, 16:54
Those are opinions. Not actions.

Show me evidence that he defended 2A. Show me evidence that he doesn't support abortion, TARP, gun control, time limits on military actions, mandated health care.. You know.. show me he's a conservative Republican.

I bet all you get is a dope response from snowman and a lengthy retort from forty that doesn't support anyone but attacks Paul and his supporters.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:55
Since when does the Republican platform consist of liberal progressives?

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 16:56
I bet all you get is a dope response from snowman and a lengthy retort from forty that doesn't support anyone but attacks Paul and his supporters.

No handy Muslims around to bash?

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:56
I bet all you get is a dope response from snowman and a lengthy retort from forty that doesn't support anyone but attacks Paul and his supporters.


I called it before he responded. Shocker.. really.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 16:57
No handy Muslims around to bash?

Nope, just one trick ponies justifying the demise of Republican values.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 16:58
Since when does the Republican platform consist of liberal progressives?

When a less-than-Conservative (not "less conservative") nominee wins the primary, that primary candidate becomes the candidate for the general election. If you don't like the results, support a better candidate for the primary. :cool: Propping up losers like Ron Paul doesn't get you very far.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:01
When a less-than-Conservative (not "less conservative") nominee wins the primary, that primary candidate becomes the candidate for the general election. If you don't like the results, support a better candidate for the primary. :cool: Propping up losers like Ron Paul doesn't get you very far.

I did support the better candidate.

He wasn't a progressive liberal.

Snowman92D
04-21-2012, 17:01
One trick ponies run rampant when discussing Paul. It's cute, really.

Alas...hate to burst your bubble. If I were a "one trick pony", I'd be an RP supporter.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:02
I suppose propping up the status quo will benefit the nation.. just like last time.. and the time before.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:02
Alas...hate to burst your bubble. If I were a "one trick pony", I'd be an RP supporter.

Yeah conservatism is pretty easy to grasp.

And I did call it. Every post you make is about drugs. I think your hiding something. Hope your PD doesn't find out.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:03
I did support the better candidate.

He wasn't a progressive liberal.

Not better in the eyes of the majority of primary voters, apparently. You guys need to nominate better candidates to win the primary contests, obviously. The results speak for themselves.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:06
Not better in the eyes of the majority of primary voters, apparently. You guys need to nominate better candidates to win the primary contests, obviously. The results speak for themselves.

I don't claim to represent the majority and neither does a republic.

The last "majority" figured out how to vote themselves a benefits salesman and now your promoting another one. That effectively spells the end for a constitutional republic and you are cheering it on.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:07
You don't really accept mob rules as good do you?

G-19
04-21-2012, 17:09
40of40

You are wasting your time arguing with Paul...I mean Obama supporters. Their whole agenda is to bash the GOP in the guise of being conservatives. They knew Paul never stood a chance. They were just trying to divide the party.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:11
40of40

You are wasting your time arguing with Paul...I mean Obama supporters. Their whole agenda is to bash the GOP in the guise of being conservatives. They knew Paul never stood a chance. They were just trying to divide the party.

Really? What "guise" is the Republican platform running as?

Conservative? :rofl:

G-19
04-21-2012, 17:12
Really? What "guise" is the Republican platform running as?

Conservative? :rofl:

I see you don't deny being an Obama supporter. Just more anti GOP garbage.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:13
If the Republican party will support a conservative candidate no matter what his or her name is you will not hear a peep put of me.

Ready.. go.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:13
I see you don't deny being an Obama supporter. Just more anti GOP garbage.


I see you don't deny supporting a liberal progressive.

Just more subversive garbage.

Snowman92D
04-21-2012, 17:15
Not better in the eyes of the majority of primary voters, apparently. You guys need to nominate better candidates to win the primary contests, obviously.

Ouch...! But hey, hold on. Ron Paul came in second in the Virginia primary. No...wait...oh. :whistling:

Restless28
04-21-2012, 17:16
Did G-19, 40 and snowman the drug obsessed, even watch the video that the thread was based on and comment, or did they go into full-out Paul hate mode?

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:16
Ouch...! But hey, hold on. Ron Paul came in second in the Virginia primary. No...wait...oh. :whistling:

Have you ever thought to yourself that there are more stupid people in the world than smart ones?





If you're the majority what does that make you?

Restless28
04-21-2012, 17:17
Ouch...! But hey, hold on. Ron Paul came in second in the Virginia primary. No...wait...oh. :whistling:

Oh, the one that was rigged for Mitt?

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:18
I don't claim to represent the majority and neither does a republic.

The last "majority" figured out how to vote themselves a benefits salesman and now your promoting another one. That effectively spells the end for a constitutional republic and you are cheering it on.

Hey, don't insult salesmen. certifiedfunds will be along directly to set you straight! :rofl:

Nominating a political caricature like Ron Paul would hardly guarantee an electoral victory in November, despite your apparent feelings to the contrary. He couldn't even win the primary where more voters, proportionally, are Conservative than in the general election.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:20
Hey, don't insult salesmen. certifiedfunds will be along directly to set you straight! :rofl:

Nominating a political caricature like Ron Paul would hardly guarantee an electoral victory in November, despite your apparent feelings to the contrary. He couldn't even win the primary where more voters, proportionally, are Conservative than in the general election.

Maybe not but it would be inline with a conservative Republican nominee as opposed to a liberal progressive soothsayer.

You really think Romney has a chance to win AND you think he would be better?

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:20
Have you ever thought to yourself that there are more stupid people in the world than smart ones?

I'm starting to realize there are more stupid people on GT than smart ones. :whistling:

G-19
04-21-2012, 17:20
Have you ever thought to yourself that there are more stupid people in the world than smart ones?





If you're the majority what does that make you?

Still shoveling the anti GOP drivel. You have been identified as the true liberal you are. You play the poor misunderstood conservative well. I hope Soros gives you a raise.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:21
I'm starting to realize there are more stupid people on GT than smart ones. :whistling:


See how you are in the majority?

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:22
Maybe not but it would be inline with a conservative Republican nominee as opposed to a liberal progressive soothsayer.

You really think Romney has a chance to win AND you think he would be better?

Better than Odumbo? Yes. Like George W. Bush was better than Odumbo, and like Bill Clinton was worse than George H. W. Bush.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:22
Still shoveling the anti GOP drivel. You have been identified as the true liberal you are. You play the poor misunderstood conservative well. I hope Soros gives you a raise.

Not anti GOP. Anti Liberal Progressive.

Why are you so pro?

Restless28
04-21-2012, 17:22
Still shoveling the anti GOP drivel. You have been identified as the true liberal you are. You play the poor misunderstood conservative well. I hope Soros gives you a raise.

Here's your sign.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:23
Better than Odumbo? Yes. Like George W. Bush was better than Odumbo, and like Bill Clinton was worse than George H. W. Bush.

Oh goodness. So duped.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:23
See how you are in the majority?

Not on GT, apparently. Enjoy your stupid GT Paulista majority. :wavey:

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 17:24
40of40

You are wasting your time arguing with Paul...I mean Obama supporters. Their whole agenda is to bash the GOP in the guise of being conservatives. They knew Paul never stood a chance. They were just trying to divide the party.

