If Paul wins the nomination. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If Paul wins the nomination.


G-19
05-02-2012, 19:17
If by some miracle Paul was to get the nomination, I will vote a third party or do a write in.

After reading the comments made by his supporters there is no way I could support him. Anyone who's supporters advocate letting people starve, wish people would lose their jobs, etc is not a person I could vote for. Their disdain for anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest way is outrageous. I have not personally met anyone, from either party, that attacks people the way RP supporters do.

RP supporters have been quick to say how they will not vote for Romney. Some have said they will vote third party, and some even said they will vote for Obama. They say it would teach republicans a lesson for not following Paul. They are determined, that if the republicans do not nominate RP, to try and divide the party to ensure Romney loses the general election. They act like little children, they get hurt feelings so they want to take their ball and go home. I have said it before, you RP fanatics are his worst enemy. I am sure I am not alone on this.

I won't vote for Obama, but I also can not / will not vote Ron Paul.

The Machinist
05-02-2012, 19:26
That's fine. Vote for the anti-gun Obamacare architect if it makes you feel better. :dunno:

G-19
05-02-2012, 19:33
And voting for a racist bent on setting America back 100 years is better?

Barcroft
05-02-2012, 19:34
"Anyone who's supporters advocate letting people starve, wish people would lose their jobs, etc is not a person I could vote for".

Uh, Dr. Paul has never espoused any such positions. You've not listned to him.

G-19
05-02-2012, 19:41
I did not say he did, I said his supporters did.

Cavalry Doc
05-02-2012, 19:41
Fair enough. Everyone should vote the way they want. I'm pretty sure Romney will run third party if Paul is able to sneak in the back door of the convention and sneak away with the prize.

It's an individual right, and an individual choice.


Personally, I'll be voting for Paul in the primary, but only because I don't have a better choice, and then the most viable Barry defeating candidate I can find in the general. It seems very logical to me. Not so much to others. But I can live with that.

wrenrj1
05-02-2012, 19:42
Hope and miracles are not plans. It won't happen. Better to think about the realities of getting another guy in the office.

The Machinist
05-02-2012, 19:52
And voting for a racist bent on setting America back 100 years is better?
Where do you even come up with this stuff?

QNman
05-02-2012, 19:58
If Paul should steal the nomination... He will get my vote. More happily than voting for Romney. But he has to get the nomination. Because 3p just won't do it.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:05
Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Out of his own mouth:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/15/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/

stevelyn
05-02-2012, 20:08
For the people who claim RP is not a factor in this election, they sure seem to OCD about him a lot.

And voting for a racist bent on setting America back 100 years is better?

Racist? I'm sorry sir, but your card is over the limit and has been declined.

Cavalry Doc
05-02-2012, 20:08
If Paul should steal the nomination... He will get my vote. More happily than voting for Romney. But he has to get the nomination. Because 3p just won't do it.

I'd add to that a bit. If he is able to sneak in the backdoor and steal/secure (depends on perspective, :dunno:OK?) the nomination, and there is a large popular backlash, and Romney is still the most likely to smoke Barry in the General, then it seems reasonable to vote for the guy that has the best possibility to beat barry, unless there is more than one that is at least close. A third party polling less than 20%, in the believable polls, and among your own informal one with your friends might be a nice pipe dream, and it's OK if you like to dream, but I have another top priority.


If all of the Paul Guys really want us to support them, then just do me one small favor, make sure Ron is the most likely candidate to beat Barry. Cause if you can't do that, you're candidate is a fourth tier runner in a two way race.

But for you, vote exactly the way you want, for the reasons you want, and with the approval of the people you want.

It's your right. Exercise it.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:12
Out of his own mouth:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/15/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/

I think your real objections to RP are rooted in the fact that you make your living off of other people's taxes. Those of us in the private sector have to actually go out and produce so guys like you can get a paycheck. I know you can't understand the distinction but I figured I'd mention it anyway.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:18
I think your real objections to RP are rooted in the fact that you make your living off of other people's taxes. Those of us in the private sector have to actually go out and produce so guys like you can get a paycheck. I know you can't understand the distinction but I figured I'd mention it anyway.

It is nice to know how RP supporters really feel about the people who put their lives on the line to keep them safe. I am sure there are a lot of cops, correction officers, firemen, and military members just lining up to support him. I must be twice as bad, I left the Air Force and took a job in Corrections. I must be a terrible person. Enjoy your freedom that is protected by the military, and the safety your local law enforcement provide.

It probably irritates the heck out of you that we even get to vote.

The Machinist
05-02-2012, 20:22
Out of his own mouth:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/15/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/
None of those quotes makes him a racist. You're falling perfectly into the liberal trap that crucifies anyone with the audacity to point out marked differences in the behavioral patterns of the races that comprise the US population. I don't see him espousing white supremacy, or white separation. You don't even know what racism is, beyond the hackneyed version of it fed to you by the media.

You want to see real racism? Look at what the progressives have done to blacks. They've eviscerated an entire race, and transformed them into violent, government-dependent, family-hating monsters. This is because progressives despise blacks. They hate them, and have always hated them. You can go all the way back to model progressives such as Margaret Sanger, to see what they felt, and still do feel about blacks.

They think they're something less than human, and keeping them corralled in the government pen is the perfect way to keep them under control.

That's racism. Ron Paul is nothing like that.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:24
None of those quotes makes him a racist. You're falling perfectly into the liberal trap that crucifies anyone with the audacity to point out marked differences in the behavioral patterns of the races that comprise the US population. I don't see him espousing white supremacy, or white separation. You don't even know what racism is, beyond the hackneyed version of it fed to you by the media.

You want to see real racism? Look at what the progressives have done to blacks. They've eviscerated an entire race, and transformed them into violent, government-dependent, family-hating monsters. This is because progressives despise blacks. They hate them, and have always hated them. You can go all the way back to model progressives such as Margaret Sanger, to see what they felt, and still do feel about blacks.

They think they're something less than human, and keeping them corralled in the government pen is the perfect way to keep them under control.

That's racism. Ron Paul is nothing like that.

But he likes their money, don't he. Or did you miss that part.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:26
It is nice to know how RP supporters really feel about the people who put their lives on the line to keep them safe. I am sure there are a lot of cops, correction officers, firemen, and military members just lining up to support him. I must be twice as bad, I left the Air Force And took a job in Corrections.

It probably irritates the heck out of you that we even get to vote.

Actually I'm just pointing out that you subsist on money confiscated from people who are part of the productive class. I seem to recall you don't understand the difference between gubmint jobs and the private sector.

You could always quit "putting your life on the line" and go out and generate revenues rather than depend on those of us in the private sector.

The Machinist
05-02-2012, 20:27
But he likes their money, don't he. Or did you miss that part.
This is why I usually only type a sentence or two in most my posts. Most people don't bother to read anything more lengthy than a text message.

Why waste your vote on Romney, when you could vote for Obama? Go big or go home.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:27
Actually I'm just pointing out that you subsist on money confiscated from people who are part of the productive class. I seem to recall you don't understand the difference between gubmint jobs and the private sector.

You could always quit "putting your life on the line" and go out and generate revenues rather than depend on those of us in the private sector.

You are welcome.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:29
This is why I usually only type a sentence or two in most my posts. Most people don't bother to read anything more lengthy than a text message.

Why waste your vote on Romney, when you could vote for Obama? Go big or go home.

Oh, I read it, but changing the table to point out other's flaws don't distract from RP's.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:30
If by some miracle Paul was to get the nomination, I will vote a third party or do a write in.

After reading the comments made by his supporters there is no way I could support him. Anyone who's supporters advocate letting people starve, wish people would lose their jobs, etc is not a person I could vote for. Their disdain for anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest way is outrageous. I have not personally met anyone, from either party, that attacks people the way RP supporters do.

RP supporters have been quick to say how they will not vote for Romney. Some have said they will vote third party, and some even said they will vote for Obama. They say it would teach republicans a lesson for not following Paul. They are determined, that if the republicans do not nominate RP, to try and divide the party to ensure Romney loses the general election. They act like little children, they get hurt feelings so they want to take their ball and go home. I have said it before, you RP fanatics are his worst enemy. I am sure I am not alone on this.

I won't vote for Obama, but I also can not / will not vote Ron Paul.

Trolling again I see.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:31
But he likes their money, don't he. Or did you miss that part.

There are probably a number of racists that pay taxes that results in your salary. Maybe we could figure out what portion it is and you can return a part of your paycheck every month.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:31
Trolling again I see.

Just like you, I see.

The Machinist
05-02-2012, 20:32
Oh, I read it, but changing the table to point out other's flaws don't distract from RP's.
You ought to know what racism is before you accuse others of being racist. That was the point I failed to get across. :dunno:

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:33
I'd add to that a bit. If he is able to sneak in the backdoor and steal/secure (depends on perspective, :dunno:OK?) the nomination, and there is a large popular backlash, and Romney is still the most likely to smoke Barry in the General, then it seems reasonable to vote for the guy that has the best possibility to beat barry, unless there is more than one that is at least close. A third party polling less than 20%, in the believable polls, and among your own informal one with your friends might be a nice pipe dream, and it's OK if you like to dream, but I have another top priority.


If all of the Paul Guys really want us to support them, then just do me one small favor, make sure Ron is the most likely candidate to beat Barry. Cause if you can't do that, you're candidate is a fourth tier runner in a two way race.

But for you, vote exactly the way you want, for the reasons you want, and with the approval of the people you want.

It's your right. Exercise it.

Might be a good campaign song for Paul.

The Doors - Back Door Man - YouTube

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:34
There are probably a number of racists that pay taxes that results in your salary. Maybe we could figure out what portion it is and you can return a part of your paycheck every month.

That is a stupid comment. That would be like saying if any of your income was from drug money, no matter how far removed, you should be jailed.

He took money directly from a known racist group and refused to give it back.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:34
You are welcome.

You should be thanking people like me actually. You know, the people who put their skill and capital to work so that people like you can have a job. Civil servants have really got this whole thing backwards.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:35
Just like you, I see.

No, you admitted that you get your jollies from trolling Paul supporters so I Imagine that is what you are doing again.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:36
That is a stupid comment. That would be like saying if any of your income was from drug money, no matter how far removed, you should be jailed.

He took money directly from a know racist group and refused to give it back.

You took money from your neighbor. Are you going to give it back?

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:36
That is a stupid comment. That would be like saying if any of your income was from drug money, no matter how far removed, you should be jailed.

He took money directly from a know racist group and refused to give it back.

Sounds pretty good to me. Less money for the known racist group.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:38
No, you admitted that you get your jollies from trolling Paul supporters so I Imagine that is what you are doing again.

Yeah, you got me. I just wanted you to see how you guys sound when you say the same thing about not voting for Romney. :)

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:38
Sounds pretty good to me. Less money for the known racist group.

Now, that is a stupid comment.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:40
You took money from your neighbor. Are you going to give it back?

I took nothing. I got paid for a service provided.

Are you saying that paul provided a service for the racist group?

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:41
I took nothing. I got paid for a service provided.

By taking money from your neighbor.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:43
By taking money from your neighbor.

Man, you really hate paying taxes don't you. How else are cops, firemen, correction officers going to receive pay if it was not for taxes? Are you really that out of touch?

You say that the states should make their own laws. Well, my state passed laws that taxes people of the state to pay for me to secure convicted felons so they are not loose on the streets, there by protecting those citizens of this state. Now, you say I am wrong. Why? It is the states choice, aren't you for state rights?

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:48
Man, you really hate paying taxes don't you. How else are cops, firemen, correction officers going to receive pay if it was not for taxes? Are you really that out of touch?

I'm not out of touch. I know where money comes from, who pays taxes and who creates wealth.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:49
Read what I added to that post.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:50
I'm not out of touch. I know where money comes from, who pays taxes and who creates wealth.

So it is an elitist thing. Now I see, all hail the mighty ruble noon.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:50
Man, you really hate paying taxes don't you. How else are cops, firemen, correction officers going to receive pay if it was not for taxes? Are you really that out of touch?

It's just kind of a bottom line thing for me. Your salary is paid from money confiscated from the productive class. I feel that way about pretty much all government employees save firefighters and the military.

G-19
05-02-2012, 20:52
It's just kind of a bottom line thing for me. Your salary is paid from money confiscated from the productive class. I feel that way about pretty much all government employees save firefighters and the military.

Oh, really. Now that explains a lot. You do realize you have made a point to defend a man who gave up being a doctor to be a government employee. Ever wonder why? Could it be because he found it more lucrative. Now even his son is on the dole. You my friend are a hypocrite.

evlbruce
05-02-2012, 20:53
Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Governor Romney is much more progressive; he supports race quotas.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:54
Oh, really. Now that explains a lot.

Somehow I don't think you'll ever really understand it.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 20:57
So it is an elitist thing. Now I see, all hail the mighty ruble noon.

No, it's a taxpayer thing, something that you know nothing about.

G-19
05-02-2012, 21:00
Somehow I don't think you'll ever really understand it.

I understand, You just have your panties in a wad because you have to pay taxes. Do you really think RP will lower taxes? He is a career public employee, in fact gave up being a doctor to be one. Like I said above, even his son is one now. Do you think he would do anything to hurt himself? Please tell me you are not that stupid. He is just playing an untapped base.

G-19
05-02-2012, 21:02
No, it's a taxpayer thing, something that you know nothing about.

Hey, like you keep saying, "State Rights". I am employed by a state, who's laws require my position and that it will be funded by taxes, so it must be ok. After all "State Rights".

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 21:03
Oh, really. Now that explains a lot. You do realize you have made a point to defend a man who gave up being a doctor to be a government employee. Ever wonder why? Could it be because he found it more lucrative. Now even his son is on the dole. You my friend are a hypocrite.

There's a pretty glaring difference between your government check and Ron Paul's. I have freely chosen to support him whereas I'm pretty much stuck with guys like you.

G-19
05-02-2012, 21:05
There's a pretty glaring difference between your government check and Ron Paul's. I have freely chosen to support him whereas I'm pretty much stuck with guys like you.

Yeah, but it is "State Rights". Is not that your mantra?

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 21:06
There's a pretty glaring difference between your government check and Ron Paul's. I have freely chosen to support him whereas I'm pretty much stuck with guys like you.

Yeah, and next year they will threaten to strike for more of your money.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 21:11
Yeah, but it is "State Rights". Is not that your mantra?

You've gone off the rails. What are you talking about? State, federal, neither has anything to do with the fact that you depend on the productive class for a paycheck.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 21:13
Yeah, and next year they will threaten to strike for more of your money.

Yeah because we need to lock more people up. G19's job is safe. The land of the free incarcerates more people than any other country.

G19G20
05-02-2012, 22:23
Funny watching GTPI posters who only a couple months ago were yelling about how Paul had no chance and was an afterthought, or whatever, now seeing the writing on the wall regarding delegates and getting just plain sour and angry about it.

Glocksanity
05-02-2012, 22:42
If by some miracle Paul was to get the nomination, I will vote a third party or do a write in.

After reading the comments made by his supporters there is no way I could support him.

And if some Glock owners say stupid things are you going to sell your Glocks and vow never to own any more?

