Rand Paul Endorses Romney [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Endorses Romney


Pages : [1] 2

GAFinch
06-07-2012, 19:22
He's on Hannity right now.

Video clip is up:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/1679154504001/sen-rand-paul-gov-romney-is-right-there-with-us/?playlist_id=86924

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 19:35
Oh dear.... The gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will be loud after this revelation for sure.

Only tiny steps remain before a Romney/Paul ticket could be announced.

Which Ron supporters would vote for Romney if Rand were on the ticket????



RAND PAUL ENDORSES MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT - YouTube

:popcorn:

GAFinch
06-07-2012, 19:39
It's not just a forced endorsement...he said that he's going to be going around actively campaigning for Romney.

Cambo
06-07-2012, 19:40
What's G19G20 going to do now?:faint:

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 19:42
What's G19G20 going to do now?:faint:

Vote for Mittens at the convention, to avoid the perjury charge. Or not be seated for failing to sign the affidavit.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 19:43
He's already said this in not so many words previously. Most reactions Ive seen weren't all that surprised since Rand is just starting his political career while Ron is finishing his (assuming a Romney nomination of course). Rand has been floated as a VP possibility to get Paul supporters on board but many aren't sold on Rand, myself included, so Mitt would pick up some votes but he would fail miserably if he thought Rand as VP alone would bring the entire few million votes Ron could bring, millions of dollars Ron can raise, and the activists that will get involved.

Awww...Im flattered you guys think about my reaction when Im not around.

Vote for Mittens at the convention, to avoid the perjury charge. Or not be seated for failing to sign the affidavit.

Keep dreaming. There are no affidavits in my state and affidavits are worthless unless notarized anyway. Only Mass has threatened that nonsense and there's no legal backing for it anyway. Did I mention that Mass GOP today decided to seat the Paul delegation without affidavits and no legal challenges?

Cambo
06-07-2012, 19:53
He's already said this in not so many words previously. Most reactions Ive seen weren't all that surprised since Rand is just starting his political career while Ron is finishing his (assuming a Romney nomination of course). Rand has been floated as a VP possibility to get Paul supporters on board but many aren't sold on Rand, myself included, so Mitt would pick up some votes but he would fail miserably if he thought Rand as VP alone would bring the entire few million votes Ron could bring, millions of dollars Ron can raise, and the activists that will get involved.

Awww...Im flattered you guys think about my reaction when Im not around.



Keep dreaming. There are no affidavits in my state and affidavits are worthless unless notarized anyway. Only Mass has threatened that nonsense and there's no legal backing for it anyway. Did I mention that Mass GOP today decided to seat the Paul delegation without affidavits and no legal challenges?

I love the "assuming a Romney nomination" part. I think that's been settled already.

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 19:58
He's already said this in not so many words previously. Most reactions Ive seen weren't all that surprised since Rand is just starting his political career while Ron is finishing his (assuming a Romney nomination of course). Rand has been floated as a VP possibility to get Paul supporters on board but many aren't sold on Rand, myself included, so Mitt would pick up some votes but he would fail miserably if he thought Rand as VP alone would bring the entire few million votes Ron could bring, millions of dollars Ron can raise, and the activists that will get involved.

Awww...Im flattered you guys think about my reaction when Im not around.



Keep dreaming. There are no affidavits in my state and affidavits are worthless unless notarized anyway. Only Mass has threatened that nonsense and there's no legal backing for it anyway. Did I mention that Mass GOP today decided to seat the Paul delegation without affidavits and no legal challenges?

Sure... :tongueout:

So, about Rand, is he still a cool guy to you, or a neocon, liberty hating, big spending, obamacare loving, gun banning, SOB that Ron should have never impregnated.

Just wondering. :popcorn:


Would you vote in November for a Mittens/Rand ticket?







One thing is for sure, Mittens better double the Secret Service detail to the President if he picks Rand as his running mate, some of his dad's buds are crazy/committed enough to do bad things.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 19:59
I love the "assuming a Romney nomination" part. I think that's been settled already.

If you like to watch the mainstream media, Im not surprised you'd think that.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 20:07
Sure... :tongueout:

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/06/massachusetts-gop-upholds-election-ron-paul-delegates-mitt-romney-congressional-district/unzd9f6y2MOOmjA95Wb3uL/story.html


So, about Rand, is he still a cool guy to you, or a neocon, liberty hating, big spending, obamacare loving, gun banning, SOB that Ron should have never impregnated.

Just wondering. :popcorn:

Strange phrasology there but whatever...

I worked to get Rand elected. I think he's a good guy and of course I love his pedigree but his political philosophy needs to be fleshed out a whole lot more before I draw any conclusions on him. He hasn't really done much in the Senate so far. His opposition to some of the police state stuff was nice but he's maintained a low profile otherwise. Just don't have enough to go on yet and I realize he's just starting his political career so like so many other politicians (and voters...ugh) he'll get behind the one he thinks will win. Can't blame him for that at this point.


Would you vote in November for a Mittens/Rand ticket?

Doubtful without more concessions.



One thing is for sure, Mittens better double the Secret Service detail to the President if he picks Rand as his running mate, some of his dad's buds are crazy/committed enough to do bad things.

I agree with you there. Ive stated elsewhere before that I doubted a Rand VP and was convinced there would be no Ron VP since the POTUS would probably like to live through his first term. It's sorta tongue in cheek but not entirely. I know there are definitely some less-than-stable members of this movement.

GAFinch
06-07-2012, 20:13
Ron Paul: I Won't Be The Nominee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ron-paul-i-wont-be-the-nominee-125509.html)

Texas Rep. Ron Paul acknowledged in a message to supporters Wednesday evening that he will not end up with enough delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination — an obvious statement that may still come as a disappointment to the congressman's hard-core supporters.

ChuteTheMall
06-07-2012, 20:21
Awww...Im flattered you guys think about my reaction when Im not around.

I consider the possibility of ants whenever I go to a picnic.

Sure... :tongueout:
So, about Rand, is he still a cool guy to you, or a neocon, liberty hating, big spending, obamacare loving, gun banning, SOB that Ron should have never impregnated.


How did Ron impregnate Rand?:headscratch:
That word; I don't think it means what you think it means.:animlol:

G19G20
06-07-2012, 20:21
Welcome to a few weeks ago GAFinch.

Goaltender66
06-07-2012, 20:22
And right after Wisconsin, Romney scores the all-important game-changing Aqua Buddha endorsement. :)

ChuteTheMall
06-07-2012, 20:42
:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::drowning:






http://i46.tinypic.com/wgzthz.jpg

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 20:42
I consider the possibility of ants whenever I go to a picnic.



How did Ron impregnate Rand?:headscratch:
That word; I don't think it means what you think it means.:animlol:

Try it this way, son of a woman that Ron should not have impregnated.

Clear?

GAFinch
06-07-2012, 20:46
Welcome to a few weeks ago GAFinch.

It's from last night.

ChuteTheMall
06-07-2012, 20:46
Try it this way, son of a woman that Ron should not have impregnated.

Clear?

:therapy: You're the doc!

HarlDane
06-07-2012, 20:51
I love the "assuming a Romney nomination" part. I think that's been settled already.


If you like to watch the mainstream media, Im not surprised you'd think that.

Ron Paul: I Won't Be The Nominee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ron-paul-i-wont-be-the-nominee-125509.html)

Texas Rep. Ron Paul acknowledged in a message to supporters Wednesday evening that he will not end up with enough delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination — an obvious statement that may still come as a disappointment to the congressman's hard-core supporters.

Welcome to a few weeks ago GAFinch.

Apparently Ron and Rand are also watching the mainstream media.

Either that or they already know (like most of the rest of us) that Romney will be the nominee.

G-19
06-07-2012, 20:52
Hahahahahaha, best thing I have heard today. I know Certified Funds and Ruble Noon are just sick.

He even did it on Hannity. Makes it even better.

The icing on the cake will be when Ron comes out with his endorsement.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 21:02
It's from last night.

Yeah, but it's not the first email that's stated that. It's the third in the last few weeks.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 21:08
Apparently Ron and Rand are also watching the mainstream media.

Either that or they already know (like most of the rest of us) that Romney will be the nominee.

As if Ron or Rand have any control over it at this point. Paul's campaign was never top down in the first place. Not sure why people think it is now.

Did you catch the part where the Paul campaign email says we have at least 500 RNC delegates? That's just the ones they know about and there's still state conventions left (150ish in Texas alone, more in Cali, etc). Howard Dean and Gary Hart have proven that candidates don't have anything locked up until it's all said and done.

Sam Spade
06-07-2012, 21:15
What's G19G20 going to do now?:faint:

Demand Rand's long-form birth certificate and a paternity test.

GAFinch
06-07-2012, 21:16
Ron Paul supporters saying that the nomination is undecided, even though Ron Paul has already conceded. Can't say I'm the least bit surprised.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 21:17
Demand Rand's long-form birth certificate and a paternity test.

Still flattered by the attention. Am I now the resident Paulite weathervane?

Sam Spade
06-07-2012, 21:18
Still flattered by the attention. Am I now the resident Paulite weathervane?

Yeah, something like that. :supergrin:

BlownFiveLiter
06-07-2012, 21:37
Still flattered by the attention.

We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you. Wait, no, we're laughing at you. Especially at this:

Yeah, but it's not the first email that's stated that. It's the third in the last few weeks.

Backpedal some more, why don't ya? Dr. Paul just isn't the guy. He admits it and he's the one who was running for President. If the man who was actively pursuing candidacy, to become The President of the United States, outright admits that he is not going to be the party's nominee, why can't you admit it to yourself? There are medications for that type of mental illness, you know. Antipsychotic medications are supposed to be pretty effective at controlling delusions.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 21:48
We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you. Wait, no, we're laughing at you. Especially at this:

Will you laugh when Mitt gets boo'ed off the stage in Tampa?


Backpedal some more, why don't ya? Dr. Paul just isn't the guy. He admits it and he's the one who was running for President. If the man who was actively pursuing candidacy, to become The President of the United States, outright admits that he is not going to be the party's nominee, why can't you admit it to yourself? There are medications for that type of mental illness, you know. Antipsychotic medications are supposed to be pretty effective at controlling delusions.

You're obviously someone who doesn't understand the liberty movement at all in the first place. It's ok, you'll learn soon enough.

Having said that, if you would like to point out in any of my 600-something posts where I said that Romney will not be the nominee then you'd have a point. I've never said that. I've said that nothing is decided yet, the media lies, and Paulites are still working to win. Do you have a problem with running until the race is over? Or are you a quitter? You sound like a quitter. I'm not a quitter. When you're racing your oh-so-hot car and you're losing, do you hit the brakes and turn around or do you finish the race at full speed? Your opponent may blow a tire before the finish line ;)

HarlDane
06-07-2012, 21:54
As if Ron or Rand have any control over it at this point. Paul's campaign was never top down in the first place. Not sure why people think it is now.

Did you catch the part where the Paul campaign email says we have at least 500 RNC delegates? That's just the ones they know about and there's still state conventions left (150ish in Texas alone, more in Cali, etc). Howard Dean and Gary Hart have proven that candidates don't have anything locked up until it's all said and done.Ron and Rand have both acknowledged that Mitt is the nominee, according to you this means they listen to the mainstream media. It's over.

Put it this way, I could give you 100-1 odds (hell make it 1000-1) Mitt is nominated provided he doesn't die or get caught with a hooker (and he could probably still get caught with a hooker and win), and you wouldn't take the bet. Because deep down inside, you know it's over as well.

Goaltender66
06-07-2012, 21:59
We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you. Wait, no, we're laughing at you.
I said it in another thread...Forrest Gump meets Groundhog Day.

And G19G20, if the acolytes really want to marginalize themselves, Uncle Ron, and Brother Rand, go ahead and boo. No one takes you seriously when it's clear you're just there to act like jerks and avoid good faith. Colorado should have proved that one for you.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 22:00
So you're saying we should just give up and let the Republic go into it's death throes.

I love my country way too much to roll over and accept that fate until it is finalized. You folks really don't understand our movement at all. Ron is the spokesman. He's not the CEO. He doesn't give orders (and we don't take them anyway). We will continue to push our message all the way to Tampa and beyond. We don't quit fighting for the Republic because of ghost written emails, media spin, or random internet posters that have already resolved themselves to a liberal POTUS, regardless of the letter next to his name.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 22:02
I said it in another thread...Forrest Gump meets Groundhog Day.

And G19G20, if the acolytes really want to marginalize themselves, Uncle Ron, and Brother Rand, go ahead and boo. No one takes you seriously when it's clear you're just there to act like jerks and avoid good faith. Colorado should have proved that one for you.

Accepting the nomination of a gun hating, abortion loving, mandate forcing Wall St owned Mormon liberal is good faith? You gotta give good faith to receive it bro. The GOP isn't giving any of us ANY good faith. They've burned that up long ago.

Btw, from what Im seeing tonite, Rand just killed himself with our people with this endorsement. I thought it would be lukewarm reception but nooooo. Not very happy folks out there after this. You all better be prepared to step up and support him because his political future with our movement is toast.

G29Reload
06-07-2012, 22:07
He's already said this in not so many words previously.

No, he hasn't. He's said nice things about him, that's it.

Rand has been floated as a VP possibility to get Paul supporters on board but many aren't sold on Rand, myself included,

Figures. Rand has some of his old man's smarts without the apparent crazy. I am actually genuinely enthusiastic about hearing more about Rand.

Most reactions Ive seen weren't all that surprised

I bet they're all heaving their guts. For all the vitriol spewed by the RP crowd about Obamny and all the other vicious insults, they're sick to their stomachs.

But abject phonies they are, since the Old Man commanded it, they'll play it off like "nothing new here"…a more transparently robotic bunch of phonies there never was. RP is making you eat the equivalent of a **** sandwich and you'll ask for seconds.



Awww...Im flattered you guys think about my reaction when Im not around.

Naw, we're just entertained by the freak parade going by, plus it is fun to watch syncophants eat **** sandwiches.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 22:14
No, he hasn't. He's said nice things about him, that's it.

Which is usually a lead-up to a formal endorsement. And what do ya know? There it is.


Figures. Rand has some of his old man's smarts without the apparent crazy. I am actually genuinely enthusiastic about hearing more about Rand.

If the media treated Rand like they did Ron then you'd eventually call Rand crazy too. Im glad you want to hear more. He'll need your support, that's for sure. The flood gates opened over the last couple hours. Go check Rand's facebook page. His likes are disappeared by the truckload every minute.


I bet they're all heaving their guts. For all the vitriol spewed by the RP crowd about Obamny and all the other vicious insults, they're sick to their stomachs.

You're right. The initial reactions have been taken over by sheer disgust.


But abject phonies they are, since the Old Man commanded it, they'll play it off like "nothing new here"…a more transparently robotic bunch of phonies there never was. RP is making you eat the equivalent of a **** sandwich and you'll ask for seconds.


Not even sure what this means. If what you say is true then people would fall in line. They're NOT.


Naw, we're just entertained by the freak parade going by, plus it is fun to watch syncophants eat **** sandwiches.

And we are as equally entertained by you folks that are lining up to vote for the gun hating baby killer, on Glocktalk no less. At least we're keeping each other entertained while this country swirls down the toilet.

Goaltender66
06-07-2012, 22:19
Accepting the nomination of a gun hating, abortion loving, mandate forcing Wall St owned Mormon liberal is good faith? You gotta give good faith to receive it bro. The GOP isn't giving any of us ANY good faith. They've burned that up long ago.