I'm not so sorry to burst your small bubble but the Republicans are not conservative. Well, they may be conservative on how people live their lives but they are just as bad as Democrats on spending money they are borrowing.

G-19
04-21-2012, 17:25
Here's your sign.

Here's yours.

http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-41dc-299b.jpg

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:25
Oh goodness. So duped.

Yes, you're so smart. You aren't fooled. You see the light. You know the truth. You are smarter than everybody else. Keep believing that. It's one of the signs of illness. Good luck to you. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:26
Here's your sign.

I find it amusing how no one has been able to refute the similarities between the two candidates in regards to gun control, abortion, TARP, health care and war but think that one is better than the other.

Oh wait that's right one is R and one is D.

All cleared up now.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:27
Yes, you're so smart. You aren't fooled. You see the light. You know the truth. You are smarter than everybody else. Keep believing that. It's one of the signs of illness. Good luck to you. :wavey:

If you can't refute the argument just say so.

How is Romney different from Obama when it comes to the issue I listed?

Show me the evidence that he is better. Don't speculate use empirical evidence and prove it.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:28
Here's yours.

http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-41dc-299b.jpg


Who cares?


Your choice is no different.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:29
"Screw you guys I'm not voting for Obama I'm voting for someone that wants universal health care, gun control, bailouts and abortion." I'll show you..

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:30
Amazing. Enjoy your evening.

GRIMLET
04-21-2012, 17:32
Guys, this thread is going nowhere. I'm out before the " I know you are but what am I " begins.
Good luck and be safe, to All.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:36
If you can't refute the argument just say so.

How is Romney different from Obama when it comes to the issue I listed?

Show me the evidence that he is better. Don't speculate use empirical evidence and prove it.

If I use Paulian logic, by Romney saying he's more Conservative than Obama, he's more Conservative. Like when Paul claims he's a strict constructionist and for reducing federal spending. You need to nominate better candidates to carry your libertarian torch, according to a majority of Republican primary voters. That's the bottom line, isn't it? Losers like Paul just drag you and your libertarian ideas down.

G-19
04-21-2012, 17:39
Who cares?


Your choice is no different.

So you do support Obama.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:41
If I use Paulian logic, by Romney saying he's more Conservative than Obama, he's more Conservative. Like when Paul claims he's a strict constructionist and for reducing federal spending. You need to nominate better candidates to carry your libertarian torch, according to a majority of Republican primary voters. That's the bottom line, isn't it? Losers like Paul just drag you and your libertarian ideas down.

I figured you couldn't defend it.

So you do support Obama.

I don't like vanilla anymore than I strawberry ice cream.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:42
"Screw you guys I'm not voting for Obama I'm voting for someone that wants universal health care, gun control, bailouts and abortion." I'll show you..

For one example, Romney has said he would not impose universal healthcare on the American people, and would repeal Obamacare. The role of states is to try various ideas; if they work, they can be replicated elsewhere. If they don't they fade away. That is what states do, and if people don't like it they can move away. The Constitution not only allows states to be independent, it demands that states be independent. We do live in a Constitutional Republic, after all.

It's easy to sit there as 1/435 of a body and supposedly stand on principles, but when you're Governor or President you've got to govern along with members of both parties. If Paul had won an election besides those he did by funneling money to voters in his little Congressional district, he'd know that.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:43
If I use Paulian logic, by Romney saying he's more Conservative than Obama, he's more Conservative. Like when Paul claims he's a strict constructionist and for reducing federal spending. You need to nominate better candidates to carry your libertarian torch, according to a majority of Republican primary voters. That's the bottom line, isn't it? Losers like Paul just drag you and your libertarian ideas down.

For one example, Romney has said he would not impose universal healthcare on the American people, and would repeal Obamacare. The role of states is to try various ideas; if they work, they can be replicated elsewhere. If they don't they fade away. That is what states do, and if people don't like it they can move away. The Constitution not only allows states to be independent, it demands that states be independent. We do live in a Constitutional Republic, after all.

It's easy to sit there as 1/435 of a body and supposedly stand on principles, but when you're Governor or President you've got to govern along with members of both parties. If Paul had won an election besides those he did by funneling money to voters in his little Congressional district, he'd know that.


Ah yes, more speculation of what he did do compared to what he might do.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:45
You really don't get it. Support who you like but don't tell me my decision is worse when yours clearly fails to make the mark.

It's not us v them. They are both progressive libs but you like one better because you think he's on your team. There is no evidence that is the case.

Snowman92D
04-21-2012, 17:45
Have you ever thought to yourself that there are more stupid people in the world than smart ones?

If you're the majority what does that make you?

Wow...I see your point.

What a sad commentary on our nation. Americans are just too stupid to elect Ron Paul. Maybe I've been wrong all this time...maybe we need to legalize drugs so we can finally see the virtues of Ron Paul. What an epiphany.

No wonder Ron Paul is always getting 4%, or 7% of the primary action everywhere...Americans are too effin' stupid to see The Truth. :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:48
Wow...I see your point.

What a sad commentary on our nation. Americans are just too stupid to elect Ron Paul. Maybe I've been wrong all this time...maybe we need to legalize drugs so we can finally see the virtues of Ron Paul. What an epiphany.

No wonder Ron Paul is always getting 4%, or 7% of the primary action everywhere...Americans are too effin' stupid to see The Truth. :rofl:

I never brought up RP in this thread.

All I defended was a conservative republican candidate. Others brought up RP. Quite telling actually.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:54
Ah yes, more speculation of what he did do compared to what he might do.

A little like unConstitutional earmark spending, isn't it? :supergrin:

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:55
You really don't get it. Support who you like but don't tell me my decision is worse when yours clearly fails to make the mark.

It's not us v them. They are both progressive libs but you like one better because you think he's on your team. There is no evidence that is the case.

You can pretend that there is absolutely no difference betwen Obama and Romney. That doesn't make it true. Keep believing politics is an "all or nothing" proposition. That will get you far. As I stated before, good luck to you. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:56
A little like unConstitutional earmark spending, isn't it? :supergrin:

If you ride that pony too hard he'll get tired.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:57
More like a lot of unconstitutional liberal progressive spending. You can't go toe to toe so I don't know why you want to compare issues.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 17:57
If you ride that pony too hard he'll get tired.

Didn't think you could defend them. Guess I was right. You never could. Just believe what Paul tells you. Don't question what he did. I got it.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 17:59
Didn't think you could defend them. Guess I was right. You never could. Just believe what Paul tells you. Don't question what he did. I got it.

I never defended it, I merely pointed out the comparison to your candidate who is far worse when discussing unconstitutional issues.

This is why you get bound up.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 18:00
More like a lot of unconstitutional liberal progressive spending. You can't go toe to toe so I don't know why you want to compare issues.

What spending did Romney do that was unConstitutional? Just curious. Seriously.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 18:00
This is why you resort to pejoratives and name calling. You have nothing solid to stand on and why there really isn't much point in entertaining your posts. They are hypocritical.