That is just silly logic. Heck, it is probably some COINTELPRO guys on forums writing that stuff.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 04:43
Funny watching GTPI posters who only a couple months ago were yelling about how Paul had no chance and was an afterthought, or whatever, now seeing the writing on the wall regarding delegates and getting just plain sour and angry about it.

Are you kidding? This is fun to watch. But I really don't like any of them very much. The Paul strategy is still likely to come up short of him getting the nomination, but it adds a little excitement to a race that is pretty much over before I get a say in it. The only person you want to make nervous is Mittens.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 04:46
And if some Glock owners say stupid things are you going to sell your Glocks and vow never to own any more?

That is just silly logic. Heck, it is probably some COINTELPRO guys on forums writing that stuff.

G-19 has a semi-valid point. The president doesn't go to Washington alone. Who he surrounds himself with would be an issue.

Casting a vote is an individual sport. People can play it any way they want, for whatever reasons they want, and since you can't stop them, why worry about it?

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 04:51
Yeah because we need to lock more people up. G19's job is safe. The land of the free incarcerates more people than any other country.

Other than the petty drug users and a few other petty issues, I think that's a sign of success. I think we need to make room though, for the really bad guys, so should either start building more prisons, or decriminalize marijuana. Just a superficial thought. There would be a lot of details to get public support for that.

Goaltender66
05-03-2012, 05:30
Funny watching GTPI posters who only a couple months ago were yelling about how Paul had no chance and was an afterthought, or whatever, now seeing the writing on the wall regarding delegates and getting just plain sour and angry about it.

You're still trying to make that sale?

:rofl:

Paul's delegate strategery is just a way to keep the dupes thinking that they are accomplishing something.

PawDog
05-03-2012, 06:14
Anyone who decries taxpayers funds being used to incarcerate convicted criminals should go ahead and volunteer to house a few in their own home.

So, how many child molesters, serial killers, and rapists are you each willing to take home with you today?

Bren
05-03-2012, 06:17
If by some miracle Paul was to get the nomination, I will vote a third party or do a write in.

Then, as I have said to the people who would vote Paul as a 3rd party candidate - your vote will go to help Obama get reelected, same as voting "Obama."

I'll be voting Republican, because only the Republican can beat Obama. Make Nancy Pelosi the Republican candidate and I'll vote for her.


After reading the comments made by his supporters there is no way I could support him. Anyone who's supporters advocate letting people starve, wish people would lose their jobs, etc is not a person I could vote for.

Sounds like you were probably going to vote Democrat anyhow, so it makes sense.

Snowman92D
05-03-2012, 06:41
Anyone who decries taxpayers funds being used to incarcerate convicted criminals should go ahead and volunteer to house a few in their own home.

If RP gets elected to the Oval Office we won't need jails. Everybody knows that once drugs are legalized there won't be any crime. :smoking:

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 06:44
If RP gets elected to the Oval Office we won't need jails. Everybody knows that once drugs are legalized there won't be any crime. :smoking:

Just a small step farther, if we make everything legal, there won't be any crime. :upeyes:

Snowman92D
05-03-2012, 06:48
Correct...that's the beauty of anarchy. :whistling:

ChuteTheMall
05-03-2012, 06:54
If Ron Paul wins this nomination, I absolutely guarantee that unicorns will poop rainbows of skittles on every street in America;


and UFOs will land in DC and the aliens will carry cookbooks;
and zombies will re-elect 0bama with Demonrat majorities in both the Senate and the House;
and Glock will produce a single-stack 9mm in addition to a carbine.
:elephant:

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 06:54
Correct...that's the beauty of anarchy. :whistling:

The fantasy of anarchy is pretty, the reality is a loss of freedom and it's downright ugly. If anarchy was the answer, Somalia would be utopia.

True anarchy lasts mere moments, then people start organizing. A couple of friends get together, then gangs form, then tribes with their warlords form. It's human nature.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 07:11
Man, you really hate paying taxes don't you. How else are cops, firemen, correction officers going to receive pay if it was not for taxes? Are you really that out of touch?



And who else will their unions negotiate with if not the citizens?

You say that the states should make their own laws. Well, my state passed laws that taxes people of the state to pay for me to secure convicted felons so they are not loose on the streets, there by protecting those citizens of this state. Now, you say I am wrong. Why? It is the states choice, aren't you for state rights?

Chances are, if Paul would win, adhere to the Constitution and leave drug regulation to the states, we would need far fewer of you corrections officers.

Perhaps that is one of the key reasons you are so vehemently opposed to Paul? The current drug laws are what keep you employed.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 07:13
Anyone who decries taxpayers funds being used to incarcerate convicted criminals should go ahead and volunteer to house a few in their own home.

So, how many child molesters, serial killers, and rapists are you each willing to take home with you today?

How much are you paying?

If it is enough, I'll take them and build my own prison. Private guards.

We can return the balance to the government.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 07:24
Does everyone at least agree that the truly bad guys should be locked up? The Madoff's, rapists, burglars and violent ones should be locked up. Maybe not the potheads and jaywalkers, but the ones that cannot behave without injuring others, I'm thinking they need to be removed from society.

Ruble Noon
05-03-2012, 10:37
Does everyone at least agree that the truly bad guys should be locked up? The Madoff's, rapists, burglars and violent ones should be locked up. Maybe not the potheads and jaywalkers, but the ones that cannot behave without injuring others, I'm thinking they need to be removed from society.

Permanently.

Glocksanity
05-03-2012, 10:59
G-19 has a semi-valid point. The president doesn't go to Washington alone. Who he surrounds himself with would be an issue.

Casting a vote is an individual sport. People can play it any way they want, for whatever reasons they want, and since you can't stop them, why worry about it?

The point is that G-19 didn't want to support RP because what some of RP's supposed followers were saying. Well, there are crazies that support everything and everybody and by that logic, nothing or no one is supportable. I am criticizing the logic, not the vote.

If he doesn't want to vote for RP because he thinks RP is a crazy and will surround himself with other crazies, then I can respect his decision. But to not vote for RP because some internet crazies that claim to like RP say some stupid things? That logic is not reasonable in my mind.

geo57
05-03-2012, 11:00
Funny watching GTPI posters who only a couple months ago were yelling about how Paul had no chance and was an afterthought, or whatever, now seeing the writing on the wall regarding delegates and getting just plain sour and angry about it.

I never yelled it, but I'm still calmly saying Paul has no chance. Sour and angry about this ? I can assure you I'm not about this subject. Amused maybe though. Since this wall writing is so clear to you that you feel he does have a chance, if you'd care to make a friendly wager on him winning the GOP nomination, gentleman's honor, feel free to pm me or email me so we can set up the terms .

lancesorbenson
05-03-2012, 11:42
Anyone who decries taxpayers funds being used to incarcerate convicted criminals should go ahead and volunteer to house a few in their own home.

So, how many child molesters, serial killers, and rapists are you each willing to take home with you today?

I assume your talking about me. I never said criminals shouldn't be locked up. I've pointed out to G19 that his paycheck is derived from money taken from those who go out and produce. He has equated being paid with taxpayers money to working for the private sector, saying that the latter are just sucking off the teat of their bosses. It was an insane argument.

Having said that, the group of offenders you mentioned make up a relatively small percentage of the prison population. I'd like those non-violent offenders to be out sooner to make sure there's plenty of room for the violent offenders. Of course, roughly half are incarcerated for drugs to the tune of nearly $30,000 a year a piece. This is something that will ultimately have to change.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty used a little more prodigiously. Child molestors come to mind.

beforeobamabans
05-03-2012, 11:57
Personally, I'll be voting for Paul in the primary,
You have got to be kidding! After all the anti-Paul crap you've posted here? :wow:

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 12:40
The point is that G-19 didn't want to support RP because what some of RP's supposed followers were saying. Well, there are crazies that support everything and everybody and by that logic, nothing or no one is supportable. I am criticizing the logic, not the vote.

If he doesn't want to vote for RP because he thinks RP is a crazy and will surround himself with other crazies, then I can respect his decision. But to not vote for RP because some internet crazies that claim to like RP say some stupid things? That logic is not reasonable in my mind.

Mostly agreed. But I can guarantee you that some people have been turned off by supporters of Paul. Stuff happens, even if we may not think that is logical, and oh well, we'll have to get over it.

Bren
05-03-2012, 12:47
The fantasy of anarchy is pretty, the reality is a loss of freedom and it's downright ugly. If anarchy was the answer, Somalia would be utopia.

True anarchy lasts mere moments, then people start organizing. A couple of friends get together, then gangs form, then tribes with their warlords form. It's human nature.


Exactly right - Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it just has a tribal/warlord rule. Not the same at all.

However, what does that have to do with Ron Paul? He doesn't advocate anything like anarchy - just a government that leans more toward freedom than government control. He doesn't advocate getting rid of laws that protect people from each other.

Bren
05-03-2012, 12:49
Mostly agreed. But I can guarantee you that some people have been turned off by supporters of Paul. Stuff happens, even if we may not think that is logical, and oh well, we'll have to get over it.

I'll give you that - Ron Paul is the "Open Carry" of political candidates...the only thing wrong with him is that nobody wants to be identified with some of the more visible nuts talking about him in public.

G-19
05-03-2012, 12:51
Doc, you are the only sensible RP supporter on this site. Good to know they are not all nuts.

G-19
05-03-2012, 13:01
Nobody ever answered the question why RP took money from a known racist group.

Instead they turned it into an attack on my employment. Why is it when confronted with something bad about Paul, his supporters ignore the question and go into attack mode?

frank4570
05-03-2012, 13:02
However, what does that have to do with Ron Paul? He doesn't advocate anything like anarchy - just a government that leans more toward freedom than government control. He doesn't advocate getting rid of laws that protect people from each other.

And President is not the King.
He can move things in a direction, like toward smaller government. He can't just throw away everything in the system he doesn't like and replace it with laws he writes himself.

beforeobamabans
05-03-2012, 13:05
Doc, you are the only sensible RP supporter on this site. Good to know they are not all nuts.
:rofl: Doc an RP supporter? :rofl:

lancesorbenson
05-03-2012, 14:01
Nobody ever answered the question why RP took money from a known racist group.

Instead they turned it into an attack on my employment. Why is it when confronted with something bad about Paul, his supporters ignore the question and go into attack mode?

I'll pretend that wasn't responded to earlier. The implication is that because Ron Paul won't return campaign donations to some racist, then he must be racist. It's a ridiculous argument. Those people are free to donate money to whoever they wish and Ron Paul is free to accept it. Your perception of that is your problem.

I don't see Romney sending checks back to Goldman Sachs or others who made a nice profit dealing in mortgage-based derivatives and the bailouts.

I take it you disagree with asset seizures in criminal cases too? Why I can't believe the government would just take and use that money made in a criminal enterprise! That's bad money!

chickenwing
05-03-2012, 14:22
Nobody ever answered the question why RP took money from a known racist group.

Instead they turned it into an attack on my employment. Why is it when confronted with something bad about Paul, his supporters ignore the question and go into attack mode?

Ron Paul "I don't want white supremacists support" - YouTube



Wait, you're whining about being attacked after all the trolling you've done, and have admitted that you get a certain amount of pleasure provoking RP supporters?..Posters are suppose to feel bad for you now?? Huh??? :rofl:

Here, this guy is gonna play a tune for you on a tiny violin sir.

Playing a Sad Tune on Tiny Violin - YouTube

G-19
05-03-2012, 15:49
Ron Paul "I don't want white supremacists support" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c)



Wait, you're whining about being attacked after all the trolling you've done, and have admitted that you get a certain amount of pleasure provoking RP supporters?..Posters are suppose to feel bad for you now?? Huh??? :rofl:

Here, this guy is gonna play a tune for you on a tiny violin sir.

Playing a Sad Tune on Tiny Violin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxauqa7rJgI)

I never asked anyone to feel bad for me. I just wanted to know why you guys always change the topic.

lancesorbenson
05-03-2012, 16:22
I never asked anyone to feel bad for me. I just wanted to know why you guys always change the topic.

What is your point? Ron Paul kept donated money from a known racist? And?

fortyofforty
05-03-2012, 18:48
One picture

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

is worth a thousand words. He'd have to spend tens of millions of dollars just trying to dig himself out from under this one photograph.

So far Ron Paul has been given a pass by the MSM. That would end if he won the nomination, and the knives would come out. He'd be cut to shreds and lose in a landslide to Odumbo.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 19:14
Exactly right - Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it just has a tribal/warlord rule. Not the same at all.

However, what does that have to do with Ron Paul? He doesn't advocate anything like anarchy - just a government that leans more toward freedom than government control. He doesn't advocate getting rid of laws that protect people from each other.

Admittedly off topic for the thread, but on topic for the response to the specific post I was responding too.

I don't think Paul is an anarchist, besides, anarchists don't liker libertarians.

Found by accident when I was looking for something else.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Anarchismnlibertarianism.png

Not likely do endear Libertarians to the anarchists, is it??? There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 19:21
Doc, you are the only sensible RP supporter on this site. Good to know they are not all nuts.

There are several former (banned) members that are no longer with us that would roll over in their cyber-graves if they heard anyone refer to me as a "Paul supporter". But I'm not a Paul hater either. I guess I'd be an equal opportunity critic of all the candidates, if you were looking for an accurate label.

With only two guys left standing in the Texas Primary, I'll vote for Paul. But it looks like the plan will be to vote for the most likely candidate that can beat Barry in the General, and right now, I think that will be Romney. http://fc02.deviantart.net/images2/i/2004/06/c/f/Terribly_Unhappy____aww_.gif

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 19:23
:rofl: Doc an RP supporter? :rofl:

Thanks for helping to clear that up. :wavey:

Voting for someone does not necessarily make you their "supporter".

RC-RAMIE
05-03-2012, 19:23
There are several former (banned) members that are no longer with us that would roll over in their cyber-graves if they heard anyone refer to me as a "Paul supporter". But I'm not a Paul hater either. I guess I'd be an equal opportunity critic of all the candidates, if you were looking for an accurate label.

With only two guys left standing in the Texas Primary, I'll vote for Paul. But it looks like the plan will be to vote for the most likely candidate that can beat Barry in the General, and right now, I think that will be Romney. http://fc02.deviantart.net/images2/i/2004/06/c/f/Terribly_Unhappy____aww_.gif

And some of us that are not banned to.


....

QNman
05-03-2012, 19:29
And some of us that are not banned to.


....

You've read his signature that has been there for a couple months, right?

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 19:38
You've read his signature that has been there for a couple months, right?

With an edit a couple of moths ago to add "(& now paul)" after "Romney", then took that off after Paul and Romney were the only two left about a week ago to avoid confusion.

My three least favorite candidates are the only ones left. We simply have to change the primary. Either reverse the order of the states, or have it all on one day. Otherwise, I am largely disenfranchised.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 19:39
And some of us that are not banned to.


....

You wouldn't have a cyber-grave. Guess you could roll your eyes or tongue though.

RC-RAMIE
05-03-2012, 19:39
You've read his signature that has been there for a couple months, right?

Yes but that still does not make him a RP supporter.


....

barbedwiresmile
05-03-2012, 19:46
One picture

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

is worth a thousand words.

Yes. It is.