Btw, from what Im seeing tonite, Rand just killed himself with our people with this endorsement. I thought it would be lukewarm reception but nooooo. Not very happy folks out there after this. You all better be prepared to step up and support him because his political future with our movement is toast.

As usual, you miss the point entirely. And you are confusing "good faith" with deserved influence. Like it or not, the reality is that Paul didn't get enough votes to imbue his delegates (stealth or otherwise) with much influence or credibility at all. Hard truth but there it is.

I've had a feeling Rand was in this for Rand, just as I've had the opinion that Ron was doing this for himself. This endorsement seems opportunistic to me, nothing more. If you Ronulans think he's a sellout because of it, well, maybe he is.

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 22:20
So you're saying we should just give up and let the Republic go into it's death throes.

I love my country way too much to roll over and accept that fate until it is finalized. You folks really don't understand our movement at all. Ron is the spokesman. He's not the CEO. He doesn't give orders (and we don't take them anyway). We will continue to push our message all the way to Tampa and beyond. We don't quit fighting for the Republic because of ghost written emails, media spin, or random internet posters that have already resolved themselves to a liberal POTUS, regardless of the letter next to his name.

If Obama wins again, how much less time will you have to fight for the republic? I do find it funny how NOW people are unsure of Rand.

Red

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 22:22
As usual, you miss the point entirely. And you are confusing "good faith" with deserved influence. Like it or not, the reality is that Paul didn't get enough votes to imbue his delegates (stealth or otherwise) with much influence or credibility at all. Hard truth but there it is.

I've had a feeling Rand was in this for Rand, just as I've had the opinion that Ron was doing this for himself. This endorsement seems opportunistic to me, nothing more. If you Ronulans think he's a sellout because of it, well, maybe he is.

Ron is a liar too...why does he run as a republican?!? Ron is the sellout, he runs for one party, then runs for another, and endorses other cantidates outside of the party he runs on.

Red

G19G20
06-07-2012, 22:28
If Obama wins again, how much less time will you have to fight for the republic? I do find it funny how NOW people are unsure of Rand.

Red

This place is history regardless of Obama or Romney winning. That's the whole point. We're fighting for an alternative candidate but the true heart of the matter is we're fighting to keep alive the message of liberty, in a country that is seeing liberty shrink daily into simple 10 second soundbite that politicians use but nothing in actual practice.

I can't speak for others but I told Cav previously on this forum that I wasn't a fan of Rand's. I even said in this very thread that he hasn't proven himself to me.

Stubudd
06-07-2012, 22:29
Sure... :tongueout:

So, about Rand, is he still a cool guy to you, or a neocon, liberty hating, big spending, obamacare loving, gun banning, SOB that Ron should have never impregnated.

Just wondering. :popcorn:

Would you vote in November for a Mittens/Rand ticket?


I don't know very much about rand. The bit about Mitt being "perfect" for this or that or a great choice or whatever he said, he if he really believes that, then he's just another slick apparently. If he doesn't believe it but said it anyway for some motivation unknown to me right now, he's a slick like the rest of them. So it looks like Rand might be another slick. That's too bad, i'd hoped he'd take a leadership position in opposing these crooks, but i guess he's already with their program to some extent at least.

i don't know much about rand- the "neocon, liberty hating, big spending, obamacare loving, gun banning, SOB" is your nominee, not rand as far as i know. I don't think he's done an obamacare loving, big spending, gun banning, liberty hating, or any of that stuff, so far as i know. Endorsing your nominee does pretty much qualify him as a run of the mill slick though, sadly

countrygun
06-07-2012, 22:30
I think there is actually a far-left plot at work here and I am not kidding.

everyone in the Country knows that Ron Paul really was a Libertarian.

many people were put off a bit by Paul and he didn't get the the votes to carry the nomination.

He conceded this and has ceased his campaign,

A group of fanatic obama liberals are now pretending to be such Paul fanatics that they are going to vote for a candidate who isn't running. They claim that the media made their candidate look like a nut so to prove he isn't they are going to vote for him even though he isn't running. Yup, that ought to just about convince the rest of America that the core of the Libertarian party is off their rocker and put an end tothe libertarian party once and for all.

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 22:30
This place is history regardless of Obama or Romney winning. That's the whole point. We're fighting for an alternative candidate but the true heart of the matter is we're fighting to keep alive the message of liberty, in a country that is seeing liberty shrink daily into simple 10 second soundbite that politicians use but nothing in actual practice.

I can't speak for others but I told Cav previously on this forum that I wasn't a fan of Rand's. I even said in this very thread that he hasn't proven himself to me.

Agreed on you not being a Rand guy, that's why I was more general, wasn't meant as in you.

Red :thumbsup:

GAFinch
06-07-2012, 22:31
I, like many Republicans, don't know as much about Rand as we've been forced to learn about Ron, but what exposure to him we have gotten has been mostly positive. He's more level-headed and has been teaming up with Tea Party Republicans on bills. In exchange, he will get Republicans, including Romney, to consider a few Libertarian proposals. He said in the interview with Hannity that he's gotten Romney to agree to consider a short list of proposals (including reforming the Fed) that he lists to Hannity. I added the video to the OP. There really isn't some huge divide between conservative Republicans and Libertarians on many issues when you take away the rigidity of ideas of the Ron Paul faction. If it was only Ron and no Rand, Libertarians and their ideas would be completely shunned by Republicans after non-stop flooding of website forums, emails and voicemails of media and politicians, and childish antics at conventions. Part of being a member of society is learning to give and take on opinions in order to advance the needs of the whole group. Rand is getting some of your ideas into the group discussion, so be happy with what you've gotten.

G19G20
06-07-2012, 22:34
I think there is actually a far-left plot at work here and I am not kidding.

everyone in the Country knows that Ron Paul really was a Libertarian.

many people were put off a bit by Paul and he didn't get the the votes to carry the nomination.

He conceded this and has ceased his campaign,

A group of fanatic obama liberals are now pretending to be such Paul fanatics that they are going to vote for a candidate who isn't running. They claim that the media made their candidate look like a nut so to prove he isn't they are going to vote for him even though he isn't running. Yup, that ought to just about convince the rest of America that the core of the Libertarian party is off their rocker and put an end tothe libertarian party once and for all.

Oh for real. Get off it. Just admit you're going to vote for a liberal gun hating abortion lover while calling yourself conservative and just stop with the wild conspiracy theories. It must be a conspiracy that a sizable part of the population is sick of "lesser of evils" and won't give in yet again? You're Charlie Brown and the GOP is Lucy holding the football. Im tired of landing on my back. Aren't you?

Syclone538
06-07-2012, 22:36
...
Which Ron supporters would vote for Romney if Rand were on the ticket????
...

Undecided, but still leaning LP.

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 22:42
Undecided, but still leaning LP.

Then why does your guy run as a republican?

Red

Syclone538
06-07-2012, 22:46
...
There really isn't some huge divide between conservative Republicans and Libertarians on many issues when you take away the rigidity of ideas of the Ron Paul faction.
...

I think you have a misunderstanding of either libertarians or Republicans.

countrygun
06-07-2012, 22:50
You're Charlie Brown and the GOP is Lucy holding the football. Im tired of landing on my back. Aren't you?


take a gulp of reality, your team isn't even on the field anymore.

Syclone538
06-07-2012, 22:51
Then why does your guy run as a republican?

Red

Obviously I can't speak for Ron Paul, but I'm sure it's a lot easier to win an election as a R then a LP.

Stubudd
06-07-2012, 22:52
I think there is actually a far-left plot at work here and I am not kidding.

everyone in the Country knows that Ron Paul really was a Libertarian.

many people were put off a bit by Paul and he didn't get the the votes to carry the nomination.

He conceded this and has ceased his campaign,

A group of fanatic obama liberals are now pretending to be such Paul fanatics that they are going to vote for a candidate who isn't running. They claim that the media made their candidate look like a nut so to prove he isn't they are going to vote for him even though he isn't running. Yup, that ought to just about convince the rest of America that the core of the Libertarian party is off their rocker and put an end tothe libertarian party once and for all.

i don't know man, it really sounds like it's you that's off your rocker. This post made no sense for one thing. Also, you have a liberal vs a liberal to choose from and you want to put an end to the only alternative with any kind of momentum.

Your conspiracy theory makes a lot more sense if you're the secret fanatic liberal- you're voting for one after all- maybe you guys want to finish off the largest block of opposition to your mitt vs obama liberal heaven once and for all. Mitt vs obama, libs like you can't lose man! Awesome huh?

Down with those people that talk about actually, you know, *really* reducing the size of government. You guys don't want anything to do with that kind of thing, i know. Give me more of what has proven to suck beyond comprehension. I love patriot acts, massive welfare programs, socialized everything, out of control corruption, and getting taxed into the ground. I vote for more, even though it always only gets worse, year after year after year, and i scoff at those fools who want to stop it. Stamp out those libertarians once and for all. They're off their rockers.


:rofl:


idiots

countrygun
06-07-2012, 23:00
i don't know man, it really sounds like it's you that's off your rocker. This post made no sense for one thing. Also, you have a liberal vs a liberal to choose from and you want to put an end to the only alternative with any kind of momentum.

Your conspiracy theory makes a lot more sense if you're the secret fanatic liberal- you're voting for one after all- maybe you guys want to finish off the largest block of opposition to your mitt vs obama liberal heaven once and for all. Mitt vs obama, libs like you can't lose man! Awesome huh?

Down with those people that talk about actually, you know, *really* reducing the size of government. You guys don't want anything to do with that kind of thing, i know. Give me more of what has proven to suck beyond comprehension. I love patriot acts, massive welfare programs, socialized everything, out of control corruption, and getting taxed into the ground. I vote for more, even though it always only gets worse, year after year after year, and i scoff at those fools who want to stop it. Stamp out those libertarians once and for all. They're off their rockers.


:rofl:


idiots


Hmm. Ron Paul had the opportunity, early in the primary to approach a candidate, that actually had a chance to win, and say "OK I have these delegates and all these supporters. Now I don't expect you to adopt my whole platform, but if you will adopt 2 or 3 main planks into your platform I will give you my delegates and my support."

That way Paul could have affected some change in the outcome of the election. Now he is holding an empty sack and has no influence whatsoever.

Kind of hard to take someone with that lack of command of the political process, or anyone who says they are still going to vote for him, seriously.

BTW you screamed loud and fast enough you made me think I hit a nerve.

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 23:04
Obviously I can't speak for Ron Paul, but I'm sure it's a lot easier to win an election as a R then a LP.

So it's to game the system rather than run on principle.

Red

countrygun
06-07-2012, 23:23
So it's to game the system rather than run on principle.

Red


If you play it as a zero-sum game and run on principle without compromise as a third party you have absolutely no effect on any policy when you lose.

RCP
06-07-2012, 23:25
Hmm. Ron Paul had the opportunity, early in the primary to approach a candidate, that actually had a chance to win, and say "OK I have these delegates and all these supporters. Now I don't expect you to adopt my whole platform, but if you will adopt 2 or 3 main planks into your platform I will give you my delegates and my support."

That way Paul could have affected some change in the outcome of the election. Now he is holding an empty sack and has no influence whatsoever.

Kind of hard to take someone with that lack of command of the political process, or anyone who says they are still going to vote for him, seriously.

BTW you screamed loud and fast enough you made me think I hit a nerve.

IMO, He still holds that power. I know I'm still undecided as well until after the National Convention when I can see what the GOP will include in its platform.

countrygun
06-07-2012, 23:40
IMO, He still holds that power. I know I'm still undecided as well until after the National Convention when I can see what the GOP will include in its platform.


At this point he didn't help Romney win the nomination so those cards are gone and just listen to the supporters that say they are still going to vote for him no matter what. What has he got left? Sounds like the sore losers will desrt him if he endorses Romney anyway listen to the anti-Romney venom. Nope, I think he's holding an empty sack.

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 23:43
If you play it as a zero-sum game and run on principle without compromise as a third party you have absolutely no effect on any policy when you lose.

Why does he lie to run on one of the 2 major parties then by running as a republican when he is not one? I'm not something but I will play one to get more glory type thing, and then when it doesn't go my way I will change parties again? Can't sell out much more than that.

Red

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 23:44
IMO, He still holds that power. I know I'm still undecided as well until after the National Convention when I can see what the GOP will include in its platform.

He won't based on the fact he hasn't. Granted that IS just my speculation. I freely admit that.

Red

Fiery Red XIII
06-07-2012, 23:53
Here's 1 reaction from a former Rand and current Ron fanatic: "If Rand Paul's announcement was a trial balloon to see how supporters would react to a Rand Paul VP to Romney ticket. I'd say you'd have to call the trial balloon a zeppelin." I will have more when more post them outside of this forum/site.

Red

countrygun
06-08-2012, 00:02
Why does he lie to run on one of the 2 major parties then by running as a republican when he is not one? I'm not something but I will play one to get more glory type thing, and then when it doesn't go my way I will change parties again? Can't sell out much more than that.

Red


Haven't you been listening?

His supporters are acting like he was a party all unto himself and they are not acting like Republicans at all, they are not going to vote for a Republican candidate that isn't their Messiah. Other people saw that attitude and wouldn't vote for him because of it, but it put him in a position to gain delegates early on and use them as bargaining chips with the other candidates to get Libertarian planks included in the Republican platform. He had a better chance to change the landscape than any, basically, 3rd party candidate in my lifetime. Due to the political situation aat this time that includes Ross Perot in his day. Ron Paul is almost completely neutered at this point and his supporters that refuse to vote for Romney are cutting the last piece off.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 04:52
A couple of them, well ok, one of them is claiming that they are bum rushing the delegate choosing state conventions, and even if they are legally bound to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote for when they were selected, they will vote for Ron on the first ballot, either nominating him, or just disrupting the convention.

The antics will be fun to watch, especially when they are charged, and their names become public back home, you know, where they threw away all the votes of their neighbors.


Idealism will meet reality for most people at some point in their lives.

Goaltender66
06-08-2012, 05:58
Here's 1 reaction from a former Rand and current Ron fanatic: "If Rand Paul's announcement was a trial balloon to see how supporters would react to a Rand Paul VP to Romney ticket. I'd say you'd have to call the trial balloon a zeppelin." I will have more when more post them outside of this forum/site.

What is it with the hardcore Ronulan fascination with blimps?! :whistling:

callihan_44
06-08-2012, 06:27
In the future I think Rand has a better chance of getting the GOP nomination for pres than Ron had. I think one thing Ron Paul supporters dont realize is unless you pack the senate and house with teaparty types he had no chance of getting much done.

QNman
06-08-2012, 07:25
Ron Paul: I Won't Be The Nominee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ron-paul-i-wont-be-the-nominee-125509.html)

Texas Rep. Ron Paul acknowledged in a message to supporters Wednesday evening that he will not end up with enough delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination — an obvious statement that may still come as a disappointment to the congressman's hard-core supporters.

G19G20 will not accept this. I'm sure he and the thousands of covert operative delegates are still planning their coup.

QNman
06-08-2012, 07:26
Welcome to a few weeks ago GAFinch.

I rest my case.

QNman
06-08-2012, 07:28
As if Ron or Rand have any control over it at this point. Paul's campaign was never top down in the first place. Not sure why people think it is now.

