goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: nicname on March 10, 2012, 03:10:26 PM
-
:facepalm:
-
He has been pounding the state with ads.
-
:gocho: :love: :excited:
-
Currently more popular than B.O. :dunno:
Not my first or even second choice, but better than the current abortion of an administration.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
-
I am with you nicname. I just dont see how people can vote for Santorum. He is a FAKE. The guy claims to be a conservative but he is far from it. He is another Washington insider that will continue the spending, he wont cut the debt, and here is the best part....He is going to take all of our youngs kids and send them into Iran.
rough ridin' MORONS.
-
I bet Brownback loves the crap out of Santorum
Sent from my MB611 using Tapatalk
-
Evangelical Christians are so annoying. Jesus Wake up.
-
Evangical Christians are the republican/conservative base?
No?
-
Evangical Christians are the republican/conservative base?
No?
There is nothing conservative about them. They picked rick santorum. He is not a conservative. Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Newt Gingrich is not a conservative. Republicans have lost their way. Sadly. The only conservative in the race is Ron Paul. That is a fact.
-
Currently more popular than B.O. :dunno:
Not my first or even second choice, but better than the current abortion of an administration.
He won't win.
If he gets through the primary, which won't happen, he'll be front and center on a national stage for several months against an incumbent president, a pretty heavy war chest of funds, and more than enough opportunities to open his mouth and remind everyone that he's Rick Santorum.
-
Evangical Christians are the republican/conservative base?
No?
There is nothing conservative about them. They picked rick santorum. He is not a conservative. Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Newt Gingrich is not a conservative. Republicans have lost their way. Sadly. The only conservative in the race is Ron Paul. That is a fact.
Whose fault is it that the party has cultivated a base that doesn't reflect the core values of the actual leadership. We have threads about pandering but who has pandered more than conservatives toward the religious right!
-
good job, kansas (completely serious).
-
Don't blame me. I voted for Romney.
-
The sad part about this Lick is most evangelical Christians are the easiest to manipulate. I can't find the correlation myself.
-
And before you start hating. I'll disclose that I consider myself a christian - although my viewpoints differ from many Christians that are unable to think for themselves.
-
Don't blame me. I voted for Romney.
Almost as bad. :facepalm:
-
He has been pounding the state with ads AIDS.
FYP
-
Evangical Christians are the republican/conservative base?
No?
There is nothing conservative about them. They picked rick santorum. He is not a conservative. Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Newt Gingrich is not a conservative. Republicans have lost their way. Sadly. The only conservative in the race is Ron Paul. That is a fact.
Hence their support Keystone.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
-
Currently more popular than B.O. :dunno:
Not my first or even second choice, but better than the current abortion of an administration.
He won't win.
If he gets through the primary, which won't happen, he'll be front and center on a national stage for several months against an incumbent president, a pretty heavy war chest of funds, and more than enough opportunities to open his mouth and remind everyone that he's Rick Santorum.
This sounds like a fantastic summer
Sent from my MB611 using Tapatalk
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
-
Santorum wants to go to War with Iran.
Mitt Romney wants to go to war with Iran
Newt Gingrich wants to go to war with Iran.
Barack Obama wants a war with Iran.
Ronny Paulsauce is wanting to talk peace with Iran. Kind of like when JFK talked to that douchy russian guy about those nukes down in Cuba. Sounds reasonable. :dunno:
Im scared.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
-
you're right, it probably had nothing to do with the guy you directly quoted.
god damn you are one stupid eff.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
There is nothing extreme about following the Constitution. Or doing what our founders invisioned. We should respect that. Just sayin.
-
Santorum wants to go to War with Iran.
Mitt Romney wants to go to war with Iran
Newt Gingrich wants to go to war with Iran.
Barack Obama wants a war with Iran.
Ronny Paulsauce is wanting to talk peace with Iran. Kind of like when JFK talked to that douchy russian guy about those nukes down in Cuba. Sounds reasonable. :dunno:
Im scared.
Pretty sure JFK told the douchy Russian guy to get his ships and nukes away from Cuba or we would blow them the eff up, like right now.
-
Santorum wants to go to War with Iran.
Mitt Romney wants to go to war with Iran
Newt Gingrich wants to go to war with Iran.
Barack Obama wants a war with Iran.
Ronny Paulsauce is wanting to talk peace with Iran. Kind of like when JFK talked to that douchy russian guy about those nukes down in Cuba. Sounds reasonable. :dunno:
Im scared.
Pretty sure JFK told the douchy Russian guy to get his ships and nukes away from Cuba or we would blow them the eff up, like right now.
Yeah, JFK didn't so much negotiate as dictate (in that case).
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
There is nothing extreme about following the Constitution. Or doing what our founders invisioned. We should respect that. Just sayin.