G-19
05-03-2012, 20:00
One picture

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

is worth a thousand words. He'd have to spend tens of millions of dollars just trying to dig himself out from under this one photograph.

So far Ron Paul has been given a pass by the MSM. That would end if he won the nomination, and the knives would come out. He'd be cut to shreds and lose in a landslide to Odumbo.

Bingo!

People are quick to slam Romney, but they fail to look at RP's issues that have not even been touched as of yet. If he was nominated it would be a slaughter.

RCP
05-03-2012, 20:07
Yes. It is.

You must be a big ol mean racist too with that Confederate flag in your avatar.:tongueout:

lancesorbenson
05-03-2012, 20:08
Bingo!

People are quick to slam Romney, but they fail to look at RP's issues that have not even been touched as of yet. If he was nominated it would be a slaughter.

People are quick to slam Romney because he has espoused pro-abortion, pro healthcare mandate, and anti-gun beliefs not too long ago. But Ron Paul stood in front of a Confederate flag so he's bad. I find it funny that so many Republicans allow the MSM to dictate who their most "electable" option is and Republicans just parrot it. Yeah, I want the liberal media dictating who the Republican candidate should be. That's working out really well.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 20:18
People are quick to slam Romney because he has espoused pro-abortion, pro healthcare mandate, and anti-gun beliefs not too long ago. But Ron Paul stood in front of a Confederate flag so he's bad. I find it funny that so many Republicans allow the MSM to dictate who their most "electable" option is and Republicans just parrot it. Yeah, I want the liberal media dictating who the Republican candidate should be. That's working out really well.

You know, the more I think about it, it's not the media, it's the friggin' primary process that lets the little blue states go first. That effects momentum and obviously funding.

Reverse the order that the states go in next time, or have the whole darn primary on the same day.

See if you don't get a different result.

Ruble Noon
05-03-2012, 20:30
You know, the more I think about it, it's not the media, it's the friggin' primary process that lets the little blue states go first. That effects momentum and obviously funding.

Reverse the order that the states go in next time, or have the whole darn primary on the same day.

See if you don't get a different result.

The republican party pushed our primary back this year. Did they move yours also?

lancesorbenson
05-03-2012, 20:32
You know, the more I think about it, it's not the media, it's the friggin' primary process that lets the little blue states go first. That effects momentum and obviously funding.

Reverse the order that the states go in next time, or have the whole darn primary on the same day.

See if you don't get a different result.

I agree, and while the process itself seems stupid to me, the media uses that process to shape the race. They make it a horse race with the endless polling and commentary from various "strategists" and suddenly everyone who watches the coverage just starts repeating what they've heard, as if watching TV makes them an expert. The prolonged process allows the liberal media to frame the race for Republicans to the point where it is now nonsensical.

And for the record, there's no doubt this race would look different if Texas were first to vote. But now, because of the order, it looks like Texas will end up voting for the Yankee progressive with magic underwear.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 20:33
The republican party pushed our primary back this year. Did they move yours also?

Sort of. The State Republicans gerrymandered the heck out of the state districts after the census (we picked up a few reps). So the dems kept challenging it in court. Initially we were going to vote in the first week in March. It got pushed back.'


Let the largest 10 red states go first for a change. Makes sense.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 20:36
I agree, and while the process itself seems stupid to me, the media uses that process to shape the race. They make it a horse race with the endless polling and commentary from various "strategists" and suddenly everyone who watches the coverage just starts repeating what they've heard, as if watching TV makes them an expert. The prolonged process allows the liberal media to frame the race for Republicans to the point where it is now nonsensical.

And for the record, there's no doubt this race would look different if Texas were first to vote. But now, because of the order, it looks like Texas will end up voting for the Yankee progressive with magic underwear.

I think it's more a factor of the momentum, which affects funding, which affects the ability to campaign. Granted, some of them step on their own peepee like Cain. I was very disappointed by him. How he thought that would not come out is beyond comprehension.


If Texas and some of the larger "red" states get to go first next time, we'll have a better outcome. I'm convinced of that.

Ruble Noon
05-03-2012, 20:37
Sort of. The State Republicans gerrymandered the heck out of the state districts after the census (we picked up a few reps). So the dems kept challenging it in court. Initially we were going to vote in the first week in March. It got pushed back.'


Let the largest 10 red states go first for a change. Makes sense.

If the end goal was to nominate a conservative. I don't think that was the end goal of the RNC though.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 20:39
If the end goal was to nominate a conservative. I don't think that was the end goal of the RNC though.

The states kept moving up their primaries, giving them larger influence over the process. Seems to me, the RNC is a private entity, and should be able to have it's primary on whatever date it wants.


I'm not sure it was planned with this outcome in mind, but regardless of how we got here, we are standing in a large pile of poop, and we need to change the system.

G19G20
05-03-2012, 22:01
One picture

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

is worth a thousand words. He'd have to spend tens of millions of dollars just trying to dig himself out from under this one photograph.

So far Ron Paul has been given a pass by the MSM. That would end if he won the nomination, and the knives would come out. He'd be cut to shreds and lose in a landslide to Odumbo.

OMG it's that hideous Confederate Flag! :upeyes:

I would have thought Republicans would have been thoroughly tired of the "racist" smears by now. Guess not, seeing how it's the only smear that's out there against him. Guess what? According to polling, at least 20% of the entire American population says they won't vote for a Mormon, so unless 1 in 5 people in the country consider the Confederate flag picture a vote breaker, Paul still comes out ahead of Romney.

Fwiw, I'd campaign on that picture in every southern state. There's still a TON of southerners that would proudly go vote for a candidate that had the balls to speak in front of the flag.

eta: Republicans love to talk these days about having a strong leader with guts. Then when a pic like this one comes out there's some backlash. Strange. There's nothing more ballsy and strong than speaking to southern Republicans in front of the Confederate Flag. So-called "small government conservatives" should fully understand why the Civil War itself was nothing more than a power grab by the federal government over the states.

(btw I don't know the date of the pic but it's probably 13 years old judging by the quality and Paul's hair color and features)

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 22:51
One picture

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

is worth a thousand words. He'd have to spend tens of millions of dollars just trying to dig himself out from under this one photograph.

So far Ron Paul has been given a pass by the MSM. That would end if he won the nomination, and the knives would come out. He'd be cut to shreds and lose in a landslide to Odumbo.

You have a problem with the Confederate Flag?

If anything it should serve as a reminder of how we got in this mess when Lincoln killed the republic.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 22:53
I'll pretend that wasn't responded to earlier. The implication is that because Ron Paul won't return campaign donations to some racist, then he must be racist. It's a ridiculous argument. Those people are free to donate money to whoever they wish and Ron Paul is free to accept it. Your perception of that is your problem.

I don't see Romney sending checks back to Goldman Sachs or others who made a nice profit dealing in mortgage-based derivatives and the bailouts.

I take it you disagree with asset seizures in criminal cases too? Why I can't believe the government would just take and use that money made in a criminal enterprise! That's bad money!

Well, to be fair, government is well-skilled in dealing with bad money. Every dime it spends is confiscated from the citizens at the barrel of a gun.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 22:55
Does everyone at least agree that the truly bad guys should be locked up? The Madoff's, rapists, burglars and violent ones should be locked up. Maybe not the potheads and jaywalkers, but the ones that cannot behave without injuring others, I'm thinking they need to be removed from society.

Of course.

You left out Congressmen..........

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 22:57
Nobody ever answered the question why RP took money from a known racist group.

Instead they turned it into an attack on my employment. Why is it when confronted with something bad about Paul, his supporters ignore the question and go into attack mode?

You come here trolling and flinging poop and get the butthurt when some comes back at you?

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 22:59
What is your point? Ron Paul kept donated money from a known racist? And?

Without even reviewing his contributions I can say with 100% certainty that every candidate received contributions from racists.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 23:02
Otherwise, I am largely disenfranchised.

That makes 2 of us. I have no representation in government.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 23:04
You know, the more I think about it, it's not the media, it's the friggin' primary process that lets the little blue states go first. That effects momentum and obviously funding.

Reverse the order that the states go in next time, or have the whole darn primary on the same day.

See if you don't get a different result.

Doc - I don't think it's by accident.

Republican leadership wants progressives and by God, they'll arrange it to get them.

RCP
05-04-2012, 00:40
Doc - I don't think it's by accident.

Republican leadership wants progressives and by God, they'll arrange it to get them.

As seen here

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1419319

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 04:34
Of course.

You left out Congressmen..........

Only if you include all of them, each and every one.



[/sarcasm].

Some of the new ones aren't corrupted yet. They should still have a chance to prove themselves.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 04:36
That makes 2 of us. I have no representation in government.

None? Or is it just representation you don't like,
Or the guy you voted for lost?

Bren
05-04-2012, 04:48
One picture

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

is worth a thousand words. He'd have to spend tens of millions of dollars just trying to dig himself out from under this one photograph.

I'm sure that's what you people think, but many of us would vote for him BECAUSE of that photograph - probably more than the yankees and liberals that are offended by it, in the real world.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 04:49
That makes 2 of us. I have no representation in government.

Doc - I don't think it's by accident.

Republican leadership wants progressives and by God, they'll arrange it to get them.


Maybe I should explain. I have been in a lot of meetings. Health care, labor relations, negotiations, court cases, band boosters, spouses club, united nations groups, NATO and town councils in Kosovo, too many military ones to count and probably several more I can't think of at the moment.

A person can be smart. People in groups over 10 are stupid. Egos, agendas, greed, need for attention, fear of rejection, good and bad public speaking or leadership skills all play a different dynamic in a group. 2 heads are better than one, 10 or more are as good as half a brain.

I see a lot more chaos than control when I look at the system. Things are the way they are because someone or some group made it that way, but in the primary system, it appears that each state, most likely out of pride or fear of being irrelevant, moved up their primary dates, I honestly doubt that 13 old white guys met in a smokey room and decided this was the best way to ensure the most liberal candidates were nominated. More of a train wreck in progress due to unintended consequences than a perfectly played plan by an evil shadow group.

certifiedfunds
05-04-2012, 05:58
Only if you include all of them, each and every one.



[/sarcasm].

Some of the new ones aren't corrupted yet. They should still have a chance to prove themselves.

I see what you did there. What crimes has Paul committed and/or where has he violated his oath?

certifiedfunds
05-04-2012, 06:02
Maybe I should explain. I have been in a lot of meetings. Health care, labor relations, negotiations, court cases, band boosters, spouses club, united nations groups, NATO and town councils in Kosovo, too many military ones to count and probably several more I can't think of at the moment.

A person can be smart. People in groups over 10 are stupid. Egos, agendas, greed, need for attention, fear of rejection, good and bad public speaking or leadership skills all play a different dynamic in a group. 2 heads are better than one, 10 or more are as good as half a brain.

I see a lot more chaos than control when I look at the system. Things are the way they are because someone or some group made it that way, but in the primary system, it appears that each state, most likely out of pride or fear of being irrelevant, moved up their primary dates, I honestly doubt that 13 old white guys met in a smokey room and decided this was the best way to ensure the most liberal candidates were nominated. More of a train wreck in progress due to unintended consequences than a perfectly played plan by an evil shadow group.

Geese don't get together and discuss where to fly for the winter but somehow they always head south.

What I think you're saying is, you doubt the conspiracy. I disagree.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 06:18
Geese don't get together and discuss where to fly for the winter but somehow they always head south.

What I think you're saying is, you doubt the conspiracy. I disagree.

I doubt THE conspiracy. There are millions of competing conspiracies, with no single unified plan, unless there is a God. Then maybe he has one. The larger the group, the more likely that a significant amount of people will either leak it, or go off mission in their own direction.

Really, I see a lot more chaos than control. Some can control some of it, but none can control all of it.

certifiedfunds
05-04-2012, 06:27
I doubt THE conspiracy. There are millions of competing conspiracies, with no single unified plan, unless there is a God. Then maybe he has one. The larger the group, the more likely that a significant amount of people will either leak it, or go off mission in their own direction.

Really, I see a lot more chaos than control. Some can control some of it, but none can control all of it.

12 men in a smoke filled room? No.

2 men in a smoke filled room 12 times? Probably.

Most likely, they're like the geese. A group of men of like mindset, knowing instinctively who, and what to do to reach THEIR desired destination.

In other words, the party leadership will get the candidate they want.

Kevin108
05-04-2012, 06:30
I did not say he did, I said his supporters did.
His supporters aren't running for office. You don't have to worry about us. You should research the man, not his fan club.

Out of his own mouth:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/15/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/
The only research you've done is from one link on a leftist web site?

If all of the Paul Guys really want us to support them, then just do me one small favor, make sure Ron is the most likely candidate to beat Barry. He's the only one that can beat Obama as he's the only one with any contrasting views. There aren't enough differences between Obama and Romney to even bother holding an election.

certifiedfunds
05-04-2012, 06:36
"Anyone who's supporters advocate letting people starve, wish people would lose their jobs, etc is not a person I could vote for".

Uh, Dr. Paul has never espoused any such positions. You've not listned to him.

I've said that.

Problem is, the poster here doesn't have the ability to understand context, apparently.

If a man is broke and hungry and he robs a person's home, do you look the other way because he's broke and hungry? Of course not. You stop it.

Such is the way of entitlement spending. You stop it. The consequences are what they are.

As for people losing their jobs.....yes. I've said that too. There are at minimum a few hundred thousand government employees that accept paychecks derived from stolen money to serve unconstitutional agencies which seek to deprive their fellow citizens of liberty. I hope they lose their jobs and all that comes with that. Not only do hey deserve it, but the country needs it.

lancesorbenson
05-04-2012, 08:39
I doubt THE conspiracy. There are millions of competing conspiracies, with no single unified plan, unless there is a God. Then maybe he has one. The larger the group, the more likely that a significant amount of people will either leak it, or go off mission in their own direction.

Really, I see a lot more chaos than control. Some can control some of it, but none can control all of it.

I don't know if it's a conspiracy or simple inertia, but the graph is always moving toward a more powerful, more controlling , and more expensive centralized government. Whether the Republicans are in on it or simply caught up in the trend, NOBODY seems to want to do anything about it.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 10:12
If by some miracle Paul was to get the nomination, I will vote a third party or do a write in.

After reading the comments made by his supporters there is no way I could support him. Anyone who's supporters advocate letting people starve, wish people would lose their jobs, etc is not a person I could vote for. Their disdain for anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest way is outrageous. I have not personally met anyone, from either party, that attacks people the way RP supporters do.

RP supporters have been quick to say how they will not vote for Romney. Some have said they will vote third party, and some even said they will vote for Obama. They say it would teach republicans a lesson for not following Paul. They are determined, that if the republicans do not nominate RP, to try and divide the party to ensure Romney loses the general election. They act like little children, they get hurt feelings so they want to take their ball and go home. I have said it before, you RP fanatics are his worst enemy. I am sure I am not alone on this.

I won't vote for Obama, but I also can not / will not vote Ron Paul.

Mostly agreed. But I can guarantee you that some people have been turned off by supporters of Paul. Stuff happens, even if we may not think that is logical, and oh well, we'll have to get over it.

You guys keep saying this but it still doesn't make any sense. Ron Paul's supporters are the only reason we're still talking about him. His enthusiast supporters have done 1000x more for him than against him. I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt along the way.