Did you catch the part where the Paul campaign email says we have at least 500 RNC delegates? That's just the ones they know about and there's still state conventions left (150ish in Texas alone, more in Cali, etc). Howard Dean and Gary Hart have proven that candidates don't have anything locked up until it's all said and done.

"He's going to be the nominee - he just doesn't know it yet".

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:therapy:

GAFinch
06-08-2012, 08:49
Accepting the nomination of a gun hating, abortion loving, mandate forcing Wall St owned Mormon liberal is good faith?

-Ron wants to repeal the federal law banning lawsuits against gun companies, due to his states rights stance.
-Ron hasn't indicated support for Rand's Life at Conception Act, due to his states rights stance. Romney hasn't pledged to support it either.
-Romney has repeatedly said he'll help repeal ObamaCare.
-Republicans don't support the Occupy Wall Street movement.
-Republicans don't care that he's Mormon. We support anyone who shares common Judeo-Christian morals...Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews. We don't particularly support Islam or Marxism since they lack several basic morals. Both liberals and Paulites tend to frequently be anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and apologetic towards Islam.

lancesorbenson
06-08-2012, 09:01
Why does he lie to run on one of the 2 major parties then by running as a republican when he is not one? I'm not something but I will play one to get more glory type thing, and then when it doesn't go my way I will change parties again? Can't sell out much more than that.

Red

Well, he was elected to the Congress 12 times as a Republican by voters in his Texas district. What exactly are YOUR Republican bona fides?

Rand Paul is much more of a political animal than his father and endorsing Romney is a smart move. Rand carries the Tea Party stamp of approval, is making in-roads with establishment Republicans, and has support from many of the libertarian wingnuts the "real" conservatives here hate so much. I'd say he's positioned himself well for a political future, but it'll be interesting to see if he remains true to his principles.

If he can convince the etch a sketch to adopt a few liberty-minded positions it may be worth selling out the radical portion of Ron Paul supporters. We'll see. I still won't be voting for the Yankee progressive in magic underwear.

Syclone538
06-08-2012, 09:52
...
I think one thing Ron Paul supporters dont realize is unless you pack the senate and house with teaparty types he had no chance of getting much done.

What? Simply vetoing most of the bills that came his way would be a huge step in the right direction. Appointing judges wouldn't hurt either.

callihan_44
06-08-2012, 12:22
What? Simply vetoing most of the bills that came his way would be a huge step in the right direction. Appointing judges wouldn't hurt either.

and who is going to approve his judge nominees?democrats or rino repubs?

countrygun
06-08-2012, 14:01
Political naivette, idealism and willful ignorance to the max at play.

We have a sysytem of checks and balances that operate sthrough and only through compromise. We did not get in to the miserable shape we are in because of one party or election it has been a graduals process and undoing the mess will likewise be gradual although, hopefully more focused and swifter.

The lionizing of Ron Paul and his promising to "fix everything" with a broad platform of changes sound, actually a lot like "Hope and Change", and how did that work for 'ya?

Obama came in with sweeping changes promised, got his health care bill rammed through, and then due to an election lost his ability to steamroll, there are those "checks and balances" at play again.

Exactly what chance would Ron Paul have of accomplishing Diddly-Squat as long as the House and the Senate still exist? He is going to hijack the Republican Party and then expect Republican support in Congress? Remember there aren't enough Libertarians in Congress to make a good Caucus. It sounds like Paulators expect the same kind of mystical transformation that the Obamalators were voting for.

I thought that Obama's "career" in office, would have shown the foolishness of one group pinning their hopes on one person in one office. I guess everyone was too busy watching that great video prognostication "Idiocracy" to notice.

G-19
06-08-2012, 14:20
This place is history regardless of Obama or Romney winning. That's the whole point. We're fighting for an alternative candidate but the true heart of the matter is we're fighting to keep alive the message of liberty, in a country that is seeing liberty shrink daily into simple 10 second soundbite that politicians use but nothing in actual practice.

I can't speak for others but I told Cav previously on this forum that I wasn't a fan of Rand's. I even said in this very thread that he hasn't proven himself to me.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to check for future lottery numbers. I mean you must have away to see the future since you claim that regardless if Romney or Obama win this place is history. I can see how you can say that against Obama, history speaks for its self. You have no way of knowing how Romney will be as a President.

It seems to me you just got your panties in a wad, because Paul is out. It just kills you that everyone don't see how smart you and your fellow Paulbots are and just give into you.










Just to clarify, the last part is sarcasm. We really don't think you are that smart.

G-19
06-08-2012, 14:25
Well, he was elected to the Congress 12 times as a Republican by voters in his Texas district. What exactly are YOUR Republican bona fides?

Rand Paul is much more of a political animal than his father and endorsing Romney is a smart move. Rand carries the Tea Party stamp of approval, is making in-roads with establishment Republicans, and has support from many of the libertarian wingnuts the "real" conservatives here hate so much. I'd say he's positioned himself well for a political future, but it'll be interesting to see if he remains true to his principles.

If he can convince the etch a sketch to adopt a few liberty-minded positions it may be worth selling out the radical portion of Ron Paul supporters. We'll see. I still won't be voting for the Yankee progressive in magic underwear.

12 times! Yet, he can't even beat Romney in his district. Makes you wonder.

G-19
06-08-2012, 14:33
I find it funny that the libertarians are upset because Paul is out of the GOP race, but no talk of supporting Gary Johnson. You remember him, the actual LP candidate. They would rather spend their time bashing Romney so they can ensure Obama's second
Term.

Snowman92D
06-08-2012, 14:52
That's the whole point. We're fighting for an alternative candidate but the true heart of the matter is we're fighting to keep alive the message of liberty...

"Liberty" being the freedom to smoke dope. :smoking:

Snowman92D
06-08-2012, 14:53
12 times! Yet, he can't even beat Romney in his district.

Ouch! That had to hurt...! :okie:

countrygun
06-08-2012, 15:17
I find it funny that the libertarians are upset because Paul is out of the GOP race, but no talk of supporting Gary Johnson. You remember him, the actual LP candidate. They would rather spend their time bashing Romney so they can ensure Obama's second
Term.


And that is what convinced me that the whole Ron Paul "Thing" was just a liberal scheme to damage the GOP. All of these folks not showing a loyalty to their actual party but instead damaging an established party that didn't elect one of theirs. It is obvious. They weren't and aren't Republicans, and they have no loyalty to the Libertarian PARTY so they have to be Democratic saboteurs.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 15:27
Idealism is admirable, but eventually futile in political arenas. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, well you might find, you get what you need.

G19G20
06-08-2012, 16:19
"Liberty" being the freedom to smoke dope. :smoking:

That's the beauty of freedom. It's different for each individual person as to how they live their lives. Ill take smoking a natural plant over authoritarians any day. Why do you love authoritarianism so much? Are you not capable of making your own personal decisions and leaving others to make their own?

The Machinist
06-08-2012, 16:24
Still waiting for my head to explode. Hasn't happened yet.

G19G20
06-08-2012, 16:25
Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to check for future lottery numbers. I mean you must have away to see the future since you claim that regardless if Romney or Obama win this place is history. I can see how you can say that against Obama, history speaks for its self. You have no way of knowing how Romney will be as a President.

It seems to me you just got your panties in a wad, because Paul is out. It just kills you that everyone don't see how smart you and your fellow Paulbots are and just give into you.


Just to clarify, the last part is sarcasm. We really don't think you are that smart.

Yep, you got me. Romney is exactly what this country needs to veer away from liberalism and restore the Republic. He's a regular Taft, that guy. :upeyes:

If you accept that Obama's policies are terrible and going the wrong way then practically everything in Romney's history suggests he's no different, and probably even worse in some ways. The end result for the country is still the same, the direction doesn't change, and I think most people see this. On anything of substance outside of social issues (and even that's suspect) Romney doesn't offer any substantial changes. And just wait till he moves firmly to the middle after he's already assured of your vote....

I find it funny that the libertarians are upset because Paul is out of the GOP race, but no talk of supporting Gary Johnson. You remember him, the actual LP candidate. They would rather spend their time bashing Romney so they can ensure Obama's second
Term.

I'll look at GJ if Romney wins the nomination, no sooner. GJ is going to have to step his game up majorly if he wants a larger role in this movement.

countrygun
06-08-2012, 16:29
That's the beauty of freedom. It's different for each individual person as to how they live their lives. Ill take smoking a natural plant over authoritarians any day. Why do you love authoritarianism so much? Are you not capable of making your own personal decisions and leaving others to make their own?


"If you support Ron Paul, you will claim it's because you love "freedom"

If you love freedom, you will end up smoking dope to show it.

If you smoke dope to prove you love freedom, you won't notice that Ron Paul is out of the race

If you don't notice Ron Paul is out of the Race, you won't admit Ron Paul is out of the race.

If you don't admit Ron Paul is out of the race, you vote for Ron Paul

If you vote for Ron Paul you will help Obama win the election.

Don't let Obama win the election, switch to Romney.

lancesorbenson
06-08-2012, 16:30
12 times! Yet, he can't even beat Romney in his district. Makes you wonder.

Pretty simple actually. The race was all but over by the time it got to Texas. That's part of the reason we're stuck with the Yankee progressive in magic underwear as the Republican candidate. Enjoy!

lancesorbenson
06-08-2012, 16:31
"If you support Ron Paul, you will claim it's because you love "freedom"

If you love freedom, you will end up smoking dope to show it.

If you smoke dope to prove you love freedom, you won't notice that Ron Paul is out of the race

If you don't notice Ron Paul is out of the Race, you won't admit Ron Paul is out of the race.

If you don't admit Ron Paul is out of the race, you vote for Ron Paul

If you vote for Ron Paul you will help Obama win the election.

Don't let Obama win the election, switch to Romney.


You sound high.

G19G20
06-08-2012, 16:33
You sound high.

He just got his pharmacy refills today. His post reminds me of those hilarious DirecTv commercials.

"If you have cable, you get angry waiting for the repairman"

fast forward and....

"You sell your hair to a wig shop. Don't sell your hair to a wig shop."

The commercials are meant to be outlandish and funny because they're so over the top but I fear that poster actually was serious.

Dont sell your hair to a wig shop - YouTube

countrygun
06-08-2012, 16:59
You sound high.


You and the resident Paul cheerleader sound as if you don't want to admit that voting for Paul is helping Obama win.


I am surprised to see that G19G20 noticed the parody at work here when he can't recognize the "Perot effect" he is encouraging, or perhaps he does and that is what he wants?

Snowman92D
06-08-2012, 17:25
Why do you love authoritarianism so much? Are you not capable of making your own personal decisions and leaving others to make their own?

You forgot to ask me why I hate the Constitution. :rofl:

ChuteTheMall
06-08-2012, 17:37
You and the resident Paul cheerleader sound as if you don't want to admit that voting for Paul is helping Obama win.


I am surprised to see that G19G20 noticed the parody at work here when he can't recognize the "Perot effect" he is encouraging, or perhaps he does and that is what he wants?

It's what he wants. He's Obama's tool.

Anybody still opposing Romney is clearly supporting Obama, whether they are pretending to support Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Papoon, or Pat Paulson.

Obama has only one challenger, and his name is Mitt Romney.

There are only two sides.

ChuteTheMall
06-08-2012, 17:38
You forgot to ask me why I hate the Constitution. :rofl:

Why do you hate the Law of Gravity?:okie:

GAFinch
06-08-2012, 17:49
And that is what convinced me that the whole Ron Paul "Thing" was just a liberal scheme to damage the GOP. All of these folks not showing a loyalty to their actual party but instead damaging an established party that didn't elect one of theirs. It is obvious. They weren't and aren't Republicans, and they have no loyalty to the Libertarian PARTY so they have to be Democratic saboteurs.

Most Republicans don't differentiate between Paulites and other Libertarians, so they end up hating all Libertarians. Most Independents and Democrats don't differentiate between Paulites and the Tea Party, so they end up hating all Tea Partiers due to the infamous newsletters. All this headache for everyone, but won't commit to either Johnson or Romney. Geez, at least give people a reach around before you finish screwing them over.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 19:07
That's the beauty of freedom. It's different for each individual person as to how they live their lives. Ill take smoking a natural plant over authoritarians any day. Why do you love authoritarianism so much? Are you not capable of making your own personal decisions and leaving others to make their own?

THNDRTHF - Posting While High web commercial - YouTube

G19G20
06-08-2012, 19:29
You and the resident Paul cheerleader sound as if you don't want to admit that voting for Paul is helping Obama win.

I don't really care at this point. The country is screwed regardless so why compromise my principles for NOTHING? Romney wouldn't give my platform any more attention than Obama would so at least I could sleep at night knowing I stuck to my guns. At least until one of them signs a law taking my guns away.


I am surprised to see that G19G20 noticed the parody at work here when he can't recognize the "Perot effect" he is encouraging, or perhaps he does and that is what he wants?

Keep blaming Romney's eventual loss on everything except how terrible Romney is.

You forgot to ask me why I hate the Constitution. :rofl:

Guilty conscience? You're a terrible debater btw.

QNman
06-08-2012, 19:46
Idealism is admirable, but eventually futile in political arenas. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, well you might find, you get what you need.

Oh, yeah.

QNman
06-08-2012, 19:47
?..I am surprised to see that G19G20 noticed the parody at work here when he can't recognize the "Perot effect" he is encouraging, or perhaps he does and that is what he wants?

perhaps he doesn't know what the Perot effect is... He was probably in diapers at the time.

I know - first hand. I was "that guy".

countrygun
06-08-2012, 19:54
perhaps he doesn't know what the Perot effect is... He was probably in diapers at the time.

I know - first hand. I was "that guy".


Did you change when you grew up?

lancesorbenson
06-08-2012, 20:07
You and the resident Paul cheerleader sound as if you don't want to admit that voting for Paul is helping Obama win.

Keep on spouting this nonsense if it makes you feel better. My state's electoral votes will, regardless of who I vote for, go to the Yankee progressive in magic underwear.

G29Reload
06-08-2012, 20:15
"If you support Ron Paul, you will claim it's because you love "freedom"

If you love freedom, you will end up smoking dope to show it.

If you smoke dope to prove you love freedom, you won't notice that Ron Paul is out of the race

If you don't notice Ron Paul is out of the Race, you won't admit Ron Paul is out of the race.

If you don't admit Ron Paul is out of the race, you vote for Ron Paul

If you vote for Ron Paul you will help Obama win the election.

Don't let Obama win the election, switch to Romney.

and DirectTv. Call 1 800 DirectTV.


:rofl:

The Machinist
06-08-2012, 20:19
And that is what convinced me that the whole Ron Paul "Thing" was just a liberal scheme to damage the GOP. All of these folks not showing a loyalty to their actual party but instead damaging an established party that didn't elect one of theirs. It is obvious. They weren't and aren't Republicans, and they have no loyalty to the Libertarian PARTY so they have to be Democratic saboteurs.
You're one hell of a programmed little sheep. Party loyalty? What a joke. You've forsworn your basic human pride, and now you prostrate yourself before people who don't care about you, or anything that happens to you. You're nothing but an animal. Tax livestock. Beyond that, your life is absolutely meaningless to "the party".

You don't value liberty, unobtrusive government, or anything resembling a sound fiscal policy. You're as servile as any liberal, and every bit to blame for the state of this country.

