Kicking out the Paulites [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Kicking out the Paulites


maxsnafu
06-30-2012, 17:55
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/06/kicking-out-paulites.html

countrygun
06-30-2012, 18:15
Ron Paul had more than one opportunity to affect the policies of the republican Party but he held on to his cards too long and has little to offer at this point.

This,

"don't come crying back to those Ron Paul supporters begging for their votes in late October because it is THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVAHHHHH!!!!"

was a waste of time since the supporters still clinging to the mast of the sinking ship have vowed to vote for no one but Paul anyway, there is nothing that tolerating them will do for the Perty, besides they were really perpetrating fraud anyway by calling themselve "Republicans".

The die-hards are just scratching and screeching, in a lost cause, to make their scam relevent.

RC-RAMIE
06-30-2012, 18:19
Ron Paul had more than one opportunity to affect the policies of the republican Party but he held on to his cards too long and has little to offer at this point.

This,

"don't come crying back to those Ron Paul supporters begging for their votes in late October because it is THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVAHHHHH!!!!"

was a waste of time since the supporters still clinging to the mast of the sinking ship have vowed to vote for no one but Paul anyway, there is nothing that tolerating them will do for the Perty, besides they were really perpetrating fraud anyway by calling themselve "Republicans".

The die-hards are just scratching and screeching, in a lost cause, to make their scam relevent.

He was elected to office as a Republican every time he won. The Republican party was a lot closer to his ideas on size of government pre 2001 just because some big government Republicans have been running the show lately does not mean they get to define who is and who is not Republican.


....

countrygun
06-30-2012, 18:27
He was elected to office as a Republican every time he won. The Republican party was a lot closer to his ideas on size of government pre 2001 just because some big government Republicans have been running the show lately does not mean they get to define who is and who is not Republican.


....

The "Paulites' are merely trying to hang onto the illusion of being part of the Republican Party. Had Paul won they would be calling it a "great Victory for the Libertarian party". His politics were Libertarian the Republican voters rejected them, simple. It was a conspiracy of the voters. Now the Paulites are acting like diaper-rashed Democrats and whinning "It's not fair, we wanted to win, we don't care about the voters we know what is best".

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 18:34
The "Paulites' are merely trying to hang onto the illusion of being part of the Republican Party. Had Paul won they would be calling it a "great Victory for the Libertarian party". His politics were Libertarian the Republican voters rejected them, simple. It was a conspiracy of the voters. Now the Paulites are acting like diaper-rashed Democrats and whinning "It's not fair, we wanted to win, we don't care about the voters we know what is best".

No. We would be calling it a great victory for liberty and America. Something we sorely need.

Gary W Trott
06-30-2012, 20:09
"The GOP Convention is a Republican Convention. It is a Mitt Romney Convention."

Considering that as of this moment Mitt Romney doesn't have the delegates to win, it's a little presumptuous to label it a "Romney Convention".

ChuteTheMall
06-30-2012, 20:17
Nevertheless, the RNC convention will nominate Mitt Romney, and the Libertarian "Republicans In Name Only" will never be a factor in national politics.

Far less significant than H. Ross Perot, crazier than Papoon, and zero electoral clout.


:elephant:







http://i45.tinypic.com/huksol.jpg

ChuteTheMall
06-30-2012, 20:21
I could not possibly care less if Obama wins or if Romney wins.

That's why the author gets no respect from Republicans.

I saw no reason to read any further, I'm done with this guy.

countrygun
06-30-2012, 20:23
No. We would be calling it a great victory for liberty and America. Something we sorely need.


America having no chance to kick Obama out of the White House is a "Great Victory" for America?

Confirms what I though about Paulites all along, they are Obama shills.

JBnTX
06-30-2012, 23:16
I've said from day one that Ron Paul should have never been allowed to participate in the republican primaries.

Dividing the republican base and causing discontent within the republican party is his only accomplishment.

His followers are frauds, misrepresenting the libertarian philosophy, and causing nothing but division among conservative voters.

Good riddance to Ron Paul and his Obama loving followers.

..

RC-RAMIE
07-01-2012, 09:00
I've said from day one that Ron Paul should have never been allowed to participate in the republican primaries.

Dividing the republican base and causing discontent within the republican party is his only accomplishment.

His followers are frauds, misrepresenting the libertarian philosophy, and causing nothing but division among conservative voters.

Good riddance to Ron Paul and his Obama loving followers.

..

How many times you been elected to office as a Republican?


....

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 09:14
Nah, let 'em do what they want. Ron was never going to get the nomination, they were never going to vote for the nominee. And after all, it's their vote, they can do what they want with it whether anyone else agrees or not.

I am waiting to see how much the Trojan Horse delegates screw up the Paul legacy. He has a chance to influence the platform, and they are, more than likely, going to screw it up for him.

After the convention, it will be interesting if our resident alleged admitted Trojan Horse will admit that he voted for Romney on the first vote, to avoid perjuring himself, or if he will be in need of an attorney for the next couple of years.

It will be interesting to watch.

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

JBnTX
07-01-2012, 09:17
How many times you been elected to office as a Republican?

....


What does that have to do with anything?:dunno:

Ever notice how quiet the Ron Paul fanatics have become since he took his toys and went home?

Ron Paul is a perennial loser and his followers are nothing more than a bunch of selfish anarchists who used him as much as he used them.

He wanted a short cut to being president and his anti-government followers wanted to have no restrictions on their behavior.

A match doomed from the start.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 09:17
Had Paul won they would be calling it a "great Victory for the Libertarian party".

No. We would be calling it a great victory for liberty and America. Something we sorely need.

America having no chance to kick Obama out of the White House is a "Great Victory" for America?

Confirms what I though about Paulites all along, they are Obama shills.

Your premise was if Paul had one. How does Paul winning make me an obama shill? Paul has polled consistently well against obama. Paul also had the ability to draw voters from many circles. Libertarians would vote for him, neo-cons and statists like yourself would vote for him, unless you were lying about voting ABO.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 09:19
Nah, let 'em do what they want. Ron was never going to get the nomination, they were never going to vote for the nominee. And after all, it's their vote, they can do what they want with it whether anyone else agrees or not.

I am waiting to see how much the Trojan Horse delegates screw up the Paul legacy. He has a chance to influence the platform, and they are, more than likely, going to screw it up for him.

After the convention, it will be interesting if our resident alleged admitted Trojan Horse will admit that he voted for Romney on the first vote, to avoid perjuring himself, or if he will be in need of an attorney for the next couple of years.

It will be interesting to watch.

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

There were several in the republican primaries that I would have voted for. Romney however, is not one of them.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 09:28
How many times you been elected to office as a Republican?


....