What really happened is this- some of you that for years have been calling the other side libtards, big government crazies and everything else suddenly found yourselves in the same boat with them. You've accepted a liberal nominee after all the years of putting them down, and you've had your feelings hurt by people pointing it out. Some of you, when finally faced with a real conservative choice versus more of the same big government, discovered you weren't really so different from the other side as you liked to believe, and you're mad because people have pointed it out to you. Cry me a river over those cruel ronulans and make some more troll threads.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 10:34
I don't know if it's a conspiracy or simple inertia, but the graph is always moving toward a more powerful, more controlling , and more expensive centralized government. Whether the Republicans are in on it or simply caught up in the trend, NOBODY seems to want to do anything about it.

So now I'm a nobody????

[/sarcasm]

Reverse the order that the republican states go in the primary, let the largest 10 red states go first, have it all on the same day. I'd like to try any of those.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 10:37
You guys keep saying this but it still doesn't make any sense. Ron Paul's supporters are the only reason we're still talking about him. His enthusiast supporters have done 1000x more for him than against him. I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt along the way.

What really happened is this- some of you that for years have been calling the other side libtards, big government crazies and everything else suddenly found yourselves in the same boat with them. You've accepted a liberal nominee after all the years of putting them down, and you've had your feelings hurt by people pointing it out. Some of you, when finally faced with a real conservative choice versus more of the same big government, discovered you weren't really so different from the other side as you liked to believe, and you're mad because people have pointed it out to you. Cry me a river over those cruel ronulans and make some more troll threads.

Have you considered that if you keep hearing it from multiple people, that just maybe, it's a real phenomena??

And maybe we are talking about him due to his supporters, but a lot of that discussion has been unhelpful for him.

frank4570
05-04-2012, 10:38
So now I'm a nobody????

[/sarcasm]

Reverse the order that the republican states go in the primary, let the largest 10 red states go first, have it all on the same day. I'd like to try any of those.

That could be costly for some very powerful people.

Ruble Noon
05-04-2012, 10:44
Have you considered that if you keep hearing it from multiple people, that just maybe, it's a real phenomena??

And maybe we are talking about him due to his supporters, but a lot of that discussion has been unhelpful for him.

"There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 10:44
That could be costly for some very powerful people.

I'm not seeing the downside there, at least if achieved. May make it harder to do.

frank4570
05-04-2012, 10:57
I'm not seeing the downside there, at least if achieved. May make it harder to do.

TV commercial

*Scary music* "Cavalry Doc wants to undermine the system that has made this country strong. Under the Cavalry Doc proposal good hard working americans would be stripped of their ability to participate in the american political process. The Cavalry Doc proposal could take away critical medical benefits for millions of americans. Why does Cavalry Doc want to take away your benefits? You have to wonder if Cavalry Doc is only interested in his own bottom line."

*Ominous announcers voice* "Help save the american way, vote NO on the Cavalry Doc proposal."


Paid for by the United Corporations of America.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 11:00
"There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about."

Oscar Wilde

Ask George Zimmerman about that.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 11:02
TV commercial

*Scary music* "Cavalry Doc wants to undermine the system that has made this country strong. Under the Cavalry Doc proposal good hard working americans would be stripped of their ability to participate in the american political process. The Cavalry Doc proposal could take away critical medical benefits for millions of americans. Why does Cavalry Doc want to take away your benefits? You have to wonder if Cavalry Doc is only interested in his own bottom line."

*Ominous announcers voice* "Help save the american way, vote NO on the Cavalry Doc proposal."


Paid for by the United Corporations of America.

Bring it on. I get my own commercials too, right?

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 11:03
Have you considered that if you keep hearing it from multiple people, that just maybe, it's a real phenomena??

And maybe we are talking about him due to his supporters, but a lot of that discussion has been unhelpful for him.

I just said i know it's a real phenomena- i know some of you have had your feelings hurt- i'm saying it's not even worth mentioning because it's a thousand times outweighed by the good. If a relative few had to get their feelings hurt by over-enthusiastic supporters in the process of bringing attention to the only conservative in the race for either party, it was worth it.

A lot more of the discussion has been helpful than unhelpful, obviously. He's doubled or tripled his supporters, or maybe even more i don't know, from the last time. You and JB's and G-19's feelings are a relative low priority, i'm afraid.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 11:07
TV commercial

*Scary music* "Cavalry Doc wants to undermine the system that has made this country strong. Under the Cavalry Doc proposal good hard working americans would be stripped of their ability to participate in the american political process. The Cavalry Doc proposal could take away critical medical benefits for millions of americans. Why does Cavalry Doc want to take away your benefits? You have to wonder if Cavalry Doc is only interested in his own bottom line."

*Ominous announcers voice* "Help save the american way, vote NO on the Cavalry Doc proposal."


Paid for by the United Corporations of America.

i just read the other day where the proportion of negative ads has increased some crazy percentage in all campaigns nationwide, from 30% to 75% or something crazy like that- just from 2008

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 11:16
I just said i know it's a real phenomena- i know some of you have had your feelings hurt- i'm saying it's not even worth mentioning because it's a thousand times outweighed by the good. If a relative few had to get their feelings hurt by over-enthusiastic supporters in the process of bringing attention to the only conservative in the race for either party, it was worth it.

A lot more of the discussion has been helpful than unhelpful, obviously. He's doubled or tripled his supporters, or maybe even more i don't know, from the last time. You and JB's and G-19's feelings are a relative low priority, i'm afraid.


A thousand times better? And how's that workin' out for ya?

It might be good from your perspective, but Ron is not on a glide path to get this nomination. Maybe he is on his way to A nomination, but not likely the one he is running for now.


It what it is, why it is that way probably involves multiple factors.

QNman
05-04-2012, 16:45
You guys keep saying this but it still doesn't make any sense. Ron Paul's supporters are the only reason we're still talking about him. His enthusiast supporters have done 1000x more for him than against him. I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt along the way.

What really happened is this- some of you that for years have been calling the other side libtards, big government crazies and everything else suddenly found yourselves in the same boat with them. You've accepted a liberal nominee after all the years of putting them down, and you've had your feelings hurt by people pointing it out. Some of you, when finally faced with a real conservative choice versus more of the same big government, discovered you weren't really so different from the other side as you liked to believe, and you're mad because people have pointed it out to you. Cry me a river over those cruel ronulans and make some more troll threads.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Once again, hubris abounds aplenty in the true believers. "I'm smarter/more conrvative/prettier than you" doesn't make it true just because you said so.

And thank you for proving the point while disagreeing with it. The irony is rich.

QNman
05-04-2012, 16:48
i just read the other day where the proportion of negative ads has increased some crazy percentage in all campaigns nationwide, from 30% to 75% or something crazy like that- just from 2008

Bull manure. There is no way in hades you can convince me only 30% of the ads in 2008 were negative.

Ruble Noon
05-04-2012, 17:12
Ask George Zimmerman about that.

It sounds like people have donated enough money to cover his legal expenses since everyone started talking about him.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 17:13
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Once again, hubris abounds aplenty in the true believers. "I'm smarter/more conrvative/prettier than you" doesn't make it true just because you said so.

And thank you for proving the point while disagreeing with it. The irony is rich.

Because i said so doesn't mean anything. Are you saying mitt romney is a conservative? No? Then i feel pretty good about saying anybody that votes for him isn't much of a conservative either. Since when can you call yourself a conservative and also vote for almost the mirror image of barack obama? Obviously we have different ideas of what is conservative and what isn't, i guess that's why we won't agree.

And what point have i proven- that now i hurt your feelings too, add you to the list? All the feelings in the world the ronulans hurt won't add up to anywhere near the attention and support they've brought to him, that's all i'm saying. Not even close. His enthusiastic support has been his only chance the whole way.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 17:16
Bull manure. There is no way in hades you can convince me only 30% of the ads in 2008 were negative.

it's even worse than than my guess

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/03/news/la-pn-drastic-increase-in-negative-ads-during-2012-presidential-election-20120503

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 18:36
A thousand times better? And how's that workin' out for ya?

It might be good from your perspective, but Ron is not on a glide path to get this nomination. Maybe he is on his way to A nomination, but not likely the one he is running for now.


It what it is, why it is that way probably involves multiple factors.

Well, if it really is a thousand times better, then it's a thousand times better....

:headscratch:

If it's ten times better, then it's ten times better. Whatever. It's better than it would have been. Saying ron paul's extremely enthusiastic supporters and all that comes with them, good and bad, has been anything but a massive, massive net benefit to his cause is absurd- that's all i'm trying to say. "RP's supporters are his worst enemies" is ridiculous, no matter how many times you've said it. They are the best thing he has going.

However it works out, it will be better than it would have been otherwise.

QNman
05-04-2012, 19:51
Because i said so doesn't mean anything. Are you saying mitt romney is a conservative? No? Then i feel pretty good about saying anybody that votes for him isn't much of a conservative either. Since when can you call yourself a conservative and also vote for almost the mirror image of barack obama? Obviously we have different ideas of what is conservative and what isn't, i guess that's why we won't agree.

And what point have i proven- that now i hurt your feelings too, add you to the list? All the feelings in the world the ronulans hurt won't add up to anywhere near the attention and support they've brought to him, that's all i'm saying. Not even close. His enthusiastic support has been his only chance the whole way.

Stubby, you couldn't hurt my feelings with a baseball bat. I know who I am and know the difference between being a "real conservative" and a realistic businessman. I've voted "on principle" twice and suffered the consequences of it.

Perhaps your boss can handle another four years of uncertainty and the real kickoff of Obamacare. Me, I'd like to think I can, but I don't want to find out. Even if it's Romney who changes that.

QNman
05-04-2012, 19:53
it's even worse than than my guess

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/03/news/la-pn-drastic-increase-in-negative-ads-during-2012-presidential-election-20120503

Ah... "this time in 2008". When the GOP had already settled on McCain, and Obama was proclaiming "four more years of a failed Bush policy". I guess "negative" all depends on your point of view.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 20:17
It sounds like people have donated enough money to cover his legal expenses since everyone started talking about him.

Day late and a dollar short.


Since people have been talking about him, he has been arrested and charged with second degree murder, after being released without charges.

Now I don't know George, but I'm almost certain that if his situation had only taken 6 lines in the local newspaper without his name mentioned, and went away with no charges files, he'd be a lot happier today. Try to call him or one of his family members, oh, no, wait, they are all in hiding fearing for their lives.



Consider the totality of the situation, and not just the slanted spin. It'll make a lot more sense then.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 20:20
Well, if it really is a thousand times better, then it's a thousand times better....

:headscratch:

If it's ten times better, then it's ten times better. Whatever. It's better than it would have been. Saying ron paul's extremely enthusiastic supporters and all that comes with them, good and bad, has been anything but a massive, massive net benefit to his cause is absurd- that's all i'm trying to say. "RP's supporters are his worst enemies" is ridiculous, no matter how many times you've said it. They are the best thing he has going.

However it works out, it will be better than it would have been otherwise.

That remains to be seen, and if you'll think about it from a few different perspectives, and wait an hour or two so later to calm down, you'll come back and admit it.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 20:32
Stubby, you couldn't hurt my feelings with a baseball bat. I know who I am and know the difference between being a "real conservative" and a realistic businessman. I've voted "on principle" twice and suffered the consequences of it.

Perhaps your boss can handle another four years of uncertainty and the real kickoff of Obamacare. Me, I'd like to think I can, but I don't want to find out. Even if it's Romney who changes that.

well, best of luck with that. i guess you mean you actually believe a solitary word this guy is saying right now while he's campaigning will have any bearing whatsoever one what he would do if he wins. i don't. i think that's positively unrealistic of you, actually.

evlbruce
05-04-2012, 20:38
Funny watching GTPI posters who only a couple months ago were yelling about how Paul had no chance and was an afterthought, or whatever, now seeing the writing on the wall regarding delegates and getting just plain sour and angry about it.

I think your half right.

With the economy in the tank, his foreign and green energy policies in shambles, his agencies and cabinet rife with cronyism and graft, and yet Obama is still ahead of the presumptive "electable" Republican candidate in most polls. What's worse is that the economy is limping along and may not collapse until well after November.

Mittenistas are mad because they nominated a marginal candidate who is performing terribly in what should be an easy election.

Romney's Supporters

Ruble Noon
05-04-2012, 20:44
I think your half right.

With the economy in the tank, his foreign and green energy policies in shambles, his agencies and cabinet rife with cronyism and graft, and yet Obama is still ahead of the presumptive "electable" Republican candidate in most polls. What's worse is that the economy is limping along and may not collapse until well after November.

Mittenistas are mad because they nominated a marginal candidate who is performing terribly in what should be an easy election.

Romney's Supporters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA3Gv-Tkl6o)

:rofl:

Great campaign ad.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 20:49
That remains to be seen, and if you'll think about it from a few different perspectives, and wait an hour or two so later to calm down, you'll come back and admit it.

Lol, what are you talking about Doc? Am i supposed to think golly if i had only talked sweeter to you, you'd be a ron paul supporter? Lol. I've said it at least three times- RP's supporters have been his greatest asset in this campaign. That's a fact. They've taken delegates, they've raised tons of money, they've done everything else, far out of proportion to any other candidate. He says it himself every day. If a few got their feelings hurt, that's too bad, but it was worth it. If they were "herd minded" enough to actually base their vote on what other people are saying or because somebody was rude, instead of what the candidates are doing and have done, they probably weren't gonna ever get it anyway, so what is there to think about?

Ruble Noon
05-04-2012, 21:00
Day late and a dollar short.


Since people have been talking about him, he has been arrested and charged with second degree murder, after being released without charges.

Now I don't know George, but I'm almost certain that if his situation had only taken 6 lines in the local newspaper without his name mentioned, and went away with no charges files, he'd be a lot happier today. Try to call him or one of his family members, oh, no, wait, they are all in hiding fearing for their lives.




Consider the totality of the situation, and not just the slanted spin. It'll make a lot more sense then.

Yeah I'm sure he would like to go back to the time before his name was known nationally.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 21:01
Lol, what are you talking about Doc? Am i supposed to think golly if i had only talked sweeter to you, you'd be a ron paul supporter? Lol. I've said it at least three times- RP's supporters have been his greatest asset in this campaign. That's a fact. They've taken delegates, they've raised tons of money, they've done everything else, far out of proportion to any other candidate. He says it himself every day. If a few got their feelings hurt, that's too bad, but it was worth it. If they were "herd minded" enough to actually base their vote on what other people are saying or because somebody was rude, instead of what the candidates are doing and have done, they probably weren't gonna ever get it anyway, so what is there to think about?

Skipped that free piece of advice I see.

You? I honestly do not remember you being part of my decision making process at all.

Your post is a perfect example. You rant when you should be learning. Just because there are criticisms, doesn't mean you have to fly off on a booze fueled insult laced rant.

I can't help it if you aren't very good at convincing people to support your candidate, but I can point to some of the reasons that happened.

It's not my fault Paul will not be the nominee, it's yours, and many like you, and for more than one reason. You didn't try hard enough, you didn't control your emotions, you didn't dig deep enough for those money bombs, you didn't respect others, and in the end, you didn't get enough votes. None of the people I have talked to about Paul have voted yet. What about the people you talked to paul about. How effective were you?