Were the ones that have learned to think for ourselves, ya know. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative candidate and yet people are still somehow voting for the other 3 dolts. I blame the establishment which has had it out for RP since day one because he makes too much sense.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
There is nothing extreme about following the Constitution. Or doing what our founders invisioned. We should respect that. Just sayin.
Were the ones that have learned to think for ourselves, ya know. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative candidate and yet people are still somehow voting for the other 3 dolts. I blame the establishment which has had it out for RP since day one because he makes too much sense.
There's Pike being all liberal again, right FSD?
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpagead2.googlesyndication.com%2Fsimgad%2F7343568500410170797&hash=1cab2da39e52cd53be24c9fac0ac6b42d7535a1f)
-
Obama wants a war with Iran?
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
There is nothing extreme about following the Constitution. Or doing what our founders invisioned. We should respect that. Just sayin.
Were the ones that have learned to think for ourselves, ya know. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative candidate and yet people are still somehow voting for the other 3 dolts. I blame the establishment which has had it out for RP since day one because he makes too much sense.
Ron Paul may be the best choice for the country, but he has no chance of being elected. He just isn't good looking or cool enough. To the so called independents that voted for Obama, looks and coolness is the most important factor. Romney may not be that cool, but he is a good looking guy, and that should appeal to the indies with some intelligence.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
There is nothing extreme about following the Constitution. Or doing what our founders invisioned. We should respect that. Just sayin.
Were the ones that have learned to think for ourselves, ya know. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative candidate and yet people are still somehow voting for the other 3 dolts. I blame the establishment which has had it out for RP since day one because he makes too much sense.
Ron Paul may be the best choice for the country, but he has no chance of being elected. He just isn't good looking or cool enough. To the so called independents that voted for Obama, looks and coolness is the most important factor. Romney may not be that cool, but he is a good looking guy, and that should appeal to the indies with some intelligence.
It has nothing to do with looks, or being cool, it's because he won't take money he has to have to compete. What should be a positive hurts him.
-
I'm not surprised Santorum won by so much. It makes us look that much dumber than Iowa. I'm also surprised Paul did so poorly. Terrible showing for him.
thats because 20k of RP's votes were in MHK boozing their asses off. It is no coincidence that they put the Kansas primary on FPD. It is absolutely embarrassing for KS that Santorum won. Shows how close minded and uninformed we are.
My favorite argument is that when someone calls another person close minded because they disagree with them. Open minded liberalism at its finest. I don't know if it's because they are all sociopathic, ignorant or both, but they clearly haven't noticed that nobody wants any of their bigotry.
i didn't realize that ron paul supporters were the pinnacle of liberalism....
not sure what you're talking about, replying to one of my rants as if it were directed at anyone in particular, but RP supporters tend to follow the extremes of both the left and the right continuum.
The "you're closed minded" argument, has long been used by the liberal "thinker" as a last retort in an argument he/she has long since lost.
There is nothing extreme about following the Constitution. Or doing what our founders invisioned. We should respect that. Just sayin.
Were the ones that have learned to think for ourselves, ya know. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative candidate and yet people are still somehow voting for the other 3 dolts. I blame the establishment which has had it out for RP since day one because he makes too much sense.
Ron Paul may be the best choice for the country, but he has no chance of being elected. He just isn't good looking or cool enough. To the so called independents that voted for Obama, looks and coolness is the most important factor. Romney may not be that cool, but he is a good looking guy, and that should appeal to the indies with some intelligence.
It has nothing to do with looks, or being cool, it's because he won't take money he has to have to compete. What should be a positive hurts him.
No, I think it has more to do with looks. This is America.
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
Some people also get turned off when they see that their civil liberties are literally being washed away. The constitution is being trashed. Spending is out of control and we are going to hit a collapse pretty soon. But people like you are more worried about if the government is going to take care of you when your an old eff who cant wipe your ass. Wake up.
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
Some people also get turned off when they see that their civil liberties are literally being washed away. The constitution is being trashed. Spending is out of control and we are going to hit a collapse pretty soon. But people like you are more worried about if the government is going to take care of you when your an old eff who cant wipe your ass. Wake up.
a lot of people also dont listen to ron paul because of how stupid his supporters are.
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
Some people also get turned off when they see that their civil liberties are literally being washed away. The constitution is being trashed. Spending is out of control and we are going to hit a collapse pretty soon. But people like you are more worried about if the government is going to take care of you when your an old eff who cant wipe your ass. Wake up.
a lot of people also dont listen to ron paul because of how stupid his supporters are.
This is the main challenge that most R candidates face right now. The vocal supporters sound ridic.
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
Some people also get turned off when they see that their civil liberties are literally being washed away. The constitution is being trashed. Spending is out of control and we are going to hit a collapse pretty soon. But people like you are more worried about if the government is going to take care of you when your an old eff who cant wipe your ass. Wake up.
a lot of people also dont listen to ron paul because of how stupid his supporters are.