Obviously fewer times than he endorsed Sheila Jackson-Lee

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 09:29
There were several in the republican primaries that I would have voted for. Romney however, is not one of them.

You've seen the sig line, no?

Everyone gets to make a choice, even if that choice is not to choose.

We'll live through it, or not. Should be interesting to watch one way or the other.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 09:37
The neo cons will most likely loose and maybe by 2016 some more will have woke from their slumber. The hate filled masses of people who feel they have the right to force their views on others will eventually go away as people beginning to think for themselves. The left/right paradigm is falling even if it is far too slow for me. Independants no longer willing to vote for the ignorant on either side that push their views instead of following our Constitution grow every year so we're getting there. Many who held their nose last time, won't this time and that is progress.

People who think it is their job to regulate behaviour that doesn't infringe on anyone else are the lowest form of life. I love seeing them cringe as things they abhore are more common every day. The problem is by being such pricks they've given people who are outside their mold only one place to go... Democrat. Much like those of us who held our nose for the R candidate, many of those that value liberty are coming over to us.

So Dems and Republicans can either smarten up and accept that you are free to your views and others are free to theirs or you can fight for your left/right totalitarian BS and continue to loose freedoms every cycle that doesn't go your way.

I know, I know. You can't get those devoid of logic to use it. They call themselves Americans but hate the individual liberty principal it was founded on. Brilliant.

eracer
07-01-2012, 09:38
Ron Paul had more than one opportunity to affect the policies of the republican Party but he held on to his cards too long and has little to offer at this point.

(Brilliant political commentary. :rofl:

This,

"don't come crying back to those Ron Paul supporters begging for their votes in late October because it is THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVAHHHHH!!!!"

(Why did you write something intended for Dr. Paul?)

was a waste of time since the supporters still clinging to the mast of the sinking ship have vowed to vote for no one but Paul anyway, (You've polled all of the supporters to come up with your statistical assertion?) there is nothing that tolerating them will do for the Perty, besides they were really perpetrating fraud anyway by calling themselve "Republicans". (You really should learn to use proper - or at least passable - English grammar before disparaging anyone for being fraudulent.)

The die-hards are just scratching and screeching, in a lost cause, to make their scam relevent.

Who's scratching and screeching?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 09:48
The neo cons will most likely loose and maybe by 2016 some more will have woke from their slumber. The hate filled masses of people who feel they have the right to force their views on others will eventually go away as people beginning to think for themselves. The left/right paradigm is falling even if it is far too slow for me. Independants no longer willing to vote for the ignorant on either side that push their views instead of following our Constitution grow every year so we're getting there. Many who held their nose last time, won't this time and that is progress.

People who think it is their job to regulate behaviour that doesn't infringe on anyone else are the lowest form of life. I love seeing them cringe as things they abhore are more common every day. The problem is by being such pricks they've given people who are outside their mold only one place to go... Democrat. Much like those of us who held our nose for the R candidate, many of those that value liberty are coming over to us.

So Dems and Republicans can either smarten up and accept that you are free to your views and others are free to theirs or you can fight for your left/right totalitarian BS and continue to loose freedoms every cycle that doesn't go your way.

I know, I know. You can't get those devoid of logic to use it. They call themselves Americans but hate the individual liberty principal it was founded on. Brilliant.

Neo-isolationism just didn't catch on as well as most paul guys thought. Too many people have actually traveled outside the country to believe it could work.

The Paulbot mantra of people that don't Love Dr. Paul and worship him are haters of liberty is a very tired and stale cliche around here. It didn't change a single person to convert to paul. Try something else. It'll be interesting to see if you have anything else.

:wavey:

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 10:14
Neo-isolationism just didn't catch on as well as most paul guys thought. Too many people have actually traveled outside the country to believe it could work.

The Paulbot mantra of people that don't Love Dr. Paul and worship him are haters of liberty is a very tired and stale cliche around here. It didn't change a single person to convert to paul. Try something else. It'll be interesting to see if you have anything else.

:wavey:

We're not just "Paul" lovers, we're liberty lovers. Our ranks grow every day. We don't need anything else, the neo cons have nothing to offer but fear and hate of people who don't live life as they allow. That isn't inspiring. Numbers of people being indoctrinated into the right wing have dropped in massive numbers. Unfortunately, many get indoctrinated into the left before their eyes get opened. Too many gay and athiest folks have gotten lost to the left but at least society is becoming more tolerant of those who make different choices in how to live THEIR lives. A lot are waking up to the hidden left hate that was obvious to them on the right.

Change is scary for you huh?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 10:42
We're not just "Paul" lovers, we're liberty lovers. Our ranks grow every day. We don't need anything else, the neo cons have nothing to offer but fear and hate of people who don't live life as they allow. That isn't inspiring. Numbers of people being indoctrinated into the right wing have dropped in massive numbers. Unfortunately, many get indoctrinated into the left before their eyes get opened. Too many gay and athiest folks have gotten lost to the left but at least society is becoming more tolerant of those who make different choices in how to live THEIR lives. A lot are waking up to the hidden left hate that was obvious to them on the right.

Change is scary for you huh?

You haven't been watching the Ron Paul Forums "Number of people online" lately have you.:crying::crying:

Currently Active Users

There are currently 587 users online. 83 members and 504 guests

Most users ever online was 4,009, 01-03-2008 at 09:43 PM.

That's what most would call a negative growth, or shrinkage. The Paul movement has stepped out of a very cold pool. Lots of shrinkage.

I'm a fan of liberty too. Just a pragmatist, not an idealist. I'm OK with a lot of things that might surprise you. Maybe you can take off the SuperPatriot tights and learn a bit about people here before you stick your foot any further in your mouth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Super-Patriot.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Patriot_%28Marvel_Comics%29


Oh, and I absolutely love change for the better. Not the Barry version of it though.

Life is fun to watch. Precisely because we have no way to know how the story ends. And it will end for all of us eventually. Them's the breaks bro.

:popcorn:

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 10:48
Pragmatic about liberty? That is scary.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 10:50
Pragmatic about liberty? That is scary.

That's wisdom. Maybe you don't know what pure liberty looks like. Ever seen it?

fortyofforty
07-01-2012, 10:57
We're not just "Paul" lovers, we're liberty lovers.

People used their liberty to go to the polls and choose Mitt Romney, in overwhelming numbers. Don't like that sort of liberty, do you? :dunno:

Change is scary for you huh?

