Romney on gun control? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney on gun control?


Pages : [1] 2

Bryan2010x
04-23-2012, 00:15
I saw this picture online, I figured I would get some of the boards feedback on it.

http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/bryan2010x/airsoft/1335153098013.jpg

G29Reload
04-23-2012, 00:59
Absolutely a concern to say the least.

However:

His opponent has said worse.

His stances were in line with where he lived (zipcode populism)
He would now be representing the US which has been solidly moving in the pro-gun, pro carry direction

He gave specific commitment to Ted Nugent that he is not supporting endorsing or planning on any anti-gun activity as President.

The Congress we have and expect to have in the coming election will not send him anything and he can't do much on his own.

He has bigger fish to fry…the economy will keep him busy.


As usual, not thrilled with Mittens but he's the least to worry about, BHO not facing re-election if he gets in.

But duly noted, thanks, most of us are already aware, and keeping a watchful eye.

RCP
04-23-2012, 01:30
I love how all the so called "conservatives" are trying to sweep Romneys record under the rug. Thats right, not what he's "said" but his RECORD, while Obama may have said some scary things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment Romney has not only said such things he has signed them into legislation! The most notable of them being the PERMANENT assault weapons ban he signed with a big smile on his face.

OP, you are wise to be concerned with Mitt Romney and his record as am I. Don't let the "anybody but Obama" crowd talk you into thinking Romney's record isn't a big deal and that he's somehow different now in his sentiments towards the 2nd Amendment. Of course Mitt Romney has pledged "commitment to Ted Nugent that he is not supporting endorsing or planning on any anti-gun activity as President", he has proven time over time that he will say ANYTHING to get elected and then flip flop when it's convenient for him.

I also think you should think about something else. Say Obama does get a second term, it's going to be impossible for him to push through any anti-gun legislation through the house and onto the soon to be controlled Republican Senate who will oppose him for no other reason than he's Obama. What do you think will happen if an anti-gun Republican president wants anti-gun legislation? Are you comfortable hoping that the Republican controlled Congress and soon to be Senate would oppose him? I'm not.

BTW-I've dedicated my sig line to Mitt Romneys attitude towards our 2nd Amendment rights.

RCP
04-23-2012, 01:38
Oh and if you don't believe me heres a whole collection of things Romney has said then proven otherwise with his record. Anyone who believes a word that comes out of his mouth is a fool.

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

CitizenOfDreams
04-23-2012, 01:43
His stances were in line with where he lived (zipcode populism)


So what do you think his stance would be when he moves to zip code 20500?

F350
04-23-2012, 01:52
The Congress we have and expect to have in the coming election will not send him anything and he can't do much on his own.


1} Did congress send HW Bush a bill to ban import of "non-sporting" rifles???

2} Did congress send Obummer a bill to block "re-importation" of 100s of thousands of M-1 Garands????

3} Did congress pass a bill to make having a single M-16 part in a AR-15 illegal?????

I don't trust the slicked back smooth talking SOB any further than I can throw him, but I'll take him over Obummer.

ricklee4570
04-23-2012, 02:34
http://aboutmittromney.com/celebrities.htm

ricklee4570
04-23-2012, 02:35
A much, much, much better option than Obama.

ricklee4570
04-23-2012, 03:12
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-spending-guns-triumph-over-butter-120715130.html

Bren
04-23-2012, 04:29
I take all that bad stuff as true, but it all means he is still a better choice than a second-term Obama in the white house. Not to mention, you are talking about legislation - the president's function is to sign, veto or ignore it...as was Romney's function as governor.

It must be great, being a legislator, because the tendency people have to blame everything on 1 person means the governor/president gets the blame for all you do.

barbedwiresmile
04-23-2012, 05:07
His stances were in line with where he lived (zipcode populism)


I think you'll find little difference between the zip codes of his major corporate donors and those of Obama's.

JBnTX
04-23-2012, 06:45
Oh and if you don't believe me heres a whole collection of things Romney has said then proven otherwise with his record. Anyone who believes a word that comes out of his mouth is a fool....


Are you saying or implying that we should vote for Obama?

The Machinist
04-23-2012, 10:04
Are you saying or implying that we should vote for Obama?
If you want to vote for the guy with a better record on gun control, then yes.

Gundude
04-23-2012, 10:18
If you want to vote for the guy with a better record on gun control, then yes.Not only a better record, but less likely to succeed in pushing any gun control he does want. Although it's his last election, even the Democrats in Congress aren't going to let him "Bill Clinton" them out of their jobs.

Republicans congresscritters however, have shown they will support their prez no matter what, and why shouldn't they? They know their voters will still vote for them despite being repeatedly screwed over, as long as they can point to a Democrat boogeyman to scare them all into line.

If you think Obama is the last boogeyman you'll have to sell your soul to attempt to defeat, you're dreaming. The Republicans own you, and with the likes of Romney at the helm, they will push gun control where the Democrats can't.

mj9mm
04-23-2012, 10:24
i am much more concerned about the Demofarts, they follow a much more Dangerous crowd:tongueout:

grmnracing
04-23-2012, 10:27
This election is going to be a tough one. It's the lesser of two evils sort of speak. A vote for Obama and someone who doesn't vote at all is giving Obama the upper hand.


Sent from my iPhone

Gundude
04-23-2012, 10:34
This election is going to be a tough one. It's the lesser of two evils sort of speak. A vote for Obama and someone who doesn't vote at all is giving Obama the upper hand.You think the next one will be easier? As we follow this path, the next two candidates will make Obama and Romney look like Reagan and Goldwater. You will pray for a Republican candidate as "conservative" as Obama is now, and you won't get it.

Sound far fetched? Take a good look at who you're voting for in Romney.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 10:41
I'll take a first (and hopefully only) term mitt over a second term Barry. Not what I would like, but it is better.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 10:43
Not only a better record, but less likely to succeed in pushing any gun control he does want. Although it's his last election, even the Democrats in Congress aren't going to let him "Bill Clinton" them out of their jobs.

Republicans congresscritters however, have shown they will support their prez no matter what, and why shouldn't they? They know their voters will still vote for them despite being repeatedly screwed over, as long as they can point to a Democrat boogeyman to scare them all into line.

If you think Obama is the last boogeyman you'll have to sell your soul to attempt to defeat, you're dreaming. The Republicans own you, and with the likes of Romney at the helm, they will push gun control where the Democrats can't.


Republican presidents don't always get what they want. Remember Harriet Miers? The likely future picks from Barry are enough to steer clear of Barry.

wjv
04-23-2012, 11:32
Or maybe all of you should try reading this froa different perspective:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

G29Reload
04-23-2012, 11:42
So what do you think his stance would be when he moves to zip code 20500?

He's not rpresenting just that zipcode. Its an expression.

He's representin, the ENTIRE U.S. as opposed to MA.

Jesus do I have to explain EVERYTHING?

G29Reload
04-23-2012, 11:46
Republican presidents don't always get what they want. Remember Harriet Miers? The likely future picks from Barry are enough to steer clear of Barry.

THIS.

You're concerned about gun control?

How about gun control for the effects forward of the next 30 years…not just 4 or 8?

One president or secretary of State refusing an old batch of Garands (which has been reversed, I understand) is

NOTHING

in comparison to the effects of replacing Antonin Scalia or Flipper Kennedy with a liberal justice from say, the 9th Circuit

as opposed to someone Romney picks on the advice of his Mormon friend and Judiciary Chair Orrin (pro-gun) Hatch

Javelin
04-23-2012, 11:56
I don't trust Romney to pick a justice either.

John Rambo
04-23-2012, 11:59
Theres a lot more important things to consider in this next election than your ability to own and carry an AK47.

Just sayin', Obama's record (which is almost nonexistent, compared to Romneys) on guns is better than Romneys, theres no doubt of that. But everything else is garbage.

Restless28
04-23-2012, 12:03
Obama talks about gun control. Romney does gun control.

The Machinist
04-23-2012, 13:14
Obama talks about gun control. Romney does gun control.
Quoted for truth.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 13:24
Still, if Barry or Mittens is the only possible winner, you can vote for one or the other, or neither. :dunno:


Why gnash teeth over it? Pick your direction and do what you think is best.

Bren
04-23-2012, 13:36
Still, if Barry or Mittens is the only possible winner, you can vote for one or the other, or neither. :dunno:


Why gnash teeth over it? Pick your direction and do what you think is best.

You can't really vote for neither. Every choice on election day, including staying home, is the same as a vote - staying home is equal to a vote for the candidate you are LEAST likely to vote for, if force to vote. Just like voting for any third party is equal to a vote for the one of the "big 2" candidates you like the least.

If you would slightly favor the Republican over the Democrat, but you decide he isn't worth voting for, that means one more vote for the Democrat goes unanswered/uncancelled by a vote for the other side - it is exactly the same as one more voter casting a vote for him.

Of course, the opposite is also true - a democrat who stays home on election day because Obama isn't worth the effort, has effectively voted Republican.

John Rambo
04-23-2012, 13:42
you can't really vote for neither. Every choice on election day, including staying home, is the same as a vote - staying home is equal to a vote for the candidate you are least likely to vote for, if force to vote. Just like voting for any third party is equal to a vote for the one of the "big 2" candidates you like the least.

If you would slightly favor the republican over the democrat, but you decide he isn't worth voting for, that means one more vote for the democrat goes unanswered/uncancelled by a vote for the other side - it is exactly the same as one more voter casting a vote for him.

Of course, the opposite is also true - a democrat who stays home on election day because obama isn't worth the effort, has effectively voted republican.

x + 0 =/= x + (-1)

Vlad6525
04-23-2012, 13:44
Not only a better record, but less likely to succeed in pushing any gun control he does want. Although it's his last election, even the Democrats in Congress aren't going to let him "Bill Clinton" them out of their jobs.

Republicans congresscritters however, have shown they will support their prez no matter what, and why shouldn't they? They know their voters will still vote for them despite being repeatedly screwed over, as long as they can point to a Democrat boogeyman to scare them all into line.

If you think Obama is the last boogeyman you'll have to sell your soul to attempt to defeat, you're dreaming. The Republicans own you, and with the likes of Romney at the helm, they will push gun control where the Democrats can't.

You are completely forgetting about the possibility for Obama to nominate 1-2 additional supreme court judges during his second term (if he's elected)...and this my friend is the KEY to all anti-gunners in this country...then watch how fast the rabid anti-gun mayors, governors etc will come up with all kinds of unconstitutional laws and restrictions and then watch NRA suing them and bringing their cases to the supreme court only to have them voted down by a socialist majority there! Please ppl - do not be so narrow minded and understand what threat this great country is facing with BO should he be elected again... He doesn't need to push gun control from the White House...the socialists and the useful idiots will do it for him in localities - he'll just make sure that all lawsuits brought up against those actions are struck down at the highest level creating the most dangerous precedents for future restrictions and ultimately bans. Of course he didn't do much in regards to guns in the first term...especially after his base lost the mid-term elections, but if anyone still believes that BO does not want to ban or restrict gun ownership then you all deserve what will surely come out of BO victory... I am very disappointed with the republican choice, but BO second term is the end of America as we know it and it doesn't only concern guns, but our very way of life.

RC-RAMIE
04-23-2012, 13:51
I'll take a first (and hopefully only) term mitt over a second term Barry. Not what I would like, but it is better.

Only one term? Do you think the GOP will run some one against Mitt second term? Do you think a small conservative democrat will oppose Mitt in 4 years. How do you figure we get a one term Mitt and it works out for us.

The Machinist
04-23-2012, 13:52
If you would slightly favor the Republican over the Democrat, but you decide he isn't worth voting for, that means one more vote for the Democrat goes unanswered/uncancelled by a vote for the other side - it is exactly the same as one more voter casting a vote for him.
Not really. The states elect the president, not the people directly. For all the people that think I'm an idiot for "throwing my vote away" on Ron Paul, Oregon will go for Obama, regardless. Your statement is more on the mark for swing states, but even if I lived in one, I still wouldn't give my consent to either Romney or Obama. Neither of them recognizes limits on government power, and neither of them view me as anything other than tax livestock. Now why would I willingly participate in that shell game?

bear62
04-23-2012, 13:56
I take all that bad stuff as true, but it all means he is still a better choice than a second-term Obama in the white house. Not to mention, you are talking about legislation - the president's function is to sign, veto or ignore it...as was Romney's function as governor.

It must be great, being a legislator, because the tendency people have to blame everything on 1 person means the governor/president gets the blame for all you do.

Right on, Bren ........ We will see the real Obama if he gets a second term ...... That means even more reckless spending and an all out attack on gun owners.....