Don't blame the guy in the stands when you get thrown out at first.

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 21:03
Yeah I'm sure he would like to go back to the time before his name was known nationally.

I'd bet he'd be happier if he were not known county wide.

QNman
05-04-2012, 21:53
well, best of luck with that. i guess you mean you actually believe a solitary word this guy is saying right now while he's campaigning will have any bearing whatsoever one what he would do if he wins. i don't. i think that's positively unrealistic of you, actually.

No... I believe I KNOW, without a doubt, what Obama's position on the matter. I do not know if Romney will hit the reset button, but I know he says he will. And I know he will have to face reelection in four years.

My crystal ball has been broken for years. I only know what is known.

I also KNOW what kind of justices Obama will appoint. I KNOW we can't deal with another "wise Latina" or another Elena "ethics" Kagan.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 22:14
Skipped that free piece of advice I see.

You? I honestly do not remember you being part of my decision making process at all.

Your post is a perfect example. You rant when you should be learning. Just because there are criticisms, doesn't mean you have to fly off on a booze fueled insult laced rant.

I can't help it if you aren't very good at convincing people to support your candidate, but I can point to some of the reasons that happened.

It's not my fault Paul will not be the nominee, it's yours, and many like you, and for more than one reason. You didn't try hard enough, you didn't control your emotions, you didn't dig deep enough for those money bombs, you didn't respect others, and in the end, you didn't get enough votes. None of the people I have talked to about Paul have voted yet. What about the people you talked to paul about. How effective were you?

Don't blame the guy in the stands when you get thrown out at first.

LOL, I've personally gotten RP votes from people that had never heard of him and didn't even care about politics anyway beforehand. Some of my family for starters, and friends, and then they told their families, etc, whatever. And apparently a whole lot of people have done the same, as he has several times more support than last time.

You are the guy in the stands though, that's for sure. Some are actually trying to stop this from happening, you just bend over. I didn't do enough, and you didn't do anything. You just played the sucker again. Nice nominee you got there, just what you deserve for sitting in the stands.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 22:29
No... I believe I KNOW, without a doubt, what Obama's position on the matter. I do not know if Romney will hit the reset button, but I know he says he will. And I know he will have to face reelection in four years.

My crystal ball has been broken for years. I only know what is known.

I also KNOW what kind of justices Obama will appoint. I KNOW we can't deal with another "wise Latina" or another Elena "ethics" Kagan.

Man come on. Romney is from the same machine as obama and bush and clinton and all the rest. Romney's words are proven to be, incredibly enough, even more worthless than obama's. You can't have more meaningless words than the words that come out of mitt romney's mouth. It's hard to believe anybody would choose to keep participating in a corrupted system that only ever screws them over, in a thousand ways. It's just bizarre to me. Who willingly plays along with getting screwed when you might have a chance to stop it. I don't know.

Stubudd
05-04-2012, 22:31
Your post is a perfect example. You rant when you should be learning.

You should be learning by now, not me. Get screwed again.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 06:02
Well, if it really is a thousand times better, then it's a thousand times better....

:headscratch:

If it's ten times better, then it's ten times better. Whatever. It's better than it would have been. Saying ron paul's extremely enthusiastic supporters and all that comes with them, good and bad, has been anything but a massive, massive net benefit to his cause is absurd- that's all i'm trying to say. "RP's supporters are his worst enemies" is ridiculous, no matter how many times you've said it. They are the best thing he has going.

However it works out, it will be better than it would have been otherwise.

Wait a minute. I'm goin to ask an honest question. Do you believe the rude behavior and mass harassment of media personalities and countless posters on interned forums has made it better or worse?

Would Paul have done even better if his more invested supporters had not displayed an "angry bull in the china shop" mentality over the last 6 years or so?

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 07:05
LOL, I've personally gotten RP votes from people that had never heard of him and didn't even care about politics anyway beforehand. Some of my family for starters, and friends, and then they told their families, etc, whatever. And apparently a whole lot of people have done the same, as he has several times more support than last time.


Good for you. That is a technique that can lead to victory, if enough other people are also doing it at the same time. How many were you able to recruit on GTPI and any other forums you visit? When they seemed hesitant to vote for Paul, how long before you accused them of not supporting the constitution, liberty, conservatism etc. IIRC, it usually didn't take very long. Ask a good salesman how he makes his living. Most good ones don't call the buyer names and insult them. They keep them talking, and keep telling them why the buyer really wants their product. That can take days, weeks or months. Patience is a virtue.



You are the guy in the stands though, that's for sure. Some are actually trying to stop this from happening, you just bend over. I didn't do enough, and you didn't do anything. You just played the sucker again. Nice nominee you got there, just what you deserve for sitting in the stands.

This is a perfect example. Ranting in ignorance is very unflattering for you. When you go down this road, I imagine you as younger than 25.

The analogy obviously was over your head. If you don't understand something, ask about it, don't use it as a zinger. You'll take steps to places you don't want to be if you go off half cocked like this. Texas has not had the primary yet. I haven't had an opportunity to vote in the primary. Maybe you could imagine me in the stands in my uniform waiting for my team to get a chance to play in the playoffs. My game isn't scheduled for a while still.

Try not to boast too much and claim you have done more for this country than the person you are conversing with, especially when conversing with a combat veteran. That usually makes you look petty and ignorant. So far, the sum total of your effect in your battle for liberty has been to get a few votes. How much money and time have you spent? What have you risked? Add it up for me, I'm curious.

Now, to the "deserve" issue. I do not deserve Romney. I deserve much better. But that doesn't make things go my way. In this, you seem to be lashing out again. The problem is that your "cause and effect" detection chip is either under developed, or broken. Try to focus your anger where it belongs. I haven't even had a chance to vote yet. I'm really torqued about that by the way. By the time the horderve tray makes it to my side of the room, I only have two stale tasteless limp crackers to choose from. However either one of those is better than the steaming pile of horse manure Barry has turned out to be. But lets get back to whose fault it really is.

Obviously, there was a race. Romney is obviously not the best candidate. So how did the other campaigns and candidates screw it up so bad. Easy, they were bumbling idiots, and I mean all of them. Romney set back in second place and let everyone pick each other off. The other candidates and their supporters screwed the pooch on this one big time. If any of them had been worth half a mouse fart, they would have smoked Romney. None of them were up to the task.

The media just reports what happens with spin. They have an effect, but not the biggest effect. Letting the small and most liberal states go early in the primary system does exactly what it has done recently, which is help the most liberal candidate (both parties) get elected. That is a factor we can change.


1. Reverse the order the states go in for the Republican Primary.
2. Let the 10 most populous red states go first.
3. Have all states vote on the same day, have runoffs if necessary, but all on the same day.


Look on the bright side, many of you will have time to mature and examine effective strategies before the next election. I certainly hope so, for Rand's sake.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 07:15
You have a problem with the Confederate Flag?

If anything it should serve as a reminder of how we got in this mess when Lincoln killed the republic.

I have a problem with an idiot who thinks he could have purchased each and every slave from slaveowners in the South, thereby ending slavery without fighting a war. Yeah, that would have worked. :rofl: Paul does not live in reality. He's a perfect candidate for you guys, isn't he? :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 07:18
I have a problem with an idiot who thinks he could have purchased each and every slave from slaveowners in the South, thereby ending slavery without fighting a war. Yeah, that would have worked. :rofl: Paul does not live in reality. He's a perfect candidate for you guys, isn't he? :wavey:

:popcorn: This is new to me. Any chance you have a link?
I'd like to learn more about this.

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 07:45
:popcorn: This is new to me. Any chance you have a link?
I'd like to learn more about this.

Sure Doc. Here's one link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39801_Video-_Ron_Paul_Gives_Speech_on_Civil_War_in_Front_of_Giant_Confederate_Flag).

Ruble Noon
05-05-2012, 08:09
Sure Doc. Here's one link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39801_Video-_Ron_Paul_Gives_Speech_on_Civil_War_in_Front_of_Giant_Confederate_Flag).

Great vid! Thanks for posting. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 08:12
Sure Doc. Here's one link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39801_Video-_Ron_Paul_Gives_Speech_on_Civil_War_in_Front_of_Giant_Confederate_Flag).

Awww Jeez. What an idiot. If a private citizen were to buy up every single slave in 1840, all that would do is create another marked for slaves, and people would run out and buy some more to sell him. Now if you were to end slavery, and compensate property owners for their loss, that is a different issue. But that's not what he said.


Also noted the pejorative "yankee". Being a southerner raised in exile in northern held territory, I do sympathize a bit.


Submarines, nukes, and now a slave buy back program. There are several very basic concepts that he doesn't seem to be able to understand. He's awesome on some, and dismal on others. Policy wise, He's always been either hot or cold running water for me.

QNman
05-05-2012, 08:19
Man come on. Romney is from the same machine as obama and bush and clinton and all the rest. Romney's words are proven to be, incredibly enough, even more worthless than obama's. You can't have more meaningless words than the words that come out of mitt romney's mouth. It's hard to believe anybody would choose to keep participating in a corrupted system that only ever screws them over, in a thousand ways. It's just bizarre to me. Who willingly plays along with getting screwed when you might have a chance to stop it. I don't know.

It is odd to me that those who choose not to participate in a meaningful way accuse those who do participate as being part of the problem.

When you determine who this message might reach, you let me know. I've sent the message you're trying to send on the last RP that ran 3p. The message was - nothing. Instead, we got the 94 AWB and Ginsberg as a justice.

Keep telling yourself you are one of the few smart ones. Keep telling yourself that you're one of the few "true conservatives", one of the last remaining patriots, etc, ad nauseum. When you're ready to participate, those of us with more experience will still be here.

Ruble Noon
05-05-2012, 08:21
Awww Jeez. What an idiot. If a private citizen were to buy up every single slave in 1840, all that would do is create another marked for slaves, and people would run out and buy some more to sell him. Now if you were to end slavery, and compensate property owners for their loss, that is a different issue. But that's not what he said.


Also noted the pejorative "yankee". Being a southerner raised in exile in northern held territory, I do sympathize a bit.


Submarines, nukes, and now a slave buy back program. There are several very basic concepts that he doesn't seem to be able to understand. He's awesome on some, and dismal on others. Policy wise, He's always been either hot or cold running water for me.

He was referencing other countries that did this and succeeded in ending slavery without war. He does have a valid point. The cost of the Civil War in lives and liberty lost was tremendous.

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 08:49
He was referencing other countries that did this and succeeded in ending slavery without war. He does have a valid point. The cost of the Civil War in lives and liberty lost was tremendous.

Ron Paul:
You know there were uh uh over uh eleven countries up until that time and shortly thereafter, in this hemisphere, Southern North and South America. Eleven different countries had slavery. Every one of them got rid of slavery without war. There were different vehicles. There was legislation, and one of the techniques they used was, uh literally, buying slaves freedom, which makes a lot of sense when you think of the cost of war.

And what, pray tell, would have been the cost to the North to purchase each and every slave from independent slaveowners in the South? How, exactly, would the North have prevented a new business of producing slaves for sale, rather than cotton and tobacco? And how, exactly, would a sovereign country like the North have forced free, independent slaveowners to sell their slaves? How, exactly, would Paul have justified the purchase of slaves living in a now foreign country under the Constitution that he attacks Lincoln for violating?

Once again Paul wants it every which way. He was against going to war to end slavery, but does not come out and actually say what plan he would have used to do so. There was this way. There was that way. They might have done this. They could have tried that. Whatever. President Lincoln didn't have that luxury. Paul is more wishy washy than a bikini car wash. Paul is at best completely out of touch, and possibly deranged. Paulistas will, predictably, once again excuse Paul for his statements and his actions. The rest of us will not.

eracer
05-05-2012, 09:01
If you vote for a third-party candidate, instead of the republican nominee, you are casting a vote for Obama.

Wait a minute, Ron Paul is the republican nominee?

I was just joking - vote for who you believe in.

Goaltender66
05-05-2012, 09:11
Man come on. Romney is from the same machine as obama and bush and clinton and all the rest. Romney's words are proven to be, incredibly enough, even more worthless than obama's. You can't have more meaningless words than the words that come out of mitt romney's mouth. It's hard to believe anybody would choose to keep participating in a corrupted system that only ever screws them over, in a thousand ways. It's just bizarre to me. Who willingly plays along with getting screwed when you might have a chance to stop it. I don't know.
What an almost perfectly Marxist argument you make!

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 09:52
Once again Paul wants it every which way. He was against going to war to end slavery, but does not come out and actually say what plan he would have used to do so. There was this way. There was that way. They might have done this. They could have tried that. Whatever. President Lincoln didn't have that luxury. Paul is more wishy washy than a bikini car wash. Paul is at best completely out of touch, and possibly deranged. Paulistas will, predictably, once again excuse Paul for his statements and his actions. The rest of us will not.

I'm pretty sure every other country in western civilization figured it out without fighting a horrible civil war. Turn off your charlie brown teacher voice.

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 09:56
It is odd to me that those who choose not to participate in a meaningful way accuse those who do participate as being part of the problem.

When you determine who this message might reach, you let me know. I've sent the message you're trying to send on the last RP that ran 3p. The message was - nothing. Instead, we got the 94 AWB and Ginsberg as a justice.

Keep telling yourself you are one of the few smart ones. Keep telling yourself that you're one of the few "true conservatives", one of the last remaining patriots, etc, ad nauseum. When you're ready to participate, those of us with more experience will still be here.

When i'm ready to participate in electing another progressive when progressive policies are destroying the country right in front of us? You'll be waiting for that forever. You have at it though.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 10:17
He was referencing other countries that did this and succeeded in ending slavery without war. He does have a valid point. The cost of the Civil War in lives and liberty lost was tremendous.

He was referencing a private citizen that had an idea to do that.

Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, political philosopher, Deist, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government.

He said he had a lot of respect for him.

lancesorbenson
05-05-2012, 10:35
Once again Paul wants it every which way. He was against going to war to end slavery, but does not come out and actually say what plan he would have used to do so. There was this way. There was that way. They might have done this. They could have tried that. Whatever. President Lincoln didn't have that luxury. Paul is more wishy washy than a bikini car wash. Paul is at best completely out of touch, and possibly deranged. Paulistas will, predictably, once again excuse Paul for his statements and his actions. The rest of us will not.

Yeah, he's deranged for thinking it would have made more sense to look at other options to end slavery rather than starting the deadliest war in U.S. history and shredding the Constitution.

Lincoln didn't have that luxury? Sure, Honest Abe just couldn't stand for the slaves to live in bondage another minute and did whatever it took to free them because the North was an angelic paradise and the South was hell on Earth. Sounds like a 5th grade history textbook.

certifiedfunds
05-05-2012, 10:48
Once again Paul wants it every which way. He was against going to war to end slavery, but does not come out and actually say what plan he would have used to do so. There was this way. There was that way. They might have done this. They could have tried that. Whatever. President Lincoln didn't have that luxury. Paul is more wishy washy than a bikini car wash. Paul is at best completely out of touch, and possibly deranged. Paulistas will, predictably, once again excuse Paul for his statements and his actions. The rest of us will not.