Little Ronnie obviously isn't the one to bring change. He's just another politician who's used the system to get ahead, enrich himself, and inject his family into the American poitical structure. Little Ronnie Earmarks represents more of the same, as his actions clearly show. While he was in office, the federal budget exploded. While he was in office, the budget deficit grew by nightmarish amounts. While he was in office, the amount of unConstitutional spending increased steadily. And, he was able to do, exactly, nothing about it. He was unable to convince anyone to follow his lofty words, including himself. All he did was reach into the till and grab handsful of cash to shovel back to his voters. It's laughable.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:08
People used their liberty to go to the polls and choose Mitt Romney, in overwhelming numbers. Don't like that sort of liberty, do you? :dunno:





I find it peculiar that with these droves of Romney supporters I or anyone that I know have yet to meet one. Romney signs or bumper stickers, nonexistent. I have seen plenty of Cain, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul bumper stickers and signs though as well as met many of their supporters.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:14
I find it peculiar that with these droves of Romney supporters I or anyone that I know have yet to meet one. Romney signs or bumper stickers, nonexistent. I have seen plenty of Cain, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul bumper stickers and signs though as well as met many of their supporters.

Is that a claim you are ready to make?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:17
Is that a claim you are ready to make?

Claim? Truth. I have met some obama supporters, rare in these parts, but they do exist. I have even seen some obama signs and bumper stickers, again, a rarity. Romney? None.

countrygun
07-01-2012, 11:21
Your premise was if Paul had one. How does Paul winning make me an obama shill? Paul has polled consistently well against obama. Paul also had the ability to draw voters from many circles. Libertarians would vote for him, neo-cons and statists like yourself would vote for him, unless you were lying about voting ABO.


Paul can't even win his home district after earmarking all that money for them and you folks still cling to the notion that he could win the Presidency?

You are kidding, right?

Oh, no doubt, I would hold my nose and vote for Paul over Obama, but there are too many who wouldn't vote at all if that was the choice. Ron Paul alienates as many voters as you seem to think he would draw, more probably.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:24
Claim? Truth. I have met some obama supporters, rare in these parts, but they do exist. I have even seen some obama signs and bumper stickers, again, a rarity. Romney? None.

I never did meet anyone that would admit voting for McCain. But I've run into quite a few that think his business experience would be good to have in the white house.

Unfortunately, I'm in the political minority, even among republicans.

countrygun
07-01-2012, 11:28
What does that have to do with anything?:dunno:

Ever notice how quiet the Ron Paul fanatics have become since he took his toys and went home?

Ron Paul is a perennial loser and his followers are nothing more than a bunch of selfish anarchists who used him as much as he used them.

He wanted a short cut to being president and his anti-government followers wanted to have no restrictions on their behavior.

A match doomed from the start.


That cuts through all of it very succinctly. Almost perfect. It could have used "childish" to go along with the "selfish"
but, other than that- Well Done sir!

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:32
You are kidding, right?



So, you and the ABO crowed lied about voting ABO? Remember, I am just working off of your premise that Paul had won. Given the ABO crowds assertions that they will indeed vote ABO and the fact that libertarians will vote for Paul, Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney. More voters. Can you understand that?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:33
I never did meet anyone that would admit voting for McCain. But I've run into quite a few that think his business experience would be good to have in the white house.

Unfortunately, I'm in the political minority, even among republicans.

I voted for McCain as did most everyone that I know and we all freely admit it.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 11:44
That's wisdom. Maybe you don't know what pure liberty looks like. Ever seen it?

None of us have. We have people who try to be pragmatic about it instead of embracing it to thank for that.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 11:46
So, you and the ABO crowed lied about voting ABO? Remember, I am just working off of your premise that Paul had won. Given the ABO crowds assertions that they will indeed vote ABO and the fact that libertarians will vote for Paul, Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney. More voters. Can you understand that?

What they meant was any neo con before Obama. The idea of liberties beyond the ones they like scare the hell out of them.:upeyes:

JBnTX
07-01-2012, 11:47
... Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney...


Do you really, really believe that?

Really?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:56
None of us have. We have people who try to be pragmatic about it instead of embracing it to thank for that.

I have seen pure liberty. The paradise of complete lack of governmental controls and restrictions. No Police, No Firemen, No Electricity, No EMS, No running water. No one was very happy. Many people died actually. This thing you are asking for, you don't even know what it is.

That is the difference between pragmatism, and ignorant idealism. (

I had to add the "ignorant" part now that it's clear you do not even know what pure liberty is, other than a nice sounding platitude.

RC-RAMIE
07-01-2012, 11:56
Do you really, really believe that?

Really?

Most of Mitt voters are ABO voters so he wold get them plus his voters at least. So about the same chance.


....

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:58
I voted for McCain as did most everyone that I know and we all freely admit it.

I was talking about the primary. I voted for McCain in the General. I was pretty sure it was a wasted effort.

So might my next vote for president. Oh well. I will try to live with it as best I can.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 11:58
Do you really, really believe that?

Really?

Only if the neo cons are true about their anybody but Obama claims. If that is the case then it is unquestionable.

They'd never vote to allow people to live free though. The best thing is that even if he lost, we'd win because the right wing would be exposed for what they really are and instead of the gradual break away from the right, it would happen much more quickly.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 12:05
I have seen pure liberty. The paradise of complete lack of governmental controls and restrictions. No Police, No Firemen, No Electricity, No EMS, No running water. No one was very happy. Many people died actually. This thing you are asking for, you don't even know what it is.

That is the difference between pragmatism, and ignorant idealism. (

I had to add the "ignorant" part now that it's clear you do not even know what pure liberty is, other than a nice sounding platitude.

Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

What you encourage is a goverment that has a right the people don't have. The right to initiate force. If government is a body that people entrust with certian rights to help enhance their liberty, how can government be given a right the people don't possess.

Core here is you believe that is OK. Thinking you have a right to rule others or that a group has a right to rule others is core ignorance.

Harper
07-01-2012, 12:14
The "Paulites' are merely trying to hang onto the illusion of being part of the Republican Party. Had Paul won they would be calling it a "great Victory for the Libertarian party".

Yeah right, Paul supporters aren't really concerned with being part of The Party. They're libertarians remember.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 12:30
Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

What you encourage is a goverment that has a right the people don't have. The right to initiate force. If government is a body that people entrust with certian rights to help enhance their liberty, how can government be given a right the people don't possess.

Core here is you believe that is OK. Thinking you have a right to rule others or that a group has a right to rule others is core ignorance.

Pure liberty is anarchy. Only with anarchy, are you truly free to do anything you want.

Pure liberty is bad. A lot of liberty is a good thing. Ever hear of too much of a good thing. That's where pragmatism comes into play.


I'm curious as to how this fictitious utopia looks like in your head. Please tell us what it looks like to you.

JBnTX
07-01-2012, 12:31
Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is.

Classic Ron Paul supporter cliché.:rofl:

Don't you guys ever get any new material?

Harper
07-01-2012, 12:33
Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.