RC-RAMIE
04-23-2012, 13:57
Not really. The states elect the president, not the people directly. For all the people that think I'm an idiot for "throwing my vote away" on Ron Paul, Oregon will go for Obama, regardless. Your statement is more on the mark for swing states, but even if I lived in one, I still wouldn't give my consent to either Romney or Obama. Neither of them recognizes limits on government power, and neither of them view meas anything other than tax livestock. Now why would I willingly participate in that shell game?

I don't agree wit Glen Beck often but in 08 he said I can't tell my grand kids with a clear conscience that my fingerprints were on either of those two choices. He was talking about Obama and Mccain I think it still fits with Obama and Mitt.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 14:00
You can't really vote for neither. Every choice on election day, including staying home, is the same as a vote - staying home is equal to a vote for the candidate you are LEAST likely to vote for, if force to vote. Just like voting for any third party is equal to a vote for the one of the "big 2" candidates you like the least.

If you would slightly favor the Republican over the Democrat, but you decide he isn't worth voting for, that means one more vote for the Democrat goes unanswered/uncancelled by a vote for the other side - it is exactly the same as one more voter casting a vote for him.

Of course, the opposite is also true - a democrat who stays home on election day because Obama isn't worth the effort, has effectively voted Republican.

A vote is a vote. Not voting isn't. It may have an effect, as voter turnout often does. Voting for third party is a vote too, but you'd have to wait until after it happened and rely on exit polling to see if it helped one or the other viable candidates win. With a few exceptions, elections are generally decided on how many people vote for a particular candidate.

The only thing I am certain is that it will end the way it ends, and with luck, most of us we be around to talk about it after the fact. I've given up trying to change the minds of people that are committed to their plan on how to use their vote. Mitt, Barry and Ron will all get votes. Such is life. Most of the more committed RP supporters would have probably voted libertarian if Paul were not running, many still will.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 14:05
Only one term? Do you think the GOP will run some one against Mitt second term? Do you think a small conservative democrat will oppose Mitt in 4 years. How do you figure we get a one term Mitt and it works out for us.

Well, if Ron Paul ran in 2016 and beat him for the nomination, would that be a good outcome? Now replace Ron Paul with an asif yet unnamed conservative.

It's a hope, not a plan. I'm spending all my planning time on doing well regardless of if mitt or Barry is the president this time next year.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 14:07
I don't agree wit Glen Beck often but in 08 he said I can't tell my grand kids with a clear conscience that my fingerprints were on either of those two choices. He was talking about Obama and Mccain I think it still fits with Obama and Mitt.

The world needs idealists. It also needs pragmatists.

RC-RAMIE
04-23-2012, 14:33
Well, if Ron Paul ran in 2016 and beat him for the nomination, would that be a good outcome? Now replace Ron Paul with an asif yet unnamed conservative.

It's a hope, not a plan. I'm spending all my planning time on doing well regardless of if mitt or Barry is the president this time next year.

Do you think one will run against the current Republican POTUS?

bear62
04-23-2012, 14:39
In 2016 Ron Paul will be 80 something.

Bryan2010x
04-23-2012, 14:42
1} Did congress send HW Bush a bill to ban import of "non-sporting" rifles???

2} Did congress send Obummer a bill to block "re-importation" of 100s of thousands of M-1 Garands????

3} Did congress pass a bill to make having a single M-16 part in a AR-15 illegal?????

I don't trust the slicked back smooth talking SOB any further than I can throw him, but I'll take him over Obummer.


great feedback from everyone on this. My question right now is what is the back story on the #3 about about the m16 part illegal?

Glock26z
04-23-2012, 15:21
I don't trust either one. there is also a blank line for who I think might do better, Sara Palin for Pres and Chuck Norris,for vp. And if they did win, it would be a shock to both loons that are running for pres.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 16:27
Do you think one will run against the current Republican POTUS?

Like I said, it's not a plan, it's a hope. It would certainly make things interesting. I guess it would depend on a theoretical President Romney's approval numbers at the time one would choose to make a challenge to him for the nomination.

We'll have to see.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 16:29
In 2016 Ron Paul will be 80 something.

I've heard he's expected to live until at least 100 with full mental capacity.

bear62
04-23-2012, 16:33
I've heard he's expected to live until at least 100 with full mental capacity.

I'm sure at 100 he will have more smarts than the average Demkrat.

Cavalry Doc
04-23-2012, 16:47
I'm sure at 100 he will have more smarts than the average Demkrat.

Age is a minor issue, but a real one. When you get that old, even if you are in perfect health, the odds of having an issue that makes you unable to hold the job increase. As you continue to age, eventually, the odds approach 100%.

Everyone dies at least once. It's like a rule or something.

bear62
04-23-2012, 17:33
Everyone dies at least once. It's like a rule or something.

Thanks a lot ........ You just ruined my Happy Hour .

:rofl::rofl:

QNman
04-23-2012, 17:44
I can think of several reasons to vote against Obama:

1) "Fast and Furious" Eric Holder
2) "Turbotax" Tim Geithner
3) Jeffrey "Jobs Czar" Immelt
4) Sonya "Wise Latina" Sotomayor
5) Elena "Ethics" Kagan
6) Secretary Billary Clinton
7) Rahm "Emergency" Immanuel
8) Jeremiah "Wrong" Wright
9) "Bomber" Bill Ayers
10) Andy "Most Frequent Visitor "Stern

The list goes on... And will likely worsen in the next term.

RyanSBHF
04-23-2012, 18:41
I'll take a first (and hopefully only) term mitt over a second term Barry. Not what I would like, but it is better.


Judging from his record as Governor of Massachusetts I doubt he would be any better. RomneyCare, a permanent AWB, liberal judges, higher taxes, more business regulations, etc.

If Obama wins a second term, he'll have a Republican House and very likely Republican Senate foiling him at every turn.

If Romney wins, a Republican Congress will give him what he wants for the sake of "party unity".

Acujeff
04-23-2012, 19:10
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA AWB into law.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks on GT are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.

If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

juggy4711
04-23-2012, 20:03
I think you'll find little difference between the zip codes of his major corporate donors and those of Obama's.

This

Still, if Barry or Mittens is the only possible winner, you can vote for one or the other, or neither. :dunno:

Why gnash teeth over it? Pick your direction and do what you think is best.

There is no best, no better and I refuse to give my consent to either.

The world needs idealists. It also needs pragmatists.

Who got us to this constant better of two evils junk. Idealists or pragmatists?

...If Obama wins a second term, he'll have a Republican House and very likely Republican Senate foiling him at every turn...

The Republican House has failed repeatedly and given in on far too much for me to believe adding a Republican Senate will make a difference. The Republicans are either complicit in this fiasco or too cowardly to stand against it. It hardly matters which.

Ruble Noon
04-23-2012, 20:30
The Republican House has failed repeatedly and given in on far too much for me to believe adding a Republican Senate will make a difference. The Republicans are either complicit in this fiasco or too cowardly to stand against it. It hardly matters which.

The way they worked to thwart the efforts of the TEA party, I would say that they are complicit.

Javelin
04-24-2012, 00:35
Well, if Ron Paul ran in 2016 and beat him for the nomination, would that be a good outcome? Now replace Ron Paul with an asif yet unnamed conservative.

It's a hope, not a plan. I'm spending all my planning time on doing well regardless of if mitt or Barry is the president this time next year.

Mitt Romney has said that he will make huge cuts in military retirement and wounded veterans. Coupled with his previous voting records it is a sad day for all.

Bren
04-24-2012, 04:49
x + 0 =/= x + (-1)

Well I'm no math major...but neither are you.

Your formula doesn't take into account that their are 2 (or more) competing parties - you have answered with a formula that describes the total votes cast in the election (and would be true, for that), rather than votes for 2 parties. The total votes cast for all candidates is neither important to the outcome nor relevant to my post.

Dem votes + 1 - Rep votes + 0 leaves the Dem votes ahead by 1

Bren
04-24-2012, 04:58
A vote is a vote. Not voting isn't. It may have an effect, as voter turnout often does. Voting for third party is a vote too, but you'd have to wait until after it happened and rely on exit polling to see if it helped one or the other viable candidates win. With a few exceptions, elections are generally decided on how many people vote for a particular candidate.

The only thing I am certain is that it will end the way it ends, and with luck, most of us we be around to talk about it after the fact. I've given up trying to change the minds of people that are committed to their plan on how to use their vote. Mitt, Barry and Ron will all get votes. Such is life. Most of the more committed RP supporters would have probably voted libertarian if Paul were not running, many still will.

I find it hard to believe so many glock talkers can't work out that simple formula.

If 1 democrat votes Obama and 1 Republican votes Romney, they are tied - they effectivey cancelled each other's votes. 1 more dem votes for Obama and the next Republican or anti-Obama voter decides to stay home - the result is a vote for Obama that isn't cancelled and he is 1 ahead. The next 2 voters vote: 1 for Obama and 1 for Paul as a third party candidate, that puts the election at 3 for Obama, 1 for Romney and 1 for Paul. This is about a 3rd grade math problem, folks.

Cavalry Doc
04-24-2012, 05:47
Judging from his record as Governor of Massachusetts I doubt he would be any better. RomneyCare, a permanent AWB, liberal judges, higher taxes, more business regulations, etc.

If Obama wins a second term, he'll have a Republican House and very likely Republican Senate foiling him at every turn.

If Romney wins, a Republican Congress will give him what he wants for the sake of "party unity".

The Harriet Miers thing would argue against a repub prez getting a blank check.

Now factor in the first term vs second term mentalities, and Barry's stated plan of bypassing congress.

Still gotta go with mitt when the totality of the sutuation is considered.

Cavalry Doc
04-24-2012, 05:52
I find it hard to believe so many glock talkers can't work out that simple formula.

If 1 democrat votes Obama and 1 Republican votes Romney, they are tied - they effectivey cancelled each other's votes. 1 more dem votes for Obama and the next Republican or anti-Obama voter decides to stay home - the result is a vote for Obama that isn't cancelled and he is 1 ahead. The next 2 voters vote: 1 for Obama and 1 for Paul as a third party candidate, that puts the election at 3 for Obama, 1 for Romney and 1 for Paul. This is about a 3rd grade math problem, folks.

It's agreed that there would be an effect, but a failure to vote, is not a vote. A vote for anyone that is not a viable candidate, is a vote for who they chose. Yes, it's possible either of those two choices could help or hurt either if the two viable choices, but it is moderately dishonest to claim it is a vote FOR either of the two viable candidates. The choice to not vote or write in Mickey mouse would only be a factor if they approached the margin of victory.

Restless28
04-24-2012, 05:52
Mitt Romney has said that he will make huge cuts in military retirement and wounded veterans. Coupled with his previous voting records it is a sad day for all.

Another reason to not vote for not support Mitt Romney.

Anyone that volunteers as a protector and defender of our nation deserves to be taken care of, IMO.

This is the wrong area to cut. Cut the damned welfare out. I'm sick of leeches!

Cavalry Doc
04-24-2012, 06:18
Another reason to not vote for not support Mitt Romney.

Anyone that volunteers as a protector and defender of our nation deserves to be taken care of, IMO.

This is the wrong area to cut. Cut the damned welfare out. I'm sick of leeches!

I agree, mostly. But the country is broke. Everyone is going to have to give. Barry is already moving to cut military benefits, active and retired. Leaving welfare untouched. I'd have a lot less of a problem if everyone was tightening their belts, and not just me. 50% of Barry's cuts come from 20% of the budget, in defense.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

QNman
04-24-2012, 06:38
The Harriet Miers thing would argue against a repub prez getting a blank check.

Now factor in the first term vs second term mentalities, and Barry's stated plan of bypassing congress.

Still gotta go with mitt when the totality of the sutuation is considered.

Let's also not forget that W stated he would sign a new AWB if it crossed his desk. It never did. Even when the GOP was in control of Congress.

Romney ain't my first choice either, but Romney will be a first termed trying to appear more conservative, where Obama will be a lame duck who is already a hardcore lib.

QNman
04-24-2012, 06:41
Allow me to also point out - a vote against Romney improves nothing in 2016. McCain lost four long years ago. Romney was the result. There is no "message" because we are the recipients of the message. Many GOP primary voters are voting Romney because they don't think anyone else can beat Obama. Prove them wrong and the massage received will likely be that Romney isn't liberal ENOUGH.

RC-RAMIE
04-24-2012, 07:25
I find it hard to believe so many glock talkers can't work out that simple formula.

