Romney losing ground to Obama while Paul collects delegates [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney losing ground to Obama while Paul collects delegates


Pages : [1] 2

Ruble Noon
05-22-2012, 17:36
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-losing-ground-to-obama-while-paul-collects-delegates

nursetim
05-22-2012, 19:41
I like Dr. Paul, with the exception of his foreign policy, but I really think if by some miracle he is our next POTUS, he will be a lame duck. I hate to say this but I fear it is the truth. I don't know if he has what it takes to unite us. None of the other clowns do either but at least Dr. Paul might straighten out our economy and shrink our government.

GAFinch
05-22-2012, 20:24
I like Dr. Paul, with the exception of his foreign policy, but I really think if by some miracle he is our next POTUS, he will be a lame duck. I hate to say this but I fear it is the truth. I don't know if he has what it takes to unite us. None of the other clowns do either but at least Dr. Paul might straighten out our economy and shrink our government.

How would he straighten out our economy if he, as you correctly state, doesn't have the skill set to work with other politicians in Congress to get laws passed and would end up being little more than a lame duck the entire time, much like Obama since the 2010 elections?

Why would anyone try to work with him? His entire platform is based on undoing federal laws, no matter the practical outcome. Every single issue (military, drugs, gay marriage, gun control, etc) is centered around moving the law to the states or eliminating it altogether. There'd be no quid pro quo with him.

The best he can do is build a movement for his son Rand, who does seem like he's at least trying to play well with others. I know my congressman, a Tea Party Republican, has teamed up with him on a couple bills lately...including the Life at Conception Act (http://www.prolifealliance.com/life%20at%20conception%20act.htm), which is very important to Republicans given that abortion now numbers at 55 million and accounts for 1 in 4 healthy pregnancies. Ron Paul, predictably, doesn't support (http://www.dennyburk.com/ron-paul-no-federal-protection-for-the-unborn/) the bill since it modifies the federal constitution, even though he's pro-life. You see this same simpleton thought process in his non-support of the federal bill that outlawed lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which would lead to gun control via trial lawyers.

Rob1109
05-22-2012, 20:29
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-losing-ground-to-obama-while-paul-collects-delegates

Ron Paul supporters = Obama supporters!!!

G29Reload
05-22-2012, 20:42
Since Paul is essentially out of the running, his continued attempts to throw a monkey wrench in the works and either slow things down or sew discontent discredits him as nothing more than a vandal.

The only thing that matters right now is getting rid of Zero. If everything you do isn't about that, you're part of the problem.

He's a 5%er and always has and always will be. The presidency isn't about cooking up disproportionate misleading numbers, its about motivating people en masse to create a groundswell.

Paul has failed, plain and simple. He isn't the one, and trying to squeeze blood out of a stone only serves to annoy and distract at this point.

JBnTX
05-22-2012, 20:53
Ron Paul supporters = Obama supporters!!!


Romney haters = Obama supporters, too!!!

RC-RAMIE
05-22-2012, 21:04
Why would anyone try to work with him? His entire platform is based on undoing federal laws, no matter the practical outcome. Every single issue (military, drugs, gay marriage, gun control, etc) is centered around moving the law to the states or eliminating it altogether. There'd be no quid pro quo with him.

.

You say it like it is a bad thing.




....

RCP
05-22-2012, 21:14
Ron Paul supporters = Obama supporters!!!

Wrong. Romney supporters = white Obama supporters. We get Obama regardless of who wins this one your choices are simply dark chocolate or white chocolate. Enjoy!

The Machinist
05-22-2012, 21:19
The one fundamental difference between Obama and Romney, is that one is black, and the other is white. Regardless of which one wins, your life as a tax-paying head of cattle will remain unchanged. The debt will go up. The borders will stay wide open. The TSA will put their hands on your privates.

I honestly don't understand Romney supporters. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

RCP stole my thunder!:tongueout:

aspartz
05-22-2012, 22:52
...including the Life at Conception Act (http://www.prolifealliance.com/life%20at%20conception%20act.htm), which is very important to Republicans
It is very important to the religious wing of the GOP. The actual T.E.A. Party would oppose this act. The sooner the GOP pushes the fundamentalists to the back of the bus, the sooner the GOP regains its rightful position again.

If the GOP continues to be the party of the moralists with pro life as plank #1 (and enforced christian morals as #2), they will lose fiscal conservatives like me to the libertarians.

ARS

Fed Five Oh
05-23-2012, 00:07
I like Dr. Paul, with the exception of his foreign policy, but I really think if by some miracle he is our next POTUS, he will be a lame duck. I hate to say this but I fear it is the truth. I don't know if he has what it takes to unite us. None of the other clowns do either but at least Dr. Paul might straighten out our economy and shrink our government.You got nothing to worry about. The little goof will not be our next President.

shadowman024
05-23-2012, 00:10
paul has no chance, i don't like romney but i have no choice

G19G20
05-23-2012, 01:29
paul has no chance, i don't like romney but i have no choice

Hey! It's a "no chance" poster. I don't see many of those anymore in GTPI. G29Reload and ShootThemAll have it to themselves and maybe GateKeeper on occasion.

Seems there's some doubt creeping in among those that research convention results re: Paul's RNC chances and I see most readers of this forum don't actually post.

Romney is a choice. Obama is a choice. Paul is a choice. What matters is the method you use to make that choice.

G-19
05-23-2012, 04:00
It is very important to the religious wing of the GOP. The actual T.E.A. Party would oppose this act. The sooner the GOP pushes the fundamentalists to the back of the bus, the sooner the GOP regains its rightful position again.

If the GOP continues to be the party of the moralists with pro life as plank #1 (and enforced christian morals as #2), they will lose fiscal conservatives like me to the libertarians.
ARS

Goodbye :wavey:

G29Reload
05-23-2012, 04:13
Goodbye :wavey:


Yep. Someone more worried about money than his soul.

aspartz
05-23-2012, 05:02
Goodbye :wavey:

Yep. Someone more worried about money than his soul.

Might I suggest the mis-named Constitution party for those who feel moral issues should trump economic issues.

ARS

Brucev
05-23-2012, 06:09
Ron Paul = Ross Perot. Same deal, just a different election cycle. Result will be that the demokrats get another 4 years to further advance their agenda of domestic terrorism. Those who support/vote for the second rp are only enablers of the demokrats. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

aspartz
05-23-2012, 06:14
Ron Paul = Ross Perot. Same deal, just a different election cycle. Result will be that the demokrats get another 4 years to further advance their agenda of domestic terrorism. Those who support/vote for the second rp are only enablers of the demokrats. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
People who hold their nose and vote for a BAD candidate just to beat the other guy are those who perpetuate the bad choice made by the GOP.

ARS

aspartz
05-23-2012, 06:15
Yep. Someone more worried about money than his soul.
The government should not be concerned about anyone's soul. That is the responsibility of the individual.

ARS

Cavalry Doc
05-23-2012, 06:26
Oh well, at least the Paul guys are keeping it interesting.

It'll be fun to watch.

lancesorbenson
05-23-2012, 08:48
Yep. Someone more worried about money than his soul.

And Romney supported state-funded abortions ten years ago. He thought Roe v. Wade should be preserved. Now he says it's a state's issue while also advocating for a constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception. I don't think Romney even knows where he stands on abortion, kinda like his multiple positions on guns.

Brucev
05-23-2012, 10:22
People who hold their nose and vote for a BAD candidate just to beat the other guy are those who perpetuate the bad choice made by the GOP.

ARS

No. Voting for the most conservative candidate electable is what people do who think and vote rationally rather than letting their emotions do the punching in the voting booth. The result is that extreme left-wing liberals are not enabled to gain public office. The nation is better served.

jeanderson
05-23-2012, 10:33
Way to early to worry about poll numbers. Frankly I hope Romney stays a little behind Obama until right after the conventions. If he falls significantly behind early in the campaign, Obama will dump Biden and get Hillary on the ticket. Once the convention is over, he's stuck with Biden.

Let the polls show him ahead, for now. I think the country will wake up before it's too late. Maybe I'm just an optimist...

GAFinch
05-23-2012, 11:29
It is very important to the religious wing of the GOP. The actual T.E.A. Party would oppose this act. The sooner the GOP pushes the fundamentalists to the back of the bus, the sooner the GOP regains its rightful position again.

If the GOP continues to be the party of the moralists with pro life as plank #1 (and enforced christian morals as #2), they will lose fiscal conservatives like me to the libertarians.

ARS

I'm a fiscal conservative first and a social conservative second. I've been very much aware of the problem of fiscally incompetent candidates getting elected over a couple social platforms, but, as fiscal policies come to dominate the GOP, there's no reason to completely abandon social issues altogether. The bill is a very simple alteration of the constitution that doesn't create a new prohibition, but just undoes a previous change to the constitution by liberal justices. Why is the death of one American terrorist by a drone strike wrong, but the genocide of 55 million American children off-limits to discussion?

Ruble Noon
05-23-2012, 16:55
No. Voting for the most conservative candidate electable is what people do who think and vote rationally rather than letting their emotions do the punching in the voting booth. The result is that extreme left-wing liberals are not enabled to gain public office. The nation is better served.

Given the prior history of people voting for the lesser evil, I don't know how you can intellectually rationalize that thought.

G29Reload
05-23-2012, 17:00
I'm a fiscal conservative first and a social conservative second.

No such thing. The two topics are intertwined and heavily related. You can't be one without the other and not be at cross purposes with yourself.

Ruble Noon
05-23-2012, 17:11
No such thing.

I agree. A social conservative is just a statist in disguise.

G29Reload
05-23-2012, 17:23
I agree. A social conservative is just a statist in disguise.

You clearly didn't understand what I wrote.

A social conservative is nothing of the kind. They don't beleive in abortion, much less paying for it out of public funds, are against welfare and handouts to those that didn't earn it, etc.

That kind of thinking also gets fiscal conservatism, since being fiscally responsible means not supporting the welfare state the social liberals want to fund with other peoples money.

So, being fiscally conservative and socially conservative is just the OPPOSITE of statists.

hogfish
05-23-2012, 17:26
No such thing. The two topics are intertwined and heavily related. You can't be one without the other and not be at cross purposes with yourself.

Oh, boy! :wow: Would you explain how you concluded this?

Thanks.

G29Reload
05-23-2012, 17:30
Oh, boy! :wow: Would you explain how you concluded this?

Thanks.


Jesus. another one. :upeyes:

If you don't think liberal social policies don't cost money, you got another thing coming. You can't be "fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues". That's like saying, I don't stand for anything!

Liberal social issues are EXPENSIVE. They always turn out that way, leftist, statist re-deistribution of wealth.

If you believe you are socially liberal, you CAN NOT BE fiscally conservative. The two are contradictory.

hogfish
05-23-2012, 17:35
Jesus. another one. :upeyes:

If you don't think liberal social policies don't cost money, you got another thing coming. You can't be "fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues". That's like saying, I don't stand for anything!

Liberal social issues are EXPENSIVE. They always turn out that way, leftist, statist re-deistribution of wealth.

If you believe you are socially liberal, you CAN NOT BE fiscally conservative. The two are contradictory.

Why bring Jesus into this?

Anyway...I see where you're coming from. I disagree with your arguement.

Thanks for responding. Your previous post came up while I was writing mine up, so I didn't see it.

G29Reload
05-23-2012, 17:39
I disagree with your arguement.

How is that even possible?

Or are you going to posit that liberal social policies are cheap, privately funded and very effective? That they don't redistribute income, by forcibly confiscating it from people who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who did not?

Cause that's what has to happen for you to disagree with me. Practical, on the ground reality.

Bogey
05-23-2012, 17:48
At least Romney isn't a Marxist.

RCP
05-23-2012, 17:53
No. Voting for the most conservative candidate electable is what people do who think and vote rationally rather than letting their emotions do the punching in the voting booth. The result is that extreme left-wing liberals are not enabled to gain public office. The nation is better served.

That's worked so well that now we have a gun grabbing liberal progressive as our Republican candidate. Awesome, keep up the good work!

Ruble Noon
05-23-2012, 17:57
That's worked so well that now we have a gun grabbing liberal progressive as our Republican candidate. Awesome, keep up the good work!

If past progression is an indicator, we could have a gun grabbing progressive marxist as the republican nominee in 2016.

RCP
05-23-2012, 18:04
Hey as long as they have an R in front of their name who cares right?

hogfish
05-23-2012, 18:42
How is that even possible?

Or are you going to posit that liberal social policies are cheap, privately funded and very effective? That they don't redistribute income, by forcibly confiscating it from people who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who did not?

Cause that's what has to happen for you to disagree with me. Practical, on the ground reality.

Definitions.

When you define socialism/comunism as liberal, your arguement makes sense.

I could argue that conservatism has nothing to do with economics, but has to do with wearing funny headware: hassidic jews, the various middle-eastern people who wrap their heads, amish, etc.

:yawn:

G29Reload
05-23-2012, 18:53
Definitions.

When you define socialism/comunism as liberal, your arguement makes sense.

Actually, my argument makes sense. They're both on the left side of the page. Liberals using force of arms to have their way is the only thing left to make them full on commies.


I could argue that conservatism has nothing to do with economics, but has to do with wearing funny headware: hassidic jews, the various middle-eastern people who wrap their heads, amish, etc.



But of course that would be silly, ridiculous and changing the subject because you lost the argument, or in this case don't even have one, are basically wrong and take my point.

A very graceful concession if I do say so myself. Consider yourself re-educated.

hogfish
05-23-2012, 19:10
Actually, my argument makes sense. They're both on the left side of the page. Liberals using force of arms to have their way is the only thing left to make them full on commies.



But of course that would be silly, ridiculous and changing the subject because you lost the argument, or in this case don't even have one, are basically wrong and take my point.

A very graceful concession if I do say so myself. Consider yourself re-educated.

I see. Arguement for the sake of arguement. You get a blue ribbon.

:birthdaysong:

Chuck TX
05-23-2012, 19:46
If past progression is an indicator, we could have a gun grabbing progressive marxist as the republican nominee in 2016.

Yeah, but they'll have nearly a 46% chance of winning, so it'll be ok. :rofl:

lancesorbenson
05-23-2012, 20:17
You clearly didn't understand what I wrote.

A social conservative is nothing of the kind. They don't beleive in abortion, much less paying for it out of public funds, are against welfare and handouts to those that didn't earn it, etc.


So what do you call a person who thinks abortion should be perfectly legal but doesn't want the government paying for it?

I would say that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but according to you that is not possible.

GAFinch
05-23-2012, 20:52
That's worked so well that now we have a gun grabbing liberal progressive as our Republican candidate. Awesome, keep up the good work!