He was against going to war to end slavery AND the Republic.

Don't try to make it sound like he wants slavery.

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 11:29
Yeah, he's deranged for thinking it would have made more sense to look at other options to end slavery rather than starting the deadliest war in U.S. history and shredding the Constitution.

Lincoln didn't have that luxury? Sure, Honest Abe just couldn't stand for the slaves to live in bondage another minute and did whatever it took to free them because the North was an angelic paradise and the South was hell on Earth. Sounds like a 5th grade history textbook.

Keep defending your slaveowning traditions. :wavey: Let me know how that works out for you.

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 11:29
He was against going to war to end slavery AND the Republic.

Don't try to make it sound like he wants slavery.

Don't make it sound like Paul has a better idea that would have ended slavery in the South, like Lincoln did.

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 11:36
I'm pretty sure every other country in western civilization figured it out without fighting a horrible civil war. Turn off your charlie brown teacher voice.

Then you need to ask yourself why so many slackjawed yokels in the South were unwilling to end slavery without fighting a bloody Civil War trying to preserve it. Tell yourself whatever whitewashed history your Southern books tell you is true, that the war was about states’ rights or whatever, and keep pretending that preserving slavery was not the root of the issue. :wavey: And keep pretending that Ron Paul is a viable candidate, good at decision making and taking a stand. :whistling:

lancesorbenson
05-05-2012, 13:23
Keep defending your slaveowning traditions. :wavey: Let me know how that works out for you.

Yep. The War of Northern Aggression was simply about the benevolent North freeing the slaves in the evil South. Not tariffs, pork barrel spending in the North, Lincoln's complete contempt for the Constitution, etc. Like I said, 5th grade history textbook.

railfancwb
05-05-2012, 14:26
You want to see real racism? Look at what the progressives have done to blacks. They've eviscerated an entire race, and transformed them into violent, government-dependent, family-hating monsters. This is because progressives despise blacks. They hate them, and have always hated them. You can go all the way back to model progressives such as Margaret Sanger, to see what they felt, and still do feel about blacks.

They think they're something less than human, and keeping them corralled in the government pen is the perfect way to keep them under control.

Democrats - historically the party of Jim Crow.

Republicans - historically the party which freed the slaves.

So why do those who self identify as having ancestors who were black slaves vote almost 100% Democrat?




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gary W Trott
05-05-2012, 15:07
Yep. The War of Northern Aggression was simply about the benevolent North freeing the slaves in the evil South. Not tariffs, pork barrel spending in the North, Lincoln's complete contempt for the Constitution, etc. Like I said, 5th grade history textbook.
fortyofforty is correct that the issue of slavery was at the root of the War Between the States.

Declarations of secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)

Second sentence in the Georgia declaration of secession:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Second sentence in the Mississippi declaration of secession:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

South Carolina's declaration is mostly a history lesson but near the end you will see the references to where slavery is the main grievance:
"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."

Third paragraph, third sentence in the Texas declaration of secession:
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

There is no question that slavery was at the heart of it. For the north however lanceorbenson is correct in that the motivation for war was basically economic on the part of the northern manufacturers.

Personally I believe that the states of the Confederacy, having joined voluntarily into the union as sovereign states, also had the right to leave the union if they chose to. Their arguments for their rights as such are good ones, but at the heart of it the right they were really protecting and seceeding over was the right to own slaves.

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 15:46
And Paul's stupid idea that slavery could have been ended by legislation or purchasing the slaves would never have worked. In fact (pay attention, more history for some of you) one reason the Southern states seceded was to avoid the possibility of losing the right to keep slaves by legislative action. Southern states were becoming increasingly outnumbered in Congress, and did not like the direction things were headed. Go back to school, children. You’ve got a lot to learn. :wavey:

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 15:56
Wait a minute. I'm goin to ask an honest question. Do you believe the rude behavior and mass harassment of media personalities and countless posters on interned forums has made it better or worse?

Would Paul have done even better if his more invested supporters had not displayed an "angry bull in the china shop" mentality over the last 6 years or so?

Here's another question that is about as relevant as yours. Wouldn't the world be a better place if nobody was ever rude and nobody ever got their feelings hurt?

You can't control all the people in the world all the time. Some are over enthusiastic at times, that's too bad. But i can't worry about it- on the whole, good and bad, RP's supporters are by far the best thing he has going for them, worth far more to his campaign than you and whoever elses' hurt feelings put together.

Now ask me again, have RP supporters all behaved in the manner absolutely most beneficial to his campaign, at all times for the last six years? Why no, doc, they haven't, i guess they are humans. What a great point you made there. I can't believe i've answered this silly question four times now- the first one said it all.

Bren
05-05-2012, 15:57
Personally I believe that the states of the Confederacy, having joined voluntarily into the union as sovereign states, also had the right to leave the union if they chose to. Their arguments for their rights as such are good ones, but at the heart of it the right they were really protecting and seceeding over was the right to own slaves.

Masybe this is where we fail to communicate. Yes, the south had legal slavery, same as much/most of the north. Yes the south seceded and slavery was certainly an issue.

The part where communication breaks down is, it wasn't slavery that started the war, it was secession. Even if slavery was the only issue, it was an indirect issue. There was no need to fire a shot to preserve slavery, the north hand plenty of slave states when the war started and no federal statute had been passed or, under the constitutional view of the day, could be passed to make slavery illegal. Shots were fired because states that had voluntarily chosen to join the union, chose to voluntarily and democratically leave it and the the north would not permit it.

When northerners say the war was for slavery and southerners say it was for states' rights, they are both right, but the southern answer is more correct, IMO, since it talks about the cause of the WAR, rather than the cause of SECESSION, which, in turn, caused the war.

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 16:00
this guy mentions about 25 times how those rude ronulans are just destroying his campaign

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0505/Should-Mitt-Romney-worry-about-Ron-Paul

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 16:08
Good for you. That is a technique that can lead to victory, if enough other people are also doing it at the same time. How many were you able to recruit on GTPI and any other forums you visit? When they seemed hesitant to vote for Paul, how long before you accused them of not supporting the constitution, liberty, conservatism etc. IIRC, it usually didn't take very long. Ask a good salesman how he makes his living. Most good ones don't call the buyer names and insult them. They keep them talking, and keep telling them why the buyer really wants their product. That can take days, weeks or months. Patience is a virtue.

........
[/IMG]

sorry but i can't finish reading all this right now, i may come back later, but really this is pointless talking to you. I have no idea how many people read posts or who might have heard about RP on GTPI- not many, since there are usually only a couple hundred views and most of them are probably the same 20 people. GTPI is for fun. I'm not selling a product here. You should have been able to figure it out yourself anyway, as much time as you read here, without somebody having to sell it to you.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 16:11
Here's another question that is about as relevant as yours. Blah blah blah, Nyah nyah Nyah guffaw wunyo beenpo disciple lives Paul, sound of banging rocks together, du dork duh.



What, I didn't hear your answer???

Please try again.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 16:13
sorry but i can't finish reading all this right now, i may come bacon later. Wah waah wa, wannh waa Wah.

Look forward to reading your response when you have enough time to formulate one.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 16:17
Just something to point out. If you don't have time to answer or respond, take your time. No rush. But don't expect me to pay attention to your posts when you open your remarks with excuses as to how your are unable to make the effort to pay attention to mine.

Evidently, etiquette wasn't part of the required curriculum to graduate middle school where you grew up. Good guess?

QNman
05-05-2012, 16:19
When i'm ready to participate in electing another progressive when progressive policies are destroying the country right in front of us? You'll be waiting for that forever. You have at it though.

You are welcome to do what you wish - it is your vote. But don't pretend a first term Romney will be as bad as a second term Obama.

Tell me - I may have missed it - how are you helping your cause by sitting out or voting third party? To whom are you sending a message? Will your principles allow you to sit idly by and watch whatever unfolds unfold without your say?

You'll understand when you are older. Too bad you seem to need to learn the hard way like too many of us already have. Too bad for us all.

I'm reminded of the song "Back When I Knew It All"... :whistling:

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 16:20
this guy mentions about 25 times how those rude ronulans are just destroying his campaign

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0505/Should-Mitt-Romney-worry-about-Ron-Paul

Any chance he had a point at least a couple
Of those times?

QNman
05-05-2012, 16:22
fortyofforty is correct that the issue of slavery was at the root of the War Between the States.

Declarations of secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)

Second sentence in the Georgia declaration of secession:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Second sentence in the Mississippi declaration of secession:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

South Carolina's declaration is mostly a history lesson but near the end you will see the references to where slavery is the main grievance:
"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."

Third paragraph, third sentence in the Texas declaration of secession:
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

There is no question that slavery was at the heart of it. For the north however lanceorbenson is correct in that the motivation for war was basically economic on the part of the northern manufacturers.

Personally I believe that the states of the Confederacy, having joined voluntarily into the union as sovereign states, also had the right to leave the union if they chose to. Their arguments for their rights as such are good ones, but at the heart of it the right they were really protecting and seceeding over was the right to own slaves.

Damn you and your accursed facts!! Lincoln was the devil! The interwebs told me so!

/sarcasm

fortyofforty
05-05-2012, 16:23
Masybe this is where we fail to communicate. Yes, the south had legal slavery, same as much/most of the north. Yes the south seceded and slavery was certainly an issue.

The part where communication breaks down is, it wasn't slavery that started the war, it was secession. Even if slavery was the only iissue, it was an indirect issue. There was no need to firea shot to preserve slavery, the north hand plenty of slave states when the war started and no federal law had been passed or, under the constitutional view of the day, could be passed to make slavery illegal. Shots were fired because states that ad voluntarily chosen to join the nion, chose to voluntarily and democratically leave it and the the north would not permit it.

When northerners say the war was for slavery and southerners say it was for states' rights, they are both right, but the southern answer is more correct, IMO, since it talks about the cause opf the WAR, rather than the cause of SECESSION, which, in turn, caused the war.

Sure, but the root, fundamental, underlying cause of Southern actions was the fight to preserve slavery. That single issue was so important to some Southerners that they were willing to tear the Union apart rather than risk losing their "right" to keep other human beings as slaves by legislative action in Congress. Slavery. Plain and simple. All about slavery, if you care to dig deep enough. So important to some Southerners was slavery that they were willing to fire the first shots and attack federal installations around the country.

Let me repeat that for those of you ignorant of history. Southerners fired the first shots and attacked federal installations around the country. This gave Lincoln all the pretext he needed to take military action. Had Southern states left federal installations in place and waited them out, who knows what would have happened? But they did not. They launched attacks and took over federal installations by force.

And this is the side Ron Paul is defending in the video. No matter the intellectual points on either side, it looks real bad and would play real bad to voters if the MSM chose to tear Paul apart (which they would do if he won the nomination). Paul is, in short, unelectable for a host of reasons, this being only one of them.

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 18:05
This is a perfect example. Ranting in ignorance is very unflattering for you. When you go down this road, I imagine you as younger than 25.

The analogy obviously was over your head. If you don't understand something, ask about it, don't use it as a zinger. You'll take steps to places you don't want to be if you go off half cocked like this. Texas has not had the primary yet. I haven't had an opportunity to vote in the primary. Maybe you could imagine me in the stands in my uniform waiting for my team to get a chance to play in the playoffs. My game isn't scheduled for a while still.

Try not to boast too much and claim you have done more for this country than the person you are conversing with, especially when conversing with a combat veteran. That usually makes you look petty and ignorant. So far, the sum total of your effect in your battle for liberty has been to get a few votes. How much money and time have you spent? What have you risked? Add it up for me, I'm curious.

Now, to the "deserve" issue. I do not deserve Romney. I deserve much better. But that doesn't make things go my way. In this, you seem to be lashing out again. The problem is that your "cause and effect" detection chip is either under developed, or broken. Try to focus your anger where it belongs. I haven't even had a chance to vote yet. I'm really torqued about that by the way. By the time the horderve tray makes it to my side of the room, I only have two stale tasteless limp crackers to choose from. However either one of those is better than the steaming pile of horse manure Barry has turned out to be. But lets get back to whose fault it really is.

Obviously, there was a race. Romney is obviously not the best candidate. So how did the other campaigns and candidates screw it up so bad. Easy, they were bumbling idiots, and I mean all of them. Romney set back in second place and let everyone pick each other off. The other candidates and their supporters screwed the pooch on this one big time. If any of them had been worth half a mouse fart, they would have smoked Romney. None of them were up to the task.

The media just reports what happens with spin. They have an effect, but not the biggest effect. Letting the small and most liberal states go early in the primary system does exactly what it has done recently, which is help the most liberal candidate (both parties) get elected. That is a factor we can change.


1. Reverse the order the states go in for the Republican Primary.
2. Let the 10 most populous red states go first.
3. Have all states vote on the same day, have runoffs if necessary, but all on the same day.


Look on the bright side, many of you will have time to mature and examine effective strategies before the next election. I certainly hope so, for Rand's sake.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

You haven't voted in the primary, you've only made 6 or 7 ron paul troll threads, hundreds of RP and his supporters are crazy zealots posts, and even carried anybody but romney and paul in your sig for a few months . You've made where you stand very clear.

I don't know how much time i've spent, and how much money is not your business.

Your idea that this has all been some kind of perfectly fair race and it's a simple as nobody was good enough to beat romney, nobody was up to it, doesn't make any sense to me, since he had far more money to spend than the rest of them, quite a bit of it from the same people who will be funding obama's campaign. Their campaigns sucked mostly because they suck- yea the rest of them were terrible candidates, almost as bad as romney- he just had the most money. Newt, rick perry, santorum, it was a joke.

Your idea of the media seems naive as well- the media has a tremendous effect on all of it. Most people don't hang out on a political forum reading stuff from all over the place- they turn on the talking heads and never think twice. We all know how misleading that can be.

As for that last paragraph, i agree.

eta- for the record, santorum was even worse, amazingly enough, as far as i'm concerned

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 18:09
Any chance he had a point at least a couple
Of those times?

so you didn't read it. i was being sarcastic- the guy repeatedly mentions what a force RP's supporters have been for him

Ruble Noon
05-05-2012, 18:21
Masybe this is where we fail to communicate. Yes, the south had legal slavery, same as much/most of the north. Yes the south seceded and slavery was certainly an issue.

The part where communication breaks down is, it wasn't slavery that started the war, it was secession. Even if slavery was the only iissue, it was an indirect issue. There was no need to firea shot to preserve slavery, the north hand plenty of slave states when the war started and no federal law had been passed or, under the constitutional view of the day, could be passed to make slavery illegal. Shots were fired because states that ad voluntarily chosen to join the nion, chose to voluntarily and democratically leave it and the the north would not permit it.

When northerners say the war was for slavery and southerners say it was for states' rights, they are both right, but the southern answer is more correct, IMO, since it talks about the cause opf the WAR, rather than the cause of SECESSION, which, in turn, caused the war.