If 1 democrat votes Obama and 1 Republican votes Romney, they are tied - they effectivey cancelled each other's votes. 1 more dem votes for Obama and the next Republican or anti-Obama voter decides to stay home - the result is a vote for Obama that isn't cancelled and he is 1 ahead. The next 2 voters vote: 1 for Obama and 1 for Paul as a third party candidate, that puts the election at 3 for Obama, 1 for Romney and 1 for Paul. This is about a 3rd grade math problem, folks.

Is it because you think people should fit in to a right (r) or left (l). My vote was never the Republicans to begin with it is mine and the R did not earn it with Mitt, it will go to a third party. It's not a -1 for republicans +1 for democrats it's -1R -1 D +1 third party.


"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
04-24-2012, 07:54
This



There is no best, no better and I refuse to give my consent to either.



Who got us to this constant better of two evils junk. Idealists or pragmatists?



The Republican House has failed repeatedly and given in on far too much for me to believe adding a Republican Senate will make a difference. The Republicans are either complicit in this fiasco or too cowardly to stand against it. It hardly matters which.

Maybe it's the purist's fault, futilely working toward an unattainable ideal situation. Then again maybe not. But we are where we are.

You have my full support in voting or not voting anyway you desire.

Bren
04-24-2012, 08:32
Is it because you think people should fit in to a right (r) or left (l). My vote was never the Republicans to begin with it is mine and the R did not earn it with Mitt, it will go to a third party. It's not a -1 for republicans +1 for democrats it's -1R -1 D +1 third party.



No, you still aren't gettting it. Let's say you support the communist party and never vote for any other candidate. You doing that still benefits one of the "big 2" parties. In a world where there were only 2 candidates and you had to choose 1, you'd probably vote democrat, but it makes no difference - by voting third party, you benefit the party you would vote against, in the theoretical "only 2 candidates and you must vote" world.

So, in your case, the question is, if you were taken to vote and told you HAVE to vote and there are only 2 names on the ballot - an R and a D, which would you vote for? Voting third party benefits the other one. Simple as that.

So, it doesn't matter if you ever have or ever would vote for either a democrat or a republican - by not doing so, you still eliminate the vote of 1 eligible voter that might have gone to one of those parties, without doing anything to cause anyone outside those parties to be ellected.

Bren
04-24-2012, 08:38
It's agreed that there would be an effect, but a failure to vote, is not a vote. A vote for anyone that is not a viable candidate, is a vote for who they chose. Yes, it's possible either of those two choices could help or hurt either if the two viable choices, but it is moderately dishonest to claim it is a vote FOR either of the two viable candidates. The choice to not vote or write in Mickey mouse would only be a factor if they approached the margin of victory.

If one person does it - but in the Romney/Paul debate, it's about a significant number of people saying they will vote thrid party or refuse to vote. Each person who does that benefits the Democrats by failing to match one vote that Democrats WILL cast for Obama.

That benefits Obama in the amount if 1 unanswered vote, per voter, which can result in millions of unanswered votes in various states, thereby changing the outcome of the election in favor of Obama.

Keep in mind, I am talking about the election, not the primary.

RC-RAMIE
04-24-2012, 09:08
No, you still aren't gettting it. Let's say you support the communist party and never vote for any other candidate. You doing that still benefits one of the "big 2" parties. In a world where there were only 2 candidates and you had to choose 1, you'd probably vote democrat, but it makes no difference - by voting third party, you benefit the party you would vote against, in the theoretical "only 2 candidates and you must vote" world.

So, in your case, the question is, if you were taken to vote and told you HAVE to vote and there are only 2 names on the ballot - an R and a D, which would you vote for? Voting third party benefits the other one. Simple as that.

So, it doesn't matter if you ever have or ever would vote for either a democrat or a republican - by not doing so, you still eliminate the vote of 1 eligible voter that might have gone to one of those parties, without doing anything to cause anyone outside those parties to be ellected.

That whole argument means nothing because in real life there more than your theoretical "only 2 candidates".

Voting 3rd party benefits the 3rd party my vote was never R or D to lose to a 3rd party it was theirs to win and they didn't do it.

By your argument I should vote for the big government, anti gun, pro TARP pro war candidate because he registered as a Republican this year instead of a Dem. My vote will go to smaller government if that is 3rd party than that is a rejection of both major parties and helps neither one.

nmk
04-24-2012, 11:04
No, you still aren't gettting it. Let's say you support the communist party and never vote for any other candidate. You doing that still benefits one of the "big 2" parties. In a world where there were only 2 candidates and you had to choose 1, you'd probably vote democrat, but it makes no difference - by voting third party, you benefit the party you would vote against, in the theoretical "only 2 candidates and you must vote" world.

So, in your case, the question is, if you were taken to vote and told you HAVE to vote and there are only 2 names on the ballot - an R and a D, which would you vote for? Voting third party benefits the other one. Simple as that.

So, it doesn't matter if you ever have or ever would vote for either a democrat or a republican - by not doing so, you still eliminate the vote of 1 eligible voter that might have gone to one of those parties, without doing anything to cause anyone outside those parties to be ellected.

It has been explained to you multiple times, at least once by me. Voting 3rd party or not voting is simply not equivalent to voting for the "other guy". Maybe I'll dig up the explanation from last time.

nmk
04-24-2012, 11:05
You can't really vote for neither. Every choice on election day, including staying home, is the same as a vote - staying home is equal to a vote for the candidate you are LEAST likely to vote for, if force to vote. Just like voting for any third party is equal to a vote for the one of the "big 2" candidates you like the least.



False no matter how many times you say it here.


Let's say the first voter goes D. The second voter thought about going R, but decided not to vote. Had he voted R, the score would be 1-1. Since he's not voting, the score is 0-1. If he had voted D, the score would be 0-2.

How long will people continue to claim that the last two outcomes are "exactly the same"?

Restless28
04-24-2012, 11:21
Vote Ron Paul for President, vote true conservatives into the House and Senate. Hold them accountable.

Send the GOP a message, or this **** with Romneys and McCains will never end. Never.

Ruble Noon
04-24-2012, 11:21
If one person does it - but in the Romney/Paul debate, it's about a significant number of people saying they will vote thrid party or refuse to vote. Each person who does that benefits the Democrats by failing to match one vote that Democrats WILL cast for Obama.

That benefits Obama in the amount if 1 unanswered vote, per voter, which can result in millions of unanswered votes in various states, thereby changing the outcome of the election in favor of Obama.

Keep in mind, I am talking about the election, not the primary.

For your theory to be true the number of republican and democrat voters would need to be roughly equal. You also assume that democrat or people in the middle that voted democrat last time around will vote obama again instead of crossing the aisle or voting third party themselves.

Gundude
04-24-2012, 11:26
Allow me to also point out - a vote against Romney improves nothing in 2016. McCain lost four long years ago. Romney was the result. There is no "message" because we are the recipients of the message. Many GOP primary voters are voting Romney because they don't think anyone else can beat Obama. Prove them wrong and the massage received will likely be that Romney isn't liberal ENOUGH.That's why Romney needs to lose worse than McCain. If Romney wins after McCain lost, then the message received will definitely be "the more liberal, the better." If Romney loses worse, the message will be "we're moving in the wrong direction."

Ruble Noon
04-24-2012, 11:29
That's why Romney needs to lose worse than McCain. If Romney wins after McCain lost, then the message received will definitely be "the more liberal, the better." If Romney loses worse, the message will be "we're moving in the wrong direction."

That would be the message but, would they understand or listen?

Gundude
04-24-2012, 11:51
That would be the message but, would they understand or listen?If it's clear enough. Romney needs to lose in an embarrasingly big way. One that'll be talked about for a long time.

The sad irony is that the "anybody but Obama" movement has produced a candidate more like Obama than anybody else. If "anybody but Obama" could win, why did Republicans chose the person whose positions are most likely to be mistaken for Obama's? Seriously. It would seem Republicans have an aversion to winning.

Harper
04-24-2012, 15:08
Romney is a puppet, it doesn't matter what his stance is or what he thinks. What's important are what the people who own him think.

Javelin
04-24-2012, 15:50
Romney is a puppet, it doesn't matter what his stance is or what he thinks. What's important are what the people who own him think.

I'm not so sure this is a reason to vote for Romney either. Does not make me feel any better put it that way.

PawDog
04-24-2012, 16:00
Vote Ron Paul for President, vote true conservatives into the House and Senate. Hold them accountable.

Send the GOP a message, or this **** with Romneys and McCains will never end. Never.

And you may as well vote for Obama, as Paul will not be the Republican nominee, 2012, or ever.

4TS&W
04-24-2012, 16:28
I'm sure at 100 he will have more smarts than the average Demkrat.

That applies even if he died tomorrow.. lol

The Maggy
04-24-2012, 17:30
I would rather have Obama with a Republican congress than Mitt with a Democratic congress.... Think about it.

Ruble Noon
04-24-2012, 17:34
I would rather have Obama with a Republican congress than Mitt with a Democratic congress.... Think about it.

Or Mitt with a republican congress.

Harper
04-24-2012, 18:20
And you may as well vote for Obama, as Paul will not be the Republican nominee, 2012, or ever.

You might as well vote for Obama, as Romney is basically the same person.

09crue
04-24-2012, 18:23
bring George W. Bush back for another 8...

QNman
04-24-2012, 18:54
Vote Ron Paul for President, vote true conservatives into the House and Senate. Hold them accountable.

Send the GOP a message, or this **** with Romneys and McCains will never end. Never.

In your scenario, who is receiving this "message"? What makes you think they're receiving you - AT ALL?

QNman
04-24-2012, 18:57
That would be the message but, would they understand or listen?

Exactly.

Too, who are "they"? Because "they" aren't "us", so "they" aren't listening to "us". Or at the least, they're not receiving the message you thin "they" are.

QNman
04-24-2012, 18:58
If it's clear enough. Romney needs to lose in an embarrasingly big way. One that'll be talked about for a long time.

The sad irony is that the "anybody but Obama" movement has produced a candidate more like Obama than anybody else. If "anybody but Obama" could win, why did Republicans chose the person whose positions are most likely to be mistaken for Obama's? Seriously. It would seem Republicans have an aversion to winning.

There ain't no bosses making these decisions any more. WE - Republicans - are "they".

The bosses gave us Reagan. I miss the bosses.

PawDog
04-24-2012, 19:01
You might as well vote for Obama, as Romney is basically the same person.

Romney isn't aligned with Soros, Van Jones, Tim Geithner, Eric Holder, Jerimiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, Code Pink, Occupy groups, marxists, communists, and the other 34 or so "appointed" czars with socialist/communist backgrounds and ideologies Obama is financially and psychologically supported by and surrounded with.

Keep drinking the leftist MSM and Paul-bot kool-aid propaganda if you wish, or actually face the reality of what this election truly means.

QNman
04-24-2012, 19:01
If it's clear enough. Romney needs to lose in an embarrasingly big way. One that'll be talked about for a long time.

The sad irony is that the "anybody but Obama" movement has produced a candidate more like Obama than anybody else. If "anybody but Obama" could win, why did Republicans chose the person whose positions are most likely to be mistaken for Obama's? Seriously. It would seem Republicans have an aversion to winning.

Since Romeny IS more conservative than Obama (Karl Marx may be more conservative than Obama), what would the "message" be if, say, OBAMA lost in a big way?

QNman
04-24-2012, 19:02
Romney isn't aligned with Soros, Van Jones, Tim Geithner, Eric Holder, Jerimiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, Code Pink, Occupy groups, marxists, communists, and the other 34 or so "appointed" czars with socialist/communist backgrounds and ideologies Obama is financially and psychologically supported by and surrounded with.

Keep drinking the leftist MSM and Paul-bot kool-aid propaganda if you wish, or actually face the reality of what this election truly means.

Yup..

coastal4974
04-24-2012, 19:06
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA AWB into law.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks on GT are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.

If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

Huh, well wadayaknow :supergrin:

I guess the other posters missed this. :dunno:

fortyofforty
04-24-2012, 19:06
Well, at least the Paulistas are showing their true colors. Deep down Obama supporters, who think Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan will look out for their Second Amendment rights.

Harper
04-24-2012, 19:17
Well, at least the Paulistas are showing their true colors. Deep down Obama supporters, who think Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan will look out for their Second Amendment rights.

Wow, you really hate Brazilians. I don't think they have 2nd amendment rights deep down in Brazil.

JK-linux
04-24-2012, 19:18
This thread is priceless...