Do you not care about your individual rights being taken away? Do you not care about the Spending? Do you not care about the wars?
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
Some people also get turned off when they see that their civil liberties are literally being washed away. The constitution is being trashed. Spending is out of control and we are going to hit a collapse pretty soon. But people like you are more worried about if the government is going to take care of you when your an old eff who cant wipe your ass. Wake up.
a lot of people also dont listen to ron paul because of how stupid his supporters are.
Do you not care about your individual rights being taken away? Do you not care about the Spending? Do you not care about the wars?
this is what it's like when a troll rides the gag out too far.
-
Some people get turned off when they hear someone say sick people without insurance should just go die.
And also looks.
Some people also get turned off when they see that their civil liberties are literally being washed away. The constitution is being trashed. Spending is out of control and we are going to hit a collapse pretty soon. But people like you are more worried about if the government is going to take care of you when your an old eff who cant wipe your ass. Wake up.
a lot of people also dont listen to ron paul because of how stupid his supporters are.
Do you not care about your individual rights being taken away? Do you not care about the Spending? Do you not care about the wars?
this is what it's like when a troll rides the gag out too far.
you going to answer?!
-
my problem with you, not ron paul.
you're dumb.
ron paul is real, and out there (which is the only way things will get changed). he's also a little bit batshit.
a radio host i listened to put it this way, and pretty much perfectly describes how i feel about ron paul:
ron paul is like a great big delicious bowl of ice cream, with one little chunk of dog crap on the top. do you still really want to eat the ice cream?
-
my problem with you, not ron paul.
you're dumb.
ron paul is real, and out there (which is the only way things will get changed). he's also a little bit batshit.
a radio host i listened to put it this way, and pretty much perfectly describes how i feel about ron paul:
ron paul is like a great big delicious bowl of ice cream, with one little chunk of dog crap on the top. do you still really want to eat the ice cream?
Would rather eat that ice cream than whatever analogous food you would come up with for the other candidates, though.
-
As long as its Ronny Paul's. Yes.
-
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.
-
Rick Santorum suggest you vote for Ron Paul... Unless you think the rate at which the government is blowing through our tax dollars is okay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G106jlvZYmQ
-
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.
Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.
He pushes the envelope a little too far there. Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrAxW7D3oGs
-
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.
Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.
He pushes the envelope a little too far there. Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.
It's a lot like Obama in 2008 claiming all sorts of idealistic stuff, only to get a slap of reality when he got in office. 75% of what RP preaches could never be accomplished. Not realistic.
-
http://www.infowars.com/santorum-tells-voter-vote-for-ron-paul-if-you-want-limited-government/
Hilarious! lol.. Santorum!
-
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.
Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.
He pushes the envelope a little too far there. Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.
It's a lot like Obama in 2008 claiming all sorts of idealistic stuff, only to get a slap of reality when he got in office. 99% of what RP preaches could never be accomplished. Not realistic.
Fixed that. He might have some success with his pro-life stuff though.
There's a big difference between Paul and Obama though in that Republicans could have similar majorities in Congress as what Obama had in 08-09 and not even have much if any of his agenda brought up.
Obama actually "got" some of his stuff through. But you're right that even his wins were mostly in name only because his idealism ran into a brick wall. He and Clinton are very much the same in that respect, which is odd considering the differences between the two.
-
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.
-
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.
Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
-
What's the dog crap his foreign policy? I could just pretend it was an oreo.
Ron Paul is way out there when it comes to railing against things like the Fed, going back to a gold standard, etc.
He pushes the envelope a little too far there. Most other stuff is somewhat okay, but he's too much of a minimalist.
It's a lot like Obama in 2008 claiming all sorts of idealistic stuff, only to get a slap of reality when he got in office. 99% of what RP preaches could never be accomplished. Not realistic.
Fixed that. He might have some success with his pro-life stuff though.
There's a big difference between Paul and Obama though in that Republicans could have similar majorities in Congress as what Obama had in 08-09 and not even have much if any of his agenda brought up.
Obama actually "got" some of his stuff through. But you're right that even his wins were mostly in name only because his idealism ran into a brick wall. He and Clinton are very much the same in that respect, which is odd considering the differences between the two.
He absolutely would be able to accomplish his foreign policy goals. Congress hasn't even declared war. President Paul could get all of the troops home and drastically reduce defense spending and foreign aid.
-
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.
Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand
-
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.
Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand
JFC. Rand is a Goddamn Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Just stop.
-
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.
Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand
JFC. Rand is a Goddamn respect.
Just stop.
lol Panj, why do you love the establishment so much? They dont care about you.