Sure, Romney has a worse voting record on gun control than Santorum, who I voted for, but it's better than Paul, who would be happy for Bloomberg and the Brady campaign to sue several gun companies based in blue states out of business, as long as his precious voluntaryist record stays intact. Why do you not see a problem with this? Do you only own Glocks and Rugers which are headquartered in red states?

GAFinch
05-23-2012, 21:37
No such thing. The two topics are intertwined and heavily related. You can't be one without the other and not be at cross purposes with yourself.

I agree that they are naturally intertwined, but not necessarily. You can have social conservatives afraid to take on medicare, public education, or global warming for fear of being seen as heartless monsters (of course, rolling back welfare programs returns it to local charities and religious groups which are more efficient and more personalized). You can also have fiscal conservatives who aren't at all socially conservative, as shown very heavily by many libertarians. I do think that, as long as you're someone who's rational and willing to grow in your beliefs, that being conservative in one of the areas does tend to gradually reinforce the other over time.

As to my statement...I meant that I make sure that a candidate has at least a fairly good fiscal policy before moving on to their social policies. Also, that it's hard to evaluate a law or program on its social merits without considering its long term fiscal solvency. Better to have a scaled back program that lasts indefinitely than a bigger one that runs out of funds in a decade and then starts cannibalizing another program.

nmk
05-23-2012, 22:34
So what do you call a person who thinks abortion should be perfectly legal but doesn't want the government paying for it?

I would say that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but according to you that is not possible.

Well, if you're going to bring specifics into this....

of course his generic argument falls apart.

RCP
05-24-2012, 01:28
Sure, Romney has a worse voting record on gun control than Santorum, who I voted for, but it's better than Paul, who would be happy for Bloomberg and the Brady campaign to sue several gun companies based in blue states out of business, as long as his precious voluntaryist record stays intact. Why do you not see a problem with this? Do you only own Glocks and Rugers which are headquartered in red states?

Because its not the Federal Govts place. Sounds like a good incentive for firearms manufacturers to pack up shop and relocate to red states. In fact I like the idea of rewarding the economy of the States who are pro 2nd Amendment.

Cavalry Doc
05-24-2012, 05:36
What is the current delegate count according to the Paul crowd?

Gary W Trott
05-24-2012, 09:02
Sure, Romney has a worse voting record on gun control than Santorum, who I voted for, but it's better than Paul, who would be happy for Bloomberg and the Brady campaign to sue several gun companies based in blue states out of business, as long as his precious voluntaryist record stays intact. Why do you not see a problem with this?
Ron Paul's reasons for opposing that legislation can be read here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html). In my opinion they are good reasons because the federal government, except by continuing to twist the commerce clause, has no business regulating who can sued and what they can be sued for.

Paul has an excellent voting record on gun control legislation as he has never voted in favor of any law. In fact he has supported and introduced legislation to repeal gun control laws.

Gun Owners of America graded the candidates as:

Ron Paul - A+
Rick Perry - A
Rick Santorum - B-
Newt Gingrich - C
Mitt Romney - D-

They also list the reasons for those grades (http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm) (click on the candidate)

Do you only own Glocks and Rugers which are headquartered in red states?
When did Connecticut become a red state?

RCP
05-24-2012, 10:12
What is the current delegate count according to the Paul crowd?

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/4heins/f3f78cb1.jpg

Cavalry Doc
05-24-2012, 13:53
That would require that it gets to an open convention.

What is the count for the first vote including bound delegates. Numbers from the Paul campaign or any other source is acceptible.

shadowman024
05-24-2012, 14:07
I think the longer paul stays in it the better chance obama has. He needs to bow out, so all his supporters can rally behind romney. I think romney needs to pick a righty for vp so we meaning i still feel like were getting something out of the deal.

Ruble Noon
05-24-2012, 14:36
I think the longer paul stays in it the better chance obama has. He needs to bow out, so all his supporters can rally behind romney. I think romney needs to pick a righty for vp so we meaning i still feel like were getting something out of the deal.


:rofl::rofl::uglylol::animlol:

The Machinist
05-24-2012, 15:12
I think the longer paul stays in it the better chance obama has. He needs to bow out, so all his supporters can rally behind romney. I think romney needs to pick a righty for vp so we meaning i still feel like were getting something out of the deal.
No matter what happens, I will never vote for Romney. Not ever. Pro-abortion, gun-banning, socialized medicine advocates do not get my vote.

RCP
05-24-2012, 15:25
That would require that it gets to an open convention.

What is the count for the first vote including bound delegates. Numbers from the Paul campaign or any other source is acceptible.

I've posted links numerous times in regards to Paul supporters and more importantly Paul delegates have discovered there is no such thing as "bound delegates" according to the RNCs own rules.

GAFinch
05-24-2012, 17:38
When did Connecticut become a red state?

Oh, I thought Ruger was in Arizona. Even worse.

Cavalry Doc
05-24-2012, 18:22
I've posted links numerous times in regards to Paul supporters and more importantly Paul delegates have discovered there is no such thing as "bound delegates" according to the RNCs own rules.

Maybe I missed something. My understanding is that state law and RNC rules do limit certain delegates from going off the reservation and voting for anyone on the first vote at least.

If you wouldn't mind, can you post the links one more time, or a link to where you previously posted them.


Much appreciated.

G-19
05-24-2012, 18:55
What is the current delegate count according to the Paul crowd?

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/mobile/delegates

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/calculator/

There are just some, none show Paul really gaining any real headway.

shadowman024
05-24-2012, 19:53
No matter what happens, I will never vote for Romney. Not ever. Pro-abortion, gun-banning, socialized medicine advocates do not get my vote.
so if paul doesn't get in you wont vote smart:dunno:

G29Reload
05-24-2012, 22:16
Its over.

By Tuesday. TX.

Romney has enough for the first ballot.



You're just another against Ron Paul! Why do you hate the Constitution so much? You'll see….when the REAL delegate count happens in the super secret real convention that happens, the only one that counts, Ron Paul will prevail…then we'll show you….

G19G20
05-24-2012, 22:26
Its over.

By Tuesday. TX.

Romney has enough for the first ballot.



You're just another against Ron Paul! Why do you hate the Constitution so much? You'll see….when the REAL delegate count happens in the super secret real convention that happens, the only one that counts, Ron Paul will prevail…then we'll show you….

So you're saying that groups of delegates like from Minnesota, where 32 of 40 national delegates are Paul supporters, will vote for Romney on the first ballot? I can't wait to hear your explanation for how that's going to happen.

Instead of your broad generalizations and trolling attempts, let's hear YOU explain to us how Romney wins with (so far) roughly only half of the delegates selected actually supporting him. Wow us with your political insight. I'll wait.

G19G20
05-24-2012, 22:30
Maybe I missed something. My understanding is that state law and RNC rules do limit certain delegates from going off the reservation and voting for anyone on the first vote at least.

If you wouldn't mind, can you post the links one more time, or a link to where you previously posted them.

Much appreciated.

Here's a quick video on it:
Reality Check: Bound Delegates May Not Be Bound After All - YouTube

I explained it a little more in another thread recently so feel free to search it out. State laws can't force a national private organization like the RNC to do anything and the RNC rules do not state anything regarding enforcing "bound" delegates. RNC legal counsel also concured that each delegate is a free agent and can vote however they wish.

ricklee4570
05-25-2012, 03:18
When is the last time a candidate dominated the popular vote yet did NOT recieve the parties nomination because he did NOT receive enough of the delegate count?

G19G20
05-25-2012, 10:07
When is the last time a candidate dominated the popular vote yet did NOT recieve the parties nomination because he did NOT receive enough of the delegate count?

Not sure if it has happened like this before. This seems to be uncharted territory in American politics.

There have been brokered conventions in the past though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

tslex
05-25-2012, 13:51
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
You clearly didn't understand what I wrote.

A social conservative is nothing of the kind. They don't beleive in abortion, much less paying for it out of public funds, are against welfare and handouts to those that didn't earn it, etc.

So what do you call a person who thinks abortion should be perfectly legal but doesn't want the government paying for it?

I would say that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but according to you that is not possible.

To which G29reload responded . . . . . ]]crickets chirp[[ . . . .

Love guys like G29reload who come fast and furious with the sneering contempt ("How can any sane person POSSIBLY disagree with?!?!") then go radio silent when someone like Lancesorbenson posts a simple question that obliterates their BS.

The notion that fiscally responsible government must equal socially conservative government is exactly what gets you a "conservative" like Mitt Romney. Any government that isn't primarily dedicated to securing the liberty of its people -- all of its people -- is anti-American. Any candidate who isn't so dedicated doesn't get my vote.

aspartz
05-25-2012, 14:22
The notion that fiscally responsible government must equal socially conservative government is exactly what gets you a "conservative" like Mitt Romney. Any government that isn't primarily dedicated to securing the liberty of its people -- all of its people -- is anti-American. Any candidate who isn't so dedicated doesn't get my vote.
+1e6
A Fiscal Conservative wants the government to stay out of my pocketbook
A Social Liberal wants the government to stay out of my bedroom and personal choices.

Both of these would seem to in favor of smaller government and more freedom.

ARS

Stubudd
05-25-2012, 14:23
Its over.

By Tuesday. TX.

Romney has enough for the first ballot.



i'll file that right next to your "Its over. Ron Paul has SOLD OUT. Secret backroom sellout deal with romney to make Rand VP is done" comedy bit

Ruble Noon
05-25-2012, 15:07
You clearly didn't understand what I wrote.

A social conservative is nothing of the kind. They don't beleive in abortion, much less paying for it out of public funds, are against welfare and handouts to those that didn't earn it, etc.

That kind of thinking also gets fiscal conservatism, since being fiscally responsible means not supporting the welfare state the social liberals want to fund with other peoples money.

So, being fiscally conservative and socially conservative is just the OPPOSITE of statists.

I understood, you're just wrong.

G-19
05-25-2012, 15:53
I understood, you're just wrong.

No, you are the one wrong. You just cant see that he makes sense. This is what the majority of the conservatives believe in. It is only the few Liberaltarians that think the way you do. Hence, the reason Paul keeps losing.

Ruble Noon
05-25-2012, 15:56
No, you are the one wrong. You just cant see that he makes sense.

No, I am right but your statist views won't let you see it.

G-19
05-25-2012, 15:58
No, I am right but your statist views won't let you see it.

No, you are only right in your eyes, maybe it's the pot clouding your eyes.

Ruble Noon
05-25-2012, 16:05
No, you are only right in your eyes and in the eyes of druggies.

:smoking:

Did you ever consider that some of the people on the other side of the cages that you guard have stolen less than you? The only difference is they held the gun and you have the state hold it for you.

shadowman024
05-25-2012, 16:11
starting to sound like children

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2012, 16:52
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/mobile/delegates

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/calculator/

There are just some, none show Paul really gaining any real headway.


I'll be voting in the Texas Primary Tuesday.

Whether or not Ron has a snowflakes chance in hell is a factor. All of those links have Paul losing by a massive amount in the first vote.

I was really looking for someone still optimistic about Paul.

What is Paul's best case scenario in the first vote at the convention???

G-19
05-25-2012, 19:02
:smoking:

Did you ever consider that some of the people on the other side of the cages that you guard have stolen less than you? The only difference is they held the gun and you have the state hold it for you.

Just keep paying your taxes, I need a raise. I earn every dime I make doing a job that would scare the crap out of you. That's ok though don't worry I will keep the bad people from hurting you.

G-19
05-25-2012, 19:21
I'll be voting in the Texas Primary Tuesday.

Whether or not Ron has a snowflakes chance in hell is a factor. All of those links have Paul losing by a massive amount in the first vote.

I was really looking for someone still optimistic about Paul.

What is Paul's best case scenario in the first vote at the convention???

I really think any optimism for Paul is just wishful thinking on the part of his rabid supporters. However, you can vote for who you like, that is one of the great things about this country.

Stubudd
05-25-2012, 20:04
I'll be voting in the Texas Primary Tuesday.

Whether or not Ron has a snowflakes chance in hell is a factor. All of those links have Paul losing by a massive amount in the first vote.

I was really looking for someone still optimistic about Paul.

What is Paul's best case scenario in the first vote at the convention???

A factor in your vote?

lancesorbenson
05-25-2012, 20:40
No, you are the one wrong. You just cant see that he makes sense. This is what the majority of the conservatives believe in. It is only the few Liberaltarians that think the way you do. Hence, the reason Paul keeps losing.

G29Reload's original muddled argument is so loaded with fallacies and failed reasoning it's not surprising you'd agree with it. You are after all the guy who thinks the absolutely, empirically-proven disaster that was the policy of alcohol prohibition should be reinstated. That idea, as well as drug prohibition for that matter, falls squarely into Einstein's definition of insanity.

juggy4711
05-25-2012, 20:49
Just keep paying your taxes, I need a raise. I earn every dime I make doing a job that would scare the crap out of you. That's ok though don't worry I will keep the bad people from hurting you.

At best you monitor folks after they have already hurt someone. You don't protect jack. You're a drain on society and might not even have your job if the government didn't incarcerate people for raw milk. You produce nothing, you contribute nothing. You're a leech living off the public tit.

juggy4711
05-25-2012, 20:51
G29Reload's original muddled argument is so loaded with fallacies and failed reasoning it's not surprising you'd agree with it. You are after all the guy who thinks the absolutely, empirically-proven disaster that was the policy of alcohol prohibition should be reinstated. That idea, as well as drug prohibition for that matter, falls squarely into Einstein's definition of insanity.

It's not insanity to them. It's job security.

G-19
05-25-2012, 20:56
At best you monitor folks after they have already hurt someone. You don't protect jack. You're a drain on society and might not even have your job if the government didn't incarcerate people for raw milk. You produce nothing, you contribute nothing. You're a leech living off the public tit.

You a funny little man. :rofl:

:tongueout:

tslex
05-25-2012, 21:03
G29Reload's original muddled argument is so loaded with fallacies and failed reasoning it's not surprising you'd agree with it. You are after all the guy who thinks the absolutely, empirically-proven disaster that was the policy of alcohol prohibition should be reinstated. That idea, as well as drug prohibition for that matter, falls squarely into Einstein's definition of insanity.

'struth

certifiedfunds
05-25-2012, 21:14
I like Dr. Paul, with the exception of his foreign policy, but I really think if by some miracle he is our next POTUS, he will be a lame duck. I hate to say this but I fear it is the truth. I don't know if he has what it takes to unite us. None of the other clowns do either but at least Dr. Paul might straighten out our economy and shrink our government.

Honestly, at this point, a lame duck would be a gift!

certifiedfunds
05-25-2012, 21:16
Just keep paying your taxes, I need a raise. I earn every dime I make doing a job that would scare the crap out of you. That's ok though don't worry I will keep the bad people from hurting you.