(R): "We don't like you. Your guy sucks so vote for ours. Our ideas are better anyhow."
(L): "OK... Well, give us someone who is dissimilar to the one in office."
(R): "No, we think someone similar to the one in office, but with an (R) behind his name, is the way to go. The second time around is a charm."
(L): "No, thank you. We don't see enough of a distinction to do so. Regardless, we don't believe that really addresses most of the issues we are concerned about."
(R): "You are a Socialist. You'll never amount to anything. You probably want Obama to win. Vote for us you loser."
(L): "No we are not Socialists. We are not Republicans either. We thought you might have something, but were mistaken in thinking do.
(R): "We think electing a liberal Republican is a winning strategy."
(L): "Liberals will opt for the real thing and vote for Obama instead of your guy. You are not changing the dynamic by moving to the Left with your candidate. You may lose some conservative and moderate support by doing so."
(R): "F-you. No we won't. Vote for us. You suck, but we assumed you would still support our guy because you like guns too. Anyhow, you probably really like Obama anyhow." <shakes fist> "Vote for us!"
(L): "Whatever... you don't even like your guy. Sleep in the bed you made."

QNman
04-24-2012, 19:25
This thread is priceless...

(R): "We don't like you. Your guy sucks so vote for ours. Our ideas are better anyhow."
(L): "OK... Well, give us someone who is dissimilar to the one in office."
(R): "No, we think someone similar to the one in office, but with an (R) behind his name, is the way to go. The second time around is a charm."
(L): "No, thank you. We don't see enough of a distinction to do so. Regardless, we don't believe that really addresses most of the issues we are concerned about."
(R): "You are a Socialist. You'll never amount to anything. You probably want Obama to win. Vote for us you loser."
(L): "No we are not Socialists. We are not Republicans either. We thought you might have something, but were mistaken in thinking do.
(R): "We think electing a liberal Republican is a winning strategy."
(L): "Liberals will opt for the real thing and vote for Obama instead of your guy. You are not changing the dynamic by moving to the Left with your candidate. You may lose some conservative and moderate support by doing so."
(R): "F-you. No we won't. Vote for us. You suck, but we assumed you would still support our guy because you like guns too. Anyhow, you probably really like Obama anyhow." <shakes fist> "Vote for us!"
(L): "Whatever... you don't even like your guy. Sleep in the bed you made."

Who is (R) in your imaginary argument?

fortyofforty
04-24-2012, 19:26
(R) Our guy would never nominate Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
(L) I don't care. I am special, and smarter than everybody else. Your voters are stupid. They are too dumb to see the truth. Only RP is worth electing.
(R) Surely you don't mean to suggest that BO is better than MR?
(L) I don't care what you say. I really am so mad because my messiah couldn't even win a primary let alone the nomination that I will take it out on the R party and vote for BO. Besides, I really liked BO anyway.
(R) Whatever. Take your little balls and go home.

fortyofforty
04-24-2012, 19:28
Wow, you really hate Brazilians. I don't think they have 2nd amendment rights deep down in Brazil.

It was either that or Paulinas.

Restless28
04-24-2012, 19:35
This thread is priceless...

(R): "We don't like you. Your guy sucks so vote for ours. Our ideas are better anyhow."
(L): "OK... Well, give us someone who is dissimilar to the one in office."
(R): "No, we think someone similar to the one in office, but with an (R) behind his name, is the way to go. The second time around is a charm."
(L): "No, thank you. We don't see enough of a distinction to do so. Regardless, we don't believe that really addresses most of the issues we are concerned about."
(R): "You are a Socialist. You'll never amount to anything. You probably want Obama to win. Vote for us you loser."
(L): "No we are not Socialists. We are not Republicans either. We thought you might have something, but were mistaken in thinking do.
(R): "We think electing a liberal Republican is a winning strategy."
(L): "Liberals will opt for the real thing and vote for Obama instead of your guy. You are not changing the dynamic by moving to the Left with your candidate. You may lose some conservative and moderate support by doing so."
(R): "F-you. No we won't. Vote for us. You suck, but we assumed you would still support our guy because you like guns too. Anyhow, you probably really like Obama anyhow." <shakes fist> "Vote for us!"
(L): "Whatever... you don't even like your guy. Sleep in the bed you made."

Love it! You're gonna get flamed though.

Bravo, anyhow.

Restless28
04-24-2012, 19:37
(R) Our guy would never nominate Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
(L) I don't care. I am special, and smarter than everybody else. Your voters are stupid. They are too dumb to see the truth. Only RP is worth electing.
(R) Surely you don't mean to suggest that BO is better than MR?
(L) I don't care what you say. I really am so mad because my messiah couldn't even win a primary let alone the nomination that I will take it out on the R party and vote for BO. Besides, I really liked BO anyway.
(R) Whatever. Take your little balls and go home.

Weak. The original is much more original.

PawDog
04-24-2012, 19:49
Weak. The original is much more original.

Here's the bottom line, truth..........:wavey: Even though you'll attempt to deny it, it's an actuality. :supergrin:

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/Pawdog_album/429ea8d8.png

fortyofforty
04-24-2012, 19:57
Weak. The original is much more original.

That's why it's called the "original".

fortyofforty
04-24-2012, 19:58
Three words to put the lie to the Paulista claim that Romney would be just as bad, if not worse, than Odumbo:

Fast. And. Furious.

'Nuff said.

Harper
04-24-2012, 20:36
Three words to put the lie to the Paulista claim that Romney would be just as bad, if not worse, than Odumbo:

Fast. And. Furious.

'Nuff said.

Romney isn't going to support gun control at this point because it doesn't market well on the national level. You can sell an anti-gun product in Massachusetts but the corporations can't sell an anti-gun product to republicans on a national level so when Romney went nationwide he joined the NRA and went with a different marketing strategy.

Harper
04-24-2012, 20:42
Here's the bottom line, truth..........:wavey: Even though you'll attempt to deny it, it's an actuality. :supergrin:

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/Pawdog_album/429ea8d8.png

That reminds of that saying 'Racist: someone who is winning an argument against a liberal'. The 'Paulbots' must be doing something right.

svtpwnz
04-24-2012, 21:55
bring George W. Bush back for another 8...

****, let's dig Ronald Regans old bones up and throw him back in the oval office and may as well dig up George Washington for VP and Thomas jefferson for secretary of state. This election is a complete joke and all of the jackasses running including BO aren't even qualified for the office of street sweeper let alone commander in cheif!

evlbruce
04-24-2012, 22:11
Three words to put the lie to the Paulista claim that Romney would be just as bad, if not worse, than Odumbo:

Fast. And. Furious.

'Nuff said.

The Justice Department sent nearly 500 pages of documents to Republican lawmakers Thursday that suggest the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives may have used questionable tactics and lost track of American-made weapons in a gun trafficking investigation on the Mexican border as early as 2006.
Link ('http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/05/144761413/documents-suggest-bush-administration-used-fast-and-furious-tactics')

That reminds of that saying 'Racist: someone who is winning an argument against a liberal'. The 'Paulbots' must be doing something right.

I think of much of the bile comes from the bitter truth that deep down, most intelligent Romney supporters know that Mr. Etch-a-Sketch will not represent their beliefs and interests any better than the current occupant of the White House.

juggy4711
04-25-2012, 00:20
Maybe it's the purist's fault, futilely working toward an unattainable ideal situation. Then again maybe not. But we are where we are.

You have my full support in voting or not voting anyway you desire.

Purists, pragmatists what it the tangible difference if the ideal situation is not attainable? Nothing but a stop gap, nothing but consenting to our possible continued comfort at the expense of our future generations. I can not live with myself consenting to that. :dunno: Thanks brother. I wouldn't want you to vote any other way either, just hoping to help folks realize what that vote means. As I imagine your point is as well.

The Maggy
04-25-2012, 02:22
Or Mitt with a republican congress.
One party controlling two branches of government scares me. Alot of off the wall **** makes it through,

Heres the basic break down, as I see it.

Mittens will sign anything, from any party, that crosses his desk. G29 can confirm this with all of his posts stating that Mittens is a populist. If the Democrats win control of the house and senate... that's what the people want right? Well here's your liberal, activist, progressive supreme court justice because Mittens knows that is what will pass without any friction in congress. Oh, congress passed a permanent AWB, cool it's what the people want.

Obama has some principle that he will stand on. Not much, but some. Unlike Mittens, he at least has some back bone; it's the back bone of a socialist; but a back bone none the less. When a Republican congress sends him spending bills for their pet projects, because they will, he will not sign them. It creates some sort of balance.

A republican President and republican congress gave us the Patriot Act, keep that in mind.

The Romney administration will pour honey in your ear, telling you how conservative you are, as they lube up the condom...

We are _____ with either of these candidates, one will tell you where he stands, the other will change his opinion more often than I change my boxers.

RCP
04-25-2012, 02:34
One party controlling two branches of government scares me. Alot of off the wall **** makes it through,

Heres the basic break down, as I see it.

Mittens will sign anything, from any party, that crosses his desk. G29 can confirm this with all of his posts stating that Mittens is a populist. If the Democrats win control of the house and senate... that's what the people want right? Well here's your liberal, activist, progressive supreme court justice because Mittens knows that is what will pass without any friction in congress. Oh, congress passed a permanent AWB, cool it's what the people want.

Obama has some principle that he will stand on. Not much, but some. Unlike Mittens, he at least has some back bone; it's the back bone of a socialist; but a back bone none the less. When a Republican congress sends him spending bills for their pet projects, because they will, he will not sign them. It creates some sort of balance.

A republican President and republican congress gave us the Patriot Act, keep that in mind.

The Romney administration will pour honey in your ear, telling you how conservative you are, as they lube up the condom...

We are _____ with either of these candidates, one will tell you where he stands, the other will change his opinion more often than I change my boxers.

:goodpost: I agree with you

ricklee4570
04-25-2012, 02:55
Mitt Romney has said that he will make huge cuts in military retirement and wounded veterans. Coupled with his previous voting records it is a sad day for all.


Show me your source for this statement.

ricklee4570
04-25-2012, 02:59
http://aboutmittromney.com/celebrities.htm

Bren
04-25-2012, 04:44
****, let's dig Ronald Regans old bones up and throw him back in the oval office and may as well dig up George Washington for VP and Thomas jefferson for secretary of state. This election is a complete joke and all of the jackasses running including BO aren't even qualified for the office of street sweeper let alone commander in cheif!

I'll give you that. We seem to have come to a place where we get a bunch iof candidates and we find ridiculous reasons to eliminate the best and keep the worst - almost like Republicans are choosing the democrat and democrats are choosing the republican.

Bren
04-25-2012, 04:46
One party controlling two branches of government scares me. Alot of off the wall **** makes it through,

There are 3 branches and 2 parties (and even when it wasn't these 2 parties, there have generally been only 2). That means one party has always controlled 2 branches of government and will until a third party becomes equally popular.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 05:10
Wow, you Paulistas would support Ronald "Big Spender" Reagan? Why, because you've overheard your elders speaking wistfully about him? Get a clue. You won't get your "perfect" candidate. Ever. There is no such thing. GWB was a big spender, too. And, yet, he gave us Alito and Roberts who can actually read the Second Amendment, unlike Sotomayor and Kagan who think it only applies to the National Guard. Anyone who pretends that they support Ron Paul but will support Obama if Paul doesn't win the nomination is an Obama supporter. Be honest. You are part of the problem.

Cavalry Doc
04-25-2012, 06:10
Purists, pragmatists what it the tangible difference if the ideal situation is not attainable? Nothing but a stop gap, nothing but consenting to our possible continued comfort at the expense of our future generations. I can not live with myself consenting to that. :dunno: Thanks brother. I wouldn't want you to vote any other way either, just hoping to help folks realize what that vote means. As I imagine your point is as well.


Without any disrespect meant, the difference is their perception of what is possible. I too wish someone else was going to be the nominee, but no matter how badly I want that, it's not a factor. I don't see a Ron Paul presidency as possible. The end result will likely be Romney or Obama will be president this time next year. I too could sit out or vote third party, but to what effect?

If I can't have what I want, I'll try to take the best I can get. The only downside is I won't be able to buy a "don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper sticker. So, I won't be able to strut around the forum and claim moral superiority. But I'm ok with that.

The best I think I might be able to get is a first term liberal as president, a sad situation to be sure, but that's better in my humble opinion than a second term socialist.

Cavalry Doc
04-25-2012, 07:06
I'll give you that. We seem to have come to a place where we get a bunch iof candidates and we find ridiculous reasons to eliminate the best and keep the worst - almost like Republicans are choosing the democrat and democrats are choosing the republican.

Not really sure about the Dems picking a republican, they too seem to have found a way to elect the most liberal candidate. I'm really starting to see the folly in letting the little blue states go first in the primary system. The more conservative candidates seem to lose momentum (and probably monetary support) in that situation.

If we can't agree on a single day primary, maybe the republicans should reverse the order of states the dems are using.