G-19
06-08-2012, 20:43
You're one hell of a programmed little sheep. Party loyalty? What a joke. You've forsworn your basic human pride, and now you prostrate yourself before people who don't care about you, or anything that happens to you. You're nothing but an animal. Tax livestock. Beyond that, your life is absolutely meaningless to "the party".

You don't value liberty, unobtrusive government, or anything resembling a sound fiscal policy. You're as servile as any liberal, and every bit to blame for the state of this country.

What drivel.

The Machinist
06-08-2012, 21:35
What drivel.
A typical non-response from a Romney supporter. Have fun voting for a liberal con man this November.

Syclone538
06-08-2012, 21:52
You and the resident Paul cheerleader sound as if you don't want to admit that voting for Paul is helping Obama win.
...

Well Paul isn't going to be on the ballot, so I'll be voting LP, not for Obama. Why would that be helping Obama any more then Romney?

countrygun
06-08-2012, 22:12
You're one hell of a programmed little sheep. Party loyalty? What a joke. You've forsworn your basic human pride, and now you prostrate yourself before people who don't care about you, or anything that happens to you. You're nothing but an animal. Tax livestock. Beyond that, your life is absolutely meaningless to "the party".

You don't value liberty, unobtrusive government, or anything resembling a sound fiscal policy. You're as servile as any liberal, and every bit to blame for the state of this country.


You are an idealistic twit every bit as stupid as the idealistic brainless "Occupy" twits. (That is of course overlooking the fact that you are an Obama shill. I will just pretend that you are weakminded enough to be serious)

I have been voting in Presidential elections for over 30 years and I spent 6 years paying for my 4 year college education in Political Science, without borrowing a dime because I was smart enough to know, back then, a bit more about economics than most younger people have demonstrated.

It is the most selfish and arrogant thing possible to TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY, by throwing away ones vote. It is a sign of the mental self-fondling that goes on among the intellectually retarded individuals that like to sit in a circle tugging and telling each other how "superior they are" because they aren't accomplishing anything.
Frankly, narcicisstic circlejerks are Passe'

What absolutely convinces me that you are an Obama shill and lying throught your teeth, is the fact that you are demonstraing exactly the same behavior as the Obama fanatics, right down to your toes. Expecting a single individual with big grand ideas to bring in "Fundamental Change", which anyone with an ounce of political savvy knows is impossible. Yet you sound exactly like an Obama fan 4 years ago.

Now here you sit spouting that rhetoric, trying to convince others that if your candidate, who suspiciously attempted to split the Republican party, isn't going to be the Republican choice (which would have given the Republicans NO chance of winning the election) then the best bet is to throw away their vote, let Obama win, and pretend to be OCCUPYING the "high ground"

The very fact that Ron Paul ran as a Republican when he wasn't and his followers are pulling this stuff shows the amount of deceit involved in their whole (Bowel) movement.

It is designed to not only throw this election to Obama but in so doing forever discredit the Libertarian Party by showing that they do not have the political acumen to recognize that compromise is one if the pricniples behind the design of our Constitution.

America did not get in this mess in one or a half dozen Administrations and it is going to take some incrimental steps to right the ship without cracking the keel.

Again the fact that you sound exactly like an Obama supporter 4 years ago expecting big changes in the face of reality, tells me who is really I am willing to work with something less than perfect rather than hold my breath 'till I turn blue because I didn't get my perfect dream.your strings.

No you have a lower moral code than I.

QNman
06-08-2012, 22:41
Did you change when you grew up?

Yup. Took me twice, but I figured it out. No one was receiving the "message" I was sending. The primary is the place for any message. After that, you have a voice between two viable candidates.

QNman
06-08-2012, 22:51
You're one hell of a programmed little sheep. Party loyalty? What a joke. You've forsworn your basic human pride, and now you prostrate yourself before people who don't care about you, or anything that happens to you. You're nothing but an animal. Tax livestock. Beyond that, your life is absolutely meaningless to "the party".

You don't value liberty, unobtrusive government, or anything resembling a sound fiscal policy. You're as servile as any liberal, and every bit to blame for the state of this country.

Making an individual choice that contradicts your own hardly makes one a "sheep". Nor does it mean anyone whose opinion differs from your own values liberty, unobtrusive government, et al any less than you. It simply means some of us believe our path is more effective than yours. It means some of believe that while we may be careening towards the cliff with either candidate, we'd rather apply the brakes than mash the accelerator. Or at the very least, let up a little bit.

It also means we all know we aren't going to get everything we wish in November, but one slice of the pie is better than none.

Frankly, I'm tired of the infighting going on between conservatives of all stripes about who is more or less conservative based on personal, rigid definitions and personal, rigid ideals of the perfect candidate. Let's all agree that Obama is the enemy here and try to stay focused.

Too, the POTUS isn't the only place to effect change. I, for one, plan to work hard to oust Claire McCaskill in Missouri, as she has her head so far up Obamas posterior, he may as well be a Missouri senator too.

lancesorbenson
06-08-2012, 23:00
Yup. Took me twice, but I figured it out. No one was receiving the "message" I was sending. The primary is the place for any message. After that, you have a voice between two viable candidates.

So the message this go around is that Republicans have accepted a pro-abortion, pro-mandate, anti-gun Yankee progressive as the face of the party? Honestly, was anyone here supporting Romney in the primary? Who was voting for this guy this whole time? I've yet to meet a soul who supports Romney for any reason other than he is running against Obama. Considering Obama is possibly the greatest disaster to occupy the White House, that's not saying much about Romney.

countrygun
06-08-2012, 23:42
So the message this go around is that Republicans have accepted a pro-abortion, pro-mandate, anti-gun Yankee progressive as the face of the party? Honestly, was anyone here supporting Romney in the primary? Who was voting for this guy this whole time? I've yet to meet a soul who supports Romney for any reason other than he is running against Obama. Considering Obama is possibly the greatest disaster to occupy the White House, that's not saying much about Romney.


Doesn't anyone around here have one clue about how the system works best?

Something else I get to blame the education systen for, actually it may be the MAIN thing.

OK Class Pay Attention.

While we have a multiple party system it is designed to, in practice, winnow down the candidates to two most likely or popular choices. This is done because the Founders recognized the nature of humans to seek out polemic responses. The arguments during the creation of our system between, just as one example, the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists", made this apparent.

Now the concept behind the "Primary" system is that many different factions can gather support, but that no single faction in a party would be likely to gain the support neccessary without appeasing other factions within the party by including positions, or "planks" in exchange for the support. The opposing parties will both do this and therefore "broaden" the base of support for their "Platform". Anytime during the primary (and depending on the individual rules set by the States in their rules for primaries) a candidate may decide that he or she has enough support to approach a more likely candidate with the offer of support from his already elected delegates and future support. In this way all members of that party have the ability and opportunity to have those issues most critical to them addressed by the party in the platform.

While it is never expected that a President will actually be elected by a "majority" of voters they are usually elected by a significant "Plurality" That would be, to simplify, the largest "Minority". Given the appearance of third parties, write in votes etc it is nearly impossible It is a "good election" when the victor can claim a number in the mid 40% range. Given the possibilities from a 3rd party this is still assuring that the largest party is supporting the victor.

Sub-dividing parties and still allowing a "plurality victory" is something that many lesser Countries have come up against when they try out "Democracy" If there are enough candidates with strongly divergent and intractable positions, let us say, Democrate, Republicans, Communists, Socialists, Libertarians, Neo-Nazis, KKK, Westboro Baptists. It is entirely then possible for any one of those groups to gain power with a very small plurality.

It may seem fine for libertarians to think that they can have a chance to have power and "change things" the same weak system would also give Christian fundamentalists the same chance, how would Libertarians like that?

The strength of our system rests in the ability of all to effect SOME part of a major party's platform but if it breaks down into multiple independent parties, in my example for instance, there is a seven to one chance that somebody you REALLY don't want will win and you will have had no effect what so ever on their platform.

The Machinist
06-09-2012, 04:46
Words...
Nine paragraphs desperately trying to justify your support of a gun-banning liberal. You're not fooling anyone.

ETA: And another six paragraphs in another response. The empty suit you support invented Obamacare, and never once admitted how wrong he was.

Gary W Trott
06-09-2012, 05:42
Ron Paul: I Won't Be The Nominee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ron-paul-i-wont-be-the-nominee-125509.html)

Texas Rep. Ron Paul acknowledged in a message to supporters Wednesday evening that he will not end up with enough delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination — an obvious statement that may still come as a disappointment to the congressman's hard-core supporters.
That doesn't mean Romney will be the nominee.

QNman
06-09-2012, 08:06
So the message this go around is that Republicans have accepted a pro-abortion, pro-mandate, anti-gun Yankee progressive as the face of the party? Honestly, was anyone here supporting Romney in the primary? Who was voting for this guy this whole time? I've yet to meet a soul who supports Romney for any reason other than he is running against Obama. Considering Obama is possibly the greatest disaster to occupy the White House, that's not saying much about Romney.

The message is - there is no one hearing any "message". If party bosses still selected the opponents in the primary, then there would be a recipient. But we all stopped operating that way in (I believe) 1988 or 1992. All in the interest of "democracy". In the inerest of allowing Republican voters the choice of who they would support in a general, and allow them to enter the primary.

It is the height of irony that without party bosses, our choices have gradually slipped. In part, IMHO, because of "isle-crossers".

You want to know who I think is Romneys strongest primary base? Dems who call themselves "independents", but vote in the GOP primary when there is no Dem primary to concern themselves with. Inevitably, this leads to far more centrist folks winning the GOP ticket.

None of this matters at this point. The REAL lesson of Ross Perot was - if you vote for a third party in an attempt to get more conrvatism, you split the right and get the least conservative. In 1992, this got us the 1994 AWB from an arguably pragmatic Clinton. With "the greatest disaster to ever occupy the white house" (and you'll get no argument there), one has to wonder what is in store for us once he hasa no re-election concerns.

QNman
06-09-2012, 08:10
Nine paragraphs desperately trying to justify your support of a gun-banning liberal. You're not fooling anyone.

ETA: And another six paragraphs in another response. The empty suit you support invented Obamacare, and never once admitted how wrong he was.

Mach, you know better. We all want the same thing - removal of "Carter-on-steroids" from the White House. This requires no justification. Some of us believe the ONLY way to accomplish this is to swallow our pride, accept that Romney is realistically the better choice of the only two viable candidates, and pray he's not as bad as his record may indicate (even though his record is still better, IMHO, than aobama's).

QNman
06-09-2012, 08:11
That doesn't mean Romney will be the nominee.

It's not a lock... But it's pretty damned close.

GAFinch
06-09-2012, 08:50
Let's say Ron becomes President. In order to get Congress to do something he wants, he'll have to ask Democrats to support his social or foreign policy issue or ask Republicans to support his fiscal policy issue. Guess what? For each issue they agree to support, they'll expect him to support one of their issues. It's how all free governments work, whether it's two-party American style or multi-party parliamentary style. Despite what Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Ralph Nader, or Alex Jones told you during the Bush administration, the presidency is not all-powerful.

Syclone538
06-09-2012, 10:02
Let's say Ron becomes President. In order to get Congress to do something he wants, he'll have to ask Democrats to support his social or foreign policy issue or ask Republicans to support his fiscal policy issue. Guess what? For each issue they agree to support, they'll expect him to support one of their issues. It's how all free governments work, whether it's two-party American style or multi-party parliamentary style. Despite what Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Ralph Nader, or Alex Jones told you during the Bush administration, the presidency is not all-powerful.

You do understand that people that like Ron Paul want less government right? If he vetoes most of the bills that come his way that would be a huge step in the right direction. If it causes gridlock, that would also be a huge step in the right direction.

countrygun
06-09-2012, 11:59
Nine paragraphs desperately trying to justify your support of a gun-banning liberal. You're not fooling anyone.

ETA: And another six paragraphs in another response. The empty suit you support invented Obamacare, and never once admitted how wrong he was.


Again your ignorance is showing. you have no clue about Americas political system. You in fact, are the sheep who has been led completely of into another pasture, you and your cohorts stand there bleating "We want Paul, We want Paul"

I sincerly doubt that you read my post, you certainly are incapable of responding to it.

Your "gun banning liberal" mantra, is that meant to frighten people on a gun forum so they will throw away their votes and see to it the Administration that brought us "Fast and Furious" gets reelected? I don't think it will work most people around here can see that is what it would accomplish. I dare say folks here seem to be more aware and imtelligent than most of the dogmatic Paulites.

BTW even though I wouldn't want "Romney care" I have never once, even before he became the presumptive nominee, questioned his creation of it for his home State. You see, unlike the politically ignorant, I understand the concept os "States Rights" and it seems funny that Paulites like you don't and blast Romney for it. I though Paul wa all about "States Rights"??? Romney drafted and enacted legislation, with the consent of the voters in his State, that the voters wanted. His health care program is within the powers granted a STATE by the Constitution. That is all it was intended to be. The FEDERAL government does not have the same powers as a STATE, and the health care bill of Obama is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS is almost certain to rule.

I don't, however, expect any dew-eyed, ignorant fanatics to understand these issue, they will just continue to recite rhetoric.

Gundude
06-09-2012, 12:14
None of this matters at this point. The REAL lesson of Ross Perot was - if you vote for a third party in an attempt to get more conrvatism, you split the right and get the least conservative. In 1992, this got us the 1994 AWB from an arguably pragmatic Clinton. Actually, the guy who Clinton replaced enacted more onerous gun control, which is still with us. Good riddance to him. Ross Perot didn't sink GHWB. GHWB did.

And it's Romney who will sink Romney, not any conservative. Remember he's the guy who made sure the expiration of Clinton's ban would not undercut MA's gun ban.

The Machinist
06-09-2012, 12:32
Your "gun banning liberal" mantra, is that meant to frighten people on a gun forum so they will throw away their votes and see to it the Administration that brought us "Fast and Furious" gets reelected? I don't think it will work most people around here can see that is what it would accomplish. I dare say folks here seem to be more aware and imtelligent than most of the dogmatic Paulites.
You have every right to throw your vote away on Romney this November. Doesn't matter to me. All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that you're throwing your support behind a guy who believes "assault weapons" are designed to "hunt down and kill people", and kept them banned in MA.

BTW even though I wouldn't want "Romney care" I have never once, even before he became the presumptive nominee, questioned his creation of it for his home State. You see, unlike the politically ignorant, I understand the concept os "States Rights" and it seems funny that Paulites like you don't and blast Romney for it. I though Paul wa all about "States Rights"??? Romney drafted and enacted legislation, with the consent of the voters in his State, that the voters wanted. His health care program is within the powers granted a STATE by the Constitution. That is all it was intended to be. The FEDERAL government does not have the same powers as a STATE, and the health care bill of Obama is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS is almost certain to rule.
And why should you not want Romney/Obamacare enacted in your state? Because it's an affront to your personal liberty. But Romney doesn't care about that, and neither do you.

countrygun
06-09-2012, 12:44
Actually, the guy who Clinton replaced enacted more onerous gun control, which is still with us. Good riddance to him. Ross Perot didn't sink GHWB. GHWB did.

And it's Romney who will sink Romney, not any conservative. Remember he's the guy who made sure the expiration of Clinton's ban would not undercut MA's gun ban.