The election of Abe Lincoln was the catalyst that led to secession by the south. The powder and fuse had been laid many years before, as early as 1848 and the election of Zachary Taylor. Taylor bypassed the territorial stage of California and admitted her as a free state. This didn't sit well with the south as Taylor was a southern slave holder and the south felt betrayed. This also upset the balance of power between the north and the south.
The 1850's saw much political turmoil and infighting between political parties that all came to a head with the election of the controversial Lincoln.
The nation was divided basically between statists and anti-statist at the time, much as today we are divided between big government liberals and small government conservatives.
This was what the fight was about, power. Yes, slavery was part of the equation but the main battle was over power in Washington.

There are a lot of parallels between that time and our current situation in this country.

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 18:34
You are welcome to do what you wish - it is your vote. But don't pretend a first term Romney will be as bad as a second term Obama.

Tell me - I may have missed it - how are you helping your cause by sitting out or voting third party? To whom are you sending a message? Will your principles allow you to sit idly by and watch whatever unfolds unfold without your say?

You'll understand when you are older. Too bad you seem to need to learn the hard way like too many of us already have. Too bad for us all.

I'm reminded of the song "Back When I Knew It All"... :whistling:

How would i be helping my cause by just laying down for having no representation whatsoever? Romney is everything i disagree with. The message is to the GoP. They may well hear it yet, too- RP is the only one left standing after the establishments' attack ad blitz on everybody, and they're gonna have to deal with it- i don't know how much it will matter, i only hope it's as much as possible. I know i'll never be represented by the other guys- this is my only shot. So here goes.

Romney's first term, obama's second, romney's second, whatever. I don't care. They are fundamentally the same. The real issues will not be even be mentioned in any meaningful way, much less something done about them. Romney doesn't even pretend he'll attempt to really cut down any part of this absolutely mind boggling incomprehensible vast monster of a central government we've allowed to happen. He has nothing for me. The scotus bit is weakest thing i've heard, we're trillions- tens of trillions- buried, for generations to come, and that's only for starters. I could hardly care less what wise latina might or might not get appointed to anything at this point.

Your principles allow you to vote for a liberal from mass when liberal policies are destroying the country, mine won't. Maybe you didn't learn as much as you thought from however many more years you have than I- i'm not in my twenties- being herded into line for more of the same when more of the same is crushing you into the dirt doesn't seem very wise to me at all, to say the least.

lancesorbenson
05-05-2012, 18:39
Sure, but the root, fundamental, underlying cause of Southern actions was the fight to preserve slavery. That single issue was so important to some Southerners that they were willing to tear the Union apart rather than risk losing their "right" to keep other human beings as slaves by legislative action in Congress. Slavery. Plain and simple. All about slavery, if you care to dig deep enough. So important to some Southerners was slavery that they were willing to fire the first shots and attack federal installations around the country.

Let me repeat that for those of you ignorant of history. Southerners fired the first shots and attacked federal installations around the country. This gave Lincoln all the pretext he needed to take military action. Had Southern states left federal installations in place and waited them out, who knows what would have happened? But they did not. They launched attacks and took over federal installations by force.

And this is the side Ron Paul is defending in the video. No matter the intellectual points on either side, it looks real bad and would play real bad to voters if the MSM chose to tear Paul apart (which they would do if he won the nomination). Paul is, in short, unelectable for a host of reasons, this being only one of them.

Much easier to just repeat the slavery mantra from grade school than to consider what essentially amounted to economic warfare carried out by the north against the South for 40 years leading up to 1860. Those angelic Yankees sure didn't mind exploiting the South and its evil raw products to feed their industry and turn a profit. When the South lawfully left the Union the Yankees saw that pipeline to cheap raw goods threatened well, that was that. Was slavery a part of it? No question. But to suggest that's the only real reason for the War of Northern Aggression is simplistic but not surprising considering the source.

Ruble Noon
05-05-2012, 18:57
Sure, but the root, fundamental, underlying cause of Southern actions was the fight to preserve slavery. That single issue was so important to some Southerners that they were willing to tear the Union apart rather than risk losing their "right" to keep other human beings as slaves by legislative action in Congress. Slavery. Plain and simple. All about slavery, if you care to dig deep enough. So important to some Southerners was slavery that they were willing to fire the first shots and attack federal installations around the country.

Let me repeat that for those of you ignorant of history. Southerners fired the first shots and attacked federal installations around the country. This gave Lincoln all the pretext he needed to take military action. Had Southern states left federal installations in place and waited them out, who knows what would have happened? But they did not. They launched attacks and took over federal installations by force.

And this is the side Ron Paul is defending in the video. No matter the intellectual points on either side, it looks real bad and would play real bad to voters if the MSM chose to tear Paul apart (which they would do if he won the nomination). Paul is, in short, unelectable for a host of reasons, this being only one of them.

You should buy this book.

Amazon.com: Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States) (9780195168952): James M. McPherson: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qD3wreoYL.@@AMEPARAM@@51qD3wreoYL

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 18:58
You haven't voted in the primary, you've only made 6 or 7 ron paul troll threads, hundreds of RP and his supporters are crazy zealots posts, and even carried anybody but romney and paul in your sig for a few months . You've made where you stand very clear.

So what you're saying is that I have been honest and consistent.
One mans honest criticism is another boy's troll post.


I don't know how much time i've spent, and how much money is not your business.

So not too much spent, and even less risked. Got it



Your idea that this has all been some kind of perfectly fair race and it's a simple as nobody was good enough to beat romney, nobody was up to it, doesn't make any sense to me, since he had far more money to spend than the rest of them, quite a bit of it from the same people who will be funding obama's campaign. Their campaigns sucked mostly because they suck- yea the rest of them were terrible candidates, almost as bad as romney- he just had the most money. Newt, rick perry, santorum, it was a joke.. If he had more money, it can only be because those money bombs Ron tried to get, fizzled. Not my fault.


Your idea of the media seems naive as well- the media has a tremendous effect on all of it. Most people don't hang out on a political forum reading stuff from all over the place- they turn on the talking heads and never think twice. We all know how misleading that can be.

As for that last paragraph, i agree.

eta- for the record, santorum was even worse, amazingly enough, as far as i'm concerned

You are allowed your opinion. But to me, Ronney is third from last, but trailing badly.

One way or the other, that's more your fault than mine. You didn't do enough.

Sorry, but that's how it goes.

Stubudd
05-05-2012, 19:59
So what you're saying is that I have been honest and consistent.
One mans honest criticism is another boy's troll post.

So not too much spent, and even less risked. Got it

. If he had more money, it can only be because those money bombs Ron tried to get, fizzled. Not my fault.

You are allowed your opinion. But to me, Ronney is third from last, but trailing badly.

One way or the other, that's more your fault than mine. You didn't do enough.

Sorry, but that's how it goes.

Just more trolling. I fell for it once again- give it a month or two and i'm sure i'll do it again

Honest and consistent in your trolling except this thread and the others where you say you've haven't had a say yet, romney has more money because i didn't give enough rather than his mega millions super pac corporate donors, you didn't do anything to stop a liberal being the GoP nominee but it's my fault because i didn't do enough, you didn't do anything but you still don't deserve romney, and i didn't risk anything, whatever that means. I guess i'm supposed to sky dive with a RP shirt on or something.

Whatever, about as useful getting trolled by you as it always is.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 20:21
Just more trolling. I fell for it once again- give it a month or two and i'm sure i'll do it again

Honest and consistent in your trolling except this thread and the others where you say you've haven't had a say yet, romney has more money because i didn't give enough rather than his mega millions super pac corporate donors, you didn't do anything to stop a liberal being the GoP nominee but it's my fault because i didn't do enough, you didn't do anything but you still don't deserve romney, and i didn't risk anything, whatever that means. I guess i'm supposed to sky dive with a RP shirt on or something.

Whatever, about as useful getting trolled by you as it always is.

You didn't do anything that stopped a liberal from getting the nomination either. I haven't voted for Romney, that's something.



If you'll go back and check, you lost your manners, and I responded in a polite way.

But hey, look on the bright side, neither one of us is going to get what we want out of the election.

G19G20
05-06-2012, 03:46
zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

Bren
05-06-2012, 04:44
zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

How do Ron Paul's 80 delegates outnumber Mitt Romney's 847?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 05:45
Much easier to just repeat the slavery mantra from grade school than to consider what essentially amounted to economic warfare carried out by the north against the South for 40 years leading up to 1860. Those angelic Yankees sure didn't mind exploiting the South and its evil raw products to feed their industry and turn a profit. When the South lawfully left the Union the Yankees saw that pipeline to cheap raw goods threatened well, that was that. Was slavery a part of it? No question. But to suggest that's the only real reason for the War of Northern Aggression is simplistic but not surprising considering the source.

Much easier on your conscience to pretend that the root cause of the war was not the Southern fight to keep slaves. Those noble slackjawed yokels were all fighting for the right to sell cotton to England, right? Sleep better believing that. :wavey:

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 05:50
You should buy this book.

Amazon.com: Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States) (9780195168952): James M. McPherson: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336265772&sr=1-1)

Read it, thanks. Try this book:

Amazon.com: The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (9780061319297): David M. Potter: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TS4%2BaDh3L.@@AMEPARAM@@51TS4%2BaDh3L

Cavalry Doc
05-06-2012, 06:14
zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

Mind if I ask for a link that shows that to be true?

Thanks.

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 06:52
And, if any of you Paulistas, now having to defend slavery and the Southern cause in the Civil War, still cling to the sixth grade notion taught in the South that slavery was but a minor cause of the conflict, I direct you to the April 29, 1861 message of Jefferson Davis (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdmess.html). In it you will see that slavery was clearly, as any rational person already knows, the root cause of the Civil War. Tilt at windmills all you like, Paulistas. Dance around the issue. Fabricate strawmen, then tear them down. Ignore the question. And still fail to explain what peaceful means Ron Paul would have used to end slavery in 1860 had he been President. :whistling:

QNman
05-06-2012, 07:20
zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

Then that should be easy to cite... Right? Because RP fans would have made some hay about that somewhere... Right?

G-19
05-06-2012, 08:04
zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

What? I can find no info to support this. Please provide a link. Everything shows Romney having about 10X the delegates.

Cavalry Doc
05-06-2012, 08:13
:popcorn:

Bren
05-06-2012, 12:41
And, if any of you Paulistas, now having to defend slavery and the Southern cause in the Civil War, still cling to the sixth grade notion taught in the South that slavery was but a minor cause of the conflict, I direct you to the April 29, 1861 message of Jefferson Davis (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdmess.html). In it you will see that slavery was clearly, as any rational person already knows, the root cause of the Civil War. Tilt at windmills all you like, Paulistas. Dance around the issue. Fabricate strawmen, then tear them down. Ignore the question. And still fail to explain what peaceful means Ron Paul would have used to end slavery in 1860 had he been President. :whistling:

This should probably be a separate thread. And you have missed several points, like the war resulting from secession, Abe Lincoln's comments on preserving the union vs. ending slavery, the limits placed in teh emancipation proclamation. The continued legal slavery in northern and neutral states, during and even after the war, etc.

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 13:02
And, if any of you Paulistas, now having to defend slavery and the Southern cause in the Civil War, still cling to the sixth grade notion taught in the South that slavery was but a minor cause of the conflict, I direct you to the April 29, 1861 message of Jefferson Davis (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdmess.html). In it you will see that slavery was clearly, as any rational person already knows, the root cause of the Civil War. Tilt at windmills all you like, Paulistas. Dance around the issue. Fabricate strawmen, then tear them down. Ignore the question. And still fail to explain what peaceful means Ron Paul would have used to end slavery in 1860 had he been President. :whistling:

You're right. The U.S. could never have ended slavery without the deadliest war in our history. Other countries did it without war, sure, but the U.S. never could have done that.

You can ignore the varied reasons for the war. It's much easier for you. We to tell all those historians to quit researching and writing. Fortyofforty on Glocktalk has all the answers to the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. In the meantime you are welcome to avoid the unenlightened South and all us slack jawed yokels and stay in whatever progressive paradise you call home.

G19G20
05-06-2012, 13:15
Mind if I ask for a link that shows that to be true?

Thanks.

No link to share. It's a hunch based on everything I'm seeing either in person or through reports from other Paulites. Take that for what it's worth (which may be nothing) but following the convention results closely leads me to this conclusion. Your best "source" is all the articles on convention outcomes to date.

Note the use of "I think", which indicates a personal understanding more than anything expressly provable.

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 13:25
zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

I don't think secret imaginary invisible delegates count.:tinfoil:

G19G20
05-06-2012, 15:12
Yep, imaginary invisible delegates like the Maine state convention that we just owned today.

Paul wins majority of Maine delegates:
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-wins-majority-delegates-maine-gop-174422402.html

Cavalry Doc
05-06-2012, 15:38
No link to share. It's a hunch based on everything I'm seeing either in person or through reports from other Paulites. Take that for what it's worth (which may be nothing) but following the convention results closely leads me to this conclusion. Your best "source" is all the articles on convention outcomes to date.

Note the use of "I think", which indicates a personal understanding more than anything expressly provable.

I'll take it for what it is worth, which isn't a lot. About a quarter of a mouse fart in a heavy wind actually. That's hard to attach a value to, as is your unsupported claim.

Oh well, we should probably know how it all turns out in less than a year.

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 16:31
You're right. The U.S. could never have ended slavery without the deadliest war in our history. Other countries did it without war, sure, but the U.S. never could have done that.

You can ignore the varied reasons for the war. It's much easier for you. We to tell all those historians to quit researching and writing. Fortyofforty on Glocktalk has all the answers to the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. In the meantime you are welcome to avoid the unenlightened South and all us slack jawed yokels and stay in whatever progressive paradise you call home.

You can ignore the root cause of the war, and blame those evil Romneyesque Yankees. A country could, if no parts of it were allowed to secede, pass legislation banning slavery without war. Or, as actually happened, a sovereign could simply outlaw slavery in his territories. But, when the Southern states seceded, those options were off the table. In fact, they seceded to prevent legislation outlawing slavery from ever happening.

Nice try, though. :wavey: Back to the books for you, it appears. You can keep your can of history-strength whitewash to salve your conscience, though. Your enlightened ancestors certainly would never have fought to keep men in bondage.

Still no idea what Paul would have done in 1860, have you? :popcorn:

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 16:35
This should probably be a separate thread. And you have missed several points, like the war resulting from secession, Abe Lincoln's comments on preserving the union vs. ending slavery, the limits placed in teh emancipation proclamation. The continued legal slavery in northern and neutral states, during and even after the war, etc.

We all know the peripheral causes of the war. In fact, Karl Marx would have been proud of how you've absorbed his economic interpretation of historical events. However, Southerners often gloss over the root cause of the war. It is so obvious it slaps them in the face, but all they can do is belittle its importance to Southerners in 1860. Don't argue with me. Take it up with Ole Jeff Davis. He knew the real reason for secession. Do you Paulistas? Does Ron Paul himself?

Still waiting to hear what Paul's answer to ending slavery in the South would have been in 1860, since Lincoln's solution was apparently so stupid. :popcorn:

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 18:03
We all know the peripheral causes of the war. In fact, Karl Marx would have been proud of how you've absorbed his economic interpretation of historical events. However, Southerners often gloss over the root cause of the war. It is so obvious it slaps them in the face, but all they can do is belittle its importance to Southerners in 1860. Don't argue with me. Take it up with Ole Jeff Davis. He knew the real reason for secession. Do you Paulistas? Does Ron Paul himself?

Still waiting to hear what Paul's answer to ending slavery in the South would have been in 1860, since Lincoln's solution was apparently so stupid. :popcorn:

Lincoln's "solution" brought us the nation's bloodiest war, income tax, martial law, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. He didn't give a whit about freeing the slaves and said that flat out. Lincoln pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act early in the war and even the sacred Emancipation Proclamation offered to continue slavery. Robert E. Lee wasn't a particular fan of slavery and yet he chose to fight for the Confederacy. I guess he was just confused and needed fortyofforty from Glocktalk to straighten him out.

As far as freeing slaves without the bloodiest war in our history, it likely could have been done considering other nations did it. Surely you don't think our only peer in slave-freeing history is Haiti.

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 18:20
As far as freeing slaves without the bloodiest war in our history, it likely could have been done considering other nations did it. Surely you don't think our only peer in slave-freeing history is Haiti.

How, genius? Don't give me the Ron Paul dodge. How? Specifically. Since attacking Abraham Lincoln is now one of Paul's campaign strategies, what would he have done differently? :popcorn:

lancesorbenson
05-06-2012, 18:42
How, genius? Don't give me the Ron Paul dodge. How? Specifically. Since attacking Abraham Lincoln is now one of Paul's campaign strategies, what would he have done differently? :popcorn:

Why don't you how look into how a dozen or so other Western countries did it and then tell me it wouldn't have been worth at least trying something else before launching the bloodiest war in US history? Speaking of dodging, I notice you ignore Lincoln disinterest in freeing slaves up to and through the Emancipation Proclamation. But that can't be! He just wanted to free the slaves because he loved them so much.

fortyofforty
05-06-2012, 19:04
Why don't you how look into how a dozen or so other Western countries did it and then tell me it wouldn't have been worth at least trying something else before launching the bloodiest war in US history? Speaking of dodging, I notice you ignore Lincoln disinterest in freeing slaves up to and through the Emancipation Proclamation. But that can't be! He just wanted to free the slaves because he loved them so much.

Why don't you answer my question? Which way would Ron Paul have ended slavery had he been elected in 1860? Simple answer will suffice. I'll be waiting. :popcorn: Are you so ignorant you don't even know about the other ways to end slavery that were being tried, or do you pretend that they weren't tried in order to justify Ron Paul's idiocy?

By the way, do you think Lincoln was pro-slavery like your heroes?

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 19:10
Which way would Ron Paul have ended slavery had he been elected in 1860? Simple answer will suffice. I'll be waiting. :popcorn:

Letters of marque and reprisal?

Earmarks?

:dunno:

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 04:14
QNman, I did not hijack a thread. I merely pointed out another reason Ron Paul is unelectable and some predictably took offense. Thanks for starting the other thread, though, but unless you somehow tie it to Ron Paul I fear it won't get much real debate here on GT. By the way, almost every one of my posts in the thread referred back to Ron Paul, the original post topic, if you want to check.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 04:41
You can ignore the root cause of the war, and blame those evil Romneyesque Yankees. A country could, if no parts of it were allowed to secede, pass legislation banning slavery without war. Or, as actually happened, a sovereign could simply outlaw slavery in his territories. But, when the Southern states seceded, those options were off the table. In fact, they seceded to prevent legislation outlawing slavery from ever happening.

Nice try, though. :wavey: Back to the books for you, it appears. You can keep your can of history-strength whitewash to salve your conscience, though. Your enlightened ancestors certainly would never have fought to keep men in bondage.

Still no idea what Paul would have done in 1860, have you? :popcorn:

Wasn't he writing some sort of a newsletter in 1860? Just go back to the archives and read them.










[/obscure humor mode]

QNman
05-07-2012, 15:48
QNman, I did not hijack a thread. I merely pointed out another reason Ron Paul is unelectable and some predictably took offense. Thanks for starting the other thread, though, but unless you somehow tie it to Ron Paul I fear it won't get much real debate here on GT. By the way, almost every one of my posts in the thread referred back to Ron Paul, the original post topic, if you want to check.

Fair enough. My apologies for including you. And for what it's worth, I think your position on the Civil War is both correct and well documented here.

Rob1109
05-07-2012, 16:05
Somehow, through some goofy manipulation, RP supporters took over the Nevada State Republican committee. They could never do this through an honest vote, so there had to be some procedural scam.

Anyone who believes RP can be elected President should be put into some mental care facility, before they hurt themselves or others. RP is a physician so he must have some mental abilities. So I'm at a loss as to how someone like this can be so goofy!

I am of the William F. Buckley philosophy....I'll vote for the most conservative candidate WHO CAN BE ELECTED!

It scares me that there are people out there who think RP is viable.

I haven't read the other posts, only speaking for myself. And I don't intend to read the other posts, assuming many are from RP supporters. I don't have anything to say to or hear from this mentality.

Best.

RCP
05-07-2012, 16:29
Somehow, through some goofy manipulation, RP supporters took over the Nevada State Republican committee. They could never do this through an honest vote, so there had to be some procedural scam.

Anyone who believes RP can be elected President should be put into some mental care facility, before they hurt themselves or others. RP is a physician so he must have some mental abilities. So I'm at a loss as to how someone like this can be so goofy!

I am of the William F. Buckley philosophy....I'll vote for the most conservative candidate WHO CAN BE ELECTED!

It scares me that there are people out there who think RP is viable.

I haven't read the other posts, only speaking for myself. And I don't intend to read the other posts, assuming many are from RP supporters. I don't have anything to say to or hear from this mentality.

Best.

This is not isolated to Nevada. He's won Louisiana, Maine, Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and will most likely take a few more States before all is said and done. Couple this with the RNC's own rules which say that delegates are not bound and it looks like ol Mittens might have his hands full come convention time.

G19G20
05-08-2012, 02:19
Somehow, through some goofy manipulation, RP supporters took over the Nevada State Republican committee. They could never do this through an honest vote, so there had to be some procedural scam.

Anyone who believes RP can be elected President should be put into some mental care facility, before they hurt themselves or others. RP is a physician so he must have some mental abilities. So I'm at a loss as to how someone like this can be so goofy!

I am of the William F. Buckley philosophy....I'll vote for the most conservative candidate WHO CAN BE ELECTED!

It scares me that there are people out there who think RP is viable.

I haven't read the other posts, only speaking for myself. And I don't intend to read the other posts, assuming many are from RP supporters. I don't have anything to say to or hear from this mentality.

Best.

We show up. Mitt's folks don't. It's that simple.

I'm truly sorry to those that didn't take the time to truly understand how our electoral system works. Most think their responsibility is done when they go to a church and press a button on a screen that they trust isn't compromised. That's bread and circus. Where the magic happens is the delegate race. Bet you'll understand it better next time. Or I hope you will.

On second thought, ignore all this delegate stuff and stick with your buttons on a screen. Checks and balances were made to keep people like you from enforcing your will on people like me.

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 04:25
Except at the voting booths. Then, Mitt's folks show up and Paul's don't. It's that simple.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 05:07
Except at the voting booths. Then, Mitt's folks show up and Paul's don't. It's that simple.

I think you got that wrong. It seems to me that the VAST majority of Paul supporters get to the polls. A small percentage of Romney supporters do. But the Romney guys have still outnumbered the Paul guys by large margins. It's sad, but there just aren't enough of the Paul guys. That's why they are attempting to get around the popular vote with the delegate strategy.

It will be interesting to watch.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 05:11
We show up. Mitt's folks don't. It's that simple.

I'm truly sorry to those that didn't take the time to truly understand how our electoral system works. Most think their responsibility is done when they go to a church and press a button on a screen that they trust isn't compromised. That's bread and circus. Where the magic happens is the delegate race. Bet you'll understand it better next time. Or I hope you will.

On second thought, ignore all this delegate stuff and stick with your buttons on a screen. Checks and balances were made to keep people like you from enforcing your will on people like me.

This an extremely fun thing to watch. Almost like sudden death overtime.


Just wondering, let's hypothetically assume that Paul gets the nomination. Wouldnt you expect a backlash and possibly a Mittens third party campaign. The electoral college will still be an issues, but it's kind of hard to fool someone with the same card trick when you showed them how you do it.

I'm not seeing an easy road ahead.

Goaltender66
05-08-2012, 05:34
We show up. Mitt's folks don't. It's that simple.

I'm truly sorry to those that didn't take the time to truly understand how our electoral system works. Most think their responsibility is done when they go to a church and press a button on a screen that they trust isn't compromised. That's bread and circus. Where the magic happens is the delegate race. Bet you'll understand it better next time. Or I hope you will.

On second thought, ignore all this delegate stuff and stick with your buttons on a screen. Checks and balances were made to keep people like you from enforcing your will on people like me.

It's almost like you're trying to convince yourself. Being that several people have walked through why yours is a pipe dream, apparently you prefer fantasy to reality.

The Machinist
05-08-2012, 06:39
Anyone who thinks a liberal Republican like Romney has a prayer of unseating a sitting president is delusional.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 06:46
Anyone who thinks a liberal Republican like Romney has a prayer of unseating a sitting president is delusional.

If even one person prays for Romney to beat Barry, wouldn't that make your statement false?

He doesn't have a great chance, but he has a small one. The situation doesn't look good though.

Goaltender66
05-08-2012, 06:57
If even one person prays for Romney to beat Barry, wouldn't that make your statement false?

He doesn't have a great chance, but he has a small one. The situation doesn't look good though.

It isn't an easy path (not that there are such things as easy paths in presidential elections...), but there is a definite path. Obama hasn't had an approval over 50% among likelies for two years now. That national polls have him split 50/50 with Romney in the spring of an election year is *not* a positive for Obama (To contrast, in 1980 even Carter had significant polling leads over Reagan). Romney is holding his own in VA, OH, and FL. Also, Romney's campaign is pretty nimble (and ruthless). Note how he's fighting back effectively against all of Obama's attempts to define him (Obama Eats Dog!). Romney apparently understands what McCain didn't: Elections aren't won in the spring, but they are lost.

Plus, Obama is running a Gore/Carter-style "paint the opponent as a right wing extremist ideologue" immediately after the primaries were painting Romney as a leftist. Voters do pick up on this stuff.

Lastly, Obama is already complaining about negative campaign ads. There are few iron-clad rules in politics, but one is "the side complaining about negative campaigning is the side that is losing."

walt cowan
05-08-2012, 07:33
there are tons of pissed-off obama supporters wanting to not cast a second vote for barry but, they will refuse to cross over to a wall street hack like mittins. is the rnc too blind to see this or...just working for the club?

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 07:52
there are tons of pissed-off obama supporters wanting to not cast a second vote for barry but, they will refuse to cross over to a wall street hack like mittins. is the rnc too blind to see this or...just working for the club?

Did the voters in the primary vote for mittens, or was he chosen by those that showed up to vote.

It would be comforting to imagine a nefarious plot to give him the nomination, and rather concerning to think that so many republican primary voters actually lean that far left, but that looks like where we are.

walt cowan
05-08-2012, 09:24
Did the voters in the primary vote for mittens, or was he chosen by those that showed up to vote.

It would be comforting to imagine a nefarious plot to give him the nomination, and rather concerning to think that so many republican primary voters actually lean that far left, but that looks like where we are.

back on the point doc. i'm talking cross over votes not the r or d voters. yeah they lean just over the center and offten see themselfs dead on center and try vote that way. mitt and barry have all the hard r and d votes locked but not these voters. their still seeing this race as a three way and waiting for the dust to settel. if it comes down to mittens and barry....they'll see barry more to the center than mittens and vote that way. unlike mittens, paul is not seen as a wall street, siliver spoon, uber white bread, tax haven seeking guy. nor like barry a bearer of false hopes. he fits what they see the as the center and thus be more likely to cross over to pual. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 09:36
back on the point doc. i'm talking cross over votes not the r or d voters. yeah they lean just over the center and offten see themselfs dead on center and try vote that way. mitt and barry have all the hard r and d votes locked but not these voters. their still seeing this race as a three way and waiting for the dust to settel. if it comes down to mittens and barry....they'll see barry more to the center than mittens and vote that way. unlike mittens, paul is not seen as a wall street, siliver spoon, uber white bread, tax haven seeking guy. nor like barry a bearer of false hopes. he fits what they see the as the center and thus be more likely to cross over to pual. :wavey:

That's A theory, but we'll have to see how it plays out. So far, in my opinion, Paul has only appealed to a small minority of voters. Just look at the results from this primary and the last one, and his run in the 80's. As dismal as I consider the other two candidates, the majority of voters seem to like them better.

It seems I am also in a minority.

QNman
05-08-2012, 17:50
back on the point doc. i'm talking cross over votes not the r or d voters. yeah they lean just over the center and offten see themselfs dead on center and try vote that way. mitt and barry have all the hard r and d votes locked but not these voters. their still seeing this race as a three way and waiting for the dust to settel. if it comes down to mittens and barry....they'll see barry more to the center than mittens and vote that way. unlike mittens, paul is not seen as a wall street, siliver spoon, uber white bread, tax haven seeking guy. nor like barry a bearer of false hopes. he fits what they see the as the center and thus be more likely to cross over to pual. :wavey:

Why is it a man who pulls in more cash per week than the average Joe pulls in a year (Obama) is somehow considered a "working man's man"? Specifically, a man (Obama) who's never done a day of actual work his enitre life? He grew up in Hawaii. He went to Harvard. He's never actually had to work. (poor, poor guy...) And HE'S the working man's hero?

Say many things against Romney and I will absolutely agree with you. But painting him as somehow worse that Obama when Romney actually DID work "in the world" and you're buying whatever his opponent is selling, whether that is Paul or Obama.

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 17:54
Why is it a man who pulls in more cash per week than the average Joe pulls in a year (Obama) is somehow considered a "working man's man"? Specifically, a man (Obama) who's never done a day of actual work his enitre life? He grew up in Hawaii. He went to Harvard. He's never actually had to work. (poor, poor guy...) And HE'S the working man's hero?

Say many things against Romney and I will absolutely agree with you. But painting him as somehow worse that Obama when Romney actually DID work "in the world" and you're buying whatever his opponent is selling, whether that is Paul or Obama.

Democrats are never called out on things like this, at least by the MSM. A guy like Joe Biden can also pretend to be a "Working Joe" too, without everybody even breaking out into laughter. Michael Moore can represent the little guy, too, without a sense of irony. Puns intended. The internet might turn out to be the great equalizer, which is why Democrats want to control its content.

QNman
05-08-2012, 18:02
Democrats are never called out on things like this, at least by the MSM. A guy like Joe Biden can also pretend to be a "Working Joe" too, without everybody even breaking out into laughter. Michael Moore can represent the little guy, too, without a sense of irony. Puns intended. The internet might turn out to be the great equalizer, which is why Democrats want to control its content.

Ain't THAT the truth. Why some choose to ignore this obvious fact is beyond me.

Glocksanity
05-08-2012, 23:13
Mittens is about as exciting to listen to as Gore. He absolutely puts you to sleep. He talks like he doesn't believe a word he says.

Just a pathetic excuse for a candidate.

Ha ha ha.

RP owns him on all the issues but most Americans are too chicken **** to admit that reality.