Texas doesn't even get a say in the whole thing until its virtually decided, aaaaaagain.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 11:07
Wow, you Paulistas would support Ronald "Big Spender" Reagan? Why, because you've overheard your elders speaking wistfully about him? Get a clue. You won't get your "perfect" candidate. Ever. There is no such thing. GWB was a big spender, too. And, yet, he gave us Alito and Roberts who can actually read the Second Amendment, unlike Sotomayor and Kagan who think it only applies to the National Guard. Anyone who pretends that they support Ron Paul but will support Obama if Paul doesn't win the nomination is an Obama supporter. Be honest. You are part of the problem.

No, the problem is you surrendered your principles and now support progressive libs.

You then spend an inordinate amount of time telling us all how we should be like you and compromise our principles for the good of the country.

Your vitriol will continue to shed support that your candidate could never dream of.

Go ahead and vote for your progressive liberal if that's what you believe in but please don't act like it's a good thing.

Javelin
04-25-2012, 11:21
No, the problem is you surrendered your principles and now support progressive libs.

You then spend an inordinate amount of time telling us all how we should be like you and compromise our principles for the good of the country.

Your vitriol will continue to shed support that your candidate could never dream of.

Go ahead and vote for your progressive liberal if that's what you believe in but please don't act like it's a good thing.

:goodpost:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 11:46
No, the problem is you surrendered your principles and now support progressive libs.

You then spend an inordinate amount of time telling us all how we should be like you and compromise our principles for the good of the country.

Your vitriol will continue to shed support that your candidate could never dream of.

Go ahead and vote for your progressive liberal if that's what you believe in but please don't act like it's a good thing.

As you are a proven liar, I won't even bother to respond to your idiocy. Good luck with Paul. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 11:49
As you are a proven liar, I won't even bother to respond to your idiocy. Good luck with Paul. :wavey:

I haven't lied about anything and you have proven nothing save for the fact that you support progressive libs :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 11:52
I haven't lied about anything and you have proven nothing save for the fact that you support progressive libs :wavey:

You are a liar. You were given the chance to prove you were right and you ran away. Liar. Plain and simple. You are pathetic. Typical Paul supporter, though. Truth escapes you. Liar.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 11:55
You are a liar. You were given the chance to prove you were right and you ran away. Liar. Plain and simple. You are pathetic. Typical Paul supporter, though. Truth escapes you. Liar.

What exactly are you talking about? I've provided proof and links to everything I've claimed.

Please link to the lie.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:06
Typical liberal progressive tactic.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:09
As a cheerleader for a progressive liberal you have absolutely zero room to speak.

It's not even debatable. Your motives are what's wrong with this country and your candidate supports it.

You are the problem.

You don't even try to uphold conservative Republican characteristics.

You are part of the progressive movement that has undermined the founders sine Wilson.

You are the enemy.

Show me where I have been a "cheerleader for a progressive liberal", liar. I might even ask you to show me where I have been a "cheerleader" for any candidate, which should be even easier for you. You did not. You can not. You are a liar and a pathetic little brown shirt. Do you need more or are you done embarrassing yourself?

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 12:11
Show me where I have been a "cheerleader for a progressive liberal", liar. I might even ask you to show me where I have been a "cheerleader" for any candidate, which should be even easier for you. You did not. You can not. You are a liar and a pathetic little brown shirt. Do you need more or are you done embarrassing yourself?

Well you don't support Ron Paul you don't support Obama that leaves one person and he is a progressive liberal.

The Maggy
04-25-2012, 12:11
Typical liberal progressive tactic.

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.Are you surprised to see Mittens' supporters living by Saul's rules?

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:13
Are you surprised to see Mittens' supporters living my Saul's rules?

No.. no, I suppose not.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:13
Well you don't support Ron Paul you don't support Obama that leaves one person and he is a progressive liberal.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/s320x320/154506_10150832872797792_775547791_11553948_1095642243_n.jpg

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:15
Cheerleader. I suggest you pathetic little Paulistas look it up. You guys are sad. And syntaxerrorsix is a LIAR. Caught you, liar. Man up and admit it.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:16
Show me where I have been a "cheerleader for a progressive liberal", liar. I might even ask you to show me where I have been a "cheerleader" for any candidate, which should be even easier for you. You did not. You can not. You are a liar and a pathetic little brown shirt. Do you need more or are you done embarrassing yourself?

LOL wut? All your defense of Romeny is in no way connected with your favoring him for POTUS?

We can settle this quite easily.

Do you or do you not support Romney for the Republican candidate? If not why do you defend him so rabidly?

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:17
Cheerleader. I suggest you pathetic little Paulistas look it up. You guys are sad. And syntaxerrorsix is a LIAR. Caught you, liar. Man up and admit it.

:rofl:

Amazing. The perfect progressive liberal :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:19
JB I hereby remove your helmet and transfer it fortyofforty.

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

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:23
Nice Occupy Wall Street, Alinsky tactics from the Paulista camp. Pathetic liar. You and your apologists can keep supporting Ron Paul's Vanity Campaign if you want. Maybe he will throw his weight behind Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader again. Or maybe he'll endorse Obama this time. You are Socialists, through and through, with endorsements like that. You've revealed your true colors. Enjoy the ride home on the short bus, syntaxerrorsix. :wavey:

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 12:23
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/s320x320/154506_10150832872797792_775547791_11553948_1095642243_n.jpg

And the second type :dunno:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:24
Nice Occupy Wall Street, Alinsky tactics from the Paulista camp. Pathetic liar. You and your apologists can keep supporting Ron Paul's Vanity Campaign if you want. Maybe he will throw his weight behind Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader again. Or maybe he'll endorse Obama this time. You are Socialists, through and through, with endorsements like that. You've revealed your true colors. Enjoy the ride home on the short bus, syntaxerrorsix. :wavey:

Too little too late. Enjoy your progressive liberal candidate :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:25
I know you're dying to get the last word in so go for it. We could all use another laugh :rofl:

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 12:25
Cheerleader. I suggest you pathetic little Paulistas look it up. You guys are sad. And syntaxerrorsix is a LIAR. Caught you, liar. Man up and admit it.

Well ill admit I never seen you in a cheerleader uniform so maybe he was stretching the truth a little bit.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:37
If syntaxliarsix cares to actually post what he asked and what I actually replied in terms of Mitt Romney, I will be shocked. His history of honesty is poor thus far, so I expect no different from him now.

Bren
04-25-2012, 12:45
Not really sure about the Dems picking a republican, they too seem to have found a way to elect the most liberal candidate. I'm really starting to see the folly in letting the little blue states go first in the primary system. The more conservative candidates seem to lose momentum (and probably monetary support) in that situation.


What I meant was, it seems like each party is secretly registering as members of the other party to choose that parties' worst possible candidate in the primary, then they both end up with bad choices in the election.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:48
If syntaxliarsix cares to actually post what he asked and what I actually replied in terms of Mitt Romney, I will be shocked. His history of honesty is poor thus far, so I expect no different from him now.


O0o0o look at you and the clever pejoratives!!

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:50
We know you support a progressive lib because you defend Romney at every opportunity.

Are you saying that you don't? Will you stop then?

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:53
fortyofforty's Complete guide To internet Debate
1. Don’t address the points
2. Never follow and read the links your opponent offers up as evidence
3. Offer analogies that make no sense
4. Try to mix in controversial topics to destabilise your opponent.
5. Move the goal posts
6. Have the last word
7. If all else fails…
Play the man not the ball. Don’t answer any of his points, but just call his entire argument ‘moronic’ without giving a shred of evidence why. If you repeatedly describe your opponent and his arguments in language that implies stupidity or simplicity, the others in the room will assume you know more and will begin to agree with you.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:53
Oooooh, look at the constant dodging by the liar.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:54
fortyofforty's Complete guide To internet Debate
1. Don’t address the points
2. Never follow and read the links your opponent offers up as evidence
3. Offer analogies that make no sense
4. Try to mix in controversial topics to destabilise your opponent.
5. Move the goal posts
6. Have the last word
7. If all else fails…
Play the man not the ball. Don’t answer any of his points, but just call his entire argument ‘moronic’ without giving a shred of evidence why. If you repeatedly describe your opponent and his arguments in language that implies stupidity or simplicity, the others in the room will assume you know more and will begin to agree with you.

How did you get your hands on the Ron Paul Campaign Strategy? Nice work! :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:57
How did you get your hands on the Ron Paul Campaign Strategy? Nice work! :rofl:

You did NOT just use "I know you are but what am I?" Really?

:rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 12:57
Playground tactics at it's finest. You sir, win :rofl:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 12:58
Still nothing of substance from you, liar? No surprise. Thanks. :wavey:

JK-linux
04-25-2012, 13:11
Like I said, this thread is priceless.

Harper
04-25-2012, 14:14
I want to join a forum where there's an entrance exam. Perhaps there'd be a section for reading comprehension, logic, math, and science.

chickenwing
04-25-2012, 14:25
Cheerleader. I suggest you pathetic little Paulistas look it up. You guys are sad. And syntaxerrorsix is a LIAR. Caught you, liar. Man up and admit it.

You are one of the most obnoxious posters in this sub-forum. Your foaming at the mouth, absolute seething vitriol toward anything Ron Paul related is humorous though.

Keep aggressively attacking RP and his supporters, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. But your hypocrisy is plain to see.

You constantly attack RP and his supporters on this forum about being hypocrites over earmarks, yet would vote for Mitt.

All that BS about earmarks - you'd vote for the candidate that has no problem with earmarks, and government spending.

Attack the guy that wants to cut a trillion out of the federal budget, and audit the fed - over 1% of the budget, and never address the trillions in future obligations. Yet defend a big spending governor like Mitt who has no plans to actually reduce federal spending, just the rate government grows, and who had no problem as governor with earmarks. Brilliant.

You are a hypocrite.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 14:30
You are one of the most obnoxious posters in this sub-forum. Your foaming at the mouth, absolute seething vitriol toward anything Ron Paul related is humorous though.

Keep aggressively attacking RP and his supporters, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. But your hypocrisy is plain to see.

You constantly attack RP and his supporters on this forum about being hypocrites over earmarks, yet would vote for Mitt.

All that BS about earmarks - you'd vote for the candidate that has no problem with earmarks, and government spending.

Attack the guy that wants to cut a trillion out of the federal budget, and audit the fed - over 1% of the budget, and never address the trillions in future obligations. Yet defend a big spending governor like Mitt who has no plans to actually reduce federal spending, just the rate government grows, and who had no problem as governor with earmarks. Brilliant.

You are a hypocrite.

Careful, I've got it from a good source he's prepared to use the "I'm rubber you're glue" attack as soon as he feels the time is right :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:22
You are one of the most obnoxious posters in this sub-forum. Your foaming at the mouth, absolute seething vitriol toward anything Ron Paul related is humorous though.

Keep aggressively attacking RP and his supporters, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. But your hypocrisy is plain to see.

You constantly attack RP and his supporters on this forum about being hypocrites over earmarks, yet would vote for Mitt.

All that BS about earmarks - you'd vote for the candidate that has no problem with earmarks, and government spending.

Attack the guy that wants to cut a trillion out of the federal budget, and audit the fed - over 1% of the budget, and never address the trillions in future obligations. Yet defend a big spending governor like Mitt who has no plans to actually reduce federal spending, just the rate government grows, and who had no problem as governor with earmarks. Brilliant.

You are a hypocrite.

Awww. Sorry if you and the other Paulistas can't stand any criticism of your messiah. Tough. Deal with it. You idiots had four years to come up with a decent candidate to be your Libertarian standard-bearer. The best you could come up with is Ron Paul. That perhaps reflects more poorly on Libertarians than it does on Paul. It's not Paul's fault he's so lame. He is what he is.

You will have four or eight years to come up with a better candidate. I suggest you spend your energy finding a decent, reasonable, successful candidate instead of a loser who hasn't run anything in his life.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:24
Careful, I've got it from a good source he's prepared to use the "I'm rubber you're glue" attack as soon as he feels the time is right :wavey:

Careful, syntaxliarsix might accidentally tell the truth.

Care to prove how much of a Romney cheerleader I am, liar? I thought not. All talk, no action. Just like Ronnie Earmarks and his stand on the Constitution. Only when it's convenient. Only when it's convenient. Nice job. :wavey:

RCP
04-25-2012, 16:25
I'm pushing for 4. No to Mitt Romney ever being POTUS.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 16:27
Awww. Sorry if you and the other Paulistas can't stand any criticism of your messiah. Tough. Deal with it. You idiots had four years to come up with a decent candidate to be your Libertarian standard-bearer. The best you could come up with is Ron Paul. That perhaps reflects more poorly on Libertarians than it does on Paul. It's not Paul's fault he's so lame. He is what he is.