You folks who snivel about what Romney did in MA are the same folks who complain about the Federal Government having too much power. Romney has shown that he understands that the Founders, in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, clearly spelled out the principle that the States were to have powers, due to the ability of the voters in a given State to affect policy, that the Federal Government should not have. It would be nice to have a POTUS who recognizes the seperation of those powers (remember if you don't like the laws an MA you have 49 other states to choose from) than have an egotistical marxist who thinks the Federal Governmant is all powerful.

What we have in front of us is almost a classic "Federalist v Anti-Federalist" decision.

You may not like the choices of the people of MA for instance but that is what this Country is supposed to be, choices at the State level. Romney understands that we have a "FEDERAL" Government, not a" NATIONAL" one.

Gundude
06-09-2012, 12:45
BTW even though I wouldn't want "Romney care" I have never once, even before he became the presumptive nominee, questioned his creation of it for his home State. You see, unlike the politically ignorant, I understand the concept os "States Rights" and it seems funny that Paulites like you don't and blast Romney for it. I though Paul wa all about "States Rights"??? Romney drafted and enacted legislation, with the consent of the voters in his State, that the voters wanted. His health care program is within the powers granted a STATE by the Constitution. That is all it was intended to be. The FEDERAL government does not have the same powers as a STATE, and the health care bill of Obama is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS is almost certain to rule.What he did to MA is their own problem, agreed. If he wasn't running for President, I wouldn't care in the least what he did in MA. But he is running for President and he thinks government-run health care is the cat's pajamas. It doesn't bode well for repealing government-run health care.

countrygun
06-09-2012, 12:47
And why should you not want Romney/Obamacare enacted in your state? Because it's an affront to your personal liberty. But Romney doesn't care about that, and neither do you.

Look at the popular support Romney care had in MA, I suppose you want to take that right away from the people of another State, because people in your State wouldn't ike it?

countrygun
06-09-2012, 12:54
What he did to MA is their own problem, agreed. If he wasn't running for President, I wouldn't care in the least what he did in MA. But he is running for President and he thinks government-run health care is the cat's pajamas. It doesn't bode well for repealing government-run health care.
Where did he say he thought Romney care is the way to go for the entire COUNTRY

The Machinist
06-09-2012, 17:03
Where did he say he thought Romney care is the way to go for the entire COUNTRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FYvx4UfM8RA#t=76s

chickenwing
06-09-2012, 17:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FYvx4UfM8RA#t=76s

Zing! :rofl:

QNman
06-09-2012, 19:25
Actually, the guy who Clinton replaced enacted more onerous gun control, which is still with us. Good riddance to him. Ross Perot didn't sink GHWB. GHWB did.

And it's Romney who will sink Romney, not any conservative. Remember he's the guy who made sure the expiration of Clinton's ban would not undercut MA's gun ban.

I differ with you on the "more onerous" comment, but clearly I voted for Perot due to my extreme dislike and frustration with Bush. Even so, his re-election likely ends without the 94 AWB.

G29Reload
06-09-2012, 19:51
Ann Barnhart's tweet said it best:

AnnBarnhardt Attention Paulbots: TOLDYA SO! Your creepy "savior" and his son are establishment whores who used you for your $. Duh!


That's it in a nutshell, basically.

chickenwing
06-09-2012, 19:51
I differ with you on the "more onerous" comment, but clearly I voted for Perot due to my extreme dislike and frustration with Bush. Even so, his re-election likely ends without the 94 AWB.

I wonder how different things would be fiscally if Perot won. I think he had the right message.

G-19
06-09-2012, 19:57
Ann Barnhart's tweet said it best:

AnnBarnhardt Attention Paulbots: TOLDYA SO! Your creepy "savior" and his son are establishment whores who used you for your $. Duh!


That's it in a nutshell, basically.

Hahahahaha, oh the irony. Oh how I hope that Ronnie comes out and endorses Mitt. Icing on the cake.

The Machinist
06-09-2012, 19:59
Ann Barnhart's tweet said it best:

AnnBarnhardt Attention Paulbots: TOLDYA SO! Your creepy "savior" and his son are establishment whores who used you for your $. Duh!


That's it in a nutshell, basically.
The difference between Ann Barnhardt and me, is that she's voting for a liberal, and I'm not.

Cavalry Doc
06-09-2012, 20:02
Ann Barnhart's tweet said it best:

AnnBarnhardt Attention Paulbots: TOLDYA SO! Your creepy "savior" and his son are establishment whores who used you for your $. Duh!


That's it in a nutshell, basically.

You have to consider reality for a minute here. If Ron had gotten 20 times what he did, he would have had the capital to do more, with more. One has to ask, is reason Ron Paul is failing now, because his supporters failed to give enough to make him successful????

Cavalry Doc
06-09-2012, 20:04
The difference between Ann Barnhardt and me, is that she's voting for a liberal, and I'm not.

Is either of you helping a socialist in his pursuit of re-election.


Consider it all very well, and do what you need to do for you, regardless of what the country needs.

countrygun
06-09-2012, 20:04
Zing! :rofl:


Hmm I liked the openeing, even with the editing you can hear him say "I want everyone in MA to have health care"

again a State issue and his constituency seemed to approve

countrygun
06-09-2012, 20:07
You have to consider reality for a minute here. If Ron had gotten 20 times what he did, he would have had the capital to do more, with more. One has to ask, is reason Ron Paul is failing now, because his supporters failed to give enough to make him successful????


Watch it, now you are going to hear,


"It's not fair, Romney had more supporters and they gave him more money"

Cavalry Doc
06-09-2012, 20:09
Watch it, now you are going to hear,


"It's not fair, Romney had more supporters and they gave him more money"

Not my fault. I didn't give Romney a penny.

G-19
06-09-2012, 20:10
Hmm I liked the openeing, even with the editing you can hear him say "I want everyone in MA to have health care"

again a State issue and his constituency seemed to approve

State rights, yeah that is what RPers have been preaching. Well, that is until they get to use something against the guy who wasted Ronny in the primary.

Ruble Noon
06-09-2012, 20:14
I understand the concept os "States Rights"

Then why are you championing a statist?

G-19
06-09-2012, 20:22
Then why are you championing a statist?

http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-04e8-fd20.jpg

:tongueout::rofl:




Just blame it on the Conclave.:wavey:

countrygun
06-09-2012, 20:24
Then why are you championing a statist?


YOU are the one who was deriding someone else because their States laws are different than what you like and you claim to be for Freedom? Freedom as long as it's the way you like it.

Let's take a look at this for a moment.

We have a group of people, in the minority, who still think there is a way to hijack the system and put their minority candidate-on the ballot even though they have been out-voted, and they claim that the end will justify the means because they know what is best for everyone.

And everyone else is against it and think they are crazy and don't trust thinking like that,

wonder why?:dunno:

G-19
06-09-2012, 20:25
YOU are the one who was deriding someone else because their States laws are different than what you like and you claim to be for Freedom? Freedom as long as it's the way you like it.

Let's take a look at this for a moment.

We have a group of people, in the minority, who still think there is a way to hijack the system and put their minority candidate-on the ballot even though they have been out-voted, and they claim that the end will justify the means because they know what is best for everyone.

And everyone else is against it and think they are crazy and don't trust thinking like that,

wonder why?:dunno:

Very well put.

Ruble Noon
06-09-2012, 20:29
YOU are the one who was deriding someone else because their States laws are different than what you like and you claim to be for Freedom? Freedom as long as it's the way you like it.

Let's take a look at this for a moment.

We have a group of people, in the minority, who still think there is a way to hijack the system and put their minority candidate-on the ballot even though they have been out-voted, and they claim that the end will justify the means because they know what is best for everyone.

And everyone else is against it and think they are crazy and don't trust thinking like that,

wonder why?:dunno:

No, I wasn't deriding anyone, just proving that there is little in life that is in some way not regulated by one form of government or another.

Now that we have that out of the way, why are you championing a statist?

G29Reload
06-09-2012, 20:36
You have to consider reality for a minute here. If Ron had gotten 20 times what he did, he would have had the capital to do more, with more. One has to ask, is reason Ron Paul is failing now, because his supporters failed to give enough to make him successful????

SO you're saying its his supporters fault? Or lack thereof?

Yeah it might come down to if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

But that's not the case. You remember he was "Mr Moneybomb" and had some allegedly successful cash calls that the faithful answered. I'm thinking there wasn't enough of the faithful.

Because like all the complaints about politicians getting too much money, its usually directly proportional to their popularity. If they suck, their ideas suck, less supporters, less cash.

If they have popular support, they have more fans, more money.

In paul's case, he was a fringe candidate. America loves freedom, loves liberty and would love a freedom and liberty candidate. But not when he's got the crazy stirred in with all the rest. And that's how RP rolled.

He refused to stop mixing in the crazy with the liberty. Result: Fringe also-ran candidate.

G29Reload
06-09-2012, 20:40
The difference between Ann Barnhardt and me, is that she's voting for a liberal, and I'm not.

We don't know that. I'm not sure she's not staying home altogether. She hates all of em and I don't blame her.

She does despise Obama most of all. Not sure she's said exactl what she's gonna do.

countrygun
06-09-2012, 20:41
No, I wasn't deriding anyone, just proving that there is little in life that is in some way not regulated by one form of government or another.

Now that we have that out of the way, why are you championing a statist?


You aren't going to deflect that easily. You WERE deriding the laws of another State. A terrible way for someone championiing a "States Rights candidate" to present themself. Hypocritical to say the least.

You are more revealing in your second paragraph and the question. First, you assume that anyone not voting for Paul and voting for Romney is "Championing" Romney. That is rather an idealistic phrase. Is that the way you feel about Paul?

Secondly I would have to accept an unqualified definition of the term "Statist" to answer your question. For all I know your definition might be "Someone who has a house on States Avenue in a game of Monopoly"

You are really throwing it out there to keep up the wall of denial about your "Champion"

G29Reload
06-09-2012, 20:43
Not my fault. I didn't give Romney a penny.


ME either. Not gonna. No yard signs or bumper stickers.

On VA primary day RP and Romney were the only two I had to choose from, so voted a blank ballot.

I will vote against Obama in Nov. Its the only choice I have.

lancesorbenson
06-09-2012, 20:46
YOU are the one who was deriding someone else because their States laws are different than what you like and you claim to be for Freedom? Freedom as long as it's the way you like it.

You seem to imply that one cannot be for states' rights and simultaneously argue that a state law is wrong-headed, objectionable, etc. Just because I believe a state has a right to enact mandatory healthcare constitutionally does not mean I cannot object to such a law for other reasons. This is a bizarre argument, but I'm sure you'll write a treatise on how I just don't understand your point.

Ruble Noon
06-09-2012, 20:56
You aren't going to deflect that easily. You WERE deriding the laws of another State. A terrible way for someone championiing a "States Rights candidate" to present themself. Hypocritical to say the least.

You are more revealing in your second paragraph and the question. First, you assume that anyone not voting for Paul and voting for Romney is "Championing" Romney. That is rather an idealistic phrase. Is that the way you feel about Paul?

Secondly I would have to accept an unqualified definition of the term "Statist" to answer your question. For all I know your definition might be "Someone who has a house on States Avenue in a game of Monopoly"

You are really throwing it out there to keep up the wall of denial about your "Champion"

And you deduced this with what? Your super duper mind reading powers? Whatever dude.
Now, why are you championing a statist when you proclaim to understand states rights? Maybe you disagree with the 10th Amendment?

countrygun
06-09-2012, 21:01
You seem to imply that one cannot be for states' rights and simultaneously argue that a state law is wrong-headed, objectionable, etc. Just because I believe a state has a right to enact mandatory healthcare constitutionally does not mean I cannot object to such a law for other reasons. This is a bizarre argument, but I'm sure you'll write a treatise on how I just don't understand your point.


treatise, no, just a note to say, if you live in that State-campaign against it, if not don't blast a Governor for doing what his constituency in that State approved of. See how simple it is?

countrygun
06-09-2012, 21:04
And you deduced this with what? Your super duper mind reading powers? Whatever dude.


Sorry I just went by what you said, silly me, I should have known you didn't mean what you said

Ruble Noon
06-09-2012, 21:07
Sorry I just went by what you said, silly me, I should have known you didn't mean what you said

Your squirming is delectable.

Gundude
06-09-2012, 21:08
ME either. Not gonna. No yard signs or bumper stickers.

On VA primary day RP and Romney were the only two I had to choose from, so voted a blank ballot.

I will vote against Obama in Nov. Its the only choice I have.Strange, when I say I'm gonna vote against Romney, I'm told I'm an Obama supporter. If you're gonna vote against Obama, you're a Romney supporter, right?

G29Reload
06-09-2012, 21:13
Strange, when I say I'm gonna vote against Romney, I'm told I'm an Obama supporter. If you're gonna vote against Obama, you're a Romney supporter, right?

Not really. I'll be a Romney VOTER perhaps.

but if you're voting against Romney, you are helping Obama. And who ever does that sucks royally.

Gundude
06-09-2012, 21:16
Not really. I'll be a Romney VOTER perhaps.

but if you're voting against Romney, you are helping Obama. And who ever does that sucks royally.OK, I can live with that. Just not with being an Obama supporter, so I'm relieved to hear I'm not. Such is the cesspool one has to swim in when voting "lesser of two evils".

countrygun
06-09-2012, 22:05
Your squirming is delectable.


MY squirming? Haha

You are really grasping at straws as you realize there is no logic to continuing to support a loser. You want to throw out anything to keep the denial going. I can tell you are starting to admit it to yourself, now it is just your ego hanging on to Paul's pant cuffs by the fingernails. C'mon, free yourself. You might not even need deprograming to lead a healthy, productive political life , I don't think that you are in the chronic stage . There is still hope.

lancesorbenson
06-09-2012, 22:18
treatise, no, just a note to say, if you live in that State-campaign against it, if not don't blast a Governor for doing what his constituency in that State approved of. See how simple it is?

So I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the political happenings in a state I don't live in. Yassir!

Snowman92D
06-09-2012, 22:18
Such is the cesspool one has to swim in when voting "lesser of two evils".

I can't recall a presidential election in my lifetime when I wasn't voting against the lesser of two evils. I'd be mildly suspicious of any citizen of the republic who claimed to do otherwise.

Ann Barnhart's tweet said it best:

AnnBarnhardt Attention Paulbots: TOLDYA SO! Your creepy "savior" and his son are establishment whores who used you for your $. Duh!

"Creepy savior". I had been using "slack-jawed loon", but "creepy savior" has a nicely descriptive sound to it. :supergrin:

As someone above speculated, perhaps if the Paulbots had been truly committed, had sacrificed a little more, and dug a little deeper in their pockets for those Money Bombs...their messiah would have been able to pull it off. I guess when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, some people are just all mouth.

countrygun
06-09-2012, 22:40
So I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the political happenings in a state I don't live in. Yassir!


Class, you will note in this example how one of the subjects attempts to belittle a logical point set forth by resorting to schoolyard tactics. Completely ignoring that point to try and make a nervous joke. Also attempting to draw his opponent into explaining the obvious and thereby prolonging his state of denial.

Chris Brines
06-09-2012, 23:03
So I hear people berating Rand Paul for endorsing Romney, but from my point of view, it was either Romney or Obama, since Ron Paul conceded so I'd love to know what everyone expects him to do, because the way I see it, we are up **** creek without a paddle, and nothing diplomatic is going to stop it. It's like we are just sitting around waiting for all hell to break loose. I was all for Paul, and at this point, don't even know if I am going to show up at the polls on 11/2.