-
Just because "it cant be accomplished" doesnt mean we should still try and not accomplish it. Im talking about end the fed, no income tax, no dept of education etc. Were in a lot of debt, ya know. And i dont think the Ds or the Rs are very serious about fixing it.
Right, but electing Paul as president does more harm than good to Libertarian goals.
Ron Paul is a modern day founding father. If not ron, then it has to be rand
JFC. Rand is a Goddamn respect.
Just stop.
lol Panj, why do you love the establishment so much? They dont care about you.
It has nothing to do with the establishment. Have you ever listened to Rand Paul? Like really listened to him?
My God.
-
my problem with you, not ron paul.
you're dumb.
ron paul is real, and out there (which is the only way things will get changed). he's also a little bit batshit.
a radio host i listened to put it this way, and pretty much perfectly describes how i feel about ron paul:
ron paul is like a great big delicious bowl of ice cream, with one little chunk of dog crap on the top. do you still really want to eat the ice cream?
I'd rather eat that then the giant bowl of dogshit that is every other Republican candidate and Obama
-
I don't think Obama ever intended to get anything done. The sad honest truth is there is little difference between Dem's & Rep's. It's all big gov. They're either going to be stuffing tax dollars into their buddies pockets through welfare or through war campaigns. B.O. Is especially good at combining the efforts. The way I see it now, a vote for one of the leading GOP members really isn't much different than a vote for Obama. In the long run, I don't see how anyone could argue that from a fiscal standpoint. What I'm growing tired of is people complaining about the lies politicians sell while campaigning, but when someone stands on a podium and says the unpopular thing, he's labeled a Kook. I guess if what you're looking for is for someone to tell you everything is going to be okay, then yeah, he is a kook. If people cared about integrity as much as they say they do, they wouldn't care about what would be possible to do as a president - they would be satisfied that at least they weren't lied to by someone they bought into. Can any of you honestly say you don't think any of these candidates are honest, other than Paul? Paul may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb enough to run a campaign on things he's been booed for saying for the last ten years. You can't argue that he doesn't have integrity and none of us has seen a president or a candidate as honest as Dr. Ron Paul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't think Obama ever intended to get anything done. The sad honest truth is there is little difference between Dem's & Rep's. It's all big gov. Their either going to be stuffing tax dollars into their buddies pockets through welfare or through war campaigns. B.O. Is especially good at combining the efforts. The way I see it now, a vote for one of the leading GOP members really isn't much different than a vote for Obama. In the long run, I don't see how anyone could argue that from a fiscal standpoint. What I'm growing tired of is people complaining about the lies politicians sell while campaigning, but when someone stands on a podium and says the unpopular thing, he's labeled a Kook. I guess if what you're looking for is for someone to tell you everything is going to be okay, then yeah, he is a kook. If people cared about integrity as much as they say they do, they wouldn't care about what would be possible to do as a president - they would be satisfied that at least they weren't lied to by someone they bought into. Can any of you honestly say you don't think any of these candidates are honest, other than Paul? Paul may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb enough to run a campaign on things he's been booed for saying for the last ten years. You can't argue that he doesn't have integrity and none of us has seen a president or a candidate as honest as Dr. Ron Paul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well said. Freedom is popular
-
I don't think Obama ever intended to get anything done. The sad honest truth is there is little difference between Dem's & Rep's. It's all big gov. Their either going to be stuffing tax dollars into their buddies pockets through welfare or through war campaigns. B.O. Is especially good at combining the efforts. The way I see it now, a vote for one of the leading GOP members really isn't much different than a vote for Obama. In the long run, I don't see how anyone could argue that from a fiscal standpoint. What I'm growing tired of is people complaining about the lies politicians sell while campaigning, but when someone stands on a podium and says the unpopular thing, he's labeled a Kook. I guess if what you're looking for is for someone to tell you everything is going to be okay, then yeah, he is a kook. If people cared about integrity as much as they say they do, they wouldn't care about what would be possible to do as a president - they would be satisfied that at least they weren't lied to by someone they bought into. Can any of you honestly say you don't think any of these candidates are honest, other than Paul? Paul may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb enough to run a campaign on things he's been booed for saying for the last ten years. You can't argue that he doesn't have integrity and none of us has seen a president or a candidate as honest as Dr. Ron Paul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No one said Ron Paul is not a genuine person. He's the most honest candidate out there. I completely agree with his thoughts on personal freedom (and the role of government in that regard) and foreign policy. I 110% agree with it. However, his ideas on economic policy simply isn't based in reality. It just isn't. It's way too extreme. You can't go back to a gold standard. The world ditched that nearly 70 years ago.
Paul is a good dude, and I like him. I like a lot of what he says about a lot of things. However, his economic policies aren't even remotely feasible in today's world.