You will have four or eight years to come up with a better candidate. I suggest you spend your energy finding a decent, reasonable, successful candidate instead of a loser who hasn't run anything in his life.

Romney, the best of the GOP.

:shakehead:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:27
I'm pushing for 4. No to Mitt Romney ever being POTUS.

Yep, that's typical. No surprise there.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:28
Romney, the best of the GOP.

:shakehead:

Romney. Kicked Ron Paul's ass in election after election. :rofl:

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 16:29
Romney. Kicked Ron Paul's ass in election after election. :rofl:

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:34
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Yes, that must be it. Everybody who didn't vote for Ron Paul is stupid. Good luck with that philosophy. Your candidates will continue to go far. :upeyes:

How about not pushing a radical extremist who is a few cards short of a full deck next time? How about not pushing someone who recently endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney? How about not pushing someone who has had no success convincing anyone to support his positions in Congress? Again, you've got some time to work it out. Good luck.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 16:37
Yes, that must be it. Everybody who didn't vote for Ron Paul is stupid. Good luck with that philosophy. Your candidates will continue to go far. :upeyes:

How about not pushing a radical extremist who is a few cards short of a full deck next time? How about not pushing someone who recently endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney? How about not pushing someone who has had no success convincing anyone to support his positions in Congress? Again, you've got some time to work it out. Good luck.

To throw away all the conservative momentum gained in 2010 on a progressive liberal Romney. Yep, stupid.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:39
To throw away all the conservative momentum gained in 2010 on a progressive liberal Romney. Yep, stupid.

As opposed to nominating somebody who has no real chance of beating Obama. Yeah, that would have worked. :whistling:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:40
Careful, syntaxliarsix might accidentally tell the truth.

Care to prove how much of a Romney cheerleader I am, liar? I thought not. All talk, no action. Just like Ronnie Earmarks and his stand on the Constitution. Only when it's convenient. Only when it's convenient. Nice job. :wavey:

Dude you've been found lacking on so many levels I really don't think anyone takes you seriously.

Please carry on.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:41
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Ample evidence abounds.

Cavalry Doc
04-25-2012, 16:42
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it is before this thread is locked

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:42
40, if you think I'm a liar simply stop defending Mit.

Or... tell us who you are voting for.

Either way? You'll still be a bag of doosh. :wavey:

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 16:43
As opposed to nominating somebody who has no real chance of beating Obama. Yeah, that would have worked. :whistling:

What makes you think Romney can beat obama? Because the leftwing media picked him for you?

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:43
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it is before this thread is locked

Not anymore :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:44
Dude you've been found lacking on so many levels I really don't think anyone takes you seriously.

Please carry on.

Liar, you typify Paul supporters. You bend and distort the truth to suit your needs. When challenged on your facts you attack and hurl insults (and can't stand it when you get it right back). It's been fun, but you have no integrity so it is unproductive carrying on with you. You simply cannot defend yourself or Ron Paul, and all you have left is brown-shirt, Alinsky-style retorts. Bye, liar. :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:45
What makes you think Romney can beat obama? Because the leftwing media picked him for you?

What makes you think Paul can beat Obama? Because the leftwing media picked him for you?

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 16:47
What makes you think Paul can beat Obama? Because the leftwing media picked him for you?


The leftwing media didn't pick Ron Paul. Can't say the same about Romney.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:51
Liar, you typify Paul supporters. You bend and distort the truth to suit your needs. When challenged on your facts you attack and hurl insults (and can't stand it when you get it right back). It's been fun, but you have no integrity so it is unproductive carrying on with you. You simply cannot defend yourself or Ron Paul, and all you have left is brown-shirt, Alinsky-style retorts. Bye, liar. :wavey:
I provide links and information. I provide opinion.

Some folks can't do that without wetting their pants and jumping to ad hominem attacks :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:52
C'mon 40 tell us why you hate RP so much? Did he solve your debt problem too quickly? Did he reduce the federal agency that supported your lifestyle?

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:55
The leftwing media didn't pick Ron Paul. Can't say the same about Romney.

The leftwing media treats Ron Paul with deference. They constantly gave him more air time than his results would dictate. They never pointed out Paul's shortcomings or idiotic policy positions, and allowed him ample opportunities to present his ideas during debates because they believed it served to weaken the Republican Party. Contrast that with how they treated Dennis Kucinich. Do a little research on how they dealt with radical challengers to their frontrunners. Useful idiots comes to mind.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 16:57
I provide links and information. I provide opinion.

Some folks can't do that without wetting their pants and jumping to ad hominem attacks :wavey:

Really? I thought I had seen your little pink helmet before. Must be my mistake. You'd never resort to ad hominem attacks. :rofl: Try that one on somebody who still believes anything you say. You lost all credibility here.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:58
The leftwing media treats Ron Paul with deference. They constantly gave him more air time than his results would dictate. They never pointed out Paul's shortcomings or idiotic policy positions, and allowed him ample opportunities to present his ideas during debates because they believed it served to weaken the Republican Party. Contrast that with how they treated Dennis Kucinich. Do a little research on how they dealt with radical challengers to their frontrunners. Useful idiots comes to mind.

And then they selected Romney for you to vote for.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTc4Zw_r29UM0afIOWzFOMIU08tRaK_WnfJAAutrB4T46JJOaW0ng

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 16:59
Really? I thought I had seen your little pink helmet before. Must be my mistake. You'd never resort to ad hominem attacks. :rofl: Try that one on somebody who still believes anything you say. You lost all credibility here.

Oh no.

You earned that helmet.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:00
I really didn't think JB could get it taken away but you proved us all wrong. He is WAY more stable a poster..

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:01
You should have your own poll.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:03
Go on get the last word.. you deserve it :wavey:

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 17:06
The leftwing media treats Ron Paul with deference. They constantly gave him more air time than his results would dictate. They never pointed out Paul's shortcomings or idiotic policy positions, and allowed him ample opportunities to present his ideas during debates because they believed it served to weaken the Republican Party. Contrast that with how they treated Dennis Kucinich. Do a little research on how they dealt with radical challengers to their frontrunners. Useful idiots comes to mind.

Ron got very little airtime in the debates. However, every time he spoke he was met with resounding applause. That does not change the fact that the MSM picked your progressive liberal guy.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:06
Your love affair with Ron Paul is almost legendary. You can all be proud. The snake oil salesman has you all fooled. So far Ron Paul has not solved my debt problem. Paul hasn't solved the country's debt problem. He hasn't really solved anything except his personal debt problem by amassing a small fortune and possibly the debt problems of some of his constituents with pork barrel spending. Aside from that I don't see much of a record of success. He’s all talk and no action. Like the GT Paulistas.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 17:08
Your love affair with Ron Paul is almost legendary. You can all be proud. The snake oil salesman has you all fooled. So far Ron Paul has not solved my debt problem. Paul hasn't solved the country's debt problem. He hasn't really solved anything except his personal debt problem by amassing a small fortune and possibly the debt problems of some of his constituents with pork barrel spending. Aside from that I don't see much of a record of success. He’s all talk and no action. Like the GT Paulistas.

And Romney will? :rofl:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:09
Ron got very little airtime in the debates. However, every time he spoke he was met with resounding applause. That does not change the fact that the MSM picked your progressive liberal guy.

Really? How many of the MSM voted for Romney? They must really vote a lot. Or are you alleging massive election fraud that prevented the real winner Ron Paul from being nominated? :rofl: Seriously, Romney is under constant attack by the media. Paul gets a pass. I have yet to hear much negative said about Paul in the MSM. Right now they are ignoring him, but they are not delving into his proposed policies or past indiscretions, that's for sure.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:10
And Romney will? :rofl:

Wait wait wait.. I'd hate for him to call you a liar too.

I think you better point out where 40 supports Romney....



:rofl:....

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:11
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqcMDfwJfZGy1WnKL7ITjqeX_F6NCdV4oelGxTWDKbEKur1XspdQ

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:12
And Romney will? :rofl:

At least Romney has run a company. And the Olympics. And a state. A little more difficult than being 1/435 of a debating society and only deciding how to spend tax money to pay back constituents with pork, I'd say.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:13
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqcMDfwJfZGy1WnKL7ITjqeX_F6NCdV4oelGxTWDKbEKur1XspdQ

Self portrait? Or is that your ***?

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:14
Liar. The last word. Liar.

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:15
Really? How many of the MSM voted for Romney? They must really vote a lot. Or are you alleging massive election fraud that prevented the real winner Ron Paul from being nominated? :rofl: Seriously, Romney is under constant attack by the media. Paul gets a pass. I have yet to hear much negative said about Paul in the MSM. Right now they are ignoring him, but they are not delving into his proposed policies or past indiscretions, that's for sure.

If somebody says the MSM (main stream media) picked your candidate for you they probably mean by bias news coverage not by voting.


"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

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:16
If somebody says the MSM (main stream media) picked your candidate for you they probably mean by bias news coverage not by voting.


"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

Really? You can't see sarcasm can you? Since Romney is being attacked by the MSM and Paul is getting a complete pass, how exactly did the MSM choose Romney? :rofl:

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:17
At least Romney has run a company. And the Olympics. And a state. A little more difficult than being 1/435 of a debating society and only deciding how to spend tax money to pay back constituents with pork, I'd say.

A lot of liberal big government people have run business does not mean their politics are worth a crap, means they are good at business.


"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

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:18
Which is probably what we need right now rather than somebody who is good at being a Congressman and career politician. We've got that. It hasn't worked out too well.

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:21
Really? You can't see sarcasm can you? Since Romney is being attacked by the MSM and Paul is getting a complete pass, how exactly did the MSM choose Romney? :rofl:

No it is hard to tell sarcasm since you misrepresent things as facts in your arguments all the time it's hard to pick up sarcasm from you, btw no sarcasm there.

Does the phrases "Mitt Romney from most likely nomination winner" or "Ron Paul will never win the nomination nobody takes him serious". have you statement similar to that from news reporters and personalities during this election cycle?


"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

G-19
04-25-2012, 17:23
http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-8754-35a8.jpg

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:24
Which is probably what we need right now rather than somebody who is good at being a Congressman and career politician. We've got that. It hasn't worked out too well.

The Government is not a business, business sole purpose is profit the Government main purpose is to protect my liberties and our nation, after reading his books I know who also thinks that is the government most important role, it's not Mitt.


"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

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:25
http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-8754-35a8.jpg

No that would be Bachamann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, and now Newt.


"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

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:30
No that would be Bachamann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, and now Newt.


"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


Aw let them elect a progressive lib and tell us how wrong we are.

It's not as if the Republican party can do better with the rabid act their constituents displayed here.

No better than welfare recipients complaining about food stamps. They are bought and paid for.

If they weren't they would really be concerned and looking for solid conservative candidates and demanding a better Republican platform

All they see is Oabama bad Republican good. Maybe, maybe they really don't understand political differences.

I've got enough bullets and food to weather their stupidity. I'll still eat and they'll still be dependent.

Wrote off..

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 17:41
Really? You can't see sarcasm can you? Since Romney is being attacked by the MSM and Paul is getting a complete pass, how exactly did the MSM choose Romney? :rofl:

Hmm..

How the Media Covered the 2012 Primary Campaign



http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:42
Hmm..

How the Media Covered the 2012 Primary Campaign



http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report

Wait what?


..........Paul enjoyed the most consistently positive portrayal of any candidate in the race. But that was offset by the fact that the media virtually ignored him. Paul had 11 weeks out of 15 in which the media attention paid to him was clearly more positive than negative. The next closest were Romney and Santorum, at six weeks each. But Paul received about one-eighth as much coverage as Romney and about one-quarter as much as Santorum and Gingrich. With little attention came little vetting. In all, 3% of Paul’s coverage scrutinized his personal background or public record, the lowest of any candidate in the primaries..............

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:43
Say it isn't so.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 17:46
Say it isn't so.

Oh yeah, Romney even got more favorable coverage than obama

Media Covered Romney Twice As Favorably As Obama During GOP Primary, Study Says



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/media-covered-romney-twice-as-favorably-as-obama-during-gop-primary-study-says/

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:46
No it is hard to tell sarcasm since you misrepresent things as facts in your arguments all the time it's hard to pick up sarcasm from you, btw no sarcasm there.

Care to provide examples?

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:49
Care to provide examples?

Not really I don't get that into post mining that much.


"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

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:49
Every Ron Paul thread eventually devolves into a Paulista circle-jerk. Go ahead, Paulistas. Form your circle, tell each other how smart and enlightened you are, and enjoy yourselves! :wavey:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:50
Not really I don't get that into post mining that much.