So basically you're saying you aren't qualified to do much else, huh?

juggy4711
05-25-2012, 21:31
You a funny little man. :rofl:

:tongueout:

Seriously is that the best you got?

certifiedfunds
05-25-2012, 21:31
+1e6
A Fiscal Conservative wants the government to stay out of my pocketbook
A Social Liberal wants the government to stay out of my bedroom and personal choices.

Both of these would seem to in favor of smaller government and more freedom.

ARS

Actually, what you describe as a social liberal, I think falls more in line with a true conservative, in a Thomas Jefferson-esque way.

Interesting.

juggy4711
05-25-2012, 21:34
So basically you're saying you aren't qualified to do much else, huh?

If he had to work in the public sector he wouldn't even be spam.

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtko_QNXt5sO60h9X3Y-uQ_kG9iX2k91iIVdjYmEVPD_lEzM5rDg

G19G20
05-26-2012, 01:21
I'll be voting in the Texas Primary Tuesday.

Whether or not Ron has a snowflakes chance in hell is a factor. All of those links have Paul losing by a massive amount in the first vote.

I was really looking for someone still optimistic about Paul.

What is Paul's best case scenario in the first vote at the convention???

You did say in an earlier thread to me directly that you would vote for Paul in the TX primary. He hasn't dropped out of the race. You're not going to fall for the same bandwagon crap that so many others do, will you? And publicly at that.

Your sig says anybody but Romney in the primary and anybody but Obama in the general. You only have one choice here.

lancesorbenson
05-26-2012, 06:46
That's ok though don't worry I will keep the bad people from hurting you.

Remind me again, what's the recidivism rate in the U.S.?

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 06:54
You did say in an earlier thread to me directly that you would vote for Paul in the TX primary. He hasn't dropped out of the race. You're not going to fall for the same bandwagon crap that so many others do, will you? And publicly at that.

Your sig says anybody but Romney in the primary and anybody but Obama in the general. You only have one choice here.

I've said that was my plan, still is. I also said that I have right up until the moment prior to putting ink on the ballot to make my final decision.

I have plenty of choices. I have a plan, and I have free will and reserve the right to change my mind. I've never seriously considered it possible for Paul to get the nomination. I didn't cause that to happen, it happened without me.

If Paul has a snowflakes chance in hell of getting the nomination, it would be something I would have to think about. My chance to vote FINALLY will be here on Tuesday. I'll think about a lot of things this weekend. Will be doing a lot of research on local primary races too. I have already decided I'm voting for the opponent of my incumbent R congressman. Lots of judges and other races to look at too. The presidential primary is completely effed up for me. I'm not fond of anyone left.

So back to the question, including the bound delegates, which may be all Paul guys that *May* have to vote Romney, what's the likely outcome of the first vote at the convention?


If Paul guys that are bound to vote for Romney pull off an upset, that would be interesting. Barry gets four more probably. But it might be the way to slap some sense into people that this stuff is serious. We've got a president that was 3 steps to the left than the only open socialist in the senate, the question is, is now the time for this? Will there ever be another opportunity. I'd expect a lot of hard feelings and possibly a third party run by Romney if Paul got the nomination. This is not a path to the presidency for Paul. I don't normally make predictions, but that is what I would expect.

That's going to take some thought.

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 07:06
A factor in your vote?

Yes. I tend to consider just about everything I can think of before making a decision that's final. Isn't that what everyone does?

I don't do "fire and forget" decisions. A very wise and true saying in the Army is that no plan survives first contact. Basically meaning that you should not rigidly follow a plan while watching the situation change without considering alternate actions. Any other approach seems to lead one to be a lemming.

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 07:15
At best you monitor folks after they have already hurt someone. You don't protect jack. You're a drain on society and might not even have your job if the government didn't incarcerate people for raw milk. You produce nothing, you contribute nothing. You're a leech living off the public tit.

Best???

People tend to have patterns in their behavior. I could tell you back in high school which of my classmates were heading for prison with a fair amount of accuracy. Once the person crosses a line, they tend to do it again. So locking them up stops that.

I'll grant you the pothead college kid should not be rotting in prison for minor possession. I don't care if it's the tenth offense.
Most of the others should be there. No sympathy. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
The only thing that ticks me off about prisons, is that prisoners are coddled and babied too much.

Maybe we can call a truce in the WoD, at least for the harmless pot guys. I've been trying to start a grass roots campaign for users to take full responsibility for all costs related to the use, but I'm not getting ahead.

G19G20
05-26-2012, 14:47
So back to the question, including the bound delegates, which may be all Paul guys that *May* have to vote Romney, what's the likely outcome of the first vote at the convention?


If Paul guys that are bound to vote for Romney pull off an upset, that would be interesting. Barry gets four more probably. But it might be the way to slap some sense into people that this stuff is serious. We've got a president that was 3 steps to the left than the only open socialist in the senate, the question is, is now the time for this? Will there ever be another opportunity. I'd expect a lot of hard feelings and possibly a third party run by Romney if Paul got the nomination. This is not a path to the presidency for Paul. I don't normally make predictions, but that is what I would expect.

That's going to take some thought.

Have you been reading any of the posts I've written in response to this "bound" question? Even in this very thread? There is no such thing as bound delegates on the RNC floor. And even if there was, how does one force a delegate to do anything, including vote for someone they don't like? Unless the RNC staff is going to stand around on the floor with machine guns trained on delegates they can't be forced to do anything at all. You really have to accept this premise before we can discuss possible outcomes.

Fwiw, if Romney ran 3rd party, he would then be the one guaranteeing 4 more years of Obama and he would destroy his future political career. He's only 60 so he's got plenty of shots left at the WH. Romney's best bet would be to campaign to be Paul's VP and step aside graciously before he's embarrassed at the RNC. He could earn some conservative cred, stay in the public eye, and be set for a 2016 run since Ron wouldn't run for a second term. The question now is whether Paul supporters can continue to win enough delegate spots and if so, is Romney smart enough to put his ego aside for a little longer and properly play the hand he has been dealt?

Stubudd
05-26-2012, 15:13
+1e6
A Fiscal Conservative wants the government to stay out of my pocketbook
A Social Liberal wants the government to stay out of my bedroom and personal choices.

Both of these would seem to in favor of smaller government and more freedom.

ARS

usually i can dig you but i'm not sure i can dig the bold part- that sounds kinda oxymoronic

Goaltender66
05-26-2012, 15:25
Have you been reading any of the posts I've written in response to this "bound" question? Even in this very thread? There is no such thing as bound delegates on the RNC floor. And even if there was, how does one force a delegate to do anything, including vote for someone they don't like? Unless the RNC staff is going to stand around on the floor with machine guns trained on delegates they can't be forced to do anything at all. You really have to accept this premise before we can discuss possible outcomes.

Fwiw, if Romney ran 3rd party, he would then be the one guaranteeing 4 more years of Obama and he would destroy his future political career. He's only 60 so he's got plenty of shots left at the WH. Romney's best bet would be to campaign to be Paul's VP and step aside graciously before he's embarrassed at the RNC. He could earn some conservative cred, stay in the public eye, and be set for a 2016 run since Ron wouldn't run for a second term. The question now is whether Paul supporters can continue to win enough delegate spots and if so, is Romney smart enough to put his ego aside for a little longer and properly play the hand he has been dealt?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:


:upeyes:

fortyofforty
05-26-2012, 16:46
starting to sound like children

Starting?



:rofl:

G19G20
05-26-2012, 17:17
:rofl::rofl::rofl:


:upeyes:

If it's so funny, then please tell me why the Massachusetts GOP sent threatening letters to all delegates threatening them with criminal perjury charges if they don't sign an affidavit saying they will vote for Romney? That's actually funny since it has no legal standing and it shows how terrified the party is.

Or how about the RNC legal counsel sending the Nevada GOP a letter threatening to not seat NV's entire delegation if it has too many Paul supporters.

There's more. Why bother with these sorts of fearmongering measures if there's no threat? Shouldn't the GOP elite be laughing right along with you? They're apparently not laughing.

aspartz
05-26-2012, 18:05
usually i can dig you but i'm not sure i can dig the bold part- that sounds kinda oxymoronic
A Social Liberal wants the government to stay out of my bedroom and personal choices.
What's oxymoronic? The Social conservative is more concerned with what happens in the privacy of my home -- sex, drugs -- than the social liberal. I prefer that the government just leave people alone.

Actually, what you describe as a social liberal, I think falls more in line with a true conservative, in a Thomas Jefferson-esque way.

Interesting.
That has been the point all along. The GOP has drifted away from smaller government.

ARS

Goaltender66
05-26-2012, 18:52
If it's so funny, then please tell me why the Massachusetts GOP sent threatening letters to all delegates threatening them with criminal perjury charges if they don't sign an affidavit saying they will vote for Romney? That's actually funny since it has no legal standing and it shows how terrified the party is.

Or how about the RNC legal counsel sending the Nevada GOP a letter threatening to not seat NV's entire delegation if it has too many Paul supporters.

There's more. Why bother with these sorts of fearmongering measures if there's no threat? Shouldn't the GOP elite be laughing right along with you? They're apparently not laughing.

It's already been explained to you, ad nauseum, over the past few months. If you choose to ignore sober reality in favor of childish fantasy, that's your choice (as you've already apparently chosen with so many other topics in this forum, most recently your fantasies vis a vis Terry Stops.). But that choice carries consequence, and one of those is your forfeit of the courtesy of being taken seriously.

So yeah: :rofl:

certifiedfunds
05-26-2012, 19:48
That has been the point all along. The GOP has drifted away from smaller government.

ARS

:wavey:

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 22:39
Best???

People tend to have patterns in their behavior. I could tell you back in high school which of my classmates were heading for prison with a fair amount of accuracy. Once the person crosses a line, they tend to do it again. So locking them up stops that.

I'll grant you the pothead college kid should not be rotting in prison for minor possession. I don't care if it's the tenth offense.
Most of the others should be there. No sympathy. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
The only thing that ticks me off about prisons, is that prisoners are coddled and babied too much.

Maybe we can call a truce in the WoD, at least for the harmless pot guys. I've been trying to start a grass roots campaign for users to take full responsibility for all costs related to the use, but I'm not getting ahead.

And how does that stop bad people from hurting anyone? LE does not and can not stop bad people from doing jack. At best they can prevent them from repeat offenses. So yeah best.

LASTRESORT20
05-26-2012, 23:07
~ "Romney losing ground to Obama" ~

Bu!!Sh!!!eee

G19G20
05-27-2012, 04:52
It's already been explained to you, ad nauseum, over the past few months. If you choose to ignore sober reality in favor of childish fantasy, that's your choice (as you've already apparently chosen with so many other topics in this forum, most recently your fantasies vis a vis Terry Stops.). But that choice carries consequence, and one of those is your forfeit of the courtesy of being taken seriously.

So yeah: :rofl:

Go ahead and explain it in detail one more time. I must have missed it in between the emoticons and long winded platitude ladened posts you like to make. No facts at all in that post. Just lots of ad hominems.

Get specific. I do. You haven't once. Wow us with your political insight. Tell us how it really is.

fortyofforty
05-27-2012, 06:19
Because its not the Federal Govts place. Sounds like a good incentive for firearms manufacturers to pack up shop and relocate to red states. In fact I like the idea of rewarding the economy of the States who are pro 2nd Amendment.

Bull. One state or even one big city can sue a gun manufacturer right out of existence, no matter where its factory is based. Now add up a dozen such states, or a hundred Natso-led cities and see what happens. You're just excusing Paul's hypocrisy (on one more issue) to salve your own conscience for being such an ardent Paulista.

walt cowan
05-27-2012, 06:46
if paul wins the covention, will you support paul? yes, no?

fortyofforty
05-27-2012, 07:35
if paul wins the covention, will you support paul? yes, no?

if romney wins the covention, will you support romney? yes, no?

:upeyes:

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:45
Have you been reading any of the posts I've written in response to this "bound" question? Even in this very thread? There is no such thing as bound delegates on the RNC floor. And even if there was, how does one force a delegate to do anything, including vote for someone they don't like? Unless the RNC staff is going to stand around on the floor with machine guns trained on delegates they can't be forced to do anything at all. You really have to accept this premise before we can discuss possible outcomes.

Fwiw, if Romney ran 3rd party, he would then be the one guaranteeing 4 more years of Obama and he would destroy his future political career. He's only 60 so he's got plenty of shots left at the WH. Romney's best bet would be to campaign to be Paul's VP and step aside graciously before he's embarrassed at the RNC. He could earn some conservative cred, stay in the public eye, and be set for a 2016 run since Ron wouldn't run for a second term. The question now is whether Paul supporters can continue to win enough delegate spots and if so, is Romney smart enough to put his ego aside for a little longer and properly play the hand he has been dealt?

I always find it odd when someone else wins, it's one of the losers fault. It seems like misplaced accolades. The guy that wins, it's his fault he won, at least most of the time.

I'll check into the bound delegates. And how could they "force" bound delegates to vote? Easy, I'd assume they know which are bound, and which are not, and if the rules are written up in this way, they simply record a vote for Romney for those voters that are bound to vote for him, and let the unbound delegates vote however they want.

I'd have to see their bylaws to be 100% sure, but I suspect that bound means bound.


http://www.delegatetraining.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=9624

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:56
if paul wins the covention, will you support paul? yes, no?

Still planning on the Nobama approach.

If Paul is the most likely guy to beat Barry, Yes, I'd vote for him. If not, no.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 09:00
And how does that stop bad people from hurting anyone? LE does not and can not stop bad people from doing jack. At best they can prevent them from repeat offenses. So yeah best.

Hmmm. How do I do this gently.........


preventing future offenses = stop bad people from hurting others.


Clear?

fortyofforty
05-27-2012, 10:03
Hmmm. How do I do this gently.........


preventing future offenses = stop bad people from hurting others.


Clear?

It's actually a little sad when Paulistas feel the need to belittle and attack someone who works in a jail or prison to "prove" their anti-government bona fides. That is one job I wouldn't want to have, and I am thankful there are guys willing to work on the inside to help make society safer.

G-19
05-27-2012, 10:47
It's actually a little sad when Paulistas feel the need to belittle and attack someone who works in a jail or prison to "prove" their anti-government bona fides. That is one job I wouldn't want to have, and I am thankful there are guys willing to work on the inside to help make society safer.

Thank you, nice to see that someone appreciates what we do.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 11:01
Thank you, nice to see that someone appreciates what we do.

Locking someone up is not nice. We should all be nice to one another and get along, have some weed and beer and work together in our organic gardens while wearing hemp rope sandals and sing old 7-up commercials while holding hands.