People often frame their ideological opponents as a simple caricature. It's easier to make arguments against an imaginary opponent. People like to frame libertarians as anarchist and draw analogies to Somalia, republicans often get framed as 'the Christian Right' who are a bunch of ignorant bible thumping rednecks, democrats get framed as communists or hippies, and so on. It's much less work to demonize an entire group (imaginary or not) than to argue actual points. I've never met a Ron Paul supporter who wants anarchy or anything close.

countrygun
07-01-2012, 12:39
So, you and the ABO crowed lied about voting ABO? Remember, I am just working off of your premise that Paul had won. Given the ABO crowds assertions that they will indeed vote ABO and the fact that libertarians will vote for Paul, Paul would have a better prospect at beating obama than Romney. More voters. Can you understand that?


My last paragraph answer that wasted post of yours before you wrote it.

Do you understand that?

Harper
07-01-2012, 12:41
Pure liberty is anarchy. Only with anarchy, are you truly free to do anything you want.

Pure liberty is bad. A lot of liberty is a good thing. Ever hear of too much of a good thing. That's where pragmatism comes into play.


I'm curious as to how this fictitious utopia looks like in your head. Please tell us what it looks like to you.

This highlights the problem with arguing in rhetoric.
Pure liberty, anarchy, pragmatism, utopias,etc... It's like trying to play darts with marshmallows. The point is lost.

countrygun
07-01-2012, 12:42
Your ignorance starts with the fact that you don't even know what liberty is. Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate.

What you encourage is a goverment that has a right the people don't have. The right to initiate force. If government is a body that people entrust with certian rights to help enhance their liberty, how can government be given a right the people don't possess.

Core here is you believe that is OK. Thinking you have a right to rule others or that a group has a right to rule others is core ignorance.


A rather juvenile first statement and it goes downhill from there.

" Liberty is not going without services, liberty is being free to participate as you choose and not having a goverment initiate force to have you participate. "


You do not even have the common sense to realize how asinine that sentence is. Go out and play with the other children and leave the adults alone to talk.

countrygun
07-01-2012, 12:52
. I've never met a Ron Paul supporter who wants anarchy or anything close.

See the quote from jlavallee in the post above.

How much closer do you want to get?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 12:54
This highlights the problem with arguing in rhetoric.
Pure liberty, anarchy, pragmatism, utopias,etc... It's like trying to play darts with marshmallows. The point is lost.

Possibly, but further discussion tends to clear things up. He started from a far off point, and now his position is better defined as group of platitudes that he doesn't fully understand.

He popped back up today, after a six month absence, either to troll a little, or because there has been a lot of bad news coming out of the Paul Camp in the last few days. It's depressing reading some of those threads.

Harper
07-01-2012, 13:01
See the quote from jlavallee in the post above.

How much closer do you want to get?

I believe if he responds, he will clarify that he isn't promoting anarchy. I think the 'pure liberty' talk has led to some miscommunication.

fortyofforty
07-01-2012, 13:07
I believe if he responds, he will clarify that he isn't promoting anarchy. I think the 'pure liberty' talk has led to some miscommunication.

Well, move over and let him use the keyboard and respond then. :rofl:

Harper
07-01-2012, 13:07
Possibly, but further discussion tends to clear things up.

Agreed. Clarification of meaning is always an issue in discussion.

Chronos
07-01-2012, 13:08
Pure liberty is anarchy. Only with anarchy, are you truly free to do anything you want.

Pure liberty is bad. A lot of liberty is a good thing. Ever hear of too much of a good thing. That's where pragmatism comes into play.


I'm curious as to how this fictitious utopia looks like in your head. Please tell us what it looks like to you.

So, this post illustrates a basic problem -- people conflate "anarchy" (no government) with "no rules." There are plenty of rules on private property -- exactly as many as the owners finds to optimize business.

People have been taking orders from arbitrary rulers like Obama and Pelosi for so long, they really can't imagine what a rational system of rules would look like.

And if you're making caged references to Somalia, you're talking about the end-result of an activist state that collapses under its own weight -- not an embrace of principle. If a meteor randomly hits the Vatican, South America doesn't immediately become a continent of atheists.

Before anyone gets started on the relationship of this to RP, I'm not exactly a RP supporter, though I think he's light-years better than Obamney.

Chronos
07-01-2012, 13:11
I believe if he responds, he will clarify that he isn't promoting anarchy. I think the 'pure liberty' talk has led to some miscommunication.

To clarify, I am promoting anarchy, but not Ron Paul. I don't know about the other guy.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 13:11
Possibly, but further discussion tends to clear things up. He started from a far off point, and now his position is better defined as group of platitudes that he doesn't fully understand.

He popped back up today, after a six month absence, either to troll a little, or because there has been a lot of bad news coming out of the Paul Camp in the last few days. It's depressing reading some of those threads.

I had some down time at a hotel and figured I see if the same few enlightened ones are spewing their wisdom at GT.

If you don't know the difference between being free to live your life as you choose without infringing on others and total anarchy where you can do whatever you want, I feel really sorry for you.

Seems many here are afraid of freedom.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:12
So, this post illustrates a basic problem -- people conflate "anarchy" (no government) with "no rules." There are plenty of rules on private property -- exactly as many as the owners finds to optimize business.

People have been taking orders from arbitrary rulers like Obama and Pelosi for so long, they really can't imagine what a rational system of rules would look like.

And if you're making caged references to Somalia, you're talking about the end-result of an activist state that collapses under its own weight -- not an embrace of principle. If a meteor randomly hits the Vatican, South America doesn't immediately become a continent of atheists.

Before anyone gets started on the relationship of this to RP, I'm not exactly a RP supporter, though I think he's light-years better than Obamney.

The problem is that a lot of humans, maybe even most are not honest and honorable people. No government, leads to no rules rather quickly.

If given a chance, I'd cut the size of our government significantly, enough to pay off our debt and actually save some money.

Oh well..... :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:15
I had some down time at a hotel and figured I see if the same few enlightened ones are spewing their wisdom at GT.

If you don't know the difference between being free to live your life as you choose without infringing on others and total anarchy where you can do whatever you want, I feel really sorry for you.

Seems many here are afraid of freedom.

So, then it's trolling then. Have you ever had a conversation here where you didn't feel compelled to be a nasty arse?

We could try to get back on track. I told you earlier that you might be surprised at what we agree on.

Today, what is the government stopping you and I from doing that you wanted to do?

Is there anything else the government should not get involved in that they are involved in?

countrygun
07-01-2012, 13:22
I believe if he responds, he will clarify that he isn't promoting anarchy. I think the 'pure liberty' talk has led to some miscommunication.