-
Thanks for responding and simultaneously illustrating my point. Why would people rather have a president in office that is willing and able to spend! spend! spend! on all sorts of wasteful crap while lying to our fat faces about why we need it and where we need it and how urgently we need it; as opposed to someone that is explaining why we're in this mess and educating people on why these policies are bad. The American people would rather have a liar in office than someone with best intentions.... Because maybe his best intentions won't be successful. Does anyone see the problem in this? You'd rather have someone destroy our economy, because well.... at least they'll be successful in their plans?
Regardless, I don't think you understand what the message Ron and his supporters are in love with. Going back to the gold standard would absolutely stop inflation. while also doing nothing else but... stop inflation. Do you know what's magical about this? There are other ways of stopping inflation. Auditing the fed & creating legislature that prevents our government from printing $$ at will and fiddling with interest rates will also - Stop Inflation. I know there is no way he can get the gold standard back. It's not feasible. It's not likely. It's not possible. But you know what? Understanding the gold standard & educating people on Why the gold standard would fix this - is more the point. As president, Ron Paul will NOT allow our government to do the things we're currently doing that is crippling our dollar. There is not another candidate that is taking this issue seriously. And because people think that "going back to the gold standard is not possible" that he can't fix this problem. Which is simply not true. When Ron Paul Talks about the Gold standard, He's pin pointing the exact moment in which we got into this mess. The next logical question is how can we fix it? To which any person that understands the problem knows is to permanently stop the government from hyper inflating the economy and tie the dollar back to a slowly growing commodity - like gold. Keep in mind, I just said PERMANENTLY solve this problem. A point Ron Paul has illustrated over and over is you never allow a precedents to be set where someone could eventually take advantage of. You never grant power to the president that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to take advantage of. Does that make sense? When war is declared without the consent of congress, it becomes a precedent allowing every president in the future to declare war because he has a personal grudge against this country or that. Or has a vested interest in keeping oil prices at a premium. But anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Alot of the issues with our economy can be fixed if the government would permanently stay out of the market. That's all that needs to be done. Going back to the gold standard is not necessary to address this issue. But it makes it permanent... until some other president - with the best intentions - goes back off of it; paving the way for future abuse.
I guess the more important question is now, When this ends up as an open convention within the next couple of months and Ron Paul switch parties from Republican to Independent. Will his supporters still vote for him because they know that a vote for Romney/Santorum/Gengrich really isn't much different than a vote for Obama? Or will they be fear mongered by the Republican GOP into believing that a vote for an independent is a vote taken away from the republican party.
Love the Man, Embrace the Man, Vote with YOUR heart and DO NOT let the liberal OR the Conservative media change your mind with FEAR.
-
Thanks for responding and simultaneously illustrating my point. Why would people rather have a president in office that is willing and able to spend! spend! spend! on all sorts of wasteful crap while lying to our fat faces about why we need it and where we need it and how urgently we need it; as opposed to someone that is explaining why we're in this mess and educating people on why these policies are bad. The American people would rather have a liar in office than someone with best intentions.... Because maybe his best intentions won't be successful. Does anyone see the problem in this? You'd rather have someone destroy our economy, because well.... at least they'll be successful in their plans?
Regardless, I don't think you understand what the message Ron and his supporters are in love with. Going back to the gold standard would absolutely stop inflation. while also doing nothing else but... stop inflation. Do you know what's magical about this? There are other ways of stopping inflation. Auditing the fed & creating legislature that prevents our government from printing $$ at will and fiddling with interest rates will also - Stop Inflation. I know there is no way he can get the gold standard back. It's not feasible. It's not likely. It's not possible. But you know what? Understanding the gold standard & educating people on Why the gold standard would fix this - is more the point. As president, Ron Paul will NOT allow our government to do the things we're currently doing that is crippling our dollar. There is not another candidate that is taking this issue seriously. And because people think that "going back to the gold standard is not possible" that he can't fix this problem. Which is simply not true. When Ron Paul Talks about the Gold standard, He's pin pointing the exact moment in which we got into this mess. The next logical question is how can we fix it? To which any person that understands the problem knows is to permanently stop the government from hyper inflating the economy and tie the dollar back to a slowly growing commodity - like gold. Keep in mind, I just said PERMANENTLY solve this problem. A point Ron Paul has illustrated over and over is you never allow a precedents to be set where someone could eventually take advantage of. You never grant power to the president that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to take advantage of. Does that make sense? When war is declared without the consent of congress, it becomes a precedent allowing every president in the future to declare war because he has a personal grudge against this country or that. Or has a vested interest in keeping oil prices at a premium. But anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Alot of the issues with our economy can be fixed if the government would permanently stay out of the market. That's all that needs to be done. Going back to the gold standard is not necessary to address this issue. But it makes it permanent... until some other president - with the best intentions - goes back off of it; paving the way for future abuse.