Prisons are a necessary evil. There are plenty of people locked up that should be free, and much more that are free that should be locked up. No system is perfect. Generally speaking, the guys doing that work are good guys. It's an honorable profession.

But like the guys that are anti-LEO due to their last speeding ticket, I wonder how many of the guys so bent out of shape about guards have been looked over by one? I wonder if the experience was pleasant or not.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 11:04
if paul wins the covention, will you support paul? yes, no?

if romney wins the covention, will you support romney? yes, no?

:upeyes:


Can I get a fairness ruling here? Paul Guys, is it OK to ask that some of us less enthused with Paul's positions vote for Paul if he gets the nomination, without you ever intending to vote for the eventual nominee if it happens not to be Paul?

It does seem like you are asking for a favor for which you would be unable or unwilling to return.

How is that fair?

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 11:15
Ruh Roh Raggy !!!
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/thumb-ScoobyDoo.jpg&sa=X&ei=YWDCT-ufBY71sQKTsdTLCQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNF82zTXdOOLyvCYtkyotXKrxeVKXA


The Republican National Committee sent a warning letter to the Nevada Republican Party Central Committee prior to the State convention saying the delegates must be proportional to the caucus results which Romney won by getting 50 percent of the vote. The letter said that even if Paul wins the bulk of the delegates at the State Convention, 20 of those delegates must be bound to Romney based on the Nevada GOP caucus rules.

The warning letter included a threat, saying that if the Nevada GOP did not bind the delegates, the entire Nevada delegation could lose its seating at the National Convention in Tampa, later this year. (http://www.examiner.com/article/five-clark-county-republican-party-officials-quit-because-of-ron-paul-uprising)

Looks like the RNC has found a way to bind the delegates after all.

If it weren't for those meddling kids.......










http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/images/scoobydoo_0.jpg&sa=X&ei=F2HCT6qoMo6CsAKvvKDzCQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHsu1YRtAIO55HC4G61wba_GZrwjg

walt cowan
05-27-2012, 11:32
if romney wins the covention, will you support romney? yes, no?

:upeyes:

as i said before, no. if paul doesn't make the tickit or run for third party...i'm voting for gary johnson. now man up and ansewer the question. yes or no?:tongueout::rofl:

fortyofforty
05-27-2012, 11:50
as i said before, no. if paul doesn't make the tickit or run for third party...i'm voting for gary johnson. now man up and ansewer the question. yes or no?:tongueout::rofl:

:rofl: I don't have to worry about crossing that bridge. Ron Paul has trouble winning any election he can't buy with pork barrel spending, so I don't think it will be an issue for me. :wavey:

evlbruce
05-27-2012, 11:50
Can I get a fairness ruling here? Paul Guys, is it OK to ask that some of us less enthused with Paul's positions vote for Paul if he gets the nomination, without you ever intending to vote for the eventual nominee if it happens not to be Paul?

It does seem like you are asking for a favor for which you would be unable or unwilling to return.

How is that fair?

The GOP Leadership has shown that there is no reciprocity for small government proponents. I'd fully expect the RNC to Goldwater Dr. Paul should he get the nomination.

G29Reload
05-27-2012, 12:50
I'd fully expect the RNC to Goldwater Dr. Paul should he get the nomination.

What exactly is Goldwatering someone at the hands of the RNC?


Barry Goldwater won the 64 R nomination and ran for President.

His campaign failed and he got maybe 38% of the vote.

His loss had nothing to do with the party that nominated him and had everything to do with being out-camapaigned by LBJ who portrayed him as trigger happy and ready to push the button with our nukes at the slightest provocation (see "Daisy" commercial) and with JFK having been assassinated only a year before, a nostalgic and over-sympathetic public who wanted to see what would happen if his "dream" (wTF that was) continued with his VP as surrogate. Plus, the usual ballot-box stuffing in TX and Chicago.

evlbruce
05-27-2012, 13:37
What exactly is Goldwatering someone at the hands of the RNC?

The establishment was deeply critical of Goldwater and while not actively campaigning for LBJ, they certainly didn't do much to help:

George Romney (Mitt's Father) says "Nominating Goldwater is suicidal destruction" in 1964 (LBJ Ad) - YouTube

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 13:51
The GOP Leadership has shown that there is no reciprocity for small government proponents. I'd fully expect the RNC to Goldwater Dr. Paul should he get the nomination.

Oh well, it is what it is. Sucks. But I still think the fairness of the issue is an issue.

So, in other words the offer to support Paul is a "join us or eff off" kind of a thing.

Team Building, it's a skill.

evlbruce
05-27-2012, 14:36
Oh well, it is what it is. Sucks. But I still think the fairness of the issue is an issue.

So, in other words the offer to support Paul is a "join us or eff off" kind of a thing.

Team Building, it's a skill.

I don't see how a reasonable person could follow the actions of Boehner, McConnell, and the rest of the Republican leadership and not see that the national party with it's anti-Tea Party agenda is a "join us or eff off" kind of thing.

walt cowan
05-27-2012, 15:28
:rofl: I don't have to worry about crossing that bridge. Ron Paul has trouble winning any election he can't buy with pork barrel spending, so I don't think it will be an issue for me. :wavey:

don't look at it and it will go away.:rofl:

fortyofforty
05-27-2012, 15:47
don't look at it and it will go away.:rofl:

keep the dream alive. :wavey:

John Galt
05-27-2012, 16:42
Let me see if I understand this correctly.

I should support Romney because he'll only stick a couple of inches in as opposed to the whole thing?

Sounds reasonable. :upeyes:

fortyofforty
05-27-2012, 17:50
Let me see if I understand this correctly.

I should support Romney because he'll only stick a couple of inches in as opposed to the whole thing?

Sounds reasonable. :upeyes:

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

I should support Ron Paul because he says he's against sticking it in, votes against sticking it in, and claims he won't stick it in in the future, all while repeatedly sticking it in?

Sounds reasonable. :whistling: And a bit :aodnsb: I must say. Thanks for that.

John Galt
05-27-2012, 18:42
Not saying you should support Ron Paul, I'm saying you should support the person you agree with, not just the person you think can win. If you agree with Romney, fine. But I personally can't vote for "the lesser of two evils". Even if my choice may be a lost cause.

ChuteTheMall
05-27-2012, 22:04
I'd fully expect the RNC to Goldwater Dr. Paul should he get the nomination.

I'd expect to see unicorns poop rainbows of skittles long before Ron Paul gets the nomination.

It's not happening.:okie:

In November there is one chance to vote against Obama, and that is actually happening.

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 06:40
Not saying you should support Ron Paul, I'm saying you should support the person you agree with, not just the person you think can win. If you agree with Romney, fine. But I personally can't vote for "the lesser of two evils". Even if my choice may be a lost cause.

Fair enough, but it cuts both ways. Don't expect people to support Ron Paul simply because he is "the lesser of two evils", either.

BigSteven34
05-28-2012, 07:39
Hate to say it...Obama is going to crush the Republicans. I don't think it matters if it is Romney or Paul.

Sharkey
05-28-2012, 07:53
Hate to say it...Obama is going to crush the Republicans. I don't think it matters if it is Romney or Paul.

Why do you say that? I really don't see it happening. CNN might want you to think that but O and his party are definitely worried. It won't be a cake walk but Mitt can win in the swing states.
The dem convention in SC should be interesting.

walt cowan
05-28-2012, 09:05
had the rnc and mass media played fair with all the canidates from the start...

Stubudd
05-28-2012, 09:18
Yep. Someone more worried about money than his soul.


missed that one the first time

if you worry about your soul vote republican, they'll save it :rofl:

G19G20
05-28-2012, 14:00
I'll check into the bound delegates. And how could they "force" bound delegates to vote? Easy, I'd assume they know which are bound, and which are not, and if the rules are written up in this way, they simply record a vote for Romney for those voters that are bound to vote for him, and let the unbound delegates vote however they want.

I'd have to see their bylaws to be 100% sure, but I suspect that bound means bound.


http://www.delegatetraining.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=9624

That's an interesting possibility but I'll have to look into the rules closer to see if there's anything expressly written about that. I don't suspect there is, since it would mostly negate the entire point of electing delegates in the first place and appears to go against the RNC's own legal opinion in the Utah/Romney 2008 question, but I'll have to look into it.

But just in case what you bring up is accurate, a floor full of Paul delegates won't take kindly to someone voting on their behalf like that. And how does one determine precisely which delegates are bound and which ones aren't, for the purpose of determining what delegate votes in the first round and which do not? The states have different rules on it and different ways of apportioning delegates, etc. This is probably why the RNC doesn't seem to enforce any bindings. Definitely some food for thought to look into.

chickenwing
05-28-2012, 14:22
Hate to say it...Obama is going to crush the Republicans. I don't think it matters if it is Romney or Paul.

The math doesn't lie, even Dr. No isn't going to save America from a future economic train wreck at this point. Hope I'm wrong, but the global market will go through a very serious correction IMHO, despite all attempts to kick the can down the road.

Gary W Trott
05-28-2012, 14:55
Fair enough, but it cuts both ways. Don't expect people to support Ron Paul simply because he is "the lesser of two evils", either.
I'd expect the "lesser of two evils" and "anyone but Obama" voters to vote for Ron Paul in the highly improbable event that he wins the nomination. I don't think even Paul himself expects to win and is in this so that the freedom agenda will be heard at Tampa, and will be a part of the platform.

By continuing to gather delegates Ron Paul makes it more difficult for Mitt Romney to go to Tampa with enough votes to win on the first ballot. If that happens my guess is that the delegates pledged to Ron Paul and to the other candidates who are no longer in the race will not switch over to Romney and the convention will choose a candidate much much farther to the right than Mitt Romney is.

It really doesn't matter what a person might think of Ron Paul but if he or she isn't thrilled with the thought of Romney getting the nomination then Paul is the one to support in the primaries, caucuses, and conventions that haven't been held yet.

BigSteven34
05-28-2012, 15:21
Why do you say that? I really don't see it happening. CNN might want you to think that but O and his party are definitely worried. It won't be a cake walk but Mitt can win in the swing states.
The dem convention in SC should be interesting.

Just a gut feeling. I think we will see cheating and fraud on a level never even imagined in a US election. That and I see at least a portion of the Republican vote either not showing or following Paul if he doesnt endorse Romney. I could be wrong though...hope I am.

On the flip side I think the Republicans take the Senate and expand the majority in the House.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 15:27
That's an interesting possibility but I'll have to look into the rules closer to see if there's anything expressly written about that. I don't suspect there is, since it would mostly negate the entire point of electing delegates in the first place and appears to go against the RNC's own legal opinion in the Utah/Romney 2008 question, but I'll have to look into it.

But just in case what you bring up is accurate, a floor full of Paul delegates won't take kindly to someone voting on their behalf like that. And how does one determine precisely which delegates are bound and which ones aren't, for the purpose of determining what delegate votes in the first round and which do not? The states have different rules on it and different ways of apportioning delegates, etc. This is probably why the RNC doesn't seem to enforce any bindings. Definitely some food for thought to look into.

If the bound delegates are truly bound, or face not being seated, and removed from the equation, it is possible Romney secures the nomination on the first vote.

If they are bound and vote for Paul anyway, that issue will likely get to the supreme court post haste.

I'm sitting on the fence at the moment. Wondering if I should write in another candidate or vote for Paul tomorrow. I'll let you know how I vote, and the results. Fort Hood is in Bell County, home of the largest military base in the free world, with an unusually high active duty/veteran population when compared to regular civilians. If he pulls a majority there, I'll concede what I considered lies by his campaign about the level of support he has among the troops was wrong.

:popcorn: One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to watch.

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 15:42
It really doesn't matter what a person might think of Ron Paul but if he or she isn't thrilled with the thought of Romney getting the nomination then Paul is the one to support in the primaries, caucuses, and conventions that haven't been held yet.

Again, it really doesn't matter what a person might think of Mitt Romney but if he or she isn't thrilled with the thought of Paul getting the nomination then Romney is the one to support in the primaries, caucuses, and conventions that haven't been held yet.

You see, it really cuts both ways. As hard as it may be for Paulistas to believe, there are people who aren't enthralled with Ron Paul and who will not support Paul in his efforts to win the Presidency.

certifiedfunds
05-28-2012, 16:11
As hard as it may be for Paulistas to believe, there are people who aren't enthralled with Ron Paul and who will not support Paul in his efforts to win the Presidency.

You must be referring to the neocons...

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:16
You must be referring to the neocons...

Hate to point this out again, but the newest conservatives, are the libertarians.

Neocon is a fluid term.

Ruble Noon
05-28-2012, 16:19
Again, it really doesn't matter what a person might think of Mitt Romney but if he or she isn't thrilled with the thought of Paul getting the nomination then Romney is the one to support in the primaries, caucuses, and conventions that haven't been held yet.

You see, it really cuts both ways. As hard as it may be for Paulistas to believe, there are people who aren't enthralled with Ron Paul and who will not support Paul in his efforts to win the Presidency.

I don't expect progressives or statist's to vote for Paul and you shouldn't expect conservatives or libertarians to vote for Romney.

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 16:24
I don't expect progressives or statist's to vote for Paul and you shouldn't expect conservatives or libertarians to vote for Romney.

I know you dearly need to believe that everyone who is not a mindless Paul supporter must be a statist or progressive, but that is not the case. Keep believing what you must to sleep better, but know that it is simplistic and wrong. :wavey:

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 16:28
You must be referring to the neocons...

No, I'm referring to people who can read, listen, and form reasoned opinions based on Ron Paul's own words and actions. You can pretend otherwise, but it won't change the facts. We don't need to rehash all the issues here, but there are plenty of them, starkly visible to anyone with an open mind. It seems a large majority of the Republican party wasn't fooled by Paul, and no one has shown how a candidate who cannot even win his own party's primary elections can somehow win the general election. Good luck with that. :whistling:

Stubudd
05-28-2012, 16:35
No, I'm referring to people who can read, listen, and form reasoned opinions based on Ron Paul's own words and actions. You can pretend otherwise, but it won't change the facts. We don't need to rehash all the issues here, but there are plenty of them, starkly visible to anyone with an open mind. It seems a large majority of the Republican party wasn't fooled by Paul, and no one has shown how a candidate who cannot even win his own party's primary elections can somehow win the general election. Good luck with that. :whistling:

haha yea they weren't fooled, those sharps saw right through that sham and voted for mitt romney

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 16:46
haha yea they weren't fooled, those sharps saw right through that sham and voted for mitt romney

OK, Paul is your man crush. I get it. While Ron Paul was in Congress, how much did federal spending get reduced? Paul served term after term, all the while using federal tax money to reward his cronies and buy votes. So how successful was he in convincing his colleagues or anyone else to cut federal spending? How's his track record so far? :dunno:

Yeah, that's what I thought. Definitely worth my vote. :rofl:

Ruble Noon
05-28-2012, 17:14
No, I'm referring to people who can read, listen, and form reasoned opinions based on Ron Paul's own words and actions. You can pretend otherwise, but it won't change the facts. We don't need to rehash all the issues here, but there are plenty of them, starkly visible to anyone with an open mind. It seems a large majority of the Republican party wasn't fooled by Paul, and no one has shown how a candidate who cannot even win his own party's primary elections can somehow win the general election. Good luck with that. :whistling:

:rofl:

No, they were all fooled by Romney. You know the gun banning progressive liberal socialized medicine man from Mass.