Well I am just trying to see how a system where in services are provided, but no one is compelled to participate by supporting the services THEY don't like, can lead to anything but "Anarchy"? But that is by my definition, since you have your own maybe I should just call the results "A Big Frigging Mess".

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 13:24
Wow, it is not about not having government or no rules. What it is about is a government that gets it's rights from the people can't have rights the people don't.

Protection from force, coercion, fraud, enforcement of contracts are all rights we have. Your assertion that government has some special rights to initiate force not to protect the rights of people but to enforce public social desires is the issue.

I am fine with LIMITED government as the Constitution dictates. Personally, I'd rather that the public couldn't take private property at all but as long as we actually kept to just compensation, I can stomach it.

What I don't want is folks who want their degree of government. It is either limited or it is not.

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 13:28
The problem is that a lot of humans, maybe even most are not honest and honorable people. No government, leads to no rules rather quickly.

If given a chance, I'd cut the size of our government significantly, enough to pay off our debt and actually save some money.

Oh well..... :dunno:

Hows that worse then giving those same humans a monopoly on the use of force? Seems like governments attracts psychopaths.



Of course no state is not really a good option in a world of governments.

But don't see how "humans are liars and cheats" makes for a good argument for the state.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 13:29
So, then it's trolling then. Have you ever had a conversation here where you didn't feel compelled to be a nasty arse?

We could try to get back on track. I told you earlier that you might be surprised at what we agree on.

Today, what is the government stopping you and I from doing that you wanted to do?

Is there anything else the government should not get involved in that they are involved in?

No, when someone feels they have the right to tell me how to live my life and I've done them no harm, I take that personal.

Article 1, Section 8. If it isn't there, the federal government has no business doing it. There is an amendment process if you feel it is a must.

I pay useless business taxes that contribute nothing. I deal with useless business regulations that add no value. I pay taxes and have every aspect of my life regulated against my will. Name something the government doesn't regulate in some manner.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:31
Hows that better then giving those same humans a monopoly on the use of force? Seems like government attracts psychopaths.

If the government had a monopoly on violence, that would be a bad thing. That's not the case.

My point is that there needs to be a balance. The proper place on any issue in between anarchy and totalitarianism, is a point that is a lot closer to anarchy, but not quite there. Minimal government is probably the best way to go. We haven't had that in over 60 years.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:35
No, when someone feels they have the right to tell me how to live my life and I've done them no harm, I take that personal.

Article 1, Section 8. If it isn't there, the federal government has no business doing it. There is an amendment process if you feel it is a must.

I pay useless business taxes that contribute nothing. I deal with useless business regulations that add no value. I pay taxes and have every aspect of my life regulated against my will. Name something the government doesn't regulate in some manner.

You pay the tax, and the money you pay isn't used? Now that would be surprising. How is every aspect of your life being regulated? Can you type a bad word right now on your computer? How about google "Hot Gay Men"? Can you go to a restaurant and order anything you choose that is on the menu? Do you have your gun with you at the hotel? Got ammo?

What would you like to do right now that you cannot do because the Government is stopping you?

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 13:35
So if government is so awesome. How come taxes aren't voluntary? People should be scrambling over each-other to pay to have more government.

The free-rider argument doesn't really hold any water, there are plenty of free-riders now that draw government services.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:38
So if government is so awesome. How come taxes aren't voluntary? People should be scrambling over each-other to pay to have more government.

The free-rider argument doesn't really hold any water, there are plenty of free-riders now that draw government services.

The free rider argument is not really as much an argument as an observation about human behavior. Be honest, if they were voluntary, how much would you have paid into the system last year.

Less government than we have now would be better, but how to get there? That's the trick.

Chronos
07-01-2012, 13:38
What would you like to do right now that you cannot do because the Government is stopping you?



Have children that aren't born into immediate debt slavery for previous decades of vote buying, just for one.

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 13:39
If the government had a monopoly on violence, that would be a bad thing. That's not the case.

My point is that there needs to be a balance. The proper place on any issue in between anarchy and totalitarianism, is a point that is a lot closer to anarchy, but not quite there. Minimal government is probably the best way to go. We haven't had that in over 60 years.

I disagree, it surely does.



That I agree with 100%. :wavey:

countrygun
07-01-2012, 13:40
I had some down time at a hotel and figured I see if the same few enlightened ones are spewing their wisdom at GT.

If you don't know the difference between being free to live your life as you choose without infringing on others and total anarchy where you can do whatever you want, I feel really sorry for you.

Seems many here are afraid of freedom.

There have to be lines between exercising your rights and infringing on others. It usually entails curbing you rights, life is rough, get a helmet.

A good example.

I am a big fan of RKBA and I moved way out in the country so I could have my own little range. When I lived in town those silly fascists actually had a regulation that prevented me from legally being able to sight in my 30-06 in my back yard, no matter how good my backstop was constructed. The silly doddering SOBs on the city Council felt that while I might be able to build a safe backstop, they couldn't count on others to be as careful and they were afraid another person might end up being maximally deprived of their rights, in proving their point , by getting killed.

In general, they feel that unneccessarily firing a gun in City limits does infringe on your neighbors rights. (there are exemptions for animal nuisances and SD). A society has many such restrictions and for good reasons.

It seems as though a lot of people have a personal ox that has been gored in some way by societies rules so they want the whole society restructured to accomodate them and their ox.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:43
Have children that aren't born into immediate debt slavery for previous decades of vote buying, just for one.

You have a passport, right?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:45
I disagree, it surely does.



That I agree with 100%. :wavey:

Any idea how many people getting paychecks from the Government have been killed by citizens in the last 30 years?

Chronos
07-01-2012, 13:46
Less government than we have now would be better, but how to get there? That's the trick.

For a lasting change, it has to start with philosophy, as it did during the enlightenment -- it is impossible to force someone to respect liberty.

When the government is forced smaller by economic realities, it won't exactly convert the government into liberty lovers. But fewer resources will be better in any case, I suppose.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 13:47
You pay the tax, and the money you pay isn't used? Now that would be surprising. How is every aspect of your life being regulated? Can you type a bad word right now on your computer? How about google "Hot Gay Men"? Can you go to a restaurant and order anything you choose that is on the menu? Do you have your gun with you at the hotel? Got ammo?

What would you like to do right now that you cannot do because the Government is stopping you?



I would like to spend my productivity as I see fit.

My carry permit is not recognized in this state so no, I am not armed.

When I type in my computer, the internet connection company has been regulated and taxed as has the hotel so the cost of my stay is increased and my profit reduced.

When go to bed, I am paying for a room that had to meet federal regulations, a bed that has a tag "do not remove under penalty of law" and the milk I drink in the morning has to be pasturized. None of these things did I ask for the government to become involved in. None of those costs can I opt out of. I am forced to work more to pay for total BS that ought to be a free market function. Instead, some lobby group is paying money to grease a Congressman on the necessary regulations for mattress manufacture so they can ensure costs and rules are prohibitive for competition.