There are so many things that signal the beginning of nothing good, all going on right now. As explained in this 45 minute video:

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-political-trend-shredded-by-gerald-celente/

lancesorbenson
06-10-2012, 00:49
Class, you will note in this example how one of the subjects attempts to belittle a logical point set forth by resorting to schoolyard tactics. Completely ignoring that point to try and make a nervous joke. Also attempting to draw his opponent into explaining the obvious and thereby prolonging his state of denial.

I actually didn't ignore your point. Your point was just, well, kinda pointless. Maybe you need 9 or 10 paragraphs to make your point. Scratch that, those long-winded diatribes are just as pointless and remind me of someone who's not as smart as they think they are.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 07:41
I actually didn't ignore your point. Your point was just, well, kinda pointless. Maybe you need 9 or 10 paragraphs to make your point. Scratch that, those long-winded diatribes are just as pointless and remind me of someone who's not as smart as they think they are.


I have to remember that the ADHD generation is over represented on the internet. Some of us weren't spoon fed their educations and actually had to be able to read and write
Here, I will say it in a form you can comprehend

Ron Paul Sux.

G-19
06-10-2012, 08:34
http://www.infowars.com/linguistic-analysis-of-rand-pauls-endorsement-of-romney-contradicts-his-words-rand-paul-is-disgusted-with-him/

Hahahaha. First it was Rand was threatened, now he is a double agent. This just keeps getting better and better. The Paulbots sure are showing their mentality. I am guessing it will be an alien plot next.


Oops, I almost forgot, it must be the Bilderbergs, the Conclave, and the illuminati.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 08:44
It'll be interesting to see how they spin it when Ron finally endorses Romney.
Even if the super secret double agent delegates vote for Paul in the first ballot, he'll just give the votes to Romney to secure Rand a future that he could not achieve for himself.

It will be fun to watch.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 09:01
It'll be interesting to see how they spin it when Ron finally endorses Romney.
Even if the super secret double agent delegates vote for Paul in the first ballot, he'll just give the votes to Romney to secure Rand a future that he could not achieve for himself.

It will be fun to watch.

Oh no. Ron Paul is too pure to play politics like that. He is a man of priciples, :whistling:

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 09:15
Oh no. Ron Paul is too pure to play politics like that. He is a man of priciples, :whistling:

Let's make the mildly speculative assumption that Rand and Ron talk about these things. The son has gone down that road, precisely because of his father's experiences, even with a very committed following, he just has not been able to rise above a congressional position. Rand is already doing better as a Senator, and may someday go even farther.

G-19
06-10-2012, 11:49
It'll be interesting to see how they spin it when Ron finally endorses Romney.
Even if the super secret double agent delegates vote for Paul in the first ballot, he'll just give the votes to Romney to secure Rand a future that he could not achieve for himself.

It will be fun to watch.

I have a feeling it will be something like this. http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-de37-b2ed.jpg

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 11:58
Meh. It's about the message, not the man. Dr. Paul endorsing mittens won't keep me from voting for Gary Johnson in November.

*shrugs*

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 12:02
Meh. It's about the message, not the man. Dr. Paul endorsing mittens won't keep me from voting for Gary Johnson in November.

*shrugs*

See, now that is a reasonable reaction.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:13
Meh. It's about the message, not the man. Dr. Paul endorsing mittens won't keep me from voting for Gary Johnson in November.

*shrugs*


Now, THERE is a waste of a vote.

A joke candidate? Really?

I don't even think he registers, not even on radar. Crackpot, fringe candidate.

Not even funny when he appears on RedEye.:rofl:

Your vote to waste, I guess.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 12:16
Now, THERE is a waste of a vote.

A joke candidate? Really?

I don't even think he registers, not even on radar. Crackpot, fringe candidate.

Not even funny when he appears on RedEye.:rofl:

Your vote to waste, I guess.

As is yours when you cast it for a progressive liberal gun banning socialized medicine man from Mass. that longed to be in Vietnam.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 12:18
Now, THERE is a waste of a vote.

A joke candidate? Really?

I don't even think he registers, not even on radar. Crackpot, fringe candidate.

Not even funny when he appears on RedEye.:rofl:

Your vote to waste, I guess.

Don't you get it. C'mon think back to third grade. Their candidate didn't win the Republican nomination so they are going to do all they can, without voting for him, to get Obama re-elected, out of spite.

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 12:22
Now, THERE is a waste of a vote.

A joke candidate? Really?

I don't even think he registers, not even on radar. Crackpot, fringe candidate.

Not even funny when he appears on RedEye.:rofl:

Your vote to waste, I guess.

*shrugs*

Call names all you like. I prefer reason to appealing to emotion (including shame). I don't identify with the GOP or Democratic candidates. Their messages don't appeal to me; and I would rather not vote for either of them.

It seems to me that this election is a battle for the undecided and unaffiliated voter. As one in the latter camp (not affiliated with either the GOP or Democratic parties), it seems to me that they should be doing more to earn my vote.

Your schoolyard antics don't help your cause.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:22
As is yours when you cast it for a progressive liberal gun banning socialized medicine man from Mass. that longed to be in Vietnam.

No, not even close.

In fact, not only is your statement idiotic, my vote is probably one of the most important in the country.

I am a Virginia resident. VA has gone purple, a swing state.

Right now, an aggregation of polls on the swing states has Romney up by about 5%, even according to dem operative Bob Beckel.

Since only Romney has a chance of unseating Obama, VA has become crucial. Since I have a sober view of things, getting the Marxist thug out of office is the imperative. A squishy moderate can be dealt with in triage later. But we will not survive another term of BHO.

Even in 2008, BHO had a 200k plurality. That means 100k switching their votes puts it back at dead even. So, every bit helps, the election may come down to VA!

I've never had such a valuable vote in my life. It was worthless when I lived in MD, no matter how you voted it was always straighline Blue, which is one of the reasons why I moved.

I can not be kept from the polls, I will be there early.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 12:27
No, not even close.

In fact, not only is your statement idiotic, my vote is probably one of the most important in the country.

I am a Virginia resident. VA has gone purple, a swing state.

Right now, an aggregation of polls on the swing states has Romney up by about 5%, even according to dem operative Bob Beckel.

Since only Romney has a chance of unseating Obama, VA has become crucial. Since I have a sober view of things, getting the Marxist thug out of office is the imperative. A squishy moderate can be dealt with in triage later. But we will not survive another term of BHO.

Even in 2008, BHO had a 200k plurality. That means 100k switching their votes puts it back at dead even. So, every bit helps, the election may come down to VA!

I've never had such a valuable vote in my life. It was worthless when I lived in MD, no matter how you voted it was always straighline Blue, which is one of the reasons why I moved.

I can not be kept from the polls, I will be there early.

What is idiotic is thinking that a government sachs liberal progressive is the answer to the obamanation. What happened to the great right pendulum swing that was promised on GTPI?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:29
Call names all you like.

Why not? They're accurate.

I prefer reason

If you call reason voting for a < 1% candidate who most people have never heard of, its your vote to waste. You might as well not do anything. Same thing!

Their messages don't appeal to me; .

Apparently Obama's does, since you're helping to re-elect him.


It seems to me that this election is a battle for the undecided and unaffiliated voter.

You're just now figuring that out? They're ALWAYS about that!



Your schoolyard antics don't help your cause.

Citing an opinion isn't a schoolyard antic. Doing the schoolyard equivalent of holding your breath by voting for the lunatic fringe like Johnson rather than playing with the adults in the room might be.

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 12:29
No, not even close.

In fact, not only is your statement idiotic, my vote is probably one of the most important in the country.

I am a Virginia resident. VA has gone purple, a swing state.

Right now, an aggregation of polls on the swing states has Romney up by about 5%, even according to dem operative Bob Beckel.

Since only Romney has a chance of unseating Obama, VA has become crucial. Since I have a sober view of things, getting the Marxist thug out of office is the imperative. A squishy moderate can be dealt with in triage later. But we will not survive another term of BHO.

Even in 2008, BHO had a 200k plurality. That means 100k switching their votes puts it back at dead even. So, every bit helps, the election may come down to VA!

I've never had such a valuable vote in my life. It was worthless when I lived in MD, no matter how you voted it was always straighline Blue, which is one of the reasons why I moved.

I can not be kept from the polls, I will be there early.

And if I lived in Virginia, or Ohio, or Florida, I would still vote for Johnson.

I'm not a Republican.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:31
What is idiotic is thinking that a government sachs liberal progressive is the answer to the obamanation.

No, idiotic is thinking there's any other choice.

Two of em, pick the lesser evil. Yep, it sucks. Reality. Get used to it.

Get rid of the wrecking ball first, then perform surgery on the savable. Even all the crap about Romney is just speculation. He might even do ok. But Obamas a guaranteed fail.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:33
And if I lived in Virginia, or Ohio, or Florida, I would still vote for Johnson.

I'm not a Republican.


BHO thanks you. Enjoy!

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 12:35
No, idiotic is thinking there's any other choice.

Two of em, pick the lesser evil. Yep, it sucks. Reality. Get used to it.

Get rid of the wrecking ball first, then perform surgery on the savable. Even all the crap about Romney is just speculation. He might even do ok. But Obamas a guaranteed fail.

Romneycare, gun bans are speculation? The fact that government sachs is Romney's largest donor, speculation? That he is a liberal progressive statist, speculation? Surely you jest.

Gundude
06-10-2012, 12:43
Romneycare, gun bans are speculation? The fact that government sachs is Romney's largest donor, speculation? That he is a liberal progressive statist, speculation? Surely you jest.When Obama "surprised" some people with his socialist-marxist leanings, a lot of people on this forum were quick to point out that those things were obvious about Obama from the start, and it shouldn't have surprised anybody.

Now many of those people are saying Rommey's gun-banning, government-run healthcare leanings are "speculation".

Those people will be "surprised" when Romney pushes gun bans and government-run healthcare as President.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:43
Romneycare, gun bans are speculation? The fact that government sachs is Romney's largest donor, speculation? That he is a liberal progressive statist, speculation? Surely you jest.


Yes, speculation. Going forward, not the past.

I've stated time and again that he's a zip code populist. It's where he is at the time.

MA wanted that crap, they got it. I still think that its unconstitutional, but that can be challenged. The personal mandate on the Fed law if struck down may also take down Ma care. We shall see.

What Romney HAS done in the interim:

Stated explicitly that he will dismantle O-care if it is not thrown out,

Given Uncle Ted equally explicit commitments that he will not sign any gun control and what we have now is the limit.

So, your concerns have been answered. For like the fiftieth time.

What he's committed to is the opposite of what we face with BHO, so if you think that's better, you just vote for Obama or anyone but Romney or stay home. Cause those are your options whether you're in denial or not.

As far as Goldman Sachs contributing, who cares? Money and politics TOGETHER? Next thing you'll be telling me there's gambling in the casino. Heaven forfend.

You don't like banks, go hang with OWS.:upeyes:

Gundude
06-10-2012, 12:46
Yes, speculation. Going forward, not the past.

I've stated time and again that he's a zip code populist. It's where he is at the time.

MA wanted that crap, they got it. I still think that its unconstitutional, but that can be challenged. The personal mandate on the Fed law if struck down may also take down Ma care. We shall see.

What Romney HAS done in the interim:

Stated explicitly that he will dismantle O-care if it is not thrown out,

Given Uncle Ted equally explicit commitments that he will not sign any gun control and what we have now is the limit.

Obama made explicit commitments to not raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000.

Explicitly said he would close Guantanamo Bay.

Do you think Romney's more credible that Obama? Based on what?

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 12:48
BHO thanks you. Enjoy!

Again, don't appeal to emotion. Convince me. Why should I vote for Mitt Romney?

"Because he's not Obama" is not a satisfactory answer. Quit writing in terms of negatives, and start in terms of positives. What makes Mitt Romney a great candidate? Will he end unconstitutional wars? Will he reverse the PATRIOT Act? Will he work to defund DHS? Will he he support an increase in individual liberty?

I don't think he will. George W. Bush didn't increase the cause of liberty in two terms. Obama hasn't in one. Why support Romney?

Sure, Dr. Paul may end up endorsing Romney out of a sense of party loyalty. That doesn't affect me one way or the other. He doesn't hold any influence over my franchise. Dr. Paul's message appeals to me, and has since the nineties. I always appreciated reading stories about him and his work in The New American. I never thought he would get the GOP nomination. I hoped it wouldn't be Romney; but that's about as far as my hope went. Now that Romney is the presumptive nominee, I can focus more on local issues and races, and treat the race between Romney and Obama as I would two pigs fighting over a carrot.

Again, I quote Confucius: "The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell."
I am not concerned with the "electable" candidate. I am more worried about doing what is right.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 12:49
When Obama "surprised" some people with his socialist-marxist leanings, a lot of people on this forum were quick to point out that those things were obvious about Obama from the start, and it shouldn't have surprised anybody.

Now many of those people are saying Rommey's gun-banning, government-run healthcare leanings are "speculation".

Those people will be "surprised" when Romney pushes gun bans and government-run healthcare as President.

They're like cattle during the roundup. A few of them realize what is going on when the horses and men enter the pasture, a few more realize what is happening when they are being driven toward the pens and the majority don't realize what is happening until the gate is slammed closed and they are looking for an exit.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 12:53
Yes, speculation. Going forward, not the past.

I've stated time and again that he's a zip code populist. It's where he is at the time.

MA wanted that crap, they got it. I still think that its unconstitutional, but that can be challenged. The personal mandate on the Fed law if struck down may also take down Ma care. We shall see.

What Romney HAS done in the interim:

Stated explicitly that he will dismantle O-care if it is not thrown out,

Given Uncle Ted equally explicit commitments that he will not sign any gun control and what we have now is the limit.

So, your concerns have been answered. For like the fiftieth time.

What he's committed to is the opposite of what we face with BHO, so if you think that's better, you just vote for Obama or anyone but Romney or stay home. Cause those are your options whether you're in denial or not.

As far as Goldman Sachs contributing, who cares? Money and politics TOGETHER? Next thing you'll be telling me there's gambling in the casino. Heaven forfend.

You don't like banks, go hang with OWS.:upeyes:


Notice how someone keeps using the phrase "statist"? reminds me of a Marxist using "Petty Bourgeoisie" continually.


What do you mean "hang with OWS"? That is what they were trying to do "Occupy the Republican Party" It of course failed now they are saying "vote for anybody but Romney" in their end game Obama gets reelected. What a coincidence.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 12:54
Obama made explicit commitments to not raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000.

Explicitly said he would close Guantanamo Bay.

Do you think Romney's more credible that Obama? Based on what?

He's a RINO, er, I mean Republican, so yeah, he's got to be more credible right? Right?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:58
Obama made explicit commitments to not raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000.

Explicitly said he would close Guantanamo Bay.


And he's gonna pay for it with losses in his base.

Just the way GHWB paid for violating No New Taxes.


There is a cost attached for failing to keep explicit promises. A smart politician won't do that.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:01
Again, don't appeal to emotion. Convince me. Why should I vote for Mitt Romney?

I can't be bothered. Its got nothing to do with appeal or emotion.

Its got to do with the facts on the ground.

You're either voting for Obama, or against him.
That's what IS.

If I have to explain to you what a malignant cancer all his own that BHO is, you're not paying attention or worth trying to explain.

Suit yourself.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 13:06
Obama made explicit commitments to not raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000.

Explicitly said he would close Guantanamo Bay.