RC-RAMIE
05-28-2012, 17:15
Hate to point this out again, but the newest conservatives, are the libertarians.

Neocon is a fluid term.

Point it out but just like atheism is a religion you are wrong but will repeat it like a fact anyway.


....

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 17:15
:rofl:

No, they were all fooled by Romney. You know the gun banning progressive liberal socialized medicine man from Mass.

As opposed to the "listen to what I say, don't watch what I do" big-spending Congressman from Texas? :rofl: You Paulistas are something else. At least you provide entertainment. :wavey: Have a good one.

Ruble Noon
05-28-2012, 17:25
As opposed to the "listen to what I say, don't watch what I do" big-spending Congressman from Texas? :rofl: You Paulistas are something else. At least you provide entertainment. :wavey: Have a good one.

Bringing tax dollars back to the taxpayers of Texas is sooo much worse than imposing socialized medicine, banning guns or being a liberal progressive like Obama. Way to rationalize your vote.

Glock26girl
05-28-2012, 17:27
Since Paul is essentially out of the running, his continued attempts to throw a monkey wrench in the works and either slow things down or sew discontent discredits him as nothing more than a vandal.

The only thing that matters right now is getting rid of Zero. If everything you do isn't about that, you're part of the problem.

He's a 5%er and always has and always will be. The presidency isn't about cooking up disproportionate misleading numbers, its about motivating people en masse to create a groundswell.

Paul has failed, plain and simple. He isn't the one, and trying to squeeze blood out of a stone only serves to annoy and distract at this point.



^^^^What he said! What I've always said!

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 17:39
Bringing tax dollars back to the taxpayers of Texas is sooo much worse than imposing socialized medicine, banning guns or being a liberal progressive like Obama. Way to rationalize your vote.

I realize you have to excuse unConstitutional spending in order to support Ron Paul. I only hope you are honest enough to admit that, by your logic, as put forth by Paul, there is no spending on any pork project for any reason that is unacceptable because all such spending brings money back to the taxpayers of somebody’s district. That's some mental gymnastics Paul makes you do. Practically mental yoga. Good luck with that. You make a perfect Paulista. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 17:40
Point it out but just like atheism is a religion you are wrong but will repeat it like a fact anyway.


....

RC, are the newest "conservatives" the libertarians or not?

Leave your religious views out of this.



Paul and his followers have always been libertarians.


I am sorry you must consider other points of view, but satisfied that you are at the same time.

Ruble Noon
05-28-2012, 18:01
I realize you have to excuse unConstitutional spending in order to support Ron Paul. I only hope you are honest enough to admit that, by your logic, as put forth by Paul, there is no spending on any pork project for any reason that is unacceptable because all such spending brings money back to the taxpayers of somebody’s district. That's some mental gymnastics Paul makes you do. Practically mental yoga. Good luck with that. You make a perfect Paulista. :wavey:

Every politician is guilty of earmarking money. Some might find it surprising that Paul is way down on the list of offenders.

BTW, where did Romney get the funds for the olympics? I also wonder how many earmarked dollars went to Mass. while he was governor.

certifiedfunds
05-28-2012, 18:02
Hate to point this out again, but the newest conservatives, are the libertarians.

Neocon is a fluid term.

No, it isn't. It refers to a certain political philosophy which is on display here every day.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 18:05
Every politician is guilty of earmarking money. Some might find it surprising that Paul is way down on the list of offenders.

BTW, where did Romney get the funds for the olympics? I also wonder how many earmarked dollars went to Mass. while he was governor.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives. (source: Open Secrets) snip

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2837588/posts).



It is what it is.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 18:06
No, it isn't. It refers to a certain political philosophy which is on display here every day.

It has referred to different things at different times,

certifiedfunds
05-28-2012, 18:14
It has referred to different things at different times,

From Encyclopedia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1075556/neoconservatism

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 18:20
Every politician is guilty of earmarking money. Some might find it surprising that Paul is way down on the list of offenders.

But Paul is front and center loudmouth-in-chief denouncing unConstitutional spending, and asking voters to believe that he wouldn't do it any more if he were President. Sure. Whatever. Don't watch his hands. I know.

BTW, where did Romney get the funds for the olympics? I also wonder how many earmarked dollars went to Mass. while he was governor.

By the way, do you realize there is a difference between a private citizen asking for freebies from Uncle Sugar and Congressman Soandso putting such earmarks into the budget? Of course not. That's a bit too complex for a Paulista to grasp. Never mind. :wavey:

Gary W Trott
05-28-2012, 19:30
Again, it really doesn't matter what a person might think of Mitt Romney but if he or she isn't thrilled with the thought of Paul getting the nomination then Romney is the one to support in the primaries, caucuses, and conventions that haven't been held yet.
A persons opinion of Mitt Romney means everything in the remaining contests. Those who want Romney will vote for Romney and those who want Paul will vote for Paul. That leaves the people who don't want either one of them with only one thing to do...vote for Paul so that Romney doesn't get the delegates to win on the first ballot in Tampa which will result in a brokered convention in which there is a very good chance that neither Romney or Paul will be the nominee.

fortyofforty
05-28-2012, 19:36
A persons opinion of Mitt Romney means everything in the remaining contests. Those who want Romney will vote for Romney and those who want Paul will vote for Paul. That leaves the people who don't want either one of them with only one thing to do...vote for Paul so that Romney doesn't get the delegates to win on the first ballot in Tampa which will result in a brokered convention in which there is a very good chance that neither Romney or Paul will be the nominee.

And hands the White House keys back to Barack Hussein Obama for another four years of destruction. In my opinion, no one who was unable to win enough primaries to stay in the Republican primary contest thus far has a snowball's chance in hell of unseating a sitting President. Perhaps you have someone in mind who can. I'd be interested to hear who it might be. Really.

walt cowan
05-29-2012, 05:11
mitt, paul matters not. the rnc's leadership has forced us to this point.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 05:53
A persons opinion of Mitt Romney means everything in the remaining contests. Those who want Romney will vote for Romney and those who want Paul will vote for Paul. That leaves the people who don't want either one of them with only one thing to do...vote for Paul so that Romney doesn't get the delegates to win on the first ballot in Tampa which will result in a brokered convention in which there is a very good chance that neither Romney or Paul will be the nominee.

The other option is to write in Herman Cain or Mickey mouse.

Voting later today, will let you know.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 05:57
mitt, paul matters not. the rnc's leadership has forced us to this point.

What is this mysterious and devious plan that the RNC hatched to make people vote for someone other than Paul?

Paul has never had a large following outside of his own district. Had the RNC used every resource they had to try to get Paul elected, we'd still likely be where we are at.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 08:06
For the Texas Primary Voters, it's not just Romney in the Ballot, even though he is the only one with an active campaign, there are quite a few to choose from.


President

Mitt Romney
Jon Hunstman
John Davis
Charles "Buddy" Roemer
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Uncommitted

Gundude
05-29-2012, 08:42
And hands the White House keys back to Barack Hussein Obama for another four years of destruction. In my opinion, no one who was unable to win enough primaries to stay in the Republican primary contest thus far has a snowball's chance in hell of unseating a sitting President. Perhaps you have someone in mind who can. I'd be interested to hear who it might be. Really.Anybody but Obama, right? Isn't that all Mitt has going for him? By definition, anybody the Republicans run will have that.

Has anybody looked at the electoral college outlook recently? Romney's a huge underdog. It's Romney that's handing the White House keys back to Obama.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 08:59
Anybody but Obama, right? Isn't that all Mitt has going for him? By definition, anybody the Republicans run will have that.

Has anybody looked at the electoral college outlook recently? Romney's a huge underdog. It's Romney that's handing the White House keys back to Obama.

Everybody is a glass half empty around here. If Obama wins another 4 years, it's Obama's fault.

Pretty simple.

longrangedog
05-29-2012, 09:02
Anybody but Obama, right? Isn't that all Mitt has going for him? By definition, anybody the Republicans run will have that.

Has anybody looked at the electoral college outlook recently? Romney's a huge underdog. It's Romney that's handing the White House keys back to Obama.

Jimmy Carter was ahead by 20+ % at this time when he ran against Reagan. He wound up losing in a landslide. Do you really believe the national polls showing a dead heat are incorrect?

Gundude
05-29-2012, 09:06
Jimmy Carter was ahead by 20+ % at this time when he ran against Reagan. He wound up losing in a landslide. Do you really believe the national polls showing a dead heat are incorrect?But the presidency is decided by the electoral college, not a national poll.

And Romney ain't Reagan.

evlbruce
05-29-2012, 09:08
Jimmy Carter was ahead by 20+ % at this time when he ran against Reagan. He wound up losing in a landslide. Do you really believe the national polls showing a dead heat are incorrect?

I believe that the dead heat polls show that Mittens is in serious trouble. Given the state of the economy and the disastrous and unpopular policies of Administration 0, the presumptive Republican nominee should be well ahead.

What it comes down to is that there is plenty of reason why President 0 should not be re-elected, but there little reason why Mittens should take his place.

Gundude
05-29-2012, 09:41
Everybody is a glass half empty around here. If Obama wins another 4 years, it's Obama's fault.Not at all. Republicans are doing more to lose this election than Obama is to win it.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 09:58
Not at all. Republicans are doing more to lose this election than Obama is to win it.

If the guy's don't measure up, they don't measure up. It's no different than a foot race where you are allowed to push and shove the others, the one that makes it across the finish line first still is the winner, and deserves the credit.

If Barry wins a second term, I am sure we will be hearing for years about how we screwed up because we didn't fall in love with a certain candidate. But the cause and effect analysis of that, is that candidate didn't do well, because he didn't do well. His fault, not mine.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 12:03
More coverage of the "irrelevent" Ron Paul campaign and delegate strategy. This time it's the lefties getting riled up.

Ron Paul Should Drop Out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-lehrer/ron-paul-should-drop-out-_b_1548182.html?ref=politics


The facts are pretty simple: Paul supporters, with the aid and comfort of his campaign organization, are doing everything they can to get more delegates even as their candidate has stopped trying to win actual votes. One Texan friend -- a Romney supporter -- said that local Paul supporters (none of them previously known to local party regulars) stretched a routine pre-election meeting out to hours beyond its normal length in an effort to force the acceptance of a handful of Paul delegates who couldn't impact the eventual nominee whatever happens. Paul supporters, likewise, have launched plans to "convert" delegates (http://www.dailypaul.com/235065/operation-delegate-conversion) from other candidates to their man. And widespread Facebook posts call on delegates to exploit a Republican Party rule that allows votes open votes on nominee during the first ballot (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=295343020560414&set=a.278851998876183.66501.204445079650209&type=1&theater).

Translation: Liberal establishment WANTS Romney to win the nomination because he's a guaranteed loss to Obama. When both the left and right are attacking you then you're doing something right.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 12:16
More coverage of the "irrelevent" Ron Paul campaign and delegate strategy. This time it's the lefties getting riled up.

Ron Paul Should Drop Out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-lehrer/ron-paul-should-drop-out-_b_1548182.html?ref=politics



Translation: Liberal establishment WANTS Romney to win the nomination because he's a guaranteed loss to Obama. When both the left and right are attacking you then you're doing something right.

I'm curious, but where do you see the liberal establishment wanting romney to win in that story?

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 12:17
Anybody but Obama, right? Isn't that all Mitt has going for him? By definition, anybody the Republicans run will have that.

Yep, that's it. That's all Romney has going for him. Oh, and experience as a Governor, the highest elected executive officer in a state, and the highest elected executive office short of President of the United States. That's it. Oh, and years of experience as the Chief Executive Officer of a company. Nothing else. Oh, and running a hugely successful Olympics, vital to national morale after September 11, 2001. Nothing but that. You're right. Either that or we elect a guy who's been sitting in Congress for decades without achieving any of his stated goals, all while enriching himself. Some choice. :rofl:

Gundude
05-29-2012, 12:42
Yep, that's it. That's all Romney has going for him. Oh, and experience as a Governor, the highest elected executive officer in a state, and the highest elected executive office short of President of the United States. That's it. Oh, and years of experience as the Chief Executive Officer of a company. Nothing else. Oh, and running a hugely successful Olympics, vital to national morale after September 11, 2001. Nothing but that. You're right. Either that or we elect a guy who's been sitting in Congress for decades without achieving any of his stated goals, all while enriching himself. Some choice. :rofl:It's that experience as a Governor that's pissing off the Conservatives and Independents (gun-control, mandated healthcare). It's the experience as CEO that's pissing of the Liberals (greed), and it's the running of the the Olympics that revealed to the world that he sees Washington as nothing more than a giant ATM to extract money from.

He's gonna have a hard time bragging on any of those things.

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 13:03
It's that experience as a Governor that's pissing off the Conservatives and Independents (gun-control, mandated healthcare). It's the experience as CEO that's pissing of the Liberals (greed), and it's the running of the the Olympics that revealed to the world that he sees Washington as nothing more than a giant ATM to extract money from.

He's gonna have a hard time bragging on any of those things.

I agree. Anyone with an actual record of doing anything will piss some people off. Not as many as Ronnie "I Love Earmarks" Paul, if election after election is to be believed, but still, doing anything instead of talking and talking is bound to lead to problems. We're dealing with a perfect example of a politician in the White House right now who did nothing except make grandiose speeches and complain about what other politicians were doing wrong. How’s that working out? I'm not willing to give another amateur a go at my expense. Fine if you are, but I’d like to see some actual executive experience, or at least a history of legislative accomplishment.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 13:07
Texas Primary results, will probably start updating when the polls close tonight.


http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/may29_160_state.htm?x=0&y=0&id=610

Gundude
05-29-2012, 13:27
I agree. Anyone with an actual record of doing anything will piss some people off. Not as many as Ronnie "I Love Earmarks" Paul, if election after election is to be believed, but still, doing anything instead of talking and talking is bound to lead to problems. We're dealing with a perfect example of a politician in the White House right now who did nothing except make grandiose speeches and complain about what other politicians were doing wrong. How’s that working out?That's actually his biggest plus. Getting nothing done is one of the best things government can do.
I'm not willing to give another amateur a go at my expense. Fine if you are, but I’d like to see some actual executive experience, or at least a history of legislative accomplishment."Legislative accomplishment" is just another way of saying "growing government." I agree Romney is better at that, and that's a bad thing. As far as executive experience, by November Obama will have almost 4 years more experience at being President than Romney will have.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 13:29
I'm curious, but where do you see the liberal establishment wanting romney to win in that story?