I guess the more important question is now, When this ends up as an open convention within the next couple of months and Ron Paul switch parties from Republican to Independent. Will his supporters still vote for him because they know that a vote for Romney/Santorum/Gengrich really isn't much different than a vote for Obama? Or will they be fear mongered by the Republican GOP into believing that a vote for an independent is a vote taken away from the republican party.
Love the Man, Embrace the Man, Vote with YOUR heart and DO NOT let the liberal OR the Conservative media change your mind with FEAR.
I love you. I love freedom. Greatest post of all time.
-
Thanks for responding and simultaneously illustrating my point. Why would people rather have a president in office that is willing and able to spend! spend! spend! on all sorts of wasteful crap while lying to our fat faces about why we need it and where we need it and how urgently we need it; as opposed to someone that is explaining why we're in this mess and educating people on why these policies are bad. The American people would rather have a liar in office than someone with best intentions.... Because maybe his best intentions won't be successful. Does anyone see the problem in this? You'd rather have someone destroy our economy, because well.... at least they'll be successful in their plans?
Regardless, I don't think you understand what the message Ron and his supporters are in love with. Going back to the gold standard would absolutely stop inflation. while also doing nothing else but... stop inflation. Do you know what's magical about this? There are other ways of stopping inflation. Auditing the fed & creating legislature that prevents our government from printing $$ at will and fiddling with interest rates will also - Stop Inflation. I know there is no way he can get the gold standard back. It's not feasible. It's not likely. It's not possible. But you know what? Understanding the gold standard & educating people on Why the gold standard would fix this - is more the point. As president, Ron Paul will NOT allow our government to do the things we're currently doing that is crippling our dollar. There is not another candidate that is taking this issue seriously. And because people think that "going back to the gold standard is not possible" that he can't fix this problem. Which is simply not true. When Ron Paul Talks about the Gold standard, He's pin pointing the exact moment in which we got into this mess. The next logical question is how can we fix it? To which any person that understands the problem knows is to permanently stop the government from hyper inflating the economy and tie the dollar back to a slowly growing commodity - like gold. Keep in mind, I just said PERMANENTLY solve this problem. A point Ron Paul has illustrated over and over is you never allow a precedents to be set where someone could eventually take advantage of. You never grant power to the president that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to take advantage of. Does that make sense? When war is declared without the consent of congress, it becomes a precedent allowing every president in the future to declare war because he has a personal grudge against this country or that. Or has a vested interest in keeping oil prices at a premium. But anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Alot of the issues with our economy can be fixed if the government would permanently stay out of the market. That's all that needs to be done. Going back to the gold standard is not necessary to address this issue. But it makes it permanent... until some other president - with the best intentions - goes back off of it; paving the way for future abuse.
I guess the more important question is now, When this ends up as an open convention within the next couple of months and Ron Paul switch parties from Republican to Independent. Will his supporters still vote for him because they know that a vote for Romney/Santorum/Gengrich really isn't much different than a vote for Obama? Or will they be fear mongered by the Republican GOP into believing that a vote for an independent is a vote taken away from the republican party.
Love the Man, Embrace the Man, Vote with YOUR heart and DO NOT let the liberal OR the Conservative media change your mind with FEAR.
I stopped reading after this.
-
I stopped reading after this.
yeah, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Yeah its Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to think that a system drawn up on an island by a group of mitt romnies in order to permenantly enslave the world is inherently wrong. Today the privately owned company is stacked with ass holes that have no clue what theyre doing. I mean, why would anyone be against that?
"it is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the
century of central banking."
- Ron Paul
-
Explain please. You stopped reading because of bad grammar?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Explain please. You stopped reading because of bad grammar?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?
Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?
Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?
Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.
And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.
Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.
-
Explain please. You stopped reading because of bad grammar?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?
Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?
Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?
Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.
And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.
Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.
It's pretty ridiculous to pinpoint one flaw that you have with a candidate and dismiss them because of that. It's really absurd, especially when like Hein said, Ron Paul won't get the country back on the Gold Standard. Even still, are you seriously weighing that one area of difference so heavily that it puts him behind the other candidates? Seriously? Gimme a break pan.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
-
Obviously we wouldnt have created as much wealth over the last century with out the Fed, but my god we are in a lot of debt. Doubt we see it paid off in any of our life times too. So when someone brings up an alternative to a system that has enslaved us for the rest of our lives, i say that man is not crazy.
Also, agree Santorum is a dip crap.
-
Also, enjoy this video of your local GOP at work sabotaging the election process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UDChEDnISOw
-
Besides, i think Ron Paul is just trolling when he talks about the gold standard. Trying to initiate a paradigm shift. Wake people up. Make them think about what weve let happen to ourselves.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
-
Explain please. You stopped reading because of bad grammar?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?
Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?
Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?
Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.
And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.
Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.