Chronos
07-01-2012, 13:51
You have a passport, right?

Is this truly your Universal Answer? No matter what the government does it's not really a freedom issue to you because you have a passport?

Keep in mind, also, that Democrats are trying to allow the IRS to take your passport if they claim (no proof necessary) you owe them money -- and Obamacare enforcement is exactly an IRS claim on your money.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:55
Is this truly your Universal Answer? No matter what the government does it's not really a freedom issue to you because you have a passport?

Keep in mind, also, that Democrats are trying to allow the IRS to take your passport if they claim (no proof necessary) you owe them money -- and Obamacare enforcement is exactly an IRS claim on your money.

No, but it is an answer to the problem. You have the freedom to move to a country with less debt.

It's not even a good solution. But without control of the system, it is a way that can have your kids without the burden of the national debt, if you can find a country without that as an issue.

Not everyone in the world can move around as freely as we can.

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 13:59
Any idea how many people getting paychecks from the Government have been killed by citizens in the last 30 years?

Nope.

Is it more than this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:14
I would like to spend my productivity as I see fit.

My carry permit is not recognized in this state so no, I am not armed.

When I type in my computer, the internet connection company has been regulated and taxed as has the hotel so the cost of my stay is increased and my profit reduced.

When go to bed, I am paying for a room that had to meet federal regulations, a bed that has a tag "do not remove under penalty of law" and the milk I drink in the morning has to be pasturized. None of these things did I ask for the government to become involved in. None of those costs can I opt out of. I am forced to work more to pay for total BS that ought to be a free market function. Instead, some lobby group is paying money to grease a Congressman on the necessary regulations for mattress manufacture so they can ensure costs and rules are prohibitive for competition.

Well, we would all like to keep all of our money. Human nature again.

Now, I am ticked off with you about the carry permit thing. That's why I leave Texas as infrequently as possible.

You could buy your own cow. Then you could have all the unpasteurized milk you wanted. I think you should be able to buy it too. We used to make our own butter that way when I was a kid.

You can remove that tag once you purchase the mattress. It's perfectly legal.

Can you pay for a lobbyist to lobby for less rules.


You have a few real concerns, and a couple that are imaginary prison bars. We live in one of the most free countries in the world. None of us gets to make all of the rules. It is what it is.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:15
Nope.

Is it more than this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

so then, not exactly a monopoly, especially considering the potential we have.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 14:22
Well, we would all like to keep all of our money. Human nature again.

Now, I am ticked off with you about the carry permit thing. That's why I leave Texas as infrequently as possible.

You could buy your own cow. Then you could have all the unpasteurized milk you wanted. I think you should be able to buy it too. We used to make our own butter that way when I was a kid.

You can remove that tag once you purchase the mattress. It's perfectly legal.

Can you pay for a lobbyist to lobby for less rules.


You have a few real concerns, and a couple that are imaginary prison bars. We live in one of the most free countries in the world. None of us gets to make all of the rules. It is what it is.

I actually have multiple carry permits and to be honest, we shouldn't even need them to exercise a right.

Once I remove the tag, I still paid for the BS that put it there.

No, I shouldn't have to farm to obtain fresh milk. And under the commerce clause we have allowed the feds to regulate farmed products that are not even sold.

We can go on and on but the requirement is not on me to get around these things or the limitless others but the requirement is on the government to actually do the things we've permitted it to do in the Constitution and answer for the things it does without consent.

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 14:35
so then, not exactly a monopoly, especially considering the potential we have.

You are stretching to make your argument.

The government does have a monopoly on the use of force. Can I walk up to my neighbor with a gun, and demand money from them? Nope. I can though if I work for the state and wear a uniform. And guess what, I can throw you in a cage, resist, I can kill you. With lots of back up.

Due process is your only hope. Unless you want to die. So I would call that a monopoly. It is what it is.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:38
You are stretching to make your argument.

The government does have a monopoly on the use of force. Can I walk up to my neighbor with a gun, and demand money from them? Nope. I can though if I work for the state and wear a uniform. And guess what, I can throw you in a cage, resist, I can kill you. With lots of back up.

Due process is your only hope. Unless you want to die. So I would call that a monopoly. It is what it is.

Well, the people have a right to have the implements of violence. You could mug your neighbor at gunpoint, and he you. You can do what you want, but there are consequences.

Many have argued that when/if we are disarmed, then it will get worse. I tend to agree with that.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:45
I actually have multiple carry permits and to be honest, we shouldn't even need them to exercise a right.

Once I remove the tag, I still paid for the BS that put it there.

No, I shouldn't have to farm to obtain fresh milk. And under the commerce clause we have allowed the feds to regulate farmed products that are not even sold.

We can go on and on but the requirement is not on me to get around these things or the limitless others but the requirement is on the government to actually do the things we've permitted it to do in the Constitution and answer for the things it does without consent.

I tend to like the idea of my carry license working a lot like my drivers license. Now, I still have to follow the laws of that state when I drive there, but I can drive there. I do tend to think that people need to know the laws for when it is legal to use a gun before they carry one. I've run into a lot of ignorance on that particular issue. There are even a few prominent recent cases you weren't here to see on some of them.

I find it difficult to agree that you shouldn't have to make the things you want if you cannot get it another way. You have that right, and if you want to exercise it, you may have to do it yourself. That's what individualism is all about.



You might want to research that mattress tag law. It was to reign in the practices of unscrupulous mattress makers.


Like I've said before, we live in one of the most free countries in history. It used to be better in some ways, and worse in others in the past. But you have the ultimate freedom to move to where it is more free. If more people did that, maybe things would change. Therefore, you share some responsibility for the status quo.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 14:52
If I want it the only option is not to make it, I ought to have the option to buy or trade from someone else without government regulating who I conduct business with. I don't have any right to force someone else to produce it but strangely, the free market seems to provide when government gets out of the way.

Being forced to move because our government decided to do things they are not permitted to do under the constitution. To some degree that was the intent of the states but federal overreach has negated much of the value of state to state movement.

Your argument works the other way, I would suggest that if you wish to have the federal goverment do things not permitted in the Constitution, you may want to leave and go to a different nation.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 14:54
You might want to research that mattress tag law. It was to reign in the practices of unscrupulous mattress makers.


That is the job of the marketplace, not the federal government. If you want a certification, the manufacturers will establish one that you can choose to buy certified by or not.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:57
If I want it the only option is not to make it, I ought to have the option to buy or trade from someone else without government regulating who I conduct business with.