It's HuffPo now pushing the same "Just Drop Out And Coronate Romney" crap as the Fox News crowd has been doing. That's all I need to know.

Did you vote yet Cav?

G29Reload
05-29-2012, 13:31
Translation: Liberal establishment WANTS Romney to win the nomination because he's a guaranteed loss to Obama.

About the most bizarre statement possible.

Basically,

In it to lose. Thats right, we're running so we can lose.

moreover, Romney is ahead in most polls. If we're here to lose, we're doing an awful job of it.

Gundude
05-29-2012, 13:33
About the most bizarre statement possible.

Basically,

In it to lose. Thats right, we're running so we can lose.

moreover, Romney is ahead in most polls. If we're here to lose, we're doing an awful job of it.Big underdog in electoral college though, right?

G19G20
05-29-2012, 13:37
About the most bizarre statement possible.

Basically,

In it to lose. Thats right, we're running so we can lose.

moreover, Romney is ahead in most polls. If we're here to lose, we're doing an awful job of it.

Maybe I missed something but do you have evidence that the author is a Republican? Im not sure I follow your argument.


Big underdog in electoral college though, right?

They still don't seem to understand that the primaries and general election are beauty contests. It's the insiders (delegates then electors) that make the important decisions...like who actually wins.



I agree. Anyone with an actual record of doing anything will piss some people off. Not as many as Ronnie "I Love Earmarks" Paul, if election after election is to be believed,

Have you considered that if Paul were to win the Presidency, he would then have to be opposed to earmarks due to how earmarks work, for your argument to have merit? I haven't heard him actually oppose earmarks ever. He opposes the spending but not the earmarks. But as Pres, opposing earmarks would then allow his administration to spend the money however it sees fit. So just for giggles, if he came out in complete opposition of earmarks right now and then won the Presidency, he would placate you but then be able to spend however he wanted. Odd.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 13:47
It's HuffPo now pushing the same "Just Drop Out And Coronate Romney" crap as the Fox News crowd has been doing. That's all I need to know.

Did you vote yet Cav?

I think you're reading more into where it was posted than is necessary.

Yup, voted. Posted who I voted for too.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 13:54
I think you're reading more into where it was posted than is necessary.

Yup, voted. Posted who I voted for too.

So much for your sig meaning anything. But hey, any less vote for Romney, even if for someone that dropped out a month ago due to $4.5 million in campaign debt, is ok by me I guess.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 13:59
So much for your sig meaning anything. But hey, any less vote for Romney, even if for someone that dropped out a month ago due to $4.5 million in campaign debt, is ok by me I guess.

Uh, in case you missed it, everyone but Romney has dropped out, some have yet to make it official. I stayed at least as true to my sig line as you have your avatar.

I stayed with the plan. I voted for someone other than Romney. If only Paul and Romney had been on the Ballot, I'd have chosen Paul, but I had more choices than I thought I was going to have.

Projections on local Texas Television is that Paul will likely pull 5% of the vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he doubled that. Should be a good day for him.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 14:01
Uh, in case you missed it, everyone but Romney has dropped out, some have yet to make it official.

I was waiting for your justification for going back on your word. Nice job getting led around by the media though.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 14:11
I was waiting for your justification for going back on your word. Nice job getting led around by the media though.

Well, perhaps you could point out how I went against my word.

From the very beginning, I have stated that I would not know for sure who's bubble I would ink in until just before I did it. It may chafe you, but I only agree with Paul on about 50% of his issues. Rough estimate, Newt is about 65%.

Led around? Me? Do you have any idea how ironic that sounds coming from a guy with a cult like devotion to a career politician.

Newt is still in play, in case you didn't notice, he's not releasing his delegates either. Figured I'd help the guy out.

Personally, I'm waiting for the Fort Hood results. To put another myth to bed again.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 14:23
Well, perhaps you could point out how I went against my word.

You said in an earlier thread that you would vote for Paul if he was the last candidate remaining against Romney. I did a search but couldn't get any keyword hits for some reason.


From the very beginning, I have stated that I would not know for sure who's bubble I would ink in until just before I did it. It may chafe you, but I only agree with Paul on about 50% of his issues. Rough estimate, Newt is about 65%.

It's ok. I'm used to hearing about "conservatives" compromising their principles on this forum.


Led around? Me? Do you have any idea how ironic that sounds coming from a guy with a cult like devotion to a career politician.

The media doesn't give us the time of day, much less lead any of us around. You fell for the only headlines they've had to say about Paul in months. And they were inaccurate.


Newt is still in play, in case you didn't notice, he's not releasing his delegates either. Figured I'd help the guy out.

He formally suspended every part of his campaign. He's not in play any more than Herman Cain or Rick Perry is. Let me pass on a secret to you. The candidates that "suspend" their campaigns only do it to get the frontrunner to pay off their campaign debts in exchange for an empty promise that whatever delegates they think they have will vote for that frontrunner.



Personally, I'm waiting for the Fort Hood results. To put another myth to bed again.

You must have missed this thread then:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1424012

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 14:38
You said in an earlier thread that you would vote for Paul if he was the last candidate remaining against Romney. I did a search but couldn't get any keyword hits for some reason.

But Paul and Romney were not the only guys on the ballot.
If you'll remember, it wasn't long ago that my sig line said "ANYBODY but Romney (& now Paul) in the Primary, then anybody but Barry in the General Election."

Seems to me, if there was another choice on the ballot, which there was, Paul wouldn't be the guy with ink in the bubble next to his name on my ballot. I didn't find out until this weekend that more than Romney and Paul were still on the ballot.

Newt is still holding onto his delegates, so is still in play.



It's ok. I'm used to hearing about "conservatives" compromising their principles on this forum.




The media doesn't give us the time of day, much less lead any of us around. You fell for the only headlines they've had to say about Paul in months. And they were inaccurate.



He formally suspended every part of his campaign. He's not in play any more than Herman Cain or Rick Perry is. Let me pass on a secret to you. The candidates that "suspend" their campaigns only do it to get the frontrunner to pay off their campaign debts in exchange for an empty promise that whatever delegates they think they have will vote for that frontrunner.



Cain and Perry were not on the ballot. Newt was.


You must have missed this thread then:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1424012

The proof is in the pudding. Lets see how the county with the largest military community in the free world votes.

He got less than 6% last time in a three way race. Lets see how many he gets this time. I wouldn't be surprised if he doubles his previous showing in Bell County. He will still likely be far behind other candidates.

I've explained many times that Paul's lie about the military supporting him more than any other candidate is a misrepresentation of a factoid, that a largely apolitical community that doesn't often contribute to campaigns, has garnered a minute amount of contributions from a statistically insignificant number of donors that stated their employer was a department within DoD. That claim is impossible to verify, as it is also impossible to verify whether those donors are active duty, reserve, national guard, or civilians. The claim simply does not hold water, as the Bell County results will show tonight.

I'll be sure to post the results. Heck, maybe the results will find their way into my sig line.

G29Reload
05-29-2012, 14:40
Led around? Me? Do you have any idea how ironic that sounds coming from a guy with a cult like devotion to a career politician?


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Post of the WEEK!

I horse laughed.:supergrin:

G19G20
05-29-2012, 14:53
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Post of the WEEK!

I horse laughed.:supergrin:

Yeah it sucks. I'd rather be like you and have NO devotion to ANYTHING except hating the black guy.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 14:55
Yeah it sucks. I'd rather be like you and have NO devotion to ANYTHING except hating the black guy.

Quoted for posterity. Implying racism on the part of G29Reload is, I think, where your mask finally comes off.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 15:00
Yeah it sucks. I'd rather be like you and have NO devotion to ANYTHING except hating the black guy.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://liarsoftheleft.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jesse-jackson-race-card2.jpg&sa=X&ei=mzjFT-yXKIPi2QWm6dHuAQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEE6ZBT0JawF4R1fOGosFebkAi95w


And the veneer comes off. :tongueout:

One could assume that all libs are alike.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:06
But Paul and Romney were not the only guys on the ballot.

But they are the only ones that haven't suspended their campaigns. But again, any vote against Romney works for me since it shows how paper thin his support is.


If you'll remember, it wasn't long ago that my sig line said "ANYBODY but Romney (& now Paul) in the Primary, then anybody but Barry in the General Election."

Im afraid you're only proving that your word isn't any good, since it's subject to change whenever you feel like it. I had a better opinion of you previously because I felt you would keep your word.


Cain and Perry were not on the ballot. Newt was.

$4.5 million in debt is exactly what I vote for as a staunch conservative. /sarcasm


The proof is in the pudding. Lets see how the county with the largest military community in the free world votes.

He got less than 6% last time in a three way race. Lets see how many he gets this time. I wouldn't be surprised if he doubles his previous showing in Bell County. He will still likely be far behind other candidates.

I've explained many times that Paul's lie about the military supporting him more than any other candidate is a misrepresentation of a factoid, that a largely apolitical community that doesn't often contribute to campaigns, has garnered a minute amount of contributions from a statistically insignificant number of donors that stated their employer was a department within DoD. That claim is impossible to verify, as it is also impossible to verify whether those donors are active duty, reserve, national guard, or civilians. The claim simply does not hold water, as the Bell County results will show tonight.

I'll be sure to post the results. Heck, maybe the results will find their way into my sig line.

Paul has raised over $36 million in this campaign so far so how you can call 4 of the top 5 listed employers "a minute amount" is beyond me. Only Romney has raised more money than Paul on the GOP side.

Here's the thing. The vast majority of military that are donating to Paul are the ones getting shot at over in the sandbox, not the ones chilling on a huge base in the middle of Texas enjoying Pepsi and American Idol. I care a lot more what the overseas troops think than the ones sitting around here.

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 15:06
That's actually his biggest plus. Getting nothing done is one of the best things government can do.
"Legislative accomplishment" is just another way of saying "growing government." I agree Romney is better at that, and that's a bad thing. As far as executive experience, by November Obama will have almost 4 years more experience at being President than Romney will have.

Nope. In Ronnie Earmarks' case it would have been actually shrinking government. He talks and talks, makes speech after speech, casts meaningless protest vote after meaningless protest vote, and nothing changes. He did nothing except increase his personal net worth. That is abject failure. If Paul had any legislative accomplishments they would have served to shrink government. Instead he jumped on the pork barrel gravy train to make sure he got reelected. Sad. Pathetic, really.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:08
Quoted for posterity. Implying racism on the part of G29Reload is, I think, where your mask finally comes off.

Please. I know there are a lot of racists in the ABO group. That's why none of the G29reload types articulate why to vote for Romney but always have to vote against Obama, even when it's clear to us logical thinkers that there's no difference between Romney and Obama. What else is left? Yep. That.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:10
Please. I know there are a lot of racists in the ABO group. That's why none of the G29reload types articulate why to vote for Romney but always have to vote against Obama, even when it's clear to us logical thinkers that there's no difference between Romney and Obama. What else is left? Yep. That.

I always suspected you were morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. Nice of you to finally confirm it, and in such a public manner too.

You owe Doc and G29Reload (at minimum) very public apologies.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:14
Neither deserves anything of the sort. There ARE racists that are supporting Romney solely because they don't want the black guy. Are you suggesting that is not true? Ive long suspected some here are of that persuasion. After a while it's obvious which are which. Truth hurts, sorry.

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 15:16
Please. I know there are a lot of racists in the ABO group. That's why none of the G29reload types articulate why to vote for Romney but always have to vote against Obama, even when it's clear to us logical thinkers that there's no difference between Romney and Obama. What else is left? Yep. That.

Sotomayor. Kagan. Simple, to everyone but Paulistas.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:19
Neither deserves anything of the sort. There ARE racists that are supporting Romney solely because they don't want the black guy. Are you suggesting that is not true? Ive long suspected some here are of that persuasion. After a while it's obvious which are which. Truth hurts, sorry.

Chute reminds me there is one candidate who can boast of an endorsement from a genuine racist organization, and it sure isn't Romney. Stormfront ring a bell?

Also I am very certain Romney never wrote any racist remarks in his brand-building newsletter, so there's that.

Sorry, you're out of line and you owe them apologies for trying to cast them as racist. If you can't be man enough to do even that, well, remember what I said earlier about forfeiting any claim to being taken seriously....

Yep, you sure are a credit to the Ron Paul campaign.:upeyes:

Gundude
05-29-2012, 15:20
Nope. In Ronnie Earmarks' case it would have been actually shrinking government. He talks and talks, makes speech after speech, casts meaningless protest vote after meaningless protest vote, and nothing changes. He did nothing except increase his personal net worth. That is abject failure. If Paul had any legislative accomplishments they would have served to shrink government. Instead he jumped on the pork barrel gravy train to make sure he got reelected. Sad. Pathetic, really.Oops, I thought we were talking about Obama, not Paul.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 15:25
But they are the only ones that haven't suspended their campaigns. But again, any vote against Romney works for me since it shows how paper thin his support is.



Im afraid you're only proving that your word isn't any good, since it's subject to change whenever you feel like it. I had a better opinion of you previously because I felt you would keep your word.

You are only pretending that I did not keep my word, because I did not compliantly follow your wishes. Freedom, it's a cool thing. You are displaying the debating techniques similar to a monkey flinging feces.

It is amusing for the most part.


$4.5 million in debt is exactly what I vote for as a staunch conservative. /sarcasm



Paul has raised over $36 million in this campaign so far so how you can call 4 of the top 5 listed employers "a minute amount" is beyond me. Only Romney has raised more money than Paul on the GOP side.

Here's the thing. The vast majority of military that are donating to Paul are the ones getting shot at over in the sandbox, not the ones chilling on a huge base in the middle of Texas enjoying Pepsi and American Idol. I care a lot more what the overseas troops think than the ones sitting around here.

Here's the thing. Compared to me, your nose bleeds every 28 days. You are a lesser man. You became that way by defaming my service without asking. Ive been shot at by things you could not even imagine purchasing at your local gun store, both in the air and on the ground. I've done my tours in Desert Storm, Kuwait in '96, Kosovo in 1999 and 2002, and OIF in 2004/2005. I wrote that check, payable to the American people for an amount up to and including my life. I went outside the wire, every chance I could. There was a time when I had more battlefield combat trauma management experience than 95% of my peers. Big question is, where was your pansy arse?

So, as you sleep in your bed tonight, YOU should consider that you lay peacefully in slumber due to the efforts of better men than yourself. You are a plant eater. I am a meat eater. Ask a special OP's soldier what that means.