G19G20
04-21-2012, 18:02
I guess any thread I post will draw out the rabid anti-Paul posters, regardless of the content. How many of you actually watched the video? Few Im betting. Romney is the biggest flipflopper in modern political history. The video is almost comical how bad it is. Im sure the thread lock is coming soon.

Im a Ron Paul supporter. I don't care about Obama or Romney. They both suck and my vote isnt for sale or by fear of Obama or intimidation by GOPers happy with the status quo.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 18:05
This is why you resort to pejoratives and name calling. You have nothing solid to stand on and why there really isn't much point in entertaining your posts. They are hypocritical.

You made quite a claim about unConstitutional spending by Romney. I've provided more than enough evidence that Ron Paul's earmarks go for unConstitutional purposes. I will await your evidence of Mitt Romney's unConstitutional spending (I presume while Governor of Massachusetts).

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 18:07
What spending did Romney do that was unConstitutional? Just curious. Seriously.



You mean just for starters?

Romney lobbied for federal appropriations for the 2002 Olympic Games.

I'd be embarrassed if I didn't always ask for federal money whenever I got the chance." -- Mitt Romeny


Now I know that's not as good as shrimp earmarks or anything big time like that... :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 18:09
Do you really want to go tit for tat on the COTUS with Paul and Romney? Really?

I'm going to give you the rest of the night to build up a strong case. It's been fun but I've got something better waiting :supergrin:


'nite.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 18:13
Do you really want to go tit for tat on the COTUS with Paul and Romney? Really?

I'm going to give you the rest of the night to build up a strong case. It's been fun but I've got something better waiting :supergrin:


'nite.

Run away. It's what you do. Bye. :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 18:15
You mean just for starters?

Romney lobbied for federal appropriations for the 2002 Olympic Games.

I'd be embarrassed if I didn't always ask for federal money whenever I got the chance." -- Mitt Romeny


Now I know that's not as good as shrimp earmarks or anything big time like that... :wavey:

Seriously? Asking for federal money is not unConstitutional. Receiving federal money is not unConstitutional. A Congressman demanding federal money be spent on projects that are not in keeping with Constitutional authorization is unConstitutional. You're daft. Really. You've got issues.

G19G20
04-21-2012, 18:21
Threads like these usually show who the schoolyard bullies were.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 18:23
Seriously? Asking for federal money is not unConstitutional. Receiving federal money is not unConstitutional. A Congressman demanding federal money be spent on projects that are not in keeping with Constitutional authorization is unConstitutional. You're daft. Really. You've got issues.

Big leap there. Asking for or demanding federal money is your stance? I'm daft?

Asking...demanding... yeah you have a point.

Amazing..

Restless28
04-21-2012, 18:27
Threads like these usually show who the schoolyard bullies were.

And po-po too. ;-)

Javelin
04-21-2012, 18:27
It's sick that the folks who are still living die hard GOP only have the ability to choose from a candidate like Mitt Romney.

It's freaking insane. And watching these piss pot threads go on and on is the result of the poor candidates that the GOP keeps throwing up on the carpet like an after-party barf that didn't make it into the toilet.

All I see is that the folks here are trying to get to the 5th stage of grieving and commit to acceptance. Come November the Republicans (or anti-Obama folks) are going to have to eat that turd thrown on their plates. Hard one to swallow for sure.

Restless28
04-21-2012, 18:31
Mitt 2008, not good enough to even beat McCain.

Mitt 2012, suddenly good enough to win now?

Give me a break. This election is little more than a dog and pony show and a cruel ****ing joke on us.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 18:58
Big leap there. Asking for or demanding federal money is your stance? I'm daft?

Asking...demanding... yeah you have a point.

Amazing..

You don't know the difference between Private Citizen Mitt Romney in 2002 and Congressman Ron Paul, in terms of Constitutional spending, do you? You need to do a bit more research. And growing up.

LASTRESORT20
04-21-2012, 18:59
*******
Liberalism/Socialism is a Cancer....And the Lemmings will always vote for & defend their Messiah & Denounce anyone going against him with deceit/spin/twist..old news & BS!..... ***Because they love the last 4 years....who in their Right mind would vote for Zero....no one except a Liberal/Socialist.....Sit and do nothing and complain or go out and vote zero out.....Whining worthless complaining losers will always Lose and make it harder on the rest of us.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 18:59
Mitt 2008, not good enough to even beat McCain.

Mitt 2012, suddenly good enough to win now?

Give me a break. This election is little more than a dog and pony show and a cruel ****ing joke on us.

And Ron Paul too lame to beat anyone at any time. So he's your choice? :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:02
You don't know the difference between Private Citizen Mitt Romney in 2002 and Congressman Ron Paul, in terms of Constitutional spending, do you? You need to do a bit more research. And growing up.

LOL, you have no defense of your "candidate".

It's like watching JBnTX trying to convince us he's a conservative :rofl:

Javelin
04-21-2012, 19:03
And Ron Paul too lame to beat anyone at any time. So he's your choice? :rofl:

From all the candidates that the GOP has presented he is the best of the unsatisfactory (not saying much).

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:04
LOL, you have no defense of your "candidate".

It's like watching JBnTX trying to convince us he's a conservative :rofl:

And you can't accept the obvious hypocrisy of your candidate. Following your Pied Piper will lead you to the promised land. :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:07
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe V Wade? Yes

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? Yes

And even…

Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? Yes



--Mitt Romney

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:07
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate," he said during that year's debate. "I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it."

--Mitt Romney

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:08
From all the candidates that the GOP has presented he is the best of the unsatisfactory (not saying much).

Best in your opinion, but not in the majority of primary voters. And that, after all, is what counts right now. Come on, libertarians, get a decent candidate for once.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:09
Says Romney: “I am big believer in getting money where the money is. The money is in Washington.” Video attached.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/03/02/your-morning-jolt-mitt-romneys-2002-faith-in-washington-money/

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:10
Still waiting for Mitt Romney's unConstitutional spending. :popcorn: I was unaware that Romney controlled funds that were governed by the constraints of Constitution of the United States, like Ron Paul, but I could be wrong.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:10
Mitt Romney in Worcester 2002 "My views are progressive" - YouTube

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:13
We get it. You don't like Romney. You love Paul. The majority of primary voters disagree with you. Suck it up. Deal with it. Help nominate a decent candidate to represent your views next time instead of a lame-o like Paul. Still waiting. :popcorn:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:13
Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.


I've learned from my Olympic experience, if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there, you can get money to help build economic development opportunities. ...

"We actually received over 410 million dollars from the Federal Government for the Olympic games. That is a huge increase over anything that I have ever done before. We did that by going after every agency in government." --Mitt Romney

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:14
We get it. You don't like Romney. You love Paul. The majority of primary voters disagree with you. Suck it up. Deal with it. Help nominate a decent candidate to represent your views next time instead of a lame-o like Paul. Still waiting. :popcorn:

No that's just it you don't get it.

I like Republican conservatives and your choice isn't.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:15
Don't baffle me with BS. You are voting for a progressive liberal and trying to convince me it's good.

It isn't.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:16
RP may have lost but so has America with the Republican's direction and you are just tagging along and tossing out the pejoratives to those that know better.