Being forced to move because our government decided to do things they are not permitted to do under the constitution. To some degree that was the intent of the states but federal overreach has negated much of the value of state to state movement.

Your argument works the other way, I would suggest that if you wish to have the federal goverment do things not permitted in the Constitution, you may want to leave and go to a different nation.

Look around. We are where we are. I live where I live because I choose to. It's not perfect. But it is good enough. I do not have the power to force you to leave or stay, but you have that power, so do I. If it is unacceptable for you, you can change it, go elsewhere, or live with your irritation.

All choices you can make. I would like to be able to buy a suppressor without the extra red tape and expense. But that just isn't going to happen. But it's not enough of an irritant to move.

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 15:00
Well, the people have a right to have the implements of violence. You could mug your neighbor at gunpoint, and he you. You can do what you want, but there are consequences.

Many have argued that when/if we are disarmed, then it will get worse. I tend to agree with that.

It's not the same. Your neighbor has no legal right to your labor. Try telling that to the IRS.

I agree. Don't have the same toys to play with compared to the government. I'd still consider an armed populace as one kind of check and balance though.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 15:02
That is the job of the marketplace, not the federal government. If you want a certification, the manufacturers will establish one that you can choose to buy certified by or not.

Says you.

Some guys over 100 years ago, thought differently.

Not the way I would have done it, but it is what it is without any input from us. Not enough of us want to change it right now to make it happen. In the big picture, that is a rather tiny issue to lose sleep over.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 15:04
It's not the same. Your neighbor has no legal right to your labor. Try telling that to the IRS.

I agree. Don't have the same toys to play with compared to the government. I'd still consider an armed populace as one kind of check and balance though.

He has no individual right to your labor. In effect, whether we agree or not, it looks like society does. This is justified by the benefits, whether requested, used or not that are available to you from society.

Oh well.

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 15:11
He has no individual right to your labor. In effect, whether we agree or not, it looks like society does. This is justified by the benefits, whether requested, used or not that are available to you from society.

Oh well.

What you call society is what we call the mob. We're not a democracy. This notion that because a majority exists they have the right to force their views on the minority is exactly why we have the problems we have. That is what those with liberty as their priority are standing up to stop. That way the rights you care about are protected as are those you aren't concerned with.

G19G20
07-01-2012, 15:13
You haven't been watching the Ron Paul Forums "Number of people online" lately have you.:crying::crying:

That's what most would call a negative growth, or shrinkage. The Paul movement has stepped out of a very cold pool. Lots of shrinkage.

That's retarded. GT's site stats look similar. You're really comparing the max visitors to any random moment of your choosing as a metric? By that measure, GT is also "shrinking" as would be pretty much any other forum on the internet. Lame. Btw, according to your own metric, that Paul forum has had nearly 10,000 visitors in the last 24 hours alone. Most do not log in on Paul related sites, just read as guests. Aren't you that "Veteran Something-or-Other" handle over there that coastie whooped up on?

People can try to "kick out" the Paulites all they want. We're taking over the party from the inside so good luck with that plan.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 15:22
That's retarded. GT's site stats look similar. You're really comparing the max visitors to any random moment of your choosing as a metric? By that measure, GT is also "shrinking" as would be pretty much any other forum on the internet. Lame.

People can try to "kick out" the Paulites all they want. We're taking over the party from the inside so good luck with that plan.

Not with numbers like that you're not taking over. It would be interesting to see you try though. What's the plan at the convention, now that Paul has asked you to behave? Kind of a shocker that Ron Paul won't be at the Ron Paul Festival, and is setting up another event at another venue, separate from the Festival that his supporters organized.
Any chance you signed up with the "Lawyers for Ron Paul". Evidently there is some speculation that they gave their list of names to the RNC. :whistling:

I have gone on record saying we should not kick out the paulites. Bumping Trojan Horse delegates off the convention floor if there is a good indication they will violate their pledges is OK with me though. That's why we have alternates. :supergrin:

BTW, GT has 3.6 times the number of people online right now than that other site. Looks like Glock owners would be more likely to take over...... :yawn:

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 15:24
What you call society is what we call the mob. We're not a democracy. This notion that because a majority exists they have the right to force their views on the minority is exactly why we have the problems we have. That is what those with liberty as their priority are standing up to stop. That way the rights you care about are protected as are those you aren't concerned with.

I've met mobsters. Society as a whole is different.


What are you doing to "stand up" for liberty, personally?

jlavallee
07-01-2012, 15:40
I've met mobsters. Society as a whole is different.

What are you doing to "stand up" for liberty, personally?

No, you only think they're different. Neither has the right to infringe on the liberty of others and thier God given/natural rights.

Your attack is what? I have to do something to deserve my God given/natural rights? We have our rights as a result of our humanity and not because we earn them. All we need do is respect the rights of others.

G19G20
07-01-2012, 15:45
Not with numbers like that you're not taking over.

You still don't understand how the movement operates. The numbers you're referring to aren't average voters, but rather activists. I'd put up Paul forum members against GT forums members in the activism department any day of the week. This place is nothing but rank-and-file "press the button once every four year" types. That Paul forum has people running for CONGRESS on it.


It would be interesting to see you try though. What's the plan at the convention, now that Paul has asked you to behave?

Same plan as has been in effect the entire time. Paul didn't ask anyone to "behave". He asked supporters to be respectful, not fall in line behind Romney. Big difference. We've always been respectful at conventions. It's the establishment that lies, cheats, steals, assaults, and breaks their own rules whenever politically expedient.


Kind of a shocker that Ron Paul won't be at the Ron Paul Festival, and is setting up another event at another venue, separate from the Festival that his supporters organized.

Not really. The official campaign put on the big rally in 2008 too. But food for thought here, how many Romney supporters are busy planning "RomneyFestivals" to the point where Mitt has to decide which huge rally in his honor he will attend? LOL. NONE


Any chance you signed up with the "Lawyers for Ron Paul". Evidently there is some speculation that they gave their list of names to the RNC. :whistling:

Speculation is worth what you paid for it.


I have gone on record saying we should not kick out the paulites. Bumping Trojan Horse delegates off the convention floor if there is a good indication they will violate their pledges is OK with me though. That's why we have alternates. :supergrin:

Supporting more cheating eh Cav? Shocker.


BTW, GT has 3.6 times the number of people online right now than that other site. Looks like Glock owners would be more likely to take over...... :yawn:

Wow a sunday evening and the old folks are on the internet while the younger generation is out doing something.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 16:00
No, you only think they're different. Neither has the right to infringe on the liberty of others and thier God given/natural rights.

Your attack is what? I have to do something to deserve my God given/natural rights? We have our rights as a result of our humanity and not because we earn them. All we need do is respect the rights of others.