Your statement is false. You make a claim that is false and refuse to back it up with facts. You've revealed your true colors. You've learned from sillylittleliarsix very well. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:53
Every Ron Paul thread eventually devolves into a Paulista circle-jerk. Go ahead, Paulistas. Form your circle, tell each other how smart and enlightened you are, and enjoy yourselves! :wavey:

Harsh words from a pivot man.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:53
Your statement is false. You make a claim that is false and refuse to back it up with facts. You've revealed your true colors. You've learned from sillylittleliarsix very well. :wavey:


Amazing..

RC-RAMIE
04-25-2012, 17:54
Your statement is false. You make a claim that is false and refuse to back it up with facts. You've revealed your true colors. You've learned from sillylittleliarsix very well. :wavey:

Sig change


Disclaimer my post might be based on my opinion and perception of your post, if you don't agree with my opinion I don't care.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:55
Here you go, Paulistas. Here's one of the candidates your messiah endorsed for President in 2008. Enjoy yourselves. Yeah, he's a reasonable guy. He'd make a great President himself.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TVwUzod5_yQ/TvTC0kBEBxI/AAAAAAAABBA/DqNvgVY4Dk8/s1600/mckinney.jpg

No problems there. None at all.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 17:56
Harsh words from a pivot man.

Have one hand free, do you?

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:57
Sig change


Disclaimer my post might be based on my opinion and perception of your post, if you don't agree with my opinion I don't care.

Delusional.. Welcome to the Republican party.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 17:58
Expected response. I just can't compete with 12 year old insults anymore. I thought he was just kidding at first. I won't do it anymore I swear. You can't fix stupid and you can't debase them on their level.

Lesson learned.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:00
What's wrong, your silly little pink helmet picture not available?

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 18:04
What's wrong, your silly little pink helmet picture not available?

:yawn:

You've been found wanting. Pretty much anyone with a solid opinion won't respond to you either.

I'm sure you will be very ronry. Have a great life.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:09
:yawn:

You've been found wanting. Pretty much anyone with a solid opinion won't respond to you either.

I'm sure you will be very ronry. Have a great life.

You were proven a liar. I called you out on it. You ran away and resorted to ad hominem attacks. You showed your true colors. Enjoy supporting Ron "The Biggest Loser" Paul. With supporters like you, I'm hardly surprised he did so poorly. He's a radical extremist and only weak-minded idiots could fail to see through his pie-in-the-sky promises based on his track record of dismal failures. Be proud of your spot in the Paulista firmament of idiocy. You shine brightly there. :wavey: Good night, liar.

OVERTHEHILLGUY
04-25-2012, 18:10
:steamed:STOP!!-STOP-!! STOP!! All you Obama haters and you Rommey butt kissers!!!
They both hate all of us gun people.
They will tell you one thing then do the other.
BTW.. what has Obama done against us gun owners?
I can not trust ANY of them.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 18:12
:steamed:STOP!!-STOP-!! STOP!! All you Obama haters and you Rommey butt kissers!!!
They both hate all of us gun people.
They will tell you one thing then do the other.
BTW.. what has Obama done against us gun owners?
I can not trust ANY of them.

Yep..

Restless28
04-25-2012, 18:12
The jerk is strong with this forty dude.

Cavalry Doc
04-25-2012, 18:13
Ron got very little airtime in the debates. However, every time he spoke he was met with resounding applause. That does not change the fact that the MSM picked your progressive liberal guy.

Well, if you look at the whole situation.... Some of the ignoring was predictable. Just about any Radio or TV personality that dared to not praise him received thousands of spam/hate mails. Crowds of rowdy youth chasing some of them through the streets at night throwing snowballs at them. That tends to turn some guys off. There is also the fact that he didn't reach the top tier in polling in the last race. When it was a 3 way race last time, in his own state, he couldn't break 10%.

Add that together with some of the stories about the newsletters and his statements on submarines, and it all added up to a public relations nightmare.

The internet exists, and the avenues have been out there for people to learn about RP. For a multitude of reasons, it just didn't catch on.

The MSM can influence people, but it's not the efficient mind control mechanism that some pretend it is. The last time that I watched an MSM newscast, was MSNBC on election night in 2010. That was for comedy, not news.

The people that have voted in the primaries have chosen Romney. Not my choice. Not your choice, and not the choice of the majority of Americans. Just the choice of the guys that got off their butts and voted.

No need to make believe in pretend stories. And just in case it comes up, yes, I'd be just as critical of someone that said that the only reason people vote for Ron Paul was because they were brainwashed into entering a cult.


We may all razz each other a bit, and we may really disagree with one another. But if you want to fix something that didn't work, you have to look at what was broken.

The Paul campaign has been very disorganized, he didn't raise enough cash, he (and some of his supporters) had made adversaries out of people they should have been making friends with, and he started way down in the polls. That, and he was a guy that has a platform that is closer to the libertarian platform than the republican platform.

Even Paul has known that he was not going to win, and has hinted that his real reason for running was to get his message out there. Which is still the most likely reason that he will choose to run third party, to keep the message going, not with an expectation to win.


Still, I think the last 3 standing should get a speaking role at the convention. Maybe someone else will take up the torch.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:15
BTW.. what has Obama done against us gun owners?

Sotomayor.

Kagan.

Holder.

Fast and Furious.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:16
The jerk is strong with this forty dude.

Bursting your little Paulista bubble really ticks you idiots off. That's priceless. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 18:18
You were proven a liar. I called you out on it. You ran away and resorted to ad hominem attacks. You showed your true colors. Enjoy supporting Ron "The Biggest Loser" Paul. With supporters like you, I'm hardly surprised he did so poorly. He's a radical extremist and only weak-minded idiots could fail to see through his pie-in-the-sky promises based on his track record of dismal failures. Be proud of your spot in the Paulista firmament of idiocy. You shine brightly there. :wavey: Good night, liar.


I called you a rabid Romney cheerleader. You have not denounced it. No, you go full rabid doosh when discussing him.

If you're not simply say so. Calling me a liar doesn't change you.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 18:19
It does however make you look rather silly and you don't need any help there.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 18:24
Bursting your little Paulista bubble really ticks you idiots off. That's priceless. :wavey:

Objectively, I would say that it is you that is ticked off. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 18:25
Objectively, I would say that it is you that is ticked off. :wavey:

Agreed, worked up into a tissy.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:25
I called you a rabid Romney cheerleader. You have not denounced it. No, you go full rabid doosh when discussing him.

If you're not simply say so. Calling me a liar doesn't change you.

No, but calling you a liar is calling a spade a spade. You are a liar. If you would have cared to look, I said that, if Romney wins the Republican nomination and faces Obama in the general election, I would support Romney. That you turn into my being a "cheerleader" for Romney. You are a liar, and are too scared to admit it. Go back. Check the facts. Anyone else is welcome to find the posts, too. sillylittleliarsix just steps in it, over and over. Now, back to the circle sillylittleliarsix.

OVERTHEHILLGUY
04-25-2012, 18:27
MR. FORTY Sotomayor. Who gave her final approval? The senate.

Kagan.Who gave her final approval? The senate.

Holder. who Gave him final approval? The senate.

Fast and Furious. Who is NOT investagating in depth and pushing on before this is forgotten? The congress!!

I am 74 yrs old and belive me this is not the country I grew-up in.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:28
Objectively, I would say that it is you that is ticked off. :wavey:

Objectively, you guys are pissed that Ron Paul won't win anything. He's an incompetent buffoon who can't even beat a candidate you say is a horrible choice for anyone to make. What does that say about Paul? I am laughing at Paulistas every day, as Paul's campaign sinks like the Titanic.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 18:29
No, but calling you a liar is calling a spade a spade. You are a liar. If you would have cared to look, I said that, if Romney wins the Republican nomination and faces Obama in the general election, I would support Romney. That you turn into my being a "cheerleader" for Romney. You are a liar, and are too scared to admit it. Go back. Check the facts. Anyone else is welcome to find the posts, too. sillylittleliarsix just steps in it, over and over. Now, back to the circle sillylittleliarsix.

Have you read your posts when his validity is questioned?

You really don't think you fool anyone do you? Seriously?

So me pointing it out makes me a liar? Dude there's nothing left to say :dunno:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:30
Sotomayor. Who gave her final approval? The senate.

Controlled by Democrats.

Kagan.Who gave her final approval? The senate.

Controlled by Democrats.

Holder. who Gave him final approval? The senate.

Controlled by Democrats.

Fast and Furious. Who is NOT investagating in depth and pushing on before this is forgotten? The congress!!

Republicans are trying to investigate the matter, but are being stonewalled by Holder and the Justice Department.

I am 74 yrs old and belive me this is not the country I grew-up in.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

If "all" includes the Democrats, that's fine. But it never does.

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 18:33
Have you read your posts when his validity is questioned?

You really don't think you fool anyone do you? Seriously?

So me pointing it out makes me a liar? Dude there's nothing left to say :dunno:

Then stop spouting off. Like Paul, you think spewing carbon dioxide is solving problems. The better of two choices between Obama and Romney is hardly acting as a cheerleader, except for Paulistas for whom any challenge to their messiah is sacrilege. I’m done trying to debate logically with a liar, so I’m out. Good night. :wavey:

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 18:33
Objectively, you guys are pissed that Ron Paul won't win anything. He's an incompetent buffoon who can't even beat a candidate you say is a horrible choice for anyone to make. What does that say about Paul? I am laughing at Paulistas every day, as Paul's campaign sinks like the Titanic.

No, not pissed at all. Just saddened that people selected Romney out of the litter because they were told he was the only one that could win, saddened that the conservative resurgence via the TEA party is over, saddened that this country will have to suffer through another progressive no matter who (Romney or Obama) is elected.

syntaxerrorsix
04-25-2012, 18:35
Then stop spouting off. Like Paul, you think spewing carbon dioxide is solving problems. The better of two choices between Obama and Romney is hardly acting as a cheerleader, except for Paulistas for whom any challenge to their messiah is sacrilege. I’m done trying to debate logically with a liar, so I’m out. Good night. :wavey:

No worries. Everyone here see's the obvious. Good night.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 18:37
Controlled by Democrats.



Controlled by Democrats.



Controlled by Democrats.



Republicans are trying to investigate the matter, but are being stonewalled by Holder and the Justice Department.



If "all" includes the Democrats, that's fine. But it never does.

Lindsey Graham Supports Elena Kagan, First Republican To Back SCOTUS Nominee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/lindsey-graham-supports-e_n_652659.html

Lindsey Graham will support Sonia Sotomayor

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/07/22/lindsey-graham-will-support-sonia-sotomayor/

OVERTHEHILLGUY
04-25-2012, 18:51
Mr. forty,

What part of "ALL" don't you understand? I dislike/distrust ALL of them.

Senate controled by the dems...yes and by the voters who put them in office.
That is the way our founding fathers set up our goverment .

If you have a problem with this call Tom Jefferson,and et tal they will help you.

Ruble Noon
04-25-2012, 18:52
Mr. forty,

What part of "ALL" don't you understand? I dislike/distrust ALL of them.

Senate controled by the senate...yes and by the voters who put them in office.
That is the way our founding fathers set up our goverment .

If you have a problem with this call Tom Jefferson,and et tal he will help you.

A wise man. :wavey:

G-19
04-25-2012, 18:55
Well, if you look at the whole situation.... Some of the ignoring was predictable. Just about any Radio or TV personality that dared to not praise him received thousands of spam/hate mails. Crowds of rowdy youth chasing some of them through the streets at night throwing snowballs at them. That tends to turn some guys off. There is also the fact that he didn't reach the top tier in polling in the last race. When it was a 3 way race last time, in his own state, he couldn't break 10%.

Add that together with some of the stories about the newsletters and his statements on submarines, and it all added up to a public relations nightmare.

The internet exists, and the avenues have been out there for people to learn about RP. For a multitude of reasons, it just didn't catch on.

The MSM can influence people, but it's not the efficient mind control mechanism that some pretend it is. The last time that I watched an MSM newscast, was MSNBC on election night in 2010. That was for comedy, not news.

The people that have voted in the primaries have chosen Romney. Not my choice. Not your choice, and not the choice of the majority of Americans. Just the choice of the guys that got off their butts and voted.

No need to make believe in pretend stories. And just in case it comes up, yes, I'd be just as critical of someone that said that the only reason people vote for Ron Paul was because they were brainwashed into entering a cult.


We may all razz each other a bit, and we may really disagree with one another. But if you want to fix something that didn't work, you have to look at what was broken.