If you wanted to touch a nerve, you touched it.

But now I'm over it. I make it a point to let anger pass before I hit the [submit reply] button.

Now is a time for calm contemplation for the effectiveness of the Paul Campaign. I'll be happy to post the Bell County results. Showing that Paul lied. Those that supported the myth lied too. That would be you now.

You failed. It's not that bad to fail, if you tried really hard. At least then you could say you tried. Did you try hard enough to get Paul elected? Any regrets that you could have maybe done a little more?

I get it, no one likes to be the loser. It's just your turn, again.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:27
GateKeeper,
Please cite where I said anything remotely related to CavDoc and racism. You're fabricating it, like usual. My statement to one known professional anti-Paul troll poster was clear.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:30
GateKeeper,
Please cite where I said anything remotely related to CavDoc and racism. You're fabricating it, like usual. My statement to one known professional anti-Paul troll poster was clear.

I quoted it and your intent was clear, especially given the thread context and who G29Reload was responding to.

More intellectual dishonesty from you.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:32
You are only pretending that I did not keep my word, because I did not compliantly follow your wishes. Freedom, it's a cool thing. You are displaying the debating techniques similar to a monkey flinging feces.

It is amusing for the most part.



Here's the thing. Compared to me, your nose bleeds every 28 days. You are a lesser man. You became that way by defaming my service without asking. Ive been shot at by things you could not even imagine purchasing at your local gun store, both in the air and on the ground. I've done my tours in Desert Storm, Kuwait in '96, Kosovo in 1999 and 2002, and OIF in 2004/2005. I wrote that check, payable to the American people for an amount up to and including my life. I went outside the wire, every chance I could. There was a time when I had more battlefield combat trauma management experience than 95% of my peers. Big question is, where was your pansy arse?

So, as you sleep in your bed tonight, YOU should consider that you lay peacefully in slumber due to the efforts of better men than yourself. You are a plant eater. I am a meat eater. Ask a special OP's soldier what that means.

If you wanted to touch a nerve, you touched it.

But now I'm over it. I make it a point to let anger pass before I hit the [submit reply] button.

Now is a time for calm contemplation for the effectiveness of the Paul Campaign. I'll be happy to post the Bell County results. Showing that Paul lied. Those that supported the myth lied too. That would be you now.

You failed. It's not that bad to fail, if you tried really hard. At least then you could say you tried. Did you try hard enough to get Paul elected? Any regrets that you could have maybe done a little more?

I get it, no one likes to be the loser. It's just your turn, again.

If you're done waving the flag, would you care to address what I actually typed? The ones getting shot at are the ones donating to Ron Paul's campaign, not the ones sitting on an air conditioned base in Texas. If anything, the results of Fort Hood's district would likely prove this point.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:34
If you're done waving the flag, would you care to address what I actually typed? The ones getting shot at are the ones donating to Ron Paul's campaign, not the ones sitting on an air conditioned base in Texas. If anything, the results of Fort Hood's district would likely prove this point.

At this point, these are more lies. The military donations meme has been thoroughly destroyed, by Doc among others in this forum.

Clinging to it makes you look even more dishonest than you already do. And denigrating the soldiers at Fort Hood just makes you look like a loser.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:34
I quoted it and your intent was clear, especially given the thread context and who G29Reload was responding to.

More intellectual dishonesty from you.

Wrong. I responded to one specific poster with a track record to back up my assertion.

At this point, these are more lies. The military donations meme has been thoroughly destroyed, by Doc among others in this forum.

Clinging to it makes you look even more dishonest than you already do. And denigrating the soldiers at Fort Hood just makes you look like a loser.

So you're calling opensecrets.org a liar regarding who gets the most donations from the military? I'm pretty sure they've done a lot more research into it than you have.

I didn't denigrate anyone btw. I call it like it is, whether you like it or not. The soldiers in harm's way are the ones financially supporting Paul's campaign and the Fort Hood results will probably show this. It'll be a hollow "victory" for CavDoc when those results are posted.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:37
Wrong. I responded to one specific poster with a track record to back up my assertion.

Nice try, but no.

Actually, it wasn't even a nice try. You used language from Doc's post, for crying out loud. And oh, your blanket condemnations in subsequent posts bear it all out.

Now you're just embarassing yourself. Tell the truth...is this the part of the troll game where you get banned in flaming ruin so you don't have to acknowledge Paul's loss?


ETA: you know, there is one way you could fix this. Repeat after me:

"I do not think Doc is a racist and I apologize for anything I posted that created that impression."

ChuteTheMall
05-29-2012, 15:39
Now you're just embarassing yourself.

No, he isn't. He can't.

:tinfoil:

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 15:40
Have you considered that if Paul were to win the Presidency, he would then have to be opposed to earmarks due to how earmarks work, for your argument to have merit? I haven't heard him actually oppose earmarks ever. He opposes the spending but not the earmarks. But as Pres, opposing earmarks would then allow his administration to spend the money however it sees fit. So just for giggles, if he came out in complete opposition of earmarks right now and then won the Presidency, he would placate you but then be able to spend however he wanted. Odd.

How the hell could he, with a straight face? :dunno: He has justified his use of earmarks as preferable to the normal legislative budgeting process. I know Paul specializes in having every side of an issue, without having to make a tough decision, but this is ridiculous.

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 15:42
Oops, I thought we were talking about Obama, not Paul.

:rofl:

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:43
No, he isn't. He can't.

:tinfoil:

Yes, I think you're right.

"vote for the Stormfront-endorsed candidate to prove that you aren't racist."

:rofl:

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:43
I don't think CavDoc has any racial issue with Obama. That one comment wasn't directed at him and I already said that a couple times. There are others that I do suspect this, however, and I'm getting tired of censoring myself while being insulted and trolled at every turn by certain posters even though I keep my comments on an intellectual level.

Im not going anywhere, btw. If mods truly think that other posters trolling and ridiculing conduct on this forum is perfectly acceptable but the weakest accusation of racism is a bannable offense then this place is already too far gone to be worth any more of my time.

Ive gotta prepare for a convention this weekend anyway...

How the hell could he, with a straight face? :dunno: He has justified his use of earmarks as preferable to the normal legislative budgeting process. I know Paul specializes in having every side of an issue, without having to make a tough decision, but this is ridiculous.

So, in other words, you have no counter to my argument. Typical.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 15:47
If you're done waving the flag, would you care to address what I actually typed? The ones getting shot at are the ones donating to Ron Paul's campaign, not the ones sitting on an air conditioned base in Texas. If anything, the results of Fort Hood's district would likely prove this point.

You are so amazingly ignorant. Who do you think is going back and forth to these combat zones.

I've avoided meeting some people on this forum that didn't have the manners of a worm, but in your case, I'll make an exception.

Please, agree to meet me at the front gate of Ft. Hood, and I'll sign you onto post. No weapons are allowed, it's a federal reservation. Texas Carry Laws do not transfer onto post.

I'll take you to the NCO club at about 11:00 PM, and I'll provide the bullhorn. You can tell all of these soldiers with multiple deployments under their belt how "The ones getting shot at are the ones donating to Ron Paul's campaign, not the ones sitting on an air conditioned base in Texas." Of course, you'll have to sign a release for me for any liability for any and all injuries you will sustain at that point in time and at least 8 years later.

I promise, I will not lay a hand on you, except to give appropriate first aid.

[/just a little sarcasm]

I really don't want to meet you. Ever. I would also not subject your ignorant bum to that situation, as you would be in grave danger.

Paul loses tonight, Romney goes over the top, and as much as that irritates me too, It has unhinged you in a profound way. You are decompensating. You have lost your mind, and obviously decided that this username is expendable.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:48
I don't think CavDoc has any racial issue with Obama. That one comment wasn't directed at him and I already said that a couple times. There are others that I do suspect this, however, and I'm getting tired of censoring myself while being insulted and trolled at every turn by certain posters.

Im not going anywhere, btw. If mods truly think that other posters trolling and ridiculing conduct on this forum is perfectly acceptable but the weakest accusation of racism is a bannable offense then this place is already too far gone to be worth any more of my time.

Ive gotta prepare for a convention this weekend anyway...

I swear to God...it's like a cross between Forrest Gump and Groundhog Day.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 15:51
.



So you're calling opensecrets.org a liar regarding who gets the most donations from the military? I'm pretty sure they've done a lot more research into it than you have.

I didn't denigrate anyone btw. I call it like it is, whether you like it or not. The soldiers in harm's way are the ones financially supporting Paul's campaign and the Fort Hood results will probably show this. It'll be a hollow "victory" for CavDoc when those results are posted.
Doc already said why casting soldiers stationed at Fort Hood as REMFs is insulting.

The lie is trying to use FEC data to draw the conclusion. As has been done to death around here, the data does not support that characterization, and it never has. And yes, I looked into it quite deeply. That's the difference between us, and that's why you are intellectually dishonest.

Gundude
05-29-2012, 15:52
:rofl:OK, I can see how that was funny, but on a serious note, both Obama and Romney are hardcore big-government types. Romney gives me the impression he can syphon a tremendous amount of money out of the government and into the pockets of whomever it is he's made a deal with at the time. Obama wastes his share of money too, but as you said, he's best at doing nothing but making empty speeches.

When the race is between two hardcore big-government types, the lazier, less competent one is actually better, especially when he's already halfway to his expiration date.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 15:54
You are so amazingly ignorant. Who do you think is going back and forth to these combat zones.

I've avoided meeting some people on this forum that didn't have the manners of a worm, but in your case, I'll make an exception.

Please, agree to meet me at the front gate of Ft. Hood, and I'll sign you onto post. No weapons are allowed, it's a federal reservation. Texas Carry Laws do not transfer onto post.

I'll take you to the NCO club at about 11:00 PM, and I'll provide the bullhorn. You can tell all of these soldiers with multiple deployments under their belt how "The ones getting shot at are the ones donating to Ron Paul's campaign, not the ones sitting on an air conditioned base in Texas." Of course, you'll have to sign a release for me for any liability for any and all injuries you will sustain at that point in time and at least 8 years later.

I promise, I will not lay a hand on you, except to give appropriate first aid.

[/just a little sarcasm]

I really don't want to meet you. Ever. I would also not subject your ignorant bum to that situation, as you would be in grave danger.

Paul loses tonight, Romney goes over the top, and as much as that irritates me too, It has unhinged you in a profound way. You are decompensating. You have lost your mind, and obviously decided that this username is expendable.

Yeah ya know something? You did get my goose today when you proved that even people I thought were respectable and have "honor" can't even keep their word on a public website of record. I won't bother digging up your previous post where you said you'd vote for Paul because you'll find some reason to evade it.

Ill pass on your offer btw. I don't like Texas. Too hot and dry and that makes people uptight and violent. Sorta like the sandbox.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 16:01
Yeah ya know something? You did get my goose today when you proved that even people I thought were respectable and have "honor" can't even keep their word on a public website of record. I won't bother digging up your previous post where you said you'd vote for Paul because you'll find some reason to evade it.

Ill pass on your offer btw. I don't like Texas. Too hot and dry and that makes people uptight and violent. Sorta like the sandbox.

You just don't get it, do you?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...as long as I am in the room Doc will never have to pay for a drink. He's seen and done things that would rock your comfortable little world to mush, and he carries it with class, dignity, and yes, honor. Impugning his honor as you do makes you look even more like a classless loser than you already do.

So now you owe him an apology for insulting his honor. Nice.

G19G20
05-29-2012, 16:05
You don't know me GateKeeper so keep on assuming what I have or haven't seen. You know what they say about that sort of thing.

I'll save the dick measuring contests for the convention floor instead of a website.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 16:10
Yeah ya know something? You did get my goose today when you proved that even people I thought were respectable and have "honor" can't even keep their word on a public website of record. I won't bother digging up your previous post where you said you'd vote for Paul because you'll find some reason to evade it.

Ill pass on your offer btw. I don't like Texas. Too hot and dry and that makes people uptight and violent. Sorta like the sandbox.

Aww, do you want a toothbrush to scrub the sand out of your C***.

You are just upset because tonight is the night that you lose, and you have been so emotionally invested that you feel compelled to insult people that are actually better than you are. You have to understand something from our perspective. We live very hard lives without asking for a thing. It's our duty. Even absolute apathy is acceptable. When you disparage us for our service, that removes you from the people we are serving in our mind. So I don't feel like I owe you anything.

I kept my word, and didn't go for your mancrush. You're upset. You're gonna lose tonight. And honestly, prior to tonight's conversation with you, I would have felt sorry for you. You came, you tried, and you lost. That is a gross mistake of mine, predicting that you were a real person.

But now, you came, you ****, and showed how little your parents understood about how to raise a gentleman.

I will enjoy your discomfort. As you enjoy attempting to cause mine. Luckily, I get over stuff pretty quick.

The results should be out by tomorrow. What do you think, will Paul break 12%? That would just about double his last showing.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/paulbots_2486696_40.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/73.gif

G19G20
05-29-2012, 16:14
Off to brush up on my Robert's Rules for the convention. I've already spent enough time here today and need to regain focus. I do want to thank you guys for the motivation though. Seems most of our opponents haven't learned yet that Paulites work harder the more we are attacked.

My new motivational video:

Win the whole f'n thing.mov - YouTube

Maybe I can get it to go viral.

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 16:22
So, in other words, you have no counter to my argument. Typical.

What argument? You didn't make any coherent argument. Typical.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 16:26
Be sure to check out those bylaws. Even if you were able to pull off the coup of the century and get Paul the nomination, the party will flush him. No money, no votes, no support.

It will teach the Republicans a lesson about nominating liberals, and letting libertarians run. So I wish you success to a point. Spend your time, your money, and your emotional support praying to Paul.

You can screw stuff up, but you can't win. Man, there are times like these that I really wished Karma was a certain thing.

PawDog
05-29-2012, 16:26
Off to brush up on my Robert's Rules for the convention. I've already spent enough time here today and need to regain focus. I do want to thank you guys for the motivation though. Seems most of our opponents haven't learned yet that Paulites work harder the more we are attacked.

My new motivational video:

Win the whole f'n thing.mov - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tp55eSBxKk)

Maybe I can get it to go viral.

:rofl: Wow! "Obsession, it's not just a perfume........"

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/Pawdog_album/8f379726.jpg

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 16:27
OK, I can see how that was funny, but on a serious note, both Obama and Romney are hardcore big-government types. Romney gives me the impression he can syphon a tremendous amount of money out of the government and into the pockets of whomever it is he's made a deal with at the time. Obama wastes his share of money too, but as you said, he's best at doing nothing but making empty speeches.

When the race is between two hardcore big-government types, the lazier, less competent one is actually better, especially when he's already halfway to his expiration date.