I found them to be quite different in their techniques.


Attack, what attack. You said you were standing up for liberty, and I asked what you meant by standing up. Try not to read too much into the question.

So, what have you done in your stand for liberty?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 16:04
You still don't understand how the movement operates. The numbers you're referring to aren't average voters, but rather activists. I'd put up Paul forum members against GT forums members in the activism department any day of the week. This place is nothing but rank-and-file "press the button once every four year" types. That Paul forum has people running for CONGRESS on it.



Same plan as has been in effect the entire time. Paul didn't ask anyone to "behave". He asked supporters to be respectful, not fall in line behind Romney. Big difference. We've always been respectful at conventions. It's the establishment that lies, cheats, steals, assaults, and breaks their own rules whenever politically expedient.



Not really. The official campaign put on the big rally in 2008 too. But food for thought here, how many Romney supporters are busy planning "RomneyFestivals" to the point where Mitt has to decide which huge rally in his honor he will attend? LOL. NONE



Speculation is worth what you paid for it.



Supporting more cheating eh Cav? Shocker.



Wow a sunday evening and the old folks are on the internet while the younger generation is out doing something.

Catching cheaters is not cheating. The delegates made a pledge to carry the votes of the citizens of their states to the convention, and vote up to three times on their behalf, as they have promised. I'm sure your state rules allow for anyone that has stated their intention to violate their pledge, to be removed.

This is totally off subject, but at what age to you consider someone "old"?

JBnTX
07-01-2012, 16:04
People can try to "kick out" the Paulites all they want. We're taking over the party from the inside so good luck with that plan.


Ron Paul supporters are not taking over anything in the republican party.

Ron Paul ran a totally ineffective campaign that accomplished nothing.

No doubt a few of you will make asses out of yourselves during the convention but that's about it.

Go away and leave the republican party alone.

The American voter has rejected Ron Paul.
He finally got the hint, and maybe you should too.

countrygun
07-01-2012, 16:39
We're taking over the party from the inside so good luck with that plan.


:rofl::rofl:


There we go with the "Delusions of relevance" again:upeyes:

The ant is climbing the elephant's leg to give it another try.

The sad part is, that there are many RATIONAL people trying to change the tenor of the Republican party, basically from within. Ron Paul HAD a good chance but blew it. Now the the loose lug nuts on the last remaining wheel of his wagon are making "take over the Republican party" noises???

Sounds like the threat of someone losing the campaign for Student Body President, more than a viable national political strategy.

beforeobamabans
07-01-2012, 18:56
Go away and leave the republican party alone.

What happened to your 'Republican Big Tent'?

You're going to need all hands on deck to defeat Obama. Your continuing insults to Ron Paul supporters are counter productive to your stated goals. Not very smart.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 19:15
What happened to your 'Republican Big Tent'?

You're going to need all hands on deck to defeat Obama. Your continuing insults to Ron Paul supporters are counter productive to your stated goals. Not very smart.
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/trojan.jpg


Lets see how the convention goes.....

:whistling:

ChuteTheMall
07-01-2012, 19:19
No doubt a few of you will make asses out of yourselves during the convention but that's about it.



If that happens, should rational people ever take them seriously?

:tinfoil:

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 19:26
If that happens, should rational people ever take them seriously?

:tinfoil:

In a generation or two, sure.

G19G20
07-01-2012, 19:31
Ron Paul supporters are not taking over anything in the republican party.

Ron Paul ran a totally ineffective campaign that accomplished nothing.

No doubt a few of you will make asses out of yourselves during the convention but that's about it.

Go away and leave the republican party alone.

The American voter has rejected Ron Paul.
He finally got the hint, and maybe you should too.

So ineffective that every Paul related thread on this forum ends up with at least a thousand views and pages of posts while your latest threads barely gets three replies before they're off the front page, buried by the latest Paul thread. I love the bouncing back and forth between how irrelevent Paul's campaign is and how we have the clout to decide who the President is.

In a generation or two, sure.

There's still time to brainwash the new blood, right? If things continue as is, in a generation or two, this place won't even resemble "America" anymore.

rgregoryb
07-01-2012, 19:36
We could vote like Rand Paul will, hmmmm whats up with dat?

countrygun
07-01-2012, 19:38
What happened to your 'Republican Big Tent'?

You're going to need all hands on deck to defeat Obama. Your continuing insults to Ron Paul supporters are counter productive to your stated goals. Not very smart.

The ones around here have all said that they won't vote for Romney no matter what, so they are of little value, just noisy and annoying, like a slinky going down a set of steel stairs, still amusing but a tad annoying.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 19:39
There's still time to brainwash the new blood, right? If things continue as is, in a generation or two, this place won't even resemble "America" anymore.

You are young and inexperienced enough to not understand how much farther we could potentially fall, and how long that will take before your utopian reset will occur.

I think it is possible to turn this country around, even without Paul, and in time. I'm not too hopeful that turn will begin any time soon though.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 19:40
We could vote like Rand Paul will, hmmmm whats up with dat?



Better yet.......



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


You heard it here first. ......

countrygun
07-01-2012, 20:01
So ineffective that every Paul related thread on this forum ends up with at least a thousand views and pages of posts while your latest threads barely gets three replies before they're off the front page, buried by the latest Paul thread. I love the bouncing back and forth between how irrelevent Paul's campaign is and how we have the clout to decide who the President is.



There's still time to brainwash the new blood, right? If things continue as is, in a generation or two, this place won't even resemble "America" anymore.



You have both comprehension and temporal anomolies going on in your attic, along with the delusions. I appreciate what to you must seem like an effort to accomplish something but really, your hamster is dead, the wheel ain't turning.


Ron Paul HAD the chance to effect Republican POLICY.

He blew most of it by by not using it as a negotiating chip with some ELSE, WHO COULD WIN. Now his remaining fanboys are DISCREDITING the whole idea of a third party, for at least a lifetime, making a change.

If Obama is reelected most of responsible America (the folks paying the bills for Obama's decisions) will want some one to blame, that is going to fall squarely on the Paulites and, by extension, the libertarians and they will not have any credibility for eons.

I took the liberty of highlighting some words you need to look up.

GAFinch
07-02-2012, 10:41
Ugh, the blogger chastises the GOP for kicking out potential voters, then goes on to parrot the Paulite argument of how voting for Obama would be better than voting for Romney. Idiot.

Also, if Paulites are "conservative," why do they keep bashing Mormonism (magic underwear) like MSNBC does? Real conservatives care more about common morals than about common theology.

Harper
07-02-2012, 11:17
Also, if Paulites are "conservative," why do they keep bashing Mormonism (magic underwear) like MSNBC does? Real conservatives care more about common morals than about common theology.

So would any true Scotsman.