Do you think Romney's more credible that Obama? Based on what?


Gee politicians don't always keep promises, you've shown that so I guess the best bet is to vote for Mickey Mouse, you know he won't win but nobody can blame you for who gets elected. You won't have taken a chance on picking the wrong candidate and you will feel "special" because you are so noble.

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 13:09
Gee politicians don't always keep promises, you've shown that so I guess the best bet is to vote for Mickey Mouse, you know he won't win but nobody can blame you for who gets elected. You won't have taken a chance on picking the wrong candidate and you will feel "special" because you are so noble.

Sounds good to me.

I don't vote against candidates. I vote for the one that I think should be in office.

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."

Gundude
06-10-2012, 13:11
And he's gonna pay for it with losses in his base.

Just the way GHWB paid for violating No New Taxes.


There is a cost attached for failing to keep explicit promises. A smart politician won't do that.I prefer to not give him the opportunity in the first place. Even if he loses next election because of it, we're still stuck with it.

I think Obama will have less chance of passing gun control, and less chance of expanding Obamacare into a single-payer system, than Romney would. Who's gonna fight Romney on those things? Democrats won't, and RINOs still make up enough of the House and Senate that there's no way gun control and healthcare couldn't gather at least 2/3 of every vote.

RINOs will still fight Obama on a lot of things. They'll fight Romney on nothing. They still make up the majority of Republicans in Congress. They are a threat not to be taken lightly.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 13:12
Sounds good to me.

I don't vote against candidates. I vote for the one that I think should be in office.

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."


That is what you should do in the primary. Then you support your parties choice. If everyone did what you are doing we could end up with a President with a 10% plurality. real good for all the lunatic fringes increases their odds.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 13:14
I prefer to not give him the opportunity in the first place. Even if he loses next election because of it, we're still stuck with it.

I think Obama will have less chance of passing gun control, and less chance of expanding Obamacare into a single-payer system, than Romney would. Who's gonna fight Romney on those things? Democrats won't, and RINOs still make up enough of the House and Senate that there's no way gun control and healthcare couldn't gather at least 2/3 of every vote.

RINOs will still fight Obama on a lot of things. They'll fight Romney on nothing. They still make up the majority of Republicans in Congress. They are a threat not to be taken lightly.

Exactly, the romneybots fail to see this. I'm sure they will act all surprised if/when any of this transpires though.

Gundude
06-10-2012, 13:14
Gee politicians don't always keep promises, you've shown that so I guess the best bet is to vote for Mickey Mouse, you know he won't win but nobody can blame you for who gets elected. You won't have taken a chance on picking the wrong candidate and you will feel "special" because you are so noble.I already said who I'm voting for and it's not Mickey Mouse, although his ears may cause him to be mistaken for him occasionaly.

I'm voting "lesser of two evils." What other choice is there, right? I've never voted lesser of two evils before, but I'm starting to "come around."

The lesser of two evils in this case is Obama. It makes me sick to my stomach to vote for him, but that's my duty, right?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:16
Who's gonna fight Romney on those things?


Everyone but democrats. Healthcare and the stimulus are what created the uprising that became the Tea Party and got us a new congress in 2010.

So, you're guilty of logic fail.


And its clear you want Obama over Romeny, but i repeat myself.

Gundude
06-10-2012, 13:17
Everyone but democrats. Healthcare and the stimulus are what created the uprising that became the Tea Party and got us a new congress in 2010.

So, you're guilty of logic fail.


And its clear you want Obama over Romeny, but i repeat myself.:rofl: Yeah right, RINOs fighting Romney. You live in a dream world.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:19
romneybots

I don't think there is such a thing. To do so, we'd have to be excited about him.

Instead its anyone but BHO.


We don't contribute money.

There are no yard signs.

No bumper stickers.

Our message is "anyone but BHO".

But I get it, you're bitter about the real "bot" loss, or concession or whatever it is this week that youre' calling whatevr it is that guy…RP? What he did. yeah.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 13:20
I already said who I'm voting for and it's not Mickey Mouse, although his ears may cause him to be mistaken for him occasionaly.

I'm voting "lesser of two evils." What other choice is there, right? I've never voted lesser of two evils before, but I'm starting to "come around."

The lesser of two evils in this case is Obama. It makes me sick to my stomach to vote for him, but that's my duty, right?


Well I am sure if he gets another term there won't be any lobbyists in his administration, he will be transparent, and he will close Gitmo, how could you not vote for him?:upeyes:

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:20
:rofl: Yeah right, RINOs fighting Romney. You live in a dream world.

enjoy your hope and change while it lasts. you've got about 7 months left.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 13:21
Everyone but democrats. Healthcare and the stimulus are what created the uprising that became the Tea Party and got us a new congress in 2010.

So, you're guilty of logic fail.


And its clear you want Obama over Romeny, but i repeat myself.

Umm, no.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 13:22
:rofl: Yeah right, RINOs fighting Romney. You live in a dream world.

Hell, they will hardly fight the marxist obama and they expect them to fight against romney. :faint:

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 13:23
That is what you should do in the primary. Then you support your parties choice. If everyone did what you are doing we could end up with a President with a 10% plurality. real good for all the lunatic fringes increases their odds.

I'm not a Republican...

Are you saying I should be?

I deny government's legitimate authority over personal behaviors that do not harm others. The GOP seeks to enlarge it. That's a fundamental difference between me and the GOP. It wasn't always so; and likely started when they began courting fundamentalist Christians. In other words, I didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left me.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 13:25
I'm not a Republican...

Are you saying I should be?

I deny government's legitimate authority over personal behaviors that do not harm others. The GOP seeks to enlarge it. That's a fundamental difference between me and the GOP. It wasn't always so; and likely started when they began courting fundamentalist Christians. In other words, I didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left me.


So you represent the "Dope Party"?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:26
Hell, they will hardly fight the marxist obama and they expect them to fight against romney. :faint:


Well, being in the same party, that should be easier. Its not like they're gonna have open combat.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 13:26
I'm not a Republican...

Are you saying I should be?

I deny government's legitimate authority over personal behaviors that do not harm others. The GOP seeks to enlarge it. That's a fundamental difference between me and the GOP. It wasn't always so; and likely started when they began courting fundamentalist Christians. In other words, I didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left me.

Wait, wait, come back! they need you to vote for the RINO progressive liberal socialized medicine man from Mass. who longed to be in Vietnam.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 13:28
Well, being in the same party, that should be easier. Its not like they're gonna have open combat.

Ropeium. :smoking:

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 13:32
Wait, wait, come back! they need you to vote for the RINO progressive liberal socialized medicine man from Mass. who longed to be in Vietnam.

Clearly they need my vote; but they're not doing anything to earn it. They expect it, like the entitlements they purport to oppose. Well, my franchise is not their privilege.

Ruble Noon
06-10-2012, 13:33
Clearly they need my vote; but they're not doing anything to earn it. They expect it, like the entitlements they purport to oppose. Well, my franchise is not their privilege.

:wavey:

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:37
:wavey:

I guess you both can enjoy Obama. since that's soo much better for you.

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 13:41
I guess you both can enjoy Obama. since that's soo much better for you.

It's ok to disagree without being disagreeable, you know?

Maybe you don't.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 14:12
It's ok to disagree without being disagreeable, you know?

Maybe you don't.

No, I do. You want 4 more years of Obama, cause that's better for you.

You're wanted back at DU.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 14:45
Jeesh. Looks like there is more than one demon up somebody's butt today.

Guys. It may feel good to berate each other over your choice of candidate, but what are we actually accomplishing here?

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 14:45
No, I do. You want 4 more years of Obama, cause that's better for you.

You're wanted back at DU.

No, I don't. I'm not a Republican; but you can't seem to see that Romney is not my guy.

If the GOP wanted my vote, they would've picked a more liberty-minded candidate. You can vote for who you like, and so will I.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 14:55
No, I don't. I'm not a Republican; but you can't seem to see that Romney is not my guy.

If the GOP wanted my vote, they would've picked a more liberty-minded candidate. You can vote for who you like, and so will I.


Sounds like you are saying, "If they wanted my vote they'd be Democrats".?????

Seems like the Republicans are less "Big Government" than Obama. Certainly less Federal Government wou;d mean more freedom. But I guess people are more concerned with who will legalize certain things because that is more important for the Country.

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 14:57
Your two attacks regarding drug decriminalization aren't even worth a reply.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 15:07
Your two attacks regarding drug decriminalization aren't even worth a reply.

Well I am trying to figure out what you mean by "more liberty minded", I would think less Federal government, and not more would be to your liking. What issue are you talking about then?

QNman
06-10-2012, 15:12
I wonder how different things would be fiscally if Perot won. I think he had the right message.

As do I. And have wondered the same.

QNman
06-10-2012, 15:17
http://www.infowars.com/linguistic-analysis-of-rand-pauls-endorsement-of-romney-contradicts-his-words-rand-paul-is-disgusted-with-him/

Hahahaha. First it was Rand was threatened, now he is a double agent. This just keeps getting better and better. The Paulbots sure are showing their mentality. I am guessing it will be an alien plot next.


Oops, I almost forgot, it must be the Bilderbergs, the Conclave, and the illuminati.

Don't forget the pope and Colonel Sanders...

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 15:30
Well I am trying to figure out what you mean by "more liberty minded", I would think less Federal government, and not more would be to your liking. What issue are you talking about then?

NDAA. TARP, PATRIOT Act, RomneyCare, Massachusetts AWB. If he can flip, he can flop, to and fro.

He doesn't have a history of promoting the cause of freedom. Then again, neither do our two parties (more like one party with two wings).

As for the so-called war on drugs, well, its idiocy speaks for itself.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 15:41
NDAA. TARP, PATRIOT Act, RomneyCare, Massachusetts AWB. If he can flip, he can flop, to and fro.

He doesn't have a history of promoting the cause of freedom. Then again, neither do our two parties (more like one party with two wings).

As for the so-called war on drugs, well, its idiocy speaks for itself.


Obama just said basically the private sector is doing OK but the Government needs to step up and create more jobs (Government) It seems as though more Govt employees, enforcing more rule and regulations, being paid for out of your pocket would decrease your "liberty" all the way around. I can't seem to recall that last time more Government meant more liberty, not in my lifetime at least.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 16:20
No, I don't. I'm not a Republican; but you can't seem to see that Romney is not my guy.

I know you're not a Republican, and I get that Romney's not your guy. You're down with Obama and most likely a dem. Enjoy that while it lasts.

thetoastmaster
06-10-2012, 16:25
I know you're not a Republican, and I get that Romney's not your guy. You're down with Obama and most likely a dem. Enjoy that while it lasts.

Wong again. I'm a Libertarian, and more anarcho-capitalist than libertarian.

If I were to paint with your same broad brush, I'd say you're a big-government Statist.

lancesorbenson
06-10-2012, 19:14
Obama just said basically the private sector is doing OK but the Government needs to step up and create more jobs (Government) It seems as though more Govt employees, enforcing more rule and regulations, being paid for out of your pocket would decrease your "liberty" all the way around. I can't seem to recall that last time more Government meant more liberty, not in my lifetime at least.

Careful there. Many staunch conservatives here derive their income from tax dollars and will argue with a straight face that it's no different than working in the private sector.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 19:24
Careful there. Many staunch conservatives here derive their income from tax dollars and will argue with a straight face that it's no different than working in the private sector.


Funny I don't recall anyone around here, who is a conservative and works for the Govt EVER claim the government needs to be bigger like Obama is claiming.

Of course you might be referring to Social Security recipients or other benifit recipients. It's so hard to tell with the cryptic style you have.

Just which group were you poking at?:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 19:51
Funny I don't recall anyone around here, who is a conservative and works for the Govt EVER claim the government needs to be bigger like Obama is claiming.

Of course you might be referring to Social Security recipients or other benifit recipients. It's so hard to tell with the cryptic style you have.

Just which group were you poking at?:dunno:

I do work for the .gov, cheaper than I could make in the private sector, and with more headaches. But I serve a specific clientele that is worth putting up with the BS for. Plus, no one else will fight for them. If I don't do what I do, who will.

I am trying my best to stomp out fraud, waste and abuse, but it ain't easy, and it takes a lot longer than you would believe.

GAFinch
06-10-2012, 21:41
NDAA. TARP, PATRIOT Act, RomneyCare, Massachusetts AWB. If he can flip, he can flop, to and fro.

He doesn't have a history of promoting the cause of freedom. Then again, neither do our two parties (more like one party with two wings).

I honestly can't figure out why you guys are so obsessed with NDAA and PATRIOT Act, other than because y'all go around smashing windows at Starbucks. For Republicans, those bills have theoretical problems and would likely be re-addressed partially or fully in the first couple years of a Republican-led Congress, but we see the Dodd-Frank Act as the more immediate threat to this country, since it's actively affecting tens of millions of Americans right now.

My job was decimated by the Freddie/Fannie policies and the highly hypocritical Dodd-Frank that followed, my newborn entrepreneur business was killed solely by Dodd-Frank regulations, and I'm about to put my house on the market because I can't an equity loan or credit limit increase to replace my HVAC system solely because of Dodd-Frank regulations. While you guys sit around dreaming up V For Vendetta scenarios, the rest of us are struggling with real life losses of freedom. Statements saying that Republicans are no different from the party of Frank, Rangel, Pelosi, and Obama are obscenely offensive.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 22:04
Wong again.

So solly! ...that's so racist!

I'm a Libertarian,

Yes yes, I'm listening…


and more anarcho-capitalist than libertarian.

WTF is an anarcho-capitalist, if there is such a thing? Some form of anarchy? So, you're basically into disorder and chaos, meaning you're a self declared crackpot.


If I were to paint with your same broad brush, I'd say you're a big-government Statist.

Fail, and dead wrong. I am anti statist.

I'm also realistic, and take the best choice available. Some of the kooks here think there's something other than the two choices available, its like talking to a mental patient. They think that by repeating it often enough, they can make the impossible come true. Someone here called it "wishcasting".

countrygun
06-10-2012, 22:32
So solly! ...that's so racist!



Yes yes, I'm listening…




WTF is an anarcho-capitalist, if there is such a thing? Some form of anarchy? So, you're basically into disorder and chaos, meaning you're a self declared crackpot.



Fail, and dead wrong. I am anti statist.

I'm also realistic, and take the best choice available. Some of the kooks here think there's something other than the two choices available, its like talking to a mental patient. They think that by repeating it often enough, they can make the impossible come true. Someone here called it "wishcasting".


"Hare ronpaul, hare ronpaul, hare, hare, hare ronpaul..."

Do they get the haircuts and the robes to go with it?

If their gambit fails (99% chance of that) they will be helping elect a man who just said that the Federal Government needs to get bigger so it can hire more people.

I am awestruck at the brilliance of their logic.

G-19
06-11-2012, 01:36
WTF is an anarcho-capitalist, if there is such a thing? Some form of anarchy? So, you're basically into disorder and chaos, meaning you're a self declared crackpot.






Here is a brief explanation of Anarcho-Capitalism. Talk about a system ripe for fraud and corruption:wow:.

http://jim.com/anarchy/

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 05:46
I find that most people that like the idea of anarchy, think that everyone will leave them alone if they leave everyone else alone. It will be a utopia where everyone just gets along. Some others that like the idea of anarchy see themselves as warlords when they look in the mirror. Most of them would be dead wrong of course.

thetoastmaster
06-11-2012, 06:37
If you've got nothing to do but cast aspersions and call names, there is little room for meaningful intercourse, rendering this board meaningless for anything other than base entertainment, and not for the meaningful exchange of ideas.