Nonsense. The better choice is the one who will have to respond to the conservative voices in his own party, many of whom are in the legislature. This is especially true when that person is concerned with maintaining support from conservatives in preparation for a second term election.

If you want another Kagan and Sotomayor deciding what is and is not Constitutional, go ahead and support Obama. I can't do that.

And of the candidates left, only Ron Paul and Barack Obama were in Congress, and Ron Paul asked for hundreds of millions of dollars in pork barrel spending for his cronies in Texas. The fact that he did it while sanctimoniously claiming to be a new type of small-government politician is inexcusable, in my opinion.

Goaltender66
05-29-2012, 16:44
You don't know me GateKeeper so keep on assuming what I have or haven't seen. You know what they say about that sort of thing.

I'll save the dick measuring contests for the convention floor instead of a website.
Oh, you casually toss around the claim that you're a Paul delegate often enough that if you did anything meaningful with your life I'm sure we'd all be hearing about it for the fortieth time by now.

Off to brush up on my Robert's Rules for the convention. I've already spent enough time here today and need to regain focus. I do want to thank you guys for the motivation though. Seems most of our opponents haven't learned yet that Paulites work harder the more we are attacked.



See what I mean?

Of course, with your track record around here I'm pretty sure you're fibbing about this too.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 16:51
Oh, you casually toss around the claim that you're a Paul delegate often enough that if you did anything meaningful with your life I'm sure we'd all be hearing about it for the fortieth time by now.





See what I mean?

Of course, with your track record around here I'm pretty sure you're fibbing about this too.

If he has to brush up on something as simple as Robert's Rules, he is likely in over his head before he begins.

Amateurs. They don't get professional results.

fortyofforty
05-29-2012, 17:07
Well, after Ron Paul wins his home state today, we'll see how the race shapes up. They know him best in Texas, so he should win the primary walking away. When do those polls close? Do we have to wait an extra hour for El Paso and Hundspeth Counties?

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 18:15
Well, after Ron Paul wins his home state today, we'll see how the race shapes up. They know him best in Texas, so he should win the primary walking away. When do those polls close? Do we have to wait an extra hour for El Paso and Hundspeth Counties?

Polls closed 15 minutes ago.

Early results don't look good. The messiah Good Doctor needs a Money Bomb, STAT!


President/Vice-President
Michele Bachmann 2.36%
John Davis 0.51%
Newt Gingrich 5.51%
Jon Huntsman 0.30%
Ron Paul 5.25%
Charles "Buddy" Roemer 0.17%
Mitt Romney 73.26%
Rick Santorum 8.17%
Uncommitted 4.43%


It's early, but Ron is still beating "uncommitted".

He's behind Gingrich and Santorum.

G-19
05-29-2012, 18:28
Doc, don't let these people get to you. You are a patriot, and deserve better than that. You voted how you felt led to, you do not owe them an explanation.

The Ronulans always resort to personal attacks when someone don't blindly follow them. Like I have said before they are Paul's worst enemies. I would have gave him some serious thought until I read some of the comments here on GTPI by some of his supporters. Their attitude makes people not like Paul. It is no wonder why they will lose. They take the Elitist attitude to the next level, and most people can see right through them.

I served in the US Air Force from 84 to 88, and was fortunate not to see any action in my time. I have great respect for those of you that have been through it. I see how friends and co-workers have changed since being over there. To borrow a phrase "war is hell", and we all need to respect those that have been through it.

The work you do now also needs to be commended, keep it up. Don't let little people get you down.

G-19
05-29-2012, 18:29
Polls closed 15 minutes ago.

Early results don't look good. The messiah Good Doctor needs a Money Bomb, STAT!


President/Vice-President
Michele Bachmann 2.36%
John Davis 0.51%
Newt Gingrich 5.51%
Jon Huntsman 0.30%
Ron Paul 5.25%
Charles "Buddy" Roemer 0.17%
Mitt Romney 73.26%
Rick Santorum 8.17%
Uncommitted 4.43%


It's early, but Ron is still beating "uncommitted".

He's behind Gingrich and Santorum.

Now that is funny!

Gary W Trott
05-29-2012, 18:30
Doc, Any vote for any candidate other than Romney helps to deny delegates to Romney in his quest for having a majority when he goes to Tampa so good work at doing your part. If that happens I don't think that Romney will leave Tampa as the nominee.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 18:31
You don't know me GateKeeper so keep on assuming what I have or haven't seen. You know what they say about that sort of thing.

I'll save the dick measuring contests for the convention floor instead of a website.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CN4Q71yQ1AA/TjYHBmQQ2uI/AAAAAAAAATE/plJdQOvkDrU/s1600/tampon+nose.jpg&sa=X&ei=MmrFT9i1L8ik2gWzzNC2AQ&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGhnq-H0bDPVVSdaQ5_OvrbbZ4DQw


Every 28 days I'll bet.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 18:34
Doc, Any vote for any candidate other than Romney helps to deny delegates to Romney in his quest for having a majority when he goes to Tampa so good work at doing your part. If that happens I don't think that Romney will leave Tampa as the nominee.

I have resisted the claims of others that a vote for candidate A is really a vote for candidate X.

A vote for Candidate A, is really a vote for candidate A.



The only thing that is certain, is that it will be interesting to watch. Most of us want things to turn out well. Some are burning bridges though. Good riddance to them.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 18:36
Doc, don't let these people get to you. You are a patriot, and deserve better than that. You voted how you felt led to, you do not owe them an explanation.

The Ronulans always resort to personal attacks when someone don't blindly follow them. Like I have said before they are Paul's worst enemies. I would have gave him some serious thought until I read some of the comments here on GTPI by some of his supporters. Their attitude makes people not like Paul. It is no wonder why they will lose. They take the Elitist attitude to the next level, and most people can see right through them.

I served in the US Air Force from 84 to 88, and was fortunate not to see any action in my time. I have great respect for those of you that have been through it. I see how friends and co-workers have changed since being over there. To borrow a phrase "war is hell", and we all need to respect those that have been through it.

The work you do now also needs to be commended, keep it up. Don't let little people get you down.

:patriot: Thanks for your service.

I'm not nearly as upset as it may sound. I've been called worse by better, and it is after all, an internet forum disagreement. No one is using crew served weapons, it's a very small matter.

PawDog
05-29-2012, 18:48
Doc, Any vote for any candidate other than Romney helps to deny delegates to Romney in his quest for having a majority when he goes to Tampa so good work at doing your part. If that happens I don't think that Romney will leave Tampa as the nominee.

Fortunately, that "brokered convention" fantasy is not going to happen. But, if it makes you feel better, keep dreaming. :wavey:

alphacat
05-29-2012, 19:21
This just in; Mitt Romney has clinched the Republican nomination for president with a win in the Texas primary.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/29/romney-clinches-gop-nomination-with-texas-primary-win/#ixzz1wJNuuPKY

G19G20
05-29-2012, 21:49
If he has to brush up on something as simple as Robert's Rules, he is likely in over his head before he begins.

Amateurs. They don't get professional results.

Actually, Im studying for AIP's Certified Parliamentarian Exam. Cliff notes don't cut it.


Regarding earlier's dispute, here's a few of Cavalry Doc's recent posts on GTPI. There are others to the same effect and Ill be happy to find them if more proof that his word is worthless is necessary.


4-19-2012
We'll see how it goes, the future is fun to watch because nothing is certain. But it sure looks like Romney is going to get the nomination at this point in time. I will vote for anyone but Romney in the Primary. Hopefully Paul or Gingrich stick it out until the Texas Primary.


5-1-12
Feel free to search all of my previous posts. I have been consistent in saying if it were only Paul and Mittens left in the Primary when it got to Texas, I would vote for Paul. I figured since the only two left in the Republican Primary now are Paul and Romney, it would be confusing to leave the addition in.


5-2-12
Luckily, I really try not to let the few really bad actors get in the way of doing the right thing. Paul will get my vote in the primary, but not in the general,unless he is the nominee, or he becomes a truly viable candidate.


5-14-12
It ain't over till it's over, but now I have to wonder, will I still qualify for my "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper sticker if I vote for him now in the TX primary? Or should I just write in Herman Cain?

:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 04:32
Bell county, largest military base in the free world, Paul pulled 9.29%.

Guess the military didn't like him as much as he pretended.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 04:44
Actually, Im studying for AIP's Certified Parliamentarian Exam. Cliff notes don't cut it.


Regarding earlier's dispute, here's a few of Cavalry Doc's recent posts on GTPI. There are others to the same effect and Ill be happy to find them if more proof that his word is worthless is necessary.









:whistling:



Paul and Romney were not the only ones on the ballot like I thought they would be. Of everyone running, Paul, Romney and Barry are my bottom three. I was pleasantly surprised to find I had more choices while doing research yesterday morning.

I held to my principles and voted for the guy that I agree with most, isn't that a paulbot mantra?

Hope you spent some time on that search, it's amusing to me.

Free will is a muther pucker isn't it. Your guy has suspended his campaign, but still collecting delegates, so is Newt. Given the choice, I picked newt. Not the perfect choice, but that was my choice, and I had every right to make it, as well as having every right to change my mind when significant new information becomes available, the most significant development was that there were more than two names on the ballot. Considering your behavior last night, and the behavior of most paulbots, I owe you and Paul a little less than nothing.




Even with my vote, Paul would have went down in flames yesterday. His fault, not mine.



He who gets over it first wins. :tongueout:

Goaltender66
05-30-2012, 05:40
Actually, Im studying for AIP's Certified Parliamentarian Exam. Cliff notes don't cut it.

Wow, with gravitas like that I predict we'll be seeing you at Zucotti Park this summer! :wavey:


:rofl:



Even with my vote, Paul would have went down in flames yesterday. His fault, not mine.
Hey, Doc..."flames" is being nice.

Crosspost (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19028888&postcount=36)

Paul represents TX-14, which "stretches from the Gulf Coast in Galveston and Chambers counties almost to Corpus Christi; north through Victoria; and east through Jackson and Wharton counties toward Houston. It includes parts of Fort Bend county, then slopes south through Brazoria county." (Source (http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1016&Itemid=20))

Here are election results from those counties:

County/Romney/Paul


Galveston 64 17
Chambers 62 19
Victoria 69 18
Jackson 65 18
Wharton 65 20
Fort Bend 67 14
Brazoria 60 25


See that? Paul not only didn't win his home state, but he didn't even win a single county within his own Congressional district. And it's not like the margins were close either. Romney picked up absolute majorities in those counties.


Oh, and as for that whole military vote thing? Bell County went 71% for Romney.

ChuteTheMall
05-30-2012, 10:25
Fortunately, that "brokered convention" fantasy is not going to happen. But, if it makes you feel better, keep dreaming. :wavey:

Forget the convention, that's Romney's coronation.

All Ron Paul needs is enough votes in the Electoral College and he'll be sworn in as President!!

How many of the electors will be secret Ronulans, ready to betray the voters and make it happen in November?

Send money!:tinfoil:

shadowman024
05-30-2012, 16:57
paul got beat badly everywhere, will he bow out now? Will paul supporters support romney i doubt it because his supporters are like cult followers.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 17:11
paul got beat badly everywhere, will he bow out now? Will paul supporters support romney i doubt it because his supporters are like cult followers.

They will attempt a delegate mutiny at the convention, and if that fails, they will scream about how the RNC cheated them, and demand that he run third party. If they send in enough money, Paul will run. But he needs money, lots and lots and lots of money.

fortyofforty
05-30-2012, 17:16
I would say maybe he could just earmark himself a few hundred million dollars for his campaign, but that would be wrong, so I won't make that joke. :whistling: :supergrin:

Glock26girl
06-02-2012, 17:22
This is the reason I stopped posting on the Political Forum. The Libertarians are just unreasonable. They would rather give Obama free reign in a second term, (God knows what he is capable of in further hurting the U.S.) than vote for anyone but Paul. It just totally got to me and I couldn't cope with their lack of foresight. I kind of pity them when Ron Paul dies. What will become of them? Who will they live and betray their country's well-being for then?

Thank you Cavalry Doc, for your strength of character, being able to continue the good fight.

aspartz
06-02-2012, 19:06
This is the reason I stopped posting on the Political Forum. The Libertarians are just unreasonable. They would rather give Obama free reign in a second term, (God knows what he is capable of in further hurting the U.S.) than vote for anyone but Paul. It just totally got to me and I couldn't cope with their lack of foresight. I kind of pity them when Ron Paul dies. What will become of them? Who will they live and betray their country's well-being for then?

Thank you Calvary Doc, for your strength of character, being able to continue the good fight.
I will vote for anybody who is more of a fiscal conservative than a moralist. Anyone who admits that all parts of the government are too large, including the DoD. Anyone who has the stones to say that the economy is our #1 issue and I will not consider any legislation that address moral issues until the economy is back on track.

ARS

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 22:39
I will vote for anybody who is more of a fiscal conservative than a moralist. Anyone who admits that all parts of the government are too large, including the DoD. Anyone who has the stones to say that the economy is our #1 issue and I will not consider any legislation that address moral issues until the economy is back on track.

ARS

We've had this discussion before.

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

-Ron Paul



It seems you prefer an amoral presidential candidate. How does Ron fit that requirement.

Glock26girl
06-02-2012, 23:04
I will vote for anybody who is more of a fiscal conservative than a moralist. Anyone who admits that all parts of the government are too large, including the DoD. Anyone who has the stones to say that the economy is our #1 issue and I will not consider any legislation that address moral issues until the economy is back on track.

ARS


I guess we know who you aren't voting for. Obama is the LEAST fiscally conservative President who I am aware of. He is doing everything to destabilize this country fiscally...and this is only his first term. I don't like Romney, but I certainly trust him fiscally more than I do Obama. I am for small government, not a financially ruined country in less than four years.

fortyofforty
06-03-2012, 05:47
I will vote for anybody who is more of a fiscal conservative than a moralist. Anyone who admits that all parts of the government are too large, including the DoD. Anyone who has the stones to say that the economy is our #1 issue and I will not consider any legislation that address moral issues until the economy is back on track.

ARS

Interesting avatar (Darwin's fish symbol, if it gets changed), for someone who supports Ron Paul. You do know he doesn't subscribe to the "theory of evolution" don't you? :dunno:

Ron Paul (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-i-dont-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/):
I um I think there there it’s a theory the theory of evolution and I I don’t accept it you know as a theory. But I think the creator that that I know, uh you know, created us, every one of us, and created the universe and the precise time and manner and uh and all. I I I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

ChuteTheMall
06-03-2012, 07:52
It's amazing how little Ronulans know about Ron Paul.

Three quotes from The War on Religion by Ron Paul:

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.

The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

:faint: