goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 31, 2011, 02:37:35 PM
-
"Republican" Ron Paul is so desperate for a win in Iowa that he's inviting Dems to switch parties "for a day (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ron-paul-democrats-20111231,0,843950.story)" to vote for him in the caucuses. Sad, but not really a surprise. Paul is, by far, the candidate most likely to appeal to the morons, given his anything-goes stance on social issues and head-in-the-sand foreign policy. I doubt they'll like his views on the size of government, though.
-
Hope he wins
-
Hope he wins
-
A Paul victory is irrelevant politically, unless it encourages him to run as a third party candidate. This is why liberals who will ultimately vote for Obama are egging him on. A Paul victory would also further marginalize the Iowa Caucuses.
As long as Romney beats all the Republican candidates, it's smooth sailing for the nomination. The Des Moines Register's final poll, which has been pretty accurate in years past, will be released at 7 tonight, and maybe leaked a bit earlier.
-
Hope he wins
-
I hope he loses.
-
Romney 24, Paul 22, Santorum 15 in final DMR poll. If Romney beats the next closest Republican by 10 points, its a de facto win regardless of how Paul does.
-
:lol:
-
Love how just mentioning Paul sends repubs and demos over the edge.
HOW DARE A MAN HAVE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINTS, HE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO ONLY ONE SIDE AND ALL HIS VIEWS MUST FALL IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY'S
-
Love how just mentioning Paul sends repubs and demos over the edge.
HOW DARE A MAN HAVE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINTS, HE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO ONLY ONE SIDE AND ALL HIS VIEWS MUST FALL IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY'S
Paul is an interesting case because he's an extremist in all of his views, liberal and conservative. I like him, and hope he does well, but it's easy to see why a lot of people don't like him.
-
Love how just mentioning Paul sends repubs and demos over the edge.
HOW DARE A MAN HAVE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINTS, HE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO ONLY ONE SIDE AND ALL HIS VIEWS MUST FALL IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY'S
Generally speaking, the only thing about Paul that sends the GOP "over the edge" is the prospect of a 3rd party campaign. Personally, I'm not angry at Paul or his supporters - I just think they're f'ing Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). The Gold Standard? False equivalencies between Iran and Israel with respect to nuclear arms? The man is a kook. His supporters are kooks.
-
Love how just mentioning Paul sends repubs and demos over the edge.
HOW DARE A MAN HAVE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINTS, HE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO ONLY ONE SIDE AND ALL HIS VIEWS MUST FALL IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY'S
Generally speaking, the only thing about Paul that sends the GOP "over the edge" is the prospect of a 3rd party campaign. Personally, I'm not angry at Paul or his supporters - I just think they're f'ing Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). The Gold Standard? False equivalencies between Iran and Israel with respect to nuclear arms? The man is a kook. His supporters are kooks.
Yes! Name-calling. :jerk: Paul doesn't want to go back to the Gold Standard. Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 60 years. Isn't Israel a sovereign nation? I think they can take care of themselves.
Netinyahu agrees with me btw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-KA-Nc3_k
:ck:
-
Love how just mentioning Paul sends repubs and demos over the edge.
HOW DARE A MAN HAVE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINTS, HE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO ONLY ONE SIDE AND ALL HIS VIEWS MUST FALL IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE PARTY'S
Generally speaking, the only thing about Paul that sends the GOP "over the edge" is the prospect of a 3rd party campaign. Personally, I'm not angry at Paul or his supporters - I just think they're f'ing Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). The Gold Standard? False equivalencies between Iran and Israel with respect to nuclear arms? The man is a kook. His supporters are kooks.
Generally speaking, you sound just like everyone else that doesn't support Paul. You are undereducated on his views. He's a really smart dude and he knows what's up. The Gold Standard is obviously a thing of the past, but unlike literally everyone else- he understands how important it is to keep wealth in something that's actually valuable. Look at the success of his own stock portfolio for instance. As for Israel- If you continue to live in your parent's basement forever, you won't even know how to make your own stinking peanut butter and jelly sandwiches when they go out of town for their anniversary and you will probably starve and die. While I agree that he may be mistaken on the advances of Iran's nuclear technologies, he is right in saying that there is no imminent threat. His ideas may not be mainstream, but America needs something new, kids. And I resent being called a kook... rude.
-
Wow. I really sent the Paul-tards over the edge. Kook.
-
I think Santorum will win now. :blindfold:
-
Sounds like Perry will drop out (I'm a bit surprised by this), as will Bachman. So now it's down to Romney or Santorum/Gingrich. That's good news for Romney, unless all the non-Romney conservatives quickly pick between Santorum and Gingrich. Even then, Paul will still be siphoning votes away from them, which again helps Romney.
By the way, it could take another hour or so for these final precincts to trickle in, but it's looking like Romney will eke this out (not that it really matters).
-
Santorum and Gingrich will both flame out soon. Santorum is too bible beating nutty and Gingrich is your stereotypical fat, white GOP elitist that everyone is scared of nowadays. It will be Romney vs Paul down the stretch and it'll be interesting to see if people can see how bland and vanilla Romney is. Paul has a shot, don't let the robots fool you. He's the only real shot at beating Obama. The other 3 lose comfortably to him.
-
Maybe you're right, maybe Ron Paul is a kook....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM
-
Paul has a shot, don't let the robots fool you. He's the only real shot at beating Obama. The other 3 lose comfortably to him.
I don't know about robots, but the polls seem to disagree with you (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html). The only reason Paul is currently even within single digits of Obama is that most Americans haven't yet seen the videos of him blaming America for 9/11.
Like Jim Jones, Paul has a small, fervent base, but no broader appeal. But keep on drinking that kooky kool-aid, Paul-tard.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcraphound.com%2Fimages%2Fvenn-of-paul.jpg&hash=cec8a8e45b7c67a95f98c0a002167a671717952e)
-
I have to assume there are about 2 people total who vote based on pro/anti NAFTA position of the candidate.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcraphound.com%2Fimages%2Fvenn-of-paul.jpg&hash=cec8a8e45b7c67a95f98c0a002167a671717952e)
Things like this always crack me up. You can always tell the political persuasion of the author.
Anti-immigration should be pro-legal immigration or pro-border security.
The Patriot act was renewed and strengthened by Obama.
Nobody is pro-war. That's just stupid.
-
Calling someone pro-war is the same thing as calling an anti-abortion person pro-murder. It's funny
-
You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?
-
gary johnson is more coherent and less Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) than paul. paulites should support him and have a chance to make a wave or two in the general election.
-
Maybe you're right, maybe Ron Paul is a kook....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM
Thanks Abe... bump
-
You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?
Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11? Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.
-
You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?
Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11? Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.
Here you go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg). You can parse his words however you want, but he clearly believes that America's interventionist policies invited 9/11. Now, you can agree or disagree with Paul on this point - I'm not interested in arguing that - but it is indisputable that these sort of sentiments make Paul completely, 100%, without question, unelectable. It will never happen.
-
why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???
-
why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???
morons equate that to him saying "uncle sam flew the planes into the towers." As evidenced by this thread.
-
why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???
He can't win the GOP nomination because of the above, he can't win the Democratic nomication due to his views on the size and role of government, and he has disavowed any notion of running as a third-party candidate. :dunno:
-
why would saying that our interventionist actions could have plausibly led to 9-11 make someone unelectable???
morons equate that to him saying "uncle sam flew the planes into the towers." As evidenced by this thread.
As evidenced by what? Nobody in this thread has accused Ron Paul of being a 9/11 Truther. Are you sure you're not confusing Paul with Van Jones?
-
You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?
Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11? Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.
Here you go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg). You can parse his words however you want, but he clearly believes that America's interventionist policies invited 9/11. Now, you can agree or disagree with Paul on this point - I'm not interested in arguing that - but it is indisputable that these sort of sentiments make Paul completely, 100%, without question, unelectable. It will never happen.
Wow, you'd make a great politician, taking a snipit of a debate out of context and all. The only people that put the words into Ron Pauls mouth that America was to blame for 9/11 was the jack ass moderator & Rudy Giuliani. The point he made was 9/11 was a result of careless foreign policy. 10 years of bombing the middle east tends to piss some people off. Don't throw rocks at a bee hive and get pissed off when you're not totally prepared to be stung by a bee. Bottom line, 9/11 happened because of Bush Sr. & Clinton Administrations combined. The people & families of those that died on 9/11are the real victims - so stop acting like our government is also a victim. There's other ways to launch humanitarian efforts and going to war isn't always the best way - so it becomes pretty transparent when the US government ignores conflicts in one country, but runs to wipe out insurgents & dictatorships in countries we buy oil from. Any occupation of force in another country will incite more attacks on our people and our country - and why wouldn't it. As Ron Paul so plainly put it, what would the US do if China forcfully put a military base on US soil?
-
here's something funny - I was looking for a particular video - and it happened to be to the right of the video you linked.
Give this a view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc&feature=related
-
You know, Sarah Palin actually made a pretty good point the other night. Ron Paul may be crazy, but once his pointless, quixotic campaign comes to end, the GOP still needs his idiotic supporters to hold their noses and vote for Romney. It's important that we not alienate these folks. So, I would like to personally apologize if I have offended any Paul-tards on this board. Let's just agree to disagree on whether America is to blame for 9/11, Iran should have nuclear weapons, heroine should be legal, and our legal tender should be gold and silver coins. I think we can all agree that Obama's got to go, am I right?
Exactly how did Ron Paul blame America for 9/11? Honestly... answer that without quoting anyone but Ron Paul.
Here you go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg). You can parse his words however you want, but he clearly believes that America's interventionist policies invited 9/11. Now, you can agree or disagree with Paul on this point - I'm not interested in arguing that - but it is indisputable that these sort of sentiments make Paul completely, 100%, without question, unelectable. It will never happen.
Wow, you'd make a great politician, taking a snipit of a debate out of context and all. The only people that put the words into Ron Pauls mouth that America was to blame for 9/11 was the jack ass moderator & Rudy Giuliani. The point he made was 9/11 was a result of careless foreign policy. 10 years of bombing the middle east tends to piss some people off. Don't throw rocks at a bee hive and get pissed off when you're not totally prepared to be stung by a bee. Bottom line, 9/11 happened because of Bush Sr. & Clinton Administrations combined. The people & families of those that died on 9/11are the real victims - so stop acting like our government is also a victim. There's other ways to launch humanitarian efforts and going to war isn't always the best way - so it becomes pretty transparent when the US government ignores conflicts in one country, but runs to wipe out insurgents & dictatorships in countries we buy oil from. Any occupation of force in another country will incite more attacks on our people and our country - and why wouldn't it. As Ron Paul so plainly put it, what would the US do if China forcfully put a military base on US soil?
In the video I posted, Ron Paul says exactly what you state above, so what was taken out of context? Rather than dash out a 200-word explanation to try to justify Paul's views, I simply stated that Paul "blames America for 9/11" and further explained that he believes "America's interventionist policies invited 9/11." Those are perfectly accurate statements. Again, I'm not interested in debating whether Paul is right - I'll never convince you otherwise - I'm just making the point that because of these views, he is unelectable.
-
You're right. He is unelectable. Because of dumb mother fuckers that ignore a person warning you that hey, If you throw rocks at that bee hive, You'll get stung - then later when they tell you, hep dipshit - it's your fault that you got stung.... I told you that was going to happen. You respond with, why do you hate me? Take that back!
I'm not saying the guy's perfect and I'm certainly not libertarian in every aspect of government - but anyone that says the guy is a kook for illogical reasons makes them look like a dumb ass.
-
Maybe if he were a Democrat he could get the nomination.
-
You're right. He is unelectable. Because of dumb mother fuckers that ignore a person warning you that hey, If you throw rocks at that bee hive, You'll get stung - then later when they tell you, hep dipshit - it's your fault that you got stung.... I told you that was going to happen. You respond with, why do you hate me? Take that back!
I'm not saying the guy's perfect and I'm certainly not libertarian in every aspect of government - but anyone that says the guy is a kook for illogical reasons makes them look like a dumb ass.
Your beehive analogy is overly simplistic, much like Ron Paul's isolationist views. And I'm glad we can agree that he is unelectable.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
-
Catholics???
-
Catholics???
That was 500 years ago. They have evolved.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
Unfortunately, we will probably never know if he is right or not because we don't know how to mind our own business. Correlation may not cause causation, but we have no way to determine.
Also, K-S-U-Wildcats!, I am curious as to why you think Paul's views on 9/11 make him unelectable. You haven't answered that question for me yet. The way you present your argument, you make it sound like RP blaming 'America' means he is blaming the American citizens. He is not blaming you and me, he is blaming the administration's decisions, and explaining differences that could be more effective. That's what you do with the government, you learn form past mistakes. Slap on the wrist to the voters, but we didn't ask them to make the decisions that they made once we elected the leaders. We are not as educated on what the effect of the administration will have on other countries. That's why you and I are not the ones running for president here. Obviously there is a reason that 9/11 was aimed at American Christians as opposed to Australian Christians. Do you think him blaming America hurts people's feelings? Is it even a bad thing to say? We obviously can't do anything about it now but since it happened under our current conditions, isn't it highly possible and reasonable to say that those conditions were to blame? But, If you are the national criteria creator for what does and doesn't make someone electable, then I apologize for questioning your elite status.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
tens of millions that want to kill all non-believers? That sounds made up.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
agree totally. Perhaps our government should stop supplying $$, weapons, & motivation to these people. Until then we can mind our own business and only go to war when congress declares it; not when a president with an agenda goes on a pot stirring campaign.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
Unfortunately, we will probably never know if he is right or not because we don't know how to mind our own business. Correlation may not cause causation, but we have no way to determine.
Also, K-S-U-Wildcats!, I am curious as to why you think Paul's views on 9/11 make him unelectable. You haven't answered that question for me yet. The way you present your argument, you make it sound like RP blaming 'America' means he is blaming the American citizens. He is not blaming you and me, he is blaming the administration's decisions, and explaining differences that could be more effective. That's what you do with the government, you learn form past mistakes. Slap on the wrist to the voters, but we didn't ask them to make the decisions that they made once we elected the leaders. We are not as educated on what the effect of the administration will have on other countries. That's why you and I are not the ones running for president here. Obviously there is a reason that 9/11 was aimed at American Christians as opposed to Australian Christians. Do you think him blaming America hurts people's feelings? Is it even a bad thing to say? We obviously can't do anything about it now but since it happened under our current conditions, isn't it highly possible and reasonable to say that those conditions were to blame? But, If you are the national criteria creator for what does and doesn't make someone electable, then I apologize for questioning your elite status.
Paul is simply too extreme in too many different directions to build a large enough constituency to be elected to the presidency. His libertarian views on social issues are anathema to mainstream conservatives, his views on the limited scope and role of government are anathema to mainstream liberals, and his isolationist foreign policy (whether it be protecting our own interests or humanitarian aid/intervention) is actually rejected in a fairly bipartisan manner.
And, I think I've said this before, but I am not going to debate isolationism. It is pointless. We will just have to agree to disagree.
-
And, I think I've said this before, but I am not going to debate isolationism. It is pointless. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Debating "isolationism" is pointless? That seems kind of stupid. Especially for someone whom (I assume) opposes big government.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
tens of millions that want to kill all non-believers? That sounds made up.
I know. Pretty unbelievable (http://www.gallup.com/press/108457/frequently-asked-questions.aspx).
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
tens of millions that want to kill all non-believers? That sounds made up.
Pro-Tip: It is made up.
-
gotta be a pretty hard time to be a hard line R these days.
I mean, the only real crazy extremists have dropped out and all that's left are layups. I mean, it's pretty obvs that the R party is just letting some have their shot while they focus on the next one, right?
-
gotta be a pretty hard time to be a hard line R these days.
I mean, the only real crazy extremists have dropped out and all that's left are layups. I mean, it's pretty obvs that the R party is just letting some have their shot while they focus on the next one, right?
Ron Paul is the hard line R. :dunno:
-
gotta be a pretty hard time to be a hard line R these days.
I mean, the only real crazy extremists have dropped out and all that's left are layups. I mean, it's pretty obvs that the R party is just letting some have their shot while they focus on the next one, right?
Ron Paul is the hard line R. :dunno:
Look, I don't come over here much and I really don't care to spend the time to go find gotcha quotes, but I'm pretty sure the locals here have spent a lot of time saying he is a Libertarian and not an R and that he needs to drop out so that he doesn't F up the vote by splitting conservatives etc, etc, etc.
-
gotta be a pretty hard time to be a hard line R these days.
I mean, the only real crazy extremists have dropped out and all that's left are layups. I mean, it's pretty obvs that the R party is just letting some have their shot while they focus on the next one, right?
No, I don't think that is the case at all. It is not as if Obama is a wildly popular president polling in the mid 60's with a healthy economy. Conservatives well appreciate both the opportunity, and importance, of defeating him. It is the only realistic chance of repealing Obamacare and trimming our deficits. Obama added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in just one term, a staggering sum, and would likely double that if given another term.
The Republican field is undeniably weak this year because a number of the GOP's rising stars and Tea Party darlings, such as Christie, Ryan, and Rubio, chose not to run. This does not mean that Romney is a weak candidate. He just seems to be the only competent, electable candidate in the field.
The infighting among Republicans over an "ideologically pure" candidate is a natural part of the primary process and will be largely irrelevant once Romney secures the nomination. It is even possible that the current unfounded attacks over Bain Capital will actually help inoculate Romney in the general election by allowing him to address these attacks now.
-
God damnit. You're going to make me do it, aren't you. I hate people that bring up religion as a reason to persecute people - people that complain about Obama being muslim & crap like that but you brought up Romney and I can't sit on that. The Mormon "Church", and this is quite documented in depth, specifies that what the church says is a DIRECT ORDER FROM GOD. If you go against God, or what the Church ORDERS YOU TO DO; You are excommunicated. PERIOD. Since Romney is still considered a person in good standing with the Mormon church, he is considered a PAWN by the Mormon church. Do you really want the authority of any church sitting in one of the most powerful chairs in the United States? Jesus rough ridin' christ K-S-U-Wildcats, I sure hope you're 16 and can't vote.
-
God damnit. You're going to make me do it, aren't you. I hate people that bring up religion as a reason to persecute people - people that complain about Obama being muslim & crap like that but you brought up Romney and I can't sit on that. The Mormon "Church", and this is quite documented in depth, specifies that what the church says is a DIRECT ORDER FROM GOD. If you go against God, or what the Church ORDERS YOU TO DO; You are excommunicated. PERIOD. Since Romney is still considered a person in good standing with the Mormon church, he is considered a PAWN by the Mormon church. Do you really want the authority of any church sitting in one of the most powerful chairs in the United States? Jesus rough ridin' christ K-S-U-Wildcats, I sure hope you're 16 and can't vote.
What a bizarre post.
-
God damnit. You're going to make me do it, aren't you. I hate people that bring up religion as a reason to persecute people - people that complain about Obama being muslim & crap like that but you brought up Romney and I can't sit on that. The Mormon "Church", and this is quite documented in depth, specifies that what the church says is a DIRECT ORDER FROM GOD. If you go against God, or what the Church ORDERS YOU TO DO; You are excommunicated. PERIOD. Since Romney is still considered a person in good standing with the Mormon church, he is considered a PAWN by the Mormon church. Do you really want the authority of any church sitting in one of the most powerful chairs in the United States? Jesus rough ridin' christ K-S-U-Wildcats, I sure hope you're 16 and can't vote.
Radical Mormons! Are we all going to be forced to wear magic underwear!!!?? :runaway:
-
God damnit. You're going to make me do it, aren't you. I hate people that bring up religion as a reason to persecute people - people that complain about Obama being muslim & crap like that but you brought up Romney and I can't sit on that. The Mormon "Church", and this is quite documented in depth, specifies that what the church says is a DIRECT ORDER FROM GOD. If you go against God, or what the Church ORDERS YOU TO DO; You are excommunicated. PERIOD. Since Romney is still considered a person in good standing with the Mormon church, he is considered a PAWN by the Mormon church. Do you really want the authority of any church sitting in one of the most powerful chairs in the United States? Jesus rough ridin' christ K-S-U-Wildcats, I sure hope you're 16 and can't vote.
KENNEDY IS A CATHOLIC HE WILL BE A SLAVE TO THE POPE! (but actually he will just be nailing coeds in the white house pool)
-
God damnit. You're going to make me do it, aren't you. I hate people that bring up religion as a reason to persecute people - people that complain about Obama being muslim & crap like that but you brought up Romney and I can't sit on that. The Mormon "Church", and this is quite documented in depth, specifies that what the church says is a DIRECT ORDER FROM GOD. If you go against God, or what the Church ORDERS YOU TO DO; You are excommunicated. PERIOD. Since Romney is still considered a person in good standing with the Mormon church, he is considered a PAWN by the Mormon church. Do you really want the authority of any church sitting in one of the most powerful chairs in the United States? Jesus rough ridin' christ K-S-U-Wildcats, I sure hope you're 16 and can't vote.
Radical Mormons! Are we all going to be forced to wear magic underwear!!!?? :runaway:
Wait, would this be a good thing? What do they do for you?
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
Unfortunately, we will probably never know if he is right or not because we don't know how to mind our own business. Correlation may not cause causation, but we have no way to determine.
Also, K-S-U-Wildcats!, I am curious as to why you think Paul's views on 9/11 make him unelectable. You haven't answered that question for me yet. The way you present your argument, you make it sound like RP blaming 'America' means he is blaming the American citizens. He is not blaming you and me, he is blaming the administration's decisions, and explaining differences that could be more effective. That's what you do with the government, you learn form past mistakes. Slap on the wrist to the voters, but we didn't ask them to make the decisions that they made once we elected the leaders. We are not as educated on what the effect of the administration will have on other countries. That's why you and I are not the ones running for president here. Obviously there is a reason that 9/11 was aimed at American Christians as opposed to Australian Christians. Do you think him blaming America hurts people's feelings? Is it even a bad thing to say? We obviously can't do anything about it now but since it happened under our current conditions, isn't it highly possible and reasonable to say that those conditions were to blame? But, If you are the national criteria creator for what does and doesn't make someone electable, then I apologize for questioning your elite status.
Correct me if i am wrong but i don't think 9-11 was as much targeted towards christianity but our secular consumerism/imperialism
(the pentagon isn't a church)
-
Do any of you assholes know who funded the proposition 8 propaganda in California making same sex marriage illegal? That's right, the Mormon Church. Specifically every member of the Mormon Church. These blind fools were told that the church has reviewed their income & debt and knows they can afford to donate X amount of dollars and if they don't, the will be excommunicated. What the eff does any religion have any interest in any political stances, especially political platforms in a completely different state? crap I don't know, but seriously dudes. Don't you watch South Park? Romney is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO behind Obama and he's a bigger Kook than Ron Paul could ever hope to be.
I guarantee you the Mormon Church has hand picked Romney for politics because of his "Too clean to not be dirty" image. This guy has been groomed. Go ahead & throw the tin foil hat on me, but damnit guys, I'm telling you. You can't trust a Mormon.
-
Do any of you assholes know who funded the proposition 8 propaganda in California making same sex marriage illegal? That's right, the Mormon Church. Specifically every member of the Mormon Church. These blind fools were told that the church has reviewed their income & debt and knows they can afford to donate X amount of dollars and if they don't, the will be excommunicated. What the eff does any religion have any interest in any political stances, especially political platforms in a completely different state? crap I don't know, but seriously dudes. Don't you watch South Park? Romney is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO behind Obama and he's a bigger Kook than Ron Paul could ever hope to be.
I guarantee you the Mormon Church has hand picked Romney for politics because of his "Too clean to not be dirty" image. This guy has been groomed. Go ahead & throw the tin foil hat on me, but damnit guys, I'm telling you. You can't trust a Mormon.
Or have you seen the rough ridin' musical. Or Orgazmo??? huh the Mormon kid uses a stunt male genitals a STUNT male genitals for christs sake.
would you trust a man that calls for a stunt male genitals. i mean call me crazy but no way does this guy call for a stunt male genitals
c'mon people open your eyes
-
In all seriousness though. Romney is too clean to be trusted. Don't like the guy at all and I really do believe the Mormon Church's sense of morals & ethics will bleed into his political agenda. I may have gotten too extreme with my above posts, and tongue in cheek aside... It really wouldn't surprise me. I have for a long time believed the Mormon Church is Evil. Believe it or not... even before South Park even existed.
-
In all seriousness though. Romney is too clean to be trusted. Don't like the guy at all and I really do believe the Mormon Church's sense of morals & ethics will bleed into his political agenda. I may have gotten too extreme with my above posts, and tongue in cheek aside... It really wouldn't surprise me. I have for a long time believed the Mormon Church is Evil. Believe it or not... even before South Park even existed.
:runaway::jeffy: :runaway:
-
iknoright?
-
want some more? The pentagon was struck with a missile because they needed a cover after the air force shot down flight 77 over the ocean. It's so insane it makes sense.
-
Do any of you assholes know who funded the proposition 8 propaganda in California making same sex marriage illegal? That's right, the Mormon Church. Specifically every member of the Mormon Church. These blind fools were told that the church has reviewed their income & debt and knows they can afford to donate X amount of dollars and if they don't, the will be excommunicated. What the eff does any religion have any interest in any political stances, especially political platforms in a completely different state? crap I don't know, but seriously dudes. Don't you watch South Park? Romney is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO behind Obama and he's a bigger Kook than Ron Paul could ever hope to be.
I guarantee you the Mormon Church has hand picked Romney for politics because of his "Too clean to not be dirty" image. This guy has been groomed. Go ahead & throw the tin foil hat on me, but damnit guys, I'm telling you. You can't trust a Mormon.
It's their prerogative to back any proposition they want. The California teacher's union spent more than a million dollars opposing it, and it has nothing to do with teaching children, but that was their choice.
-
want some more? The pentagon was struck with a missile because they needed a cover after the air force shot down flight 77 over the ocean. It's so insane it makes sense.
Pike? Is that you?
-
Hey Pike, are you an air traffic controller in Boston? I think I might know you.
-
Sorry I used such an "overly simplistic" analogy... I figured I had to use small words for someone with irrational viewpoints. But now that I know you're capable of using the word analogy correctly, How is it overly simplistic to state that if you apply force to a region that there will be backlash?
Speaking of irrational, there is a large faction (at least tens of millions, probably more) of religious radicals that will continue killing non-believers until the entire world subscribes to their beliefs, whether you fight them or not. Paul thinks if we just mind our own business, they won't try and convert (kill) us.
And here I was thinking their goal was building a victory mosque at ground zero.
-
Do any of you assholes know who funded the proposition 8 propaganda in California making same sex marriage illegal? That's right, the Mormon Church. Specifically every member of the Mormon Church. These blind fools were told that the church has reviewed their income & debt and knows they can afford to donate X amount of dollars and if they don't, the will be excommunicated. What the eff does any religion have any interest in any political stances, especially political platforms in a completely different state? crap I don't know, but seriously dudes. Don't you watch South Park? Romney is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO behind Obama and he's a bigger Kook than Ron Paul could ever hope to be.
I guarantee you the Mormon Church has hand picked Romney for politics because of his "Too clean to not be dirty" image. This guy has been groomed. Go ahead & throw the tin foil hat on me, but damnit guys, I'm telling you. You can't trust a Mormon.
Pretty sure the record breaking African-American voter turnout in Cali which nearly unanimously voted against prop 8 is the reason it failed. It's called exit polling.
Do you live in one of those bunker thingys and only pay for things with gold? :blackhelicoptor:
-
Do any of you assholes know who funded the proposition 8 propaganda in California making same sex marriage illegal? That's right, the Mormon Church. Specifically every member of the Mormon Church. These blind fools were told that the church has reviewed their income & debt and knows they can afford to donate X amount of dollars and if they don't, the will be excommunicated. What the eff does any religion have any interest in any political stances, especially political platforms in a completely different state? crap I don't know, but seriously dudes. Don't you watch South Park? Romney is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO behind Obama and he's a bigger Kook than Ron Paul could ever hope to be.
I guarantee you the Mormon Church has hand picked Romney for politics because of his "Too clean to not be dirty" image. This guy has been groomed. Go ahead & throw the tin foil hat on me, but damnit guys, I'm telling you. You can't trust a Mormon.
Pretty sure the record breaking African-American voter turnout in Cali which nearly unanimously voted against prop 8 is the reason it failed. It's called exit polling.
Do you live in one of those bunker thingys and only pay for things with gold? :blackhelicoptor:
actually i think this is one of the only things Heinz was correct on. LDS spent a ton and mobilized thousands in a grassroot campaign to halt prop 8
-
there are lots of mormons in california. And they really audit everyone's personal finances. They even do it to little kids and make them tithe their allowance.
-
even tales of strong arming some younger couples into donating to the brink of financial ruin
-
there are lots of mormons in california. And they really audit everyone's personal finances. They even do it to little kids and make them tithe their allowance.
they sound like democrats
-
mormons are great. best religion by far.
-
They do have some incredibly hot women.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
they seriously like to party. :drink: :bigtoke:
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
-
Not long ago Paul was wanting to do away w/ income tax and run everything through a consumption tax. I would think the rich would love that. :dunno:
Also, not sure if that is his current position. Not like it matters though. Def one of those things that a president would have 0% of pushing through.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
-
:curse: :chainsaw: the Golden Rule. Whose idea is that anyway???
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure. The term "redistribution of wealth" as decried by conservatives who favor lower taxes and limited government, is the practice of buying votes by diverting tax dollars to certain groups.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure. The term "redistribution of wealth" as decried by conservatives who favor lower taxes and limited government, is the practice of buying votes by diverting tax dollars to certain groups.
Why does the U.S. government subsidize automobiles with roads? Seems like trains get a raw deal.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure.
How do conservatives decide which federal expenditures are necessary and which ones aren't? You would think someone serious about limited government would want to shrink all government expenses.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure.
How do conservatives decide which federal expenditures are necessary and which ones aren't? You would think someone serious about limited government would want to shrink all government expenses.
True conservatives do want to shrink all government expenses, even the necessary ones such as national defense. As for what is necessary and what is not, I'm not going to engage in a relativist argument with you. Relativism is the ethos of a progressive, but as a close-minded conservative, I couldn't care less. I simply pointed out that when conservatives decry the government's redistribution of wealth, they are opposed to spending tax dollars to subsidize ignorant, slothful lifestyles and businesses that cannot compete in a free market. If you want to equate such expenditures to national defense, that is your perogative.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure.
How do conservatives decide which federal expenditures are necessary and which ones aren't? You would think someone serious about limited government would want to shrink all government expenses.
True conservatives do want to shrink all government expenses, even the necessary ones such as national defense. As for what is necessary and what is not, I'm not going to engage in a relativist argument with you. Relativism is the ethos of a progressive, but as a close-minded conservative, I couldn't care less. I simply pointed out that when conservatives decry the government's redistribution of wealth, they are opposed to spending tax dollars to subsidize ignorant, slothful lifestyles and businesses that cannot compete in a free market. If you want to equate such expenditures to national defense, that is your perogative.
I'm pretty sure all congressmen support various businesses that cannot compete in a free market.
-
especially ones that contribute large amounts to their campaigns.
but obviously we know that allowing people to make unlimited campaign contributions would never lead to such actions. i mean i'm pretty sure i just read that in another thread? didn't i?
-
Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.
-
Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.
Nobody is perfect. I didn't say they were.
-
especially ones that contribute large amounts to their campaigns.
but obviously we know that allowing people to make unlimited campaign contributions would never lead to such actions. i mean i'm pretty sure i just read that in another thread? didn't i?
It is true that money = power, but it is impossible to effectively constrain this fact of life. Besides, as discussed "in another thread," money = freedom of speech. Better to at least bring donations into the sunlight as much as possible. If a politician is bought and paid for, let's at least know who bought them, whether that is Exxon or the SEIU.
-
Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.
Your definition of a true conservative would be Ron Paul.
-
Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.
Ron Paul is pretty conservative.
-
I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/16/ron_paul_tax_rate_should_be_0.html).
No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.
I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.
Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.
Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure. The term "redistribution of wealth" as decried by conservatives who favor lower taxes and limited government, is the practice of buying votes by diverting tax dollars to certain groups.
Why does the U.S. government subsidize automobiles with roads? Seems like trains get a raw deal.
roads came after cars :surprised:
why does the gubmint subsize the clothes bizniss by buying clothes for inmates and uniforms for da army? duuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
-
Ron Paul Quietly Plots Backup Plan (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-quietly-plots-backup-strategy-while-seeking-the-nomination/).
Rep. Ron Paul says he’s in it to win it and the campaign boasts that it has a comprehensive strategy in place to ensure that happens.
But behind the scenes Campaign Manager Jesse Benton admits to ABC News that the team is plotting a back up strategy in case the congressman doesn’t pull in enough delegates to become the nominee.
If the campaign comes up short at the convention, Benton says the plan is to use all the delegates awarded to Paul as a bargaining chip to force the Republican Party to stick to its limited government platform.
Benton says this could include auditing the Federal Reserve and winding back several parts of the Patriot Act, including roving wire taps which he says were originally written with the intent of expiring.
“I think it would be wise for the Republican Party to allow them to sun set next time they come up for authorization,” said Benton, adding a good portion of the American people are with that.
Benton also admits the policy shift would help Republicans attract more independents, undercutting President Obama’s base.
I completely support using delegates and support as a bargaining chip, but ending roving wiretaps? That's the priority for these clowns? That's what it's going to take to bring these kooks on board?
-
@P_Krugman
I have AIDS
t & p