If you want to understand my position, I recommend the works of Murray Rothbard. Upon whom do you base your socioeconomic policy, Fox News?

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 06:41
If you've got nothing to do but cast aspersions and call names, there is little room for meaningful intercourse, rendering this board meaningless for anything other than base entertainment, and not for the meaningful exchange of ideas.

If you want to understand my position, I recommend the works of Murray Rothbard. Upon whom do you base your socioeconomic policy, Fox News?


I base it on meeting and speaking with hundreds of people of numerous social, economic, political and religious backgrounds from over 20 countries.

lancesorbenson
06-11-2012, 09:27
Funny I don't recall anyone around here, who is a conservative and works for the Govt EVER claim the government needs to be bigger like Obama is claiming.

Of course you might be referring to Social Security recipients or other benifit recipients. It's so hard to tell with the cryptic style you have.

Just which group were you poking at?:dunno:

I've see Doc and G19 argue that the taxes they pay are the same as those paid by those who work in the private sector. Maybe from their perspective of having to cut a check to .gov that's true, but all the money they get paid comes originally from the private sector. The private sector is being taxed and regulated by their employers to the point where it's harder and harder to actually make money while also supporting the government. I'm not making a judgement on what they do and it's value; their jobs may be essential to a working society. I'm only talking about private v. public and the distinctions therein.

On a side note, your new fan G-19 has repeatedly argued for alcohol prohibition. That sounds like an argument for bigger government to me, not to mention a reiteration of a completely failed and bone-headed policy.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 09:41
I've see Doc and G19 argue that the taxes they pay are the same as those paid by those who work in the private sector. Maybe from their perspective of having to cut a check to .gov that's true, but all the money they get paid comes originally from the private sector. The private sector is being taxed and regulated by their employers to the point where it's harder and harder to actually make money while also supporting the government. I'm not making a judgement on what they do and it's value; their jobs may be essential to a working society. I'm only talking about private v. public and the distinctions therein.

On a side note, your new fan G-19 has repeatedly argued for alcohol prohibition. That sounds like an argument for bigger government to me, not to mention a reiteration of a completely failed and bone-headed policy.


From my perspective, and that of the IRS, I pay taxes. The only real question is if the service I provide is worth the cost. I think it is, but that is just my opinion.

I do argue for a smaller government, even if that means my personal position is downsized. I could easily get another job within a week making more money, but I prefer my current clientele. I still like to consider myself one of the good guys.

Ruble Noon
06-11-2012, 16:02
I honestly can't figure out why you guys are so obsessed with NDAA and PATRIOT Act,

Yeah, why worry about our rights being violated and our Constitution being ripped to shreds. :upeyes:

You were probably one of the ones telling people if they didn't like being groped by TSA pedophiles to not fly. Then when they started groping people at bus stations you probably told them not to ride a bus. Hey, if you're not hiding any explosives in your pants you should just let any stranger fondle your junk or grope your daughter before boarding a plane, right?

G19G20
06-11-2012, 16:24
If you've got nothing to do but cast aspersions and call names, there is little room for meaningful intercourse, rendering this board meaningless for anything other than base entertainment, and not for the meaningful exchange of ideas.

If you want to understand my position, I recommend the works of Murray Rothbard. Upon whom do you base your socioeconomic policy, Fox News?

You're catching on. Even Im getting somewhat bored of GTPI lately, solely because many of the posters simply aren't capable of debating rationally and just devolve into petty insults, redstate-com talking points and other signs of a failed argument.

You make a great point here that the status quo types don't get and it's something that separates us. It's all about economics and monetary policy. Nothing else is a greater issue than those because the monetary policy (Fed) allows the horrendous debt accumulation. Keynesian policy REQUIRES (yes requires) the ever growing expansion of government in order to keep the system going. This is mainly why I ignore talking points from Romney about his call for small government. When Obama says it, he means it. Romney is just lying because Romney is not going to do any meaningful overhaul of the financial and monetary systems. If he does, the system implodes and resets. He's not going to do that so the debt will continue to accrue, the spending will continue unabated, and gov't will continue to grow. He's not going to change any of that. Therefore he is just more of the same and no different than Obama. Or we can just beat on each other wedge social issues and avoid talking about the 800lb gorilla in the room, the Federal Reserve, while it continues to print money into the stratosphere. I wish the status quo types would take some time to understand Keynesianism because once you accept that the system MUST continue to grow (particularly government), it then becomes obvious that none of the Pres candidates, except Ron, are offering anything of substance.

G-19
06-11-2012, 16:43
You're catching on. Even Im getting somewhat bored of GTPI lately, solely because Ron Paul lost and even his son did not believe in him enough to stick to his guns. It seems people actually caught on that the LP is a joke and a bad one at that.

Fixed it for you.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 16:55
You're catching on. Even Im getting somewhat bored of GTPI lately, solely because many of the posters simply aren't capable of debating rationally and just devolve into petty insults, redstate-com talking points and other signs of a failed argument.

...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

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


You have a very short memory. You got caught in several rather embarrassing moments, and were called on it, that's different than casting your race card on the table. Telling people that they have no honor because they don't do exactly what you wanted them to do, and all that jazz.

Now you are the bored victim? That's priceless. Factless too.

countrygun
06-11-2012, 17:09
Keynesian policy REQUIRES (yes requires) the ever growing expansion of government in order to keep the system going. This is mainly why I ignore talking points from Romney about his call for small government. When Obama says it, he means it. .

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


did someone question the rationality of others?

:rofl:

You gotta be kidding me.

PawDog
06-11-2012, 17:20
Posted by G19G20 I wish the status quo types would take some time to understand Keynesianism because once you accept that the system MUST continue to grow (particularly government), it then becomes obvious that none of the Pres candidates, except Ron , are offering anything of substance.

:rofl: This is either the worse case of an unrequited bromance I've ever seen posted on GTPI, or actually a joke that no one else is permitted to know the punch line to.......:faint: :supergrin:

Goaltender66
06-11-2012, 17:44
Keynesian policy REQUIRES (yes requires) the ever growing expansion of government in order to keep the system going.

Where, exactly, did Keynes write this?

The reality is that Keynes never prescribed the running of continual/chronic deficits. His prescription was that in times of recession, money should be injected into the economy either via deficit spending or tax cuts (funny how that always seems to get missed by the Keynes critics) and when the economy fully recovers the debt is repaid when the general tax level goes back to pre-recession levels.

Now one can certainly have a reasoned debate about how effective public sector spending actually is, and if it really creates a significant multiplier effect (I personally don't believe it does, but instead has a multiplier of <1) when compared to private sector/consumer spending. But to say Keynesian policies requires government to grow (which I assume is your takeaway since you're so vague about what "system" you're talking about) is to totally misread Keynes. Interestingly, misreading Keynes is something that the very people you bitterly criticize are quite guilty of doing.

G19G20
06-11-2012, 18:02
:rofl:


You have a very short memory. You got caught in several rather embarrassing moments, and were called on it, that's different than casting your race card on the table. Telling people that they have no honor because they don't do exactly what you wanted them to do, and all that jazz.

Now you are the bored victim? That's priceless. Factless too.

:rofl:


did someone question the rationality of others?

:rofl:

You gotta be kidding me.

:rofl: This is either the worse case of an unrequited bromance I've ever seen posted on GTPI, or actually a joke that no one else is permitted to know the punch line to.......:faint:

Thank you to all three of you for proving my point by attacking me personally and ignoring the meat of my post entirely. :upeyes: You couldn't have demonstrated my point any better as to who the wastes of time are.

(Btw, you know there's no substance to posts when the forum software tells me there's too many "laughy icons" to post in quotes.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 18:06
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/PaulbotG19G20.jpg


http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://store.theseventhletter.com/assets/images/nostreetcredtblackdetailfront.jpg&sa=X&ei=_4PWT5G2H-mQ2AWmj5GcDw&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFAgrnKHT6wpgTCxH8OsKTo9LR1Eg

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 18:12
Thank you to all three of you for proving my point by attacking me personally and ignoring the meat of my post entirely. :upeyes: You couldn't have demonstrated my point any better as to who the wastes of time are.

(Btw, you know there's no substance to posts when the forum software tells me there's too many "laughy icons" to post in quotes.

Dude, you have brought your current reputation on yourself. All one has to do is go back through a couple of weeks of your posts, and it is full of examples where you have behaved badly. And while it has been humorous to watch, you have what you have, not due to the posters here, but due to your own posts.

See these?

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://media.cakecentral.com/gallery/708131/600-1264824699.JPG&sa=X&ei=LYnWT4yqJOOM2gXl7rGxDw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEchwdfqxa8RY--UQmEggLsvPoN7g


They are just desserts. That's all.

G-19
06-11-2012, 18:13
Thank you both for proving my point by attacking me personally and ignoring the meat of my post entirely. :upeyes:

Really? Really? You got your nerve crying about someone attacking you. That is all you and the rest of the RP crowd know how to do. If anyone even hints that they don't fully agree with you, the attacks begin. Attacks are the only thing you guys know. Now that RP is out and even his son bailed on him, to save his public career, you want to cry about someone attacking you.

Grow up!

G19G20
06-11-2012, 18:14
Where, exactly, did Keynes write this?

Why did he have to write it? Keynesian economics requires the system to constantly expand ("growth") in order to sustain itself. Deflation is the enemy of Keynesian monetary system.


The reality is that Keynes never prescribed the running of continual/chronic deficits. His prescription was that in times of recession, money should be injected into the economy either via deficit spending or tax cuts (funny how that always seems to get missed by the Keynes critics) and when the economy fully recovers the debt is repaid when the general tax level goes back to pre-recession levels.

Thank you Paul Krugman. That's the typical response. Didn't peg you for a liberal economist supporter but whatever. The reality is also that deflation is the death of the system. Hence QE and every other contraption the Fed comes up with to keep inflation ongoing. Didn't the Fed have interest rates waaaay too low as the reason for the housing bubble in the first place? Inflation, cheap credit, etc. It's all the same and the system requires it to stay afloat. The government takes over and expands to make up for lack of private "growth". The problem is that it doesn't stop even when "growth" (more inflation) is restored. And that's the whole point actually. We're still in recession so thinking Romney will do anything different than Obama is fantasy. They both subscribe to the same monetary theory that's served us oh so well so far....


Now one can certainly have a reasoned debate about how effective public sector spending actually is, and if it really creates a significant multiplier effect (I personally don't believe it does, but instead has a multiplier of <1) when compared to private sector/consumer spending. But to say Keynesian policies requires government to grow (which I assume is your takeaway since you're so vague about what "system" you're talking about) is to totally misread Keynes. Interestingly, misreading Keynes is something that the very people you bitterly criticize are quite guilty of doing.

Keynes is long dead. Keynesianism is more the term to describe the inflation/debt based system we live under globally right now. What Keynes himself said means little since he's not the one implementing it. I'm not arguing "who said what". Im arguing the reality of the system as it stands right now. Deflation (smaller government) = bad. Inflation (bigger government) = good. Helicopter Ben, one of the biggest Keynesians in the world said he would throw money from a helicopter if a deflationary spiral started. Sadly, that spiral is what we need to reset the system, liquidate the debt and restore prosperity.

countrygun
06-11-2012, 18:14
Thank you to all three of you for proving my point by attacking me personally and ignoring the meat of my post entirely. :upeyes: You couldn't have demonstrated my point any better as to who the wastes of time are.

(Btw, you know there's no substance to posts when the forum software tells me there's too many "laughy icons" to post in quotes.


Yes, I confess, I attacked you personally by quoting your own post. I realize that in reposting your own words I insulted your intelligence.

You have to understand that some people are easily personally insulted by examining their own words. I just was too lazy to make anything up that would have been funnier than what you actually said.

countrygun
06-11-2012, 18:18
(Btw, you know there's no substance to posts when the forum software tells me there's too many "laughy icons" to post in quotes.


No, I think the software was saying that your post needed more "laughy icons" than the software would support. even the software knows a joke when it sees one.

G19G20
06-11-2012, 18:18
Really? Really? You got your nerve crying about someone attacking you. That is all you and the rest of the RP crowd know how to do. If anyone even hints that they don't fully agree with you, the attacks begin. Attacks are the only thing you guys know. Now that RP is out and even his son bailed on him, to save his public career, you want to cry about someone attacking you.

Grow up!

Ok and you still attack me personally. Odd.

Respond to the rest of my post about the issues. Goaltender is the only one that has. The same peanut gallery sticks with personal attacks.

Ill wait....

ChuteTheMall
06-11-2012, 18:21
You're catching on. Even Im getting somewhat bored of GTPI lately, solely because many of the posters simply aren't capable of understanding my scheme to get Ron Paul nominated by sneaking in a bunch of secret Ronulans as delegates to the convention in Tampa, who will, upon my command, take off their masks and stand up for freedom while taking over the corrupt electoral process from the sheeple.


Fixed it for ya.:deadhorse:

G-19
06-11-2012, 18:25
Ok and you still attack me personally. Odd.

Respond to the rest of my post about the issues.

Ill wait....

Oh, I have responded to many, many posts over the last few months, and they were about issues. Every time I did I was personally was attacked by a Paulite for my views. They ( you ) just can't stand it when others don't toe the LP line, so you attack them. So I have made it a point to return the favor. Especially when I see one of them, like you, attacking some one else.

I once said the LP was irrelevant, now it has proven true, even Rand seen the light and jumped ship.

G19G20
06-11-2012, 18:25
Yep, place is getting pretty boring with the lack of actual discussion of issues. "Fix it for you", photoshopped jpgs, laughy icons, etc don't qualify as intelligent debate.

G-19
06-11-2012, 18:28
Yep, place is getting pretty boring with the lack of actual discussion of issues. "Fix it for you", photoshopped jpgs, laughy icons, etc don't qualify as intelligent debate.

And, so is "why do you hate the constitution", "statist", "socialist", and the list goes on.

G-19
06-11-2012, 18:31
Ok and you still attack me personally. Odd.

Respond to the rest of my post about the issues. Goaltender is the only one that has. The same peanut gallery sticks with personal attacks.

Ill wait....

I do believe you were one of the ones who attacked me for being a State Correction Officer. Talk about not sticking to issues, you can't get much more personal than attacking a man for working.

ChuteTheMall
06-11-2012, 18:32
Remember that the VP pick also has to be voted on and approved by the RNC delegates in Tampa. The nominee doesn't just "coronate" someone. Mitt's going to have his hands full just trying to win the nomination with the huge contingent of Paul delegates in attendance so he better be extra careful with his VP pick.

:animlol::rofl:Sounds like a threat.:okie::nutcheck:

:tinfoil::deadhorse:

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 18:33
Yep, place is getting pretty boring with the lack of actual discussion of issues. "Fix it for you", photoshopped jpgs, laughy icons, etc don't qualify as intelligent debate.

See, now this really hurts my feelings.......




























http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TahXQ2WiF0s/Sp56jkBD3AI/AAAAAAAAVt8/Om1o0FV-rro/s400/Unfortunate+Cakes+Part+4+08.jpg&sa=X&ei=PY7WT5G3G8rM2AW8k6GwDw&ved=0CAkQ8wc4NQ&usg=AFQjCNHarRD2QWWawvfCDl0901D8yj6BoQ