Me grow up? Please.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:16
Private Citizen Mitt Romney. Like shrimpers in Ron Paul's district. They can't spend unConstitutionally, either, can they?

Congressman Ron Paul. He can demand money be spent unConstitutionally. And he did. Repeatedly.

Still waiting. :popcorn: If you were wrong, just man up and admit it.

G-19
04-21-2012, 19:19
Seems Paul actually likes stimulus money.

http://www.texaskaos.net/diary/6226/texas-gop-hall-of-hypocrites

I guess it is ok because he was against it before he was for it.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:20
You made quite a claim about unConstitutional spending by Romney. I've provided more than enough evidence that Ron Paul's earmarks go for unConstitutional purposes. I will await your evidence of Mitt Romney's unConstitutional spending (I presume while Governor of Massachusetts).

Earmarks of which all congress is guilty versus gun bans, appointing liberal judges, socialized medicine Etc. I'll take the guy that was no where near the worst offender on the earmark front, thank you very much.

G-19
04-21-2012, 19:22
Earmarks of which all congress is guilty versus gun bans, appointing liberal judges, socialized medicine Etc. I'll take the guy that was no where near the worst offender on the earmark front, thank you very much.

They all do it, so that makes it ok for Paul to go against what he says he stands for.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:22
Mitt Romney lobbied congress hard for federal tax dollars effectively provided huge subsidies for each ticket sold, and that the largest corporate sponsorships were in place before he arrived. Once taking over the operations for the Olympic games, Governor Romney began to use his political leverage and relationship with Senator Bill Bennett of Utah to secure $1.5 Billion in tax payer dollars to bailout the failed Olympic operations.


I've learned from my Olympic experience, if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there, you can get money to help build economic development opportunities. ...

"We actually received over 410 million dollars from the Federal Government for the Olympic games. That is a huge increase over anything that I have ever done before. We did that by going after every agency in government." --Mitt Romney

Now that's conservative, in a liberal big government kind of way.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:23
Earmarks of which all congress is guilty versus gun bans, appointing liberal judges, socialized medicine Etc. I'll take the guy that was no where near the worst offender on the earmark front, thank you very much.

He's got nothing but popcorn. Owned time and time again but to "majority" to figure it out.

:rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:24
I'm actually embarrassed for the one trick ponies. Their as right as they will ever be and it really isn't that impressive when looking at their alternatives.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:25
Earmarks of which all congress is guilty versus gun bans, appointing liberal judges, socialized medicine Etc. I'll take the guy that was no where near the worst offender on the earmark front, thank you very much.

OK, that's certainly your right. It's a reasonable position, but Paul probably won't win the nomination. But I am referring to someone here who made the claim that Mitt Romney spent money unConstitutionally, and I am trying to get him to provide evidence that Romney did so. As you said about Congress, all of America seems to ask for earmarks. Whether Congressmen honor those requests is the key, since they swear to support the Constitution.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:25
Maybe Snowman92D can come back with a drug reference to support 40's only shrimp jab.

Sad.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:26
OK, then syntaxerror was wrong but is too scared to admit it. That's become clear now. Thanks for dodging and counterattacking. You've shown your true colors.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:28
They all do it, so that makes it ok for Paul to go against what he says he stands for.

He stands for small government. Taking money confiscated from the people in his district out of the hands of Fedzilla and returning it to the people in his district is about the only thing that he can do amongst a sea of liberal, progressive democrats and republicans.
I think earmarks should go away but if it takes earmarks by Paul to keep it out of the hands of big government progressives, so be it. At least I know he won't ban my guns or hi cap magazines or continue on with the socialized medicine that Romney invented.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:30
OK, then syntaxerror was wrong but is too scared to admit it. That's become clear now. Thanks for dodging and counterattacking. You've shown your true colors.


All I've done is prove your argument lacking.

Even in a court of law an accomplice is as guilty as the perpetrator.

Tuck tail son because you candidate has way more issues than solutions.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:32
There are people laughing at you behind monitors right now for your hard stance that Mitt can do no wrong or that somehow he is superior to RP.

Al you've done is make yourself look like the rest of the sheep feeding at the trough.

Mitt Romney is a liberal progressive and you are voting for him.

Lame.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:33
OK, that's certainly your right. It's a reasonable position, but Paul probably won't win the nomination. But I am referring to someone here who made the claim that Mitt Romney spent money unConstitutionally, and I am trying to get him to provide evidence that Romney did so. As you said about Congress, all of America seems to ask for earmarks. Whether Congressmen honor those requests is the key, since they swear to support the Constitution.

Anybody that seeks elected office is probably a crook. I look for the least crooked one to support.

G-19
04-21-2012, 19:39
Anybody that seeks elected office is probably a crook. I look for the least crooked one to support.

And since Paul quit being a doctor to earn less money as a federal employee, begs the question, Why?

Could it be for all the crooked money that can be made. The great public (tax payer paid) retirement and free (tax payer paid) health care.

Now his son is following in his footsteps.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:43
Well, when libertarians get their **** together, maybe they can come back and try again. Problem is, with people like we've seen blindly defending Ron Paul on GT, libertarians will never have their **** together. Ron Paul is a failure. Failure as a Congressman. Failure as a presidential candidate. Deal with it, losers.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:45
There are people laughing at you behind monitors right now for your hard stance that Mitt can do no wrong or that somehow he is superior to RP.

Al you've done is make yourself look like the rest of the sheep feeding at the trough.

Mitt Romney is a liberal progressive and you are voting for him.

Lame.

Is that the trough that Ron Paul shovels money into, so his voters can feed? At least it guaranteed his reelection, time and time again. I guess buying votes works, when it's one Congressional district. Yep, that's my guy. I'll follow him right to the bottom. :rofl:

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:45
Well, when libertarians get their **** together, maybe they can come back and try again. Problem is, with people like we've seen blindly defending Ron Paul on GT, libertarians will never have their **** together. Ron Paul is a failure. Failure as a Congressman. Failure as a presidential candidate. Deal with it, losers.

Well alrighty then.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:48
And since Paul quit being a doctor to earn less money as a federal employee, begs the question, Why?

Could it be for all the crooked money that can be made. The great public (tax payer paid) retirement and free (tax payer paid) health care.

Now his son is following in his footsteps.

Everybody that seeks office has an axe to grind. Some want to use that axe to chop off parts of the leviathan government and some want to use their axe to chop away at our freedoms and our wealth.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 19:49
Either ERROR is wrong and scared, or he's a liar. I think I can give him the benefit of the doubt. It's tough when you make a bold claim that Romney spent money unConstitutionally, then get called on it. It's especially tough when your beloved messiah actually did demand that money be spent unConstitutionally, in his official capacity as a Congressman, and you know it but can't admit it. Ron Paul has put you all in an untenable position. Oh, well. Your choice. Sell your souls and move on. :wavey:

G-19
04-21-2012, 19:51
Everybody that seeks office has an axe to grind. Some want to use that axe to chop off parts of the leviathan government and some want to use their axe to chop away at our freedoms and our wealth.

Like Paul, when he wanted stimulus money for NASA, or earmarks for shrimp. Yep, he chopped at out wealth.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:54
Either ERROR is wrong and scared, or he's a liar. I think I can give him the benefit of the doubt. It's tough when you make a bold claim that Romney spent money unConstitutionally, then get called on it. It's especially tough when your beloved messiah actually did demand that money be spent unConstitutionally, in his official capacity as a Congressman, and you know it but can't admit it. Ron Paul has put you all in an untenable position. Oh, well. Your choice. Sell your souls and move on. :wavey:

I'm supporting the guy that will do the least damage to me and maybe return some of the freedoms that progressives on both side have taken away. I would say the untenable position is voting for a guy that has a track record like Ted Kennedy or Barack Hussein Obama and expecting him to be a conservative. How many times are you going to let these people piss down your back and tell you it's raining?

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 19:56
Once again for the learning impaired.

"I've learned from my Olympic experience, if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there, you can get money to help build economic development opportunities. ..."

"We actually received over 410 million dollars from the Federal Government for the Olympic games. That is a huge increase over anything that I have ever done before. We did that by going after every agency in government." --Mitt Romney

Yeah nothing unconstitutional here.

Stick with your shrimp argument while ignoring everything else I've posted 40
__________________

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:56
Like Paul, when he wanted stimulus money for NASA, or earmarks for shrimp. Yep, he chopped at out wealth.

My wealth maybe. You don't create wealth in your government job.

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 19:58
Once again for the learning impaired.

"I've learned from my Olympic experience, if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there, you can get money to help build economic development opportunities. ..."

"We actually received over 410 million dollars from the Federal Government for the Olympic games. That is a huge increase over anything that I have ever done before. We did that by going after every agency in government." --Mitt Romney

Yeah nothing unconstitutional here.

Stick with your shrimp argument while ignoring everything else I've posted 40
__________________

Sounds like he lobbied for...wait for it.......................................................................

earmarks. :wow:

G-19
04-21-2012, 20:00
Yep this is Paul.

http://rightwingnews.com/liberals/another-example-of-how-ron-paul-is-hypocritical-on-supposed-fiscal-responsibility/

G-19
04-21-2012, 20:01
My wealth maybe. You don't create wealth in your government job.

Your messiah also has a government job. He also makes money from his insider trading. In fact he quit his private job to take government employment.

syntaxerrorsix
04-21-2012, 20:13
Sounds like he lobbied for...wait for it.......................................................................

earmarks. :wow:

Yeah, but shrimp.. because shrimp.. wait.. shrimp and.. stuff.. and drugs.

Ringo S.
04-21-2012, 20:20
Hypocrisy will be on parade this election season. Watching Republicans defend and support this guy should prove quite entertaining. I can't wait for the show.

Hypocrisy?! I don't think you understand meaning of the word... Let's check - Do you think this was hypocrisy? :
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/%3Cimg%20src=%22http://f2.s.qip.ru/Vmk2GbCy.jpg%22%20width=%22442%22%20height=%22282%22%20alt=%22QIP%20Shot%22/%3Ehttp://shot.qip.ru/004aRs-2Vmk2GbCy/
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/%3Cimg%20src=%22http://f2.s.qip.ru/Vmk2GbCy.jpg%22%20width=%22442%22%20height=%22282%22%20alt=%22QIP%20Shot%22/%3E

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 20:26
Once again for the learning impaired.

"I've learned from my Olympic experience, if you have people who really understand how Washington works and have personal associations there, you can get money to help build economic development opportunities. ..."

"We actually received over 410 million dollars from the Federal Government for the Olympic games. That is a huge increase over anything that I have ever done before. We did that by going after every agency in government." --Mitt Romney

Yeah nothing unconstitutional here.

Stick with your shrimp argument while ignoring everything else I've posted 40
__________________

What federal money did Romney control? None. Is it unConstitutional to ask for money from the federal government? Nope. If it were, then all of Paulís cronies in Texas would be in jail. Is it, in contrast, unConstitutional to act in your official capacity as a Congressman of the United States and demand that some $400 million dollars be spent on projects that are not permissible under the Constitution? Yep. It sure is, any way you slice it. Keep twisting. Eventually you'll touch all the colors.

fortyofforty
04-21-2012, 20:29
According to Ron Paul, earmarks are actually virtuous. Don't tell me you DOPEs would actually criticize Romney for requesting earmarks. Ronnie Earmarks even claims that earmarks are preferable to regular appropriation methods. So, Paulistas should love Romney's earmark requests. Any spending is good spending, to Ron Paul, as long as it's money being returned to taxpayers. I think there are taxpayers in Utah, so that fits.

Keep trying, DOPEs. Eventually Paul will throw in the towel and you can all get back to...wait for it...smoking dope!

Ruble Noon
04-21-2012, 20:34
According to Ron Paul, earmarks are actually virtuous. Don't tell me you DOPEs would actually criticize Romney for requesting earmarks. Ronnie Earmarks even claims that earmarks are preferable to regular appropriation methods. So, Paulistas should love Romney's earmark requests. Any spending is good spending, to Ron Paul, as long as it's money being returned to taxpayers. I think there are taxpayers in Utah, so that fits.

Keep trying, DOPEs. Eventually Paul will throw in the towel and you can all get back to...wait for it...smoking dope!

:animlol:

lancesorbenson
04-21-2012, 21:17
Your messiah also has a government job. He also makes money from his insider trading. In fact he quit his private job to take government employment.

Weren't you the guy who tried to rationalize and compare his taxpayer funded parasitic employment to certified's position within the private sector? That was one the worst arguments I've ever heard and indicates a lack of intellectual faculties that renders any other opinion you hold to be suspect at best. I can agree to disagree with anyone about Ron Paul, but that kind of failed analogy is so poorly thought out I can't even understand the muddled thinking from which it originated.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 05:12
What federal money did Romney control? None. Is it unConstitutional to ask for money from the federal government? Nope. If it were, then all of Paulís cronies in Texas would be in jail. Is it, in contrast, unConstitutional to act in your official capacity as a Congressman of the United States and demand that some $400 million dollars be spent on projects that are not permissible under the Constitution? Yep. It sure is, any way you slice it. Keep twisting. Eventually you'll touch all the colors.

Skip and dance over the obvious.

They're still laughing at you :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 05:41
Nice dodge. You were wrong. Your candidate is lame. You failed. Ron Paul failed. Deal with it, loser. Come back in four years when you DOPEs have a halfway decent nominee.

Still want to give it a go? :popcorn:

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 05:48
Nice dodge. You were wrong. Your candidate is lame. You failed. Ron Paul failed. Deal with it, loser. Come back in four years when you DOPEs have a halfway decent nominee.

Still want to give it a go? :popcorn:

No dodge at all. I pointed out how Romney acquired federal money for the 2002 Olympics. I also included a quote that 100% reflects how he feels about earmarks.

You failed to show how he was conservative and I very successfully pointed out all the ways he agrees with Obama's stances.

Anyone with a tally card could add up your fail.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 05:50
"The Romney administration was crystal clear on earmarks and what they wanted," McGovern said. "They sent us a letter specifically asking for money to be earmarked for projects."

Under his leadership, Massachusetts sought tens of millions of dollars in earmarks for transportation projects through the state's congressional delegation.

A prime example was the $30 million that the Romney administration requested to renovate the historic Longfellow Bridge that spans the Charles River between Cambridge and Boston.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romney-EarmarkPast/2012/02/12/id/429159

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 05:54
Once again I'm sure you will ignore the facts of the matter or try to dance around the facts that "Earmarks" Romney is a hypocrite.

You really should have kept your mouth shut and not told anyone who you were supporting. Your arguments and credibility are in question now.

I'll let you squirm around with your postulating and popcorn with JB now. Stay smug!

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 06:04
No dodge at all. I pointed out how Romney acquired federal money for the 2002 Olympics. I also included a quote that 100% reflects how he feels about earmarks.

You failed to show how he was conservative and I very successfully pointed out all the ways he agrees with Obama's stances.

Anyone with a tally card could add up your fail.

Yes, you and the other 5% of Paul supporters must be laughing. :rofl:

You continue to display your ignorance of the Constitution and how the country works. Obviously it's not your fault, since your teachers failed to provide the education you deserved. It's OK. You might still learn, if you want. You don't appear ready yet, though.

So, Romney agrees with Ron Paul on earmarks. But, read this slowly so you might understand, Romney did not control any federal tax money so did not do anything unConstitutional. Ron Paul did control federal tax money and directed that it go to his cronies in Texas for pork projects. That is unConstitutional spending. You choose to remain ignorant. That's what Ron Paul and his DOPEs like, so keep on keeping on. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 06:13
Yes, you and the other 5% of Paul supporters must be laughing. :rofl:

You continue to display your ignorance of the Constitution and how the country works. Obviously it's not your fault, since your teachers failed to provide the education you deserved. It's OK. You might still learn, if you want. You don't appear ready yet, though.

So, Romney agrees with Ron Paul on earmarks. But, read this slowly so you might understand, Romney did not control any federal tax money so did not do anything unConstitutional. Ron Paul did control federal tax money and directed that it go to his cronies in Texas for pork projects. That is unConstitutional spending. You choose to remain ignorant. That's what Ron Paul and his DOPEs like, so keep on keeping on. :wavey:

You missed post 216 huh? That's TWO (use your fingers if you gotta) earmark projects Romney has been involved in that you say never existed.

Romney's bridge to nowhere.


Here I got you a sign for the bridge.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwUv3MobdZa4U3Yjm8SF0KFYNWlNtvB2QmMDnlWj3pHSYstgA-

I only want you to be safe out there.

:wavey:

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 06:18
Can't stop lying, can you? You just can't help yourself. I never said Romney did not ask for earmark money. He can ask for anything he wants. Ron Paul, as Congressman, controlled earmark spending. Ron Paul, as Congressman, decided to use federal tax money on pork projects to help his cronies in his district. Do you really not understand the distinction? No one can be that stupid. Oh, wait, you do support Ronnie Earmarks. Never mind.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 06:25
Dance anyway you see fit.

My point was made.

That's the problem with being a one trick pony. Not much to work with and when your guy gets slammed with the same sort of thing you really have nothing to fall back on but playground tactics and name calling.

Your candidate is not conservative, not republican by any means and aligns with Obama when disusing abortion, TARP, gun control, health care and time limits on military actions, and amnesty.

Paul is not perfect but he falls clearly in line with conservative republicans in ever sense of the word.

You go on and elect a progressive liberal if that's where your issues lie.

Mine however are not progressive or liberal in nature so I won't.

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 06:35
And you go on supporting a hypocritical blowhard. You'll enjoy this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/1966_Twister_Cover.jpg/275px-1966_Twister_Cover.jpg

Remember to get adult supervision. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 07:31
Dance anyway you see fit.

My point was made.

That's the problem with being a one trick pony. Not much to work with and when your guy gets slammed with the same sort of thing you really have nothing to fall back on but playground tactics and name calling.

Your candidate is not conservative, not republican by any means and aligns with Obama when disusing abortion, TARP, gun control, health care and time limits on military actions, and amnesty.

Paul is not perfect but he falls clearly in line with conservative republicans in ever sense of the word.

You go on and elect a progressive liberal if that's where your issues lie.

Mine however are not progressive or liberal in nature so I won't.

Still, unless something significant changes, either Barry or Mitt will be president this time next year. Even if Paul were perfect in every way but one, it's not going to matter. So far, he doesn't have the support necessary to win the primary or the General election. There is still a lot of time left, so things could change, but it just doesn't look likely right now.

I know it's irritating, but it is what it is. An awful lot of Americans still haven't had the opportunity to vote in the Primary, myself included. I could whine and moan about how imperfect all of the people that have had a chance are, and complain about the ineffective campaigns of the guys that have dropped out of that are trailing, but what would that accomplish? Will it make more people vote the way I will vote? Nope. In fact, if I were very impolite about it, some might even vote contrary to me, or just tune me out because I was being less than polite.

So, since you're not likely to convince anyone with your choice of words, why continue? My own humble opinion, which is purely based on conjecture and a little experience, is that it is an acute case of sour grapes.

Nothing personal, just an observation. My condolences on your loss, and best wishes working through it. Anger is just a natural part of the grieving process.

Snowman92D
04-22-2012, 07:38
Maybe Snowman92D can come back with a drug reference to support 40's only shrimp jab.

Sad.

Hey...stop dragging me in on this. :rofl:

I left after you embarrassed all of us by braying that the 95% of Americans who have declined to vote for RP are stupid.

G23Gen4.40
04-22-2012, 07:39
Doc, that was a very good post. I agree with you, all this fighting is childish. The goal should be to make President Obama a one term President.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 07:40
Still, unless something significant changes, either Barry or Mitt will be president this time next year. Even if Paul were perfect in every way but one, it's not going to matter. So far, he doesn't have the support necessary to win the primary or the General election. There is still a lot of time left, so things could change, but it just doesn't look likely right now.

I know it's irritating, but it is what it is. An awful lot of Americans still haven't had the opportunity to vote in the Primary, myself included. I could whine and moan about how imperfect all of the people that have had a chance are, and complain about the ineffective campaigns of the guys that have dropped out of that are trailing, but what would that accomplish? Will it make more people vote the way I will vote? Nope. In fact, if I were very impolite about it, some might even vote contrary to me, or just tune me out because I was being less than polite.

So, since you're not likely to convince anyone with your choice of words, why continue? My own humble opinion, which is purely based on conjecture and a little experience, is that it is an acute case of sour grapes.

Nothing personal, just an observation. My condolences on your loss, and best wishes working through it. Anger is just a natural part of the grieving process.

I wasn't arguing for Paul in this thread at all. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP and some of it more stalwart supporters.

The GOP offered up a progressive liberal as it star candidate (so far) and very few people are impressed. Those that are don't seem to mind the fact that they are supporting Progressive Liberal (R) but are loath to see the difference between Progressive Liberal (D).

Sour grapes nothing. I'm having a field day :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 07:42
Next we'll here from Snowman92D and his drug problem :supergrin:

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 07:45
Doc, that was a very good post. I agree with you, all this fighting is childish. The goal should be to make President Obama a one term President.

No it isn't. The goal is to get a good leader in the White House.

So far both sides have failed to present a good choice.

Restless28
04-22-2012, 07:48
No it isn't. The goal is to get a good leader in the White House.

So far both sides have failed to present a good choice.

This FTW. Mitt 2012 is the same as Mitt 2008. Weak liberal progressive candidate then, weak liberal progressive candidate now.

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 07:53
I wasn't arguing for Paul in this thread at all. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP and some of it more stalwart supporters.

The GOP offered up a progressive liberal as it star candidate (so far) and very few people are impressed. Those that are don't seem to mind the fact that they are supporting Progressive Liberal (R) but are loath to see the difference between Progressive Liberal (D).

Sour grapes nothing. I'm having a field day :wavey:

All of the candidates have displayed hypocrisy. Yes, all.

Some of us see a progressive liberal and a radical socialist. Lousy choices to be sure. But unless something significant changes, those will be the only viable choices.

Now what someone does in that situation is up to them. Vote Mitt, Vote Barry, Write in, Third party, stay home.

I think everyone should vote. I don't want a lot of people to vote for Barry. Other than that, it is an individual choice, and people will be inclined to do what they want to do. Then once everyone has voted, we will go on. Things will get better or worse, and we will continue to have those daily challenges at home and work. Life goes on.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 07:58
All of the candidates have displayed hypocrisy. Yes, all.

Some of us see a progressive liberal and a radical socialist. Lousy choices to be sure. But unless something significant changes, those will be the only viable choices.

Now what someone does in that situation is up to them. Vote Mitt, Vote Barry, Write in, Third party, stay home.

I think everyone should vote. I don't want a lot of people to vote for Barry. Other than that, it is an individual choice, and people will be inclined to do what they want to do. Then once everyone has voted, we will go on. Things will get better or worse, and we will continue to have those daily challenges at home and work. Life goes on.

I agree with all of this. Everyone should be aware of the issues and where their candidate stands and vote accordingly.

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 07:58
Yep, this is the guy

http://i2.crtcdn1.net/images/asset/907/881/65/nvn480_260x195.jpg

we should nominate to run against the first black President.

That would end well. Go get yourselves a decent candidate, one who is articulate and intelligent, and who can present his ideas in a way that garners support instead of derision and you might succeed. You have four years. Get off the dope and get to work.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 08:02
Yep, this is the guy

http://i2.crtcdn1.net/images/asset/907/881/65/nvn480_260x195.jpg

we should nominate to run against the first black President.

That would end well. Go get yourselves a decent candidate, one who is articulate and intelligent, and who can present his ideas in a way that garners support instead of derision and you might succeed. You have four years. Get off the dope and get to work.


Ooo the race card.. Well played sir. The Huffington post could use an Op-ed writer or two. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 08:07
No it isn't. The goal is to get a good leader in the White House.

So far both sides have failed to present a good choice.

A lot of us haven't had any input in the race for the nomination.
Out of the whole batch that started in the race, it looks like only the bottom two on my list will still be in it. How fair is that?:dunno:

Still, I have nothing personal against the voters. The system sucks and should be changed to a single day primary vote, or at least let some of the large Red states go first for a change. The current order and spacing of votes seems to ensure a liberal candidate gets the nod.

Try not to think of groups as individuals. A lot of silly outcomes happen when you get too many people together.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/imageBKF.JPG&sa=X&ei=9g6UT6afI8LI2gX84rj7BA&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE7NyHXOGyEc48h1V5CLSo8yfF8Kw

Just my opinion again, but there is a lot more chaos than control in this system. It's messy and unorganized by design. It's not the individuals in the Republican party that are to blame. A bunch of guys and a gal decided to run. Most of those never got out of the starting blocks because they couldn't raise the cash to even run. Then there were a dozen or slightly less likely candidates, then people lined up behind some of them, they put together a campaign, and then the polls and votes started coming in. People dropped out, some endorsed others, some didn't. Some were running good campaigns, some weren't.

We are still where we are in this. It could change, but it's looking pretty much like it will be a close race between Mitt and Barry. If you cannot see the differences between them, then I could understand certain frustrations. But I see a difference.

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 08:08
Ooo the race card.. Well played sir. The Huffington post could use an Op-ed writer or two. :wavey:

You don't think Odumbo would use it? You don't think Jon Stewart would bring it up? You don't think Bill Maher would mention it? You don't think you would see it over and over again during the general election if Paul would win? You are worse than naive. You are ignorant. Maybe your helmet is on too tight.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 08:15
You don't think Odumbo would use it? You don't think Jon Stewart would bring it up? You don't think Bill Maher would mention it? You don't think you would see it over and over again during the general election if Paul would win? You are worse than naive. You are ignorant. Maybe your helmet is on too tight.


Your'e a clown. You've been outed and now all you have are personal attacks. Best of luck gaining support like that.

:wavey:

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 08:21
Your'e a clown. You've been outed and now all you have are personal attacks. Best of luck gaining support like that.

:wavey:

Personal attacks like what, a "Slow Children at Play" sign? Pot, meet kettle. :rofl:

What's really sad is that you've hitched your wagon to Ron Paul, and now you've got to convince yourself he's the best choice. You are emotionally attached to Paul, almost like a love affair. Paul is a joke. A vast majority of voters recognize it. Paul's candidacy is a joke. Only a few hardcore extremists still hang on.

Seriously, get yourselves a decent candidate and you might have a chance. Like I said, you've got four years to work on it. Good luck to you. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 08:25
Like I said, you've got four years to work on it. Good luck to you. :wavey:

Well that depends on what Mitt or Barrack leave us with doesn't it?

Good luck to all of us :wavey:

RC-RAMIE
04-22-2012, 11:12
Can't stop lying, can you? You just can't help yourself. I never said Romney did not ask for earmark money. He can ask for anything he wants. Ron Paul, as Congressman, controlled earmark spending. Ron Paul, as Congressman, decided to use federal tax money on pork projects to help his cronies in his district. Do you really not understand the distinction? No one can be that stupid. Oh, wait, you do support Ronnie Earmarks. Never mind.

RP job as a representative of the people in his district is to ask for money in congress his job as a congressman is to vote against unconstitutional spending which is what he does.


"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

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 11:27
RP job as a representative of the people in his district is to ask for money in congress his job as a congressman is to vote against unconstitutional spending which is what he does.



There is some discretion there. If I went to him and said I was one of his constituents, and wanted 1 million dollars to build a prototype bunker in my back yard for my own use, to see if it survives a tornado some day, will he put in the earmark?

No.

And just like all the rest of them, it would likely depend on how much I had contributed in the past to his campaign. It would also have to pass the smell test, he would have to consider having to answer questions about it in the papers if it became an issue.


I really don't see the problem with the earmarks, except that it is a little two faced to voluntarily place something in a bill that you know for certain is going to pass without your vote, and then vote against it and declare yourself pure of heart and soul.

As hypocrisy goes, it's a minor example, and others have done much worse. The real problem is that even if you really wanted Paul to be president, I have about as much of a chance to get Pete Rose elected into the football hall of fame. It's an issue of "that would have been nice". Even though I have Reservations about some of Paul's positions, I'd vote for him over Barry without a problem.

If you want to vote for Ron Paul as a write in or third party, that is your right to do so. A vote for Ron Paul is a Vote for Ron Paul.



ETA: Can you post a link to the Job description of "Congressman" in the constitution, and where they are required to bring federal money back to their district.

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 11:47
RP job as a representative of the people in his district is to ask for money in congress his job as a congressman is to vote against unconstitutional spending which is what he does.

No. Really. Not even close. Ron Paul's job is to follow the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not allow Congress to demand federal tax money be spent for pet pork barrel projects to reward Paul's cronies.

Paul demands that riders be added to bills that force federal agencies to spend money not in accord with the Constitution. He's a hypocrite for that reason. He's a blowhard for pretending that earmarking--a giant cash-grab whereby every one of the 535 Congressmen and Senators decides how much money his constituents deserve and then finds things on which to spend it--is somehow preferable to traditional federal spending.

If Paul believes that his pet projects are necessary and proper, let him have the courage to stand on the floor of the House and ask for them. He doesn't. He takes the coward's way out, both demanding the money and casting a meaningless vote against spending it. I'm not impressed.

svtpwnz
04-22-2012, 15:03
No it isn't. The goal is to get a good leader in the White House.

So far both sides have failed to present a good choice.

^^^This x1BILLION! Mitt Romney is a ****ing joke and if you think otherwise, you are a fool! The only way he has a chance of winning in November is if enough people vote against Obama. He is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 16:38
You are correct. Romney is a liberal, Obama is a socialist.

Maybe enough people will vote "NObama", maybe not.


So, the way that mitt looks to be winning the nomination, is it the fault of backroom
Guys, dumb voters, poorly motivated/organized opposition, or a multistate several months long primary system that pushes more conservative candidates out, based on the votes in blue and purple states?

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 16:46
You are correct. Romney is a liberal, Obama is a socialist.

Maybe enough people will vote "NObama", maybe not.


So, the way that mitt looks to be winning the nomination, is it the fault of backroom
Guys, dumb voters, poorly motivated/organized opposition, or a multistate several months long primary system that pushes more conservative candidates out, based on the votes in blue and purple states?

Dumb voters and the establishment maintaining the status quo at all costs. It's just as easy on the R side as it is on the D side.

D's get redistributed wealth and R's think get the facade of beating D's.

Progressive win.

Funny how the R's are fighting for change at all costs and not improvement.

Sounds eerily familiar.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 18:03
What? Do you think the D's control the market on stupid?

I'd say we've seen evidence to the contrary. Hurt feelers be damned.

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 18:19
Dumb voters and the establishment maintaining the status quo at all costs. It's just as easy on the R side as it is on the D side.

D's get redistributed wealth and R's think get the facade of beating D's.

Progressive win.

Funny how the R's are fighting for change at all costs and not improvement.

Sounds eerily familiar.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county%2C_2012.png/650px-Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county%2C_2012.png


Looks to me like a lot of people haven't had a chance to vote yet at all.
The grey counties have not voted. The rest don't really matter. You don't find anything wrong with a system that doesn't allow about half of the country much of a choice in a nominee.

If you could separate yourself from the anger, you would see that a single day primary would have likely led to a a better choice. Maybe not Ron, but surely, at least a chance it would have been better than Mitt.

I get it that you are still torqued that not nearly as many people liked your guy as you thought. That sure sucks. One day, you may move past that and drop the arrogance and be able to see past the RP vs. THE REST OF HUMANITY perspective you seem to have about this election. There are differences, maybe not as much as either of us would like, but they are different. That means that one is better than the other, one is worse. Some will choose who they think is better, some with mischievous intent will vote for who they think is worse.

Let's not dwell on the past. A question about the future. If Ron doesn't win the nomination, and doesn't run third party, but endorses the libertarian party candidate again, Who do you think you will be voting for in November? Do you expect that you will ever vote again?

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 18:22
What? Do you think the D's control the market on stupid?

I'd say we've seen evidence to the contrary. Hurt feelers be damned.

Any chance that spending a lot of energy on a candidate that didn't do so well might be seen as stupid? There are a lot of people that supported candidates that we later learned didn't have a chance to win. A lot of them were pretty smart, even if the person they supported was not the same person you supported. This approach of pretending everyone that didn't come to the same conclusions as you did is stupid, shows something, don't you think?

Hurt feelers can heal. It just takes longer for some than others.

fortyofforty
04-22-2012, 18:35
Any chance that spending a lot of energy on a candidate that didn't do so well might be seen as stupid? There are a lot of people that supported candidates that we later learned didn't have a chance to win. A lot of them were pretty smart, even if the person they supported was not the same person you supported. This approach of pretending everyone that didn't come to the same conclusions as you did is stupid, shows something, don't you think?

Hurt feelers can heal. It just takes longer for some than others.

Good post, Doc.

syntaxerrorsix
04-22-2012, 18:36
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county%2C_2012.png/650px-Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county%2C_2012.png


Looks to me like a lot of people haven't had a chance to vote yet at all.
The grey counties have not voted. The rest don't really matter. You don't find anything wrong with a system that doesn't allow about half of the country much of a choice in a nominee.

If you could separate yourself from the anger, you would see that a single day primary would have likely led to a a better choice. Maybe not Ron, but surely, at least a chance it would have been better than Mitt.

I get it that you are still torqued that not nearly as many people liked your guy as you thought. That sure sucks. One day, you may move past that and drop the arrogance and be able to see past the RP vs. THE REST OF HUMANITY perspective you seem to have about this election. There are differences, maybe not as much as either of us would like, but they are different. That means that one is better than the other, one is worse. Some will choose who they think is better, some with mischievous intent will vote for who they think is worse.

Let's not dwell on the past. A question about the future. If Ron doesn't win the nomination, and doesn't run third party, but endorses the libertarian party candidate again, Who do you think you will be voting for in November? Do you expect that you will ever vote again?

I never said it was a culmination of all candidate assessments. In fact I've specifically stated in past posts that this is the best we have to date, despite my choice.

To boot, I do not promote RP in retaliation, I wait until it's brought to bear and then defend my position.

Any chance that spending a lot of energy on a candidate that didn't do so well might be seen as stupid? There are a lot of people that supported candidates that we later learned didn't have a chance to win.

Hurt feelers can heal. It just takes longer for some than others.

Absolutely there is a chance, however I stand by my position that there are more people that stand to gain from their easy choices as those that stand to see the whole country gain from hard choices.




I bet you excelled as a Major in the USA. You are steadfast for sure.

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 18:41
I never said it was a culmination of all candidate assessments. In fact I've specifically stated in past posts that this is the best we have to date, despite my choice.

To boot, I do not promote RP in retaliation, I wait until it's brought to bear and then defend my position.



Absolutely there is a chance, however I stand by my position that there are more people that stand to gain from their easy choices as those that stand to see the whole country gain from hard choices.




I bet you excelled as a Major in the USA. You are steadfast for sure.

Thanks, I didn't do half bad as a Sergeant either. Voting is a pretty easy choice. It is civil way to transfer power to who most of the people want to be in power. That works most of the time.

What are these "hard" choices you speak of??