The Paul campaign has been very disorganized, he didn't raise enough cash, he (and some of his supporters) had made adversaries out of people they should have been making friends with, and he started way down in the polls. That, and he was a guy that has a platform that is closer to the libertarian platform than the republican platform.

Even Paul has known that he was not going to win, and has hinted that his real reason for running was to get his message out there. Which is still the most likely reason that he will choose to run third party, to keep the message going, not with an expectation to win.


Still, I think the last 3 standing should get a speaking role at the convention. Maybe someone else will take up the torch.

When I came to GTPI, it was to see what people were saying about the candidates. I liked Santorum, but still wanted to read opinions of others. After reading the posts of some RP supporters, and seeing how they attacked people just because they disagreed with them it made me not like him. They called people stupid, socialists, etc. if they even hinted they did not agree with Paul. Now, I must say there are a few areas I agree with Paul, and a few that I don't. However, after seeing the way his supporters act there is no way I would support him. I know several people that have said the same thing. That RP might be a good guy, but his supporters are nuts.

So I started messing with them just to see how pissed they could get. It was quite fun actually. They are so easy to taunt. I even admitted to posting things to get their goat, and they still bit every time. They call everyone stupid, but yet they let themselves be drawn into situations and behave in ways that negatively reflect on their candidate. That's why the media has left him alone. His party is self destructing.

I have said time and time again that RP supporters are Paul worse enemies. Instead of bashing people with different views they should be trying to sway them to their side by trying to find common ties to build on. Better luck next time. Maybe you will learn from your mistakes. Because you are directly responsible for his poor showing.

Cavalry Doc
04-25-2012, 18:55
Is there a new bounty on threads, or is it time to discard duplicate usernames?

1: you're a poopy head!
2: No, YOU'RE a poopy head!

This probably won't last long.

Cavalry Doc
04-25-2012, 19:04
When I came to GTPI, it was to see what people were saying about the candidates. I liked Santorum, but still wanted to read opinions of others. After reading the posts of some RP supporters, and seeing how they attacked people just because they disagreed with them it made me not like him. They called people stupid, socialists, etc. if they even hinted they did not agree with Paul. Now, I must say there are a few areas I agree with Paul, and a few that I don't. However, after seeing the way his supporters act there is no way I would support him. I know several people that have said the same thing. That RP might be a good guy, but his supporters are nuts.

So I started messing with them just to see how pissed they could get. It was quite fun actually. They are so easy to taunt. I even admitted to posting things to get their goat, and they still bit every time. They call everyone stupid, but yet they let themselves be drawn into situations and behave in ways that negatively reflect on their candidate. That's why the media has left him alone. His party is self destructing.

I have said time and time again that RP supporters are Paul worse enemies. Instead of bashing people with different views they should be trying to sway them to their side by trying to find common ties to build on. Better luck next time. Maybe you will learn from your mistakes. Because you are directly responsible for his poor showing.

I got bored a while ago trying to get some to admit that there were imperfections in Paul too. Hey, if you are all for a candidate, good for you. I envy that. I haven't been excited about any of the candidates this time.

So, ok, the campaign is not turning out the way most of us would like. Calling other candidates names and taunting one another fixes nothing, if done well, it can be entertaining, but I'm starting to think the Fonze has jumped the shark on that sitcom.

QNman
04-25-2012, 19:13
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it is before this thread is locked

I'm surprised it isn't yet.

QNman
04-25-2012, 19:18
I got bored a while ago trying to get some to admit that there were imperfections in Paul too. Hey, if you are all for a candidate, good for you. I envy that. I haven't been excited about any of the candidates this time.

So, ok, the campaign is not turning out the way most of us would like. Calling other candidates names and taunting one another fixes nothing, if done well, it can be entertaining, but I'm starting to think the Fonze has jumped the shark on that sitcom.

I appreciate your posts, Doc. Always have. Always the calm voice of reason, even in the rare event we disagree. :cheers:

fortyofforty
04-25-2012, 20:02
Mr. forty,

What part of "ALL" don't you understand? I dislike/distrust ALL of them.

Senate controled by the dems...yes and by the voters who put them in office.
That is the way our founding fathers set up our goverment .

If you have a problem with this call Tom Jefferson,and et tal they will help you.

OK, that's fine. There is not one member of Congress you trust. Not Ron Paul. Not Paul Ryan. Not anyone. I understand that broad brush approach. I don't necessarily agree, but it's your right to hold that opinion.

If anyone has a problem with the way we select presidential candidates, they can call Tom Jefferson, et al., they will help you.

So, knowing that we elect Presidents, and Presidents select Supreme Court justices, and Senators rarely reject nominees, having a Republican in the White House is vital, in my opinion. Justices like Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg are destroying the country you knew. I will work to prevent it from happening. :wavey:

OVERTHEHILLGUY
04-25-2012, 22:26
A "good" gop senator, Richard Luger from my state of In.
Voted for all of Obama's supreme court nomanees. Voted for a A W ban.
Voted to ban hunting.
Voted to ban high cap mags.
No thanks, there must be someone better.
Dems or GOP no diff.
As I said before, TRUST NO ONE.

chickenwing
04-26-2012, 01:12
Awww. Sorry if you and the other Paulistas can't stand any criticism of your messiah. Tough. Deal with it. You idiots had four years to come up with a decent candidate to be your Libertarian standard-bearer. The best you could come up with is Ron Paul. That perhaps reflects more poorly on Libertarians than it does on Paul. It's not Paul's fault he's so lame. He is what he is.

You will have four or eight years to come up with a better candidate. I suggest you spend your energy finding a decent, reasonable, successful candidate instead of a loser who hasn't run anything in his life.

Thanks for proving my point about being obnoxious.



Funny, you just described the GOP in your rant about libertarians. The GOP is rushing to the left to defeat the left. Don't blame Ron or libertarians for that. The GOP has gone so far to the left Ron appears to be a libertarian when compared to politicians like Mitt. But that's what GOP voters want, so it is what it is. Lipstick on a pig.

Ron has been warning America about big-government since the early eighties, his delivery isn't great, nor is it the message most want to hear, but it's reality. But some how Ron and his supporters are the idiots, while you defend the nomination of another progressive republican like Mitt? Yeah...OK. I don't see it.

Instead of actually standing for the rhetoric the GOP spouts against big-government, Mitt is who you guys support? Really? That's the best the GOP can do? Mitt?

Wont be much of a debate since they agree with each-other on economic issues involving government intervention, and taxes. Add in their dislike of "assault" weapons and, fondness of socialized medicine, it will be a real lively debate that shows the difference between the two.

Mitt and Barry can argue over who loves government the most and who receives the most money from Goldman Sachs.



I suggest you invest the energy you waste whining about Ron and his supporters to find a candidate that actually believes in the limited government rhetoric the GOP stands for and a record that proves it.

ricklee4570
04-26-2012, 03:18
OK, that's fine. There is not one member of Congress you trust. Not Ron Paul. Not Paul Ryan. Not anyone. I understand that broad brush approach. I don't necessarily agree, but it's your right to hold that opinion.

If anyone has a problem with the way we select presidential candidates, they can call Tom Jefferson, et al., they will help you.

So, knowing that we elect Presidents, and Presidents select Supreme Court justices, and Senators rarely reject nominees, having a Republican in the White House is vital, in my opinion. Justices like Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg are destroying the country you knew. I will work to prevent it from happening. :wavey:

I agree.

To those that think Obama is not or will not do anything anti-gun is crazy. No wonder the entertainer in chief is on the road to get re-elected. And this is from people on a gun forum!

fortyofforty
04-26-2012, 05:21
A "good" gop senator, Richard Luger from my state of In.
Voted for all of Obama's supreme court nomanees. Voted for a A W ban.
Voted to ban hunting.
Voted to ban high cap mags.
No thanks, there must be someone better.
Dems or GOP no diff.
As I said before, TRUST NO ONE.

I agree trust no one in politics. However, to claim there is no difference between Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan or Samuel Alito and John Roberts is naive. They were nominated by a Democrat and a Republican, respectively. They are in for life. With a Republican in the White House, we have a much better chance of getting another Roberts than another Sotomayor, and to think otherwise might allow you to pretend to be jaded but it is wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed under substantial Democrat majorities, by the way.

fortyofforty
04-26-2012, 05:23
I agree.

To those that think Obama is not or will not do anything anti-gun is crazy. No wonder the entertainer in chief is on the road to get re-elected. And this is from people on a gun forum!

This is the way in which Paulistas allow themselves to support Obama for reelection. They pretend they see no difference between Obama and any Republican save Ron Paul. They ignore history, and gloss over little inconveniences like Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan.

syntaxerrorsix
04-26-2012, 09:08
This is the way in which Paulistas allow themselves to support Obama for reelection. They pretend they see no difference between Obama and any Republican save Ron Paul. They ignore history, and gloss over little inconveniences like Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan.


You refuse to understand.

It's not about RP.

It's about a conservative Republican candidate and the lack thereof.

You are the only one continually bringing up RP into the conversation while steadfastly refusing to admit your defense of Romney.

fortyofforty
04-26-2012, 10:04
You refuse to understand.

It's not about RP.

It's about a conservative Republican candidate and the lack thereof.

You are the only one continually bringing up RP into the conversation while steadfastly refusing to admit your defense of Romney.

You refuse to understand. If Paul's ideas are so great, then the fault lies with the messenger and his acolytes. You claim Paul's ideas are great, yet refuse to admit his presentation is atrocious. Paul is one of the worst presidential candidates in history, yet Paulistas continue defend him. The only answer you have is to blame the voters. That's pretty lame. Look in the mirror, and go back to the drawing board. Then pretend there is no difference between a liberal Republican like George W. Bush and a Socialist like Obama, when the Supreme Court appointments prove otherwise. No one with intelligence actually believes you. You've exhausted all your creditability.

syntaxerrorsix
04-26-2012, 10:26
You refuse to understand. If Paul's ideas are so great, then the fault lies with the messenger and his acolytes. You claim Paul's ideas are great, yet refuse to admit his presentation is atrocious. Paul is one of the worst presidential candidates in history, yet Paulistas continue defend him. The only answer you have is to blame the voters. That's pretty lame. Look in the mirror, and go back to the drawing board. Then pretend there is no difference between a liberal Republican like George W. Bush and a Socialist like Obama, when the Supreme Court appointments prove otherwise. No one with intelligence actually believes you. You've exhausted all your creditability.


There you go again. Firing off about RP and not admitting that the real problem lies with the Republican party.

Yeah, my credibility is shot and all the intelligent people are clinging to your every word. You're delusional at best.

fortyofforty
04-26-2012, 11:15
There you go again. Firing off about RP and not admitting that the real problem lies with the Republican party.

Yeah, my credibility is shot and all the intelligent people are clinging to your every word. You're delusional at best.

Yes, and you've done your part to convince more people to support Ron Paul. :rofl: Nice job! :wavey:

By the way, why are you so surprised that conservative voters would choose a candidate that represents a more conservative pace of change like Romney over a candidate that promises radical change? Or that voters would choose a candidate with a record over a candidate with no record of achievement and just a bunch of empty promises of what he would do? That's the cream of the crop, in your opinion, and that says a lot about you. Sad.

syntaxerrorsix
04-26-2012, 11:30
Yes, and you've done your part to convince more people to support Ron Paul. :rofl: Nice job! :wavey:

By the way, why are you so surprised that conservative voters would choose a candidate that represents a more conservative pace of change like Romney over a candidate that promises radical change? Or that voters would choose a candidate with a record over a candidate with no record of achievement and just a bunch of empty promises of what he would do? That's the cream of the crop, in your opinion, and that says a lot about you. Sad.

This is your idea of good? Take a nice long time to get back to conservative values our founders envisioned?

How much time do you suppose it should take to return to pre-Wilson conservative values?

fortyofforty
04-26-2012, 11:35
Given Paul's record of zero actual accomplishments besides spewing carbon dioxide, and given his obvious duplicity on issues like respect for the Constitution, it is hardly unreasonable to select another choice, which a large majority of the voting public has done. All that remains is for Paulistas to decide whether you will act like peevish children who didn't get your way or mature citizens who realize that politics is not an "all or nothing" proposition.

syntaxerrorsix
04-26-2012, 11:43
Given Paul's record of zero actual accomplishments besides spewing carbon dioxide, and given his obvious duplicity on issues like respect for the Constitution, it is hardly unreasonable to select another choice, which a large majority of the voting public has done. All that remains is for Paulistas to decide whether you will act like peevish children who didn't get your way or mature citizens who realize that politics is not an "all or nothing" proposition.

Still ranting on about RP and avoiding questions.

I suppose you'll just have to be written off. Your communications skills are stuck on attack. See ya.