It's pretty ridiculous to pinpoint one flaw that you have with a candidate and dismiss them because of that. It's really absurd, especially when like Hein said, Ron Paul won't get the country back on the Gold Standard. Even still, are you seriously weighing that one area of difference so heavily that it puts him behind the other candidates? Seriously? Gimme a break pan.
Let me be very clear. I wouldn't vote for any of them under any circumstance, ever. This is all purely for entertainment purposes.
I already know who I'm voting for in November. And I live in a swing state.
:gocho:
-
Barry O?
meh.
-
It doesnt matter who you vote for. The candidates will be bought and paid for by the same corporations. False right/left paradigm lives on. Illusion of choice etc. RP is the only one that can save us.
-
It doesnt matter who you vote for. The candidates will be bought and paid for by the same corporations. False right/left paradigm lives on. Illusion of choice etc. RP is the only one that can save us.
Really? That seems a bit dramatic.
-
It doesnt matter who you vote for. The candidates will be bought and paid for by the same corporations. False right/left paradigm lives on. Illusion of choice etc. RP is the only one that can save us.
Really? That seems a bit dramatic.
Why? He's the only one not working for anyone else. That's why the establishment has done everything in their power (short of jfk treatment) to marginalize him.
-
I find this entertaining because I think this is going to end up an open convention. At that point whatever the GOP chooses will be hilarious. I fully expect Ron Paul to be running as an independent at that point - after he's used the Republican candidacy race for all it's worth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Explain please. You stopped reading because of bad grammar?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?
Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?
Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?
Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.
And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.
Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.
It's pretty ridiculous to pinpoint one flaw that you have with a candidate and dismiss them because of that. It's really absurd, especially when like Hein said, Ron Paul won't get the country back on the Gold Standard. Even still, are you seriously weighing that one area of difference so heavily that it puts him behind the other candidates? Seriously? Gimme a break pan.
Let me be very clear. I wouldn't vote for any of them under any circumstance, ever. This is all purely for entertainment purposes.
I already know who I'm voting for in November. And I live in a swing state.
:gocho:
Out of curiosity - who?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Popular misconception. There are hundreds of Ron Paul supporters working their asses off to become delegates for their state GOP. If this ends up as an open convention - there is nothing that requires them to declare a republican nominee in accordance with their states caucus results. They are indeed allowed to nominate whoever they feel is most likely to win the presidency and if many Ron Paul supporters are able to become delegates, you could see Ron Paul receive the republican nominee. That's why the debacle in Missouri Saturday was so important for Ron Paul. The GOP knows the people want Ron and the GOP is willing to break the rules and have people arrested to keep them from participating in these caucuses. The phrase "freedom is popular" apparently isn't true for people afraid of losing control and Ron Paul supporters are trying to beat them at their own game. Missouri this last Saturday is proof of how scared big government is of Ron Paul. Every caucus vote for Ron is still a step closer to an open convention and a possible chance at the world seeing Ron Paul take on Obama. Never lose hope.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
Amen brother.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.
Yeah, pretty much. Also, he has an extremely small chance to win. I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely. That really doesn't matter though. He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message. Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.
Yeah, pretty much. Also, he has an extremely small chance to win. I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely. That really doesn't matter though. He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message. Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.
Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.
Yeah, pretty much. Also, he has an extremely small chance to win. I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely. That really doesn't matter though. He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message. Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.
Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.
It already flies in the face of democracy when people are bullied and barred from participating in conventions/caucuses/GOP events
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.
you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14
He can win.
Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.
Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.
Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.
Yeah, pretty much. Also, he has an extremely small chance to win. I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely. That really doesn't matter though. He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message. Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.
Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.
It already flies in the face of democracy when people are bullied and barred from participating in conventions/caucuses/GOP events
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I agree. It's very disheartening.
-
Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.
I'll be damned if I didn't log into facebook just now and see that this article had been posted. It is a direct response to your statement and is very interesting. Not sure of the validity - but It is something I'll definatley read more into it.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/mar/19/ron-pauls-caucus-strategy-authentic-republicanism/
TAMPA, March 19, 2012—Give yourself a test. Without doing a web search or whipping out that pocket U.S. Constitution that a wild-eyed Tea Partier handed you, fill in the blank in the following sentence: The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a _____form of government.
If you are like ninety percent of the American electorate, you answered “democratic” and you were wrong. The answer is “a republican form of government.” There is a drastic difference between the two and one would think that the Republican Party would know it. Instead, they are identical to their rivals in not only ignoring the distinction but promoting democracy instead.
In a democracy, the will of the majority is the law. Fifty-one percent of the vote empowers the winners to exercise any power they wish. Not so in a republic. The reason the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.
That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
Republicanism is the logical form of government for conservatives. Conservatism at its best protects property rights from an unchecked majority plundering the individual. Liberalism at its best protects property rights from the wealthy conspiring with the government to plunder the masses. At their worst, both conservatism and liberalism legitimize plunder; the former for the few, the latter for the many.
Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.
Paul’s platform likewise represents what is best about conservatism. Without exception, it protects the individual from oppression by the majority. He is the only Republican presidential candidate that has actually said the words “role of government” during any debate. That’s because he is the only candidate that seems to recognize that the government’s role is limited; that even a majority vote cannot sanction it to exercise power beyond those limits. Throughout all of human history, conservatives have defended this principle against the ungoverned passion of the majority.
Yet, conservatives today sound just like liberals when they decry Paul’s supporters using the republican nature of the caucuses to overturn the decisions of uninformed majorities. Their opposition to both Paul’s platform and his political strategy begs the question: Does the Republican Party still believe in a republican form of government? Do they still believe that the power of the majority has limits? Or are they just Democrats with a different supporter base?
George W. Bush never once referred to the United States of America as “a republic.” He consistently referred to it as “a democracy” and like Woodrow Wilson claimed to be defending democracy all over the world. If he was representative of what the Republican Party now stands for, then how is it substantively different from the Democratic Party?
These same questions apply to the issues. If the Republican Party truly favors the big government alternatives to Ron Paul, candidates who all supported the expansion of the federal government in the past and who refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts now, then what is the debate about?
The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy.[/qoute]
-
Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.
I'll be damned if I didn't log into facebook just now and see that this article had been posted. It is a direct response to your statement and is very interesting. Not sure of the validity - but It is something I'll definatley read more into it.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/mar/19/ron-pauls-caucus-strategy-authentic-republicanism/
TAMPA, March 19, 2012—Give yourself a test. Without doing a web search or whipping out that pocket U.S. Constitution that a wild-eyed Tea Partier handed you, fill in the blank in the following sentence: The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a _____form of government.
If you are like ninety percent of the American electorate, you answered “democratic” and you were wrong. The answer is “a republican form of government.” There is a drastic difference between the two and one would think that the Republican Party would know it. Instead, they are identical to their rivals in not only ignoring the distinction but promoting democracy instead.
In a democracy, the will of the majority is the law. Fifty-one percent of the vote empowers the winners to exercise any power they wish. Not so in a republic. The reason the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.
That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
Republicanism is the logical form of government for conservatives. Conservatism at its best protects property rights from an unchecked majority plundering the individual. Liberalism at its best protects property rights from the wealthy conspiring with the government to plunder the masses. At their worst, both conservatism and liberalism legitimize plunder; the former for the few, the latter for the many.
Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.
Paul’s platform likewise represents what is best about conservatism. Without exception, it protects the individual from oppression by the majority. He is the only Republican presidential candidate that has actually said the words “role of government” during any debate. That’s because he is the only candidate that seems to recognize that the government’s role is limited; that even a majority vote cannot sanction it to exercise power beyond those limits. Throughout all of human history, conservatives have defended this principle against the ungoverned passion of the majority.
Yet, conservatives today sound just like liberals when they decry Paul’s supporters using the republican nature of the caucuses to overturn the decisions of uninformed majorities. Their opposition to both Paul’s platform and his political strategy begs the question: Does the Republican Party still believe in a republican form of government? Do they still believe that the power of the majority has limits? Or are they just Democrats with a different supporter base?
George W. Bush never once referred to the United States of America as “a republic.” He consistently referred to it as “a democracy” and like Woodrow Wilson claimed to be defending democracy all over the world. If he was representative of what the Republican Party now stands for, then how is it substantively different from the Democratic Party?
These same questions apply to the issues. If the Republican Party truly favors the big government alternatives to Ron Paul, candidates who all supported the expansion of the federal government in the past and who refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts now, then what is the debate about?
The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy.[/qoute]
Yes, we have a republic where democratically elected officials make decisions of the state with no popular vote. The problem comes when you take away the democratic process of electing those officials.
-
I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy. What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up. People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy. What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up. People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does the constitution say about the nomination process for the republican presidential candidate?
-
This article also implies that anyone that says Santorum is the only true republican and the party has not changed while Ron Paul is not a republican is wrong and doesn't know their history. But like I said, I would like to read more into it before I base arguments off of one article.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Paul has started something great. I look for someone else to grab the torch. South Carolina State Sen. Tom Davis is primed for big movement imo.
-
I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy. What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up. People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does the constitution say about the nomination process for the republican presidential candidate?
I don't know. But I would imagine democrats are more democratic, while Republicans follow a republic styled philosophy more. But I wasn't an English major so who knows how each party decided to name themselves. Maybe it was opposites day and republicans believe in a democracy over a republic. :dunno:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This article also implies that anyone that says Santorum is the only true republican and the party has not changed while Ron Paul is not a republican is wrong and doesn't know their history. But like I said, I would like to read more into it before I base arguments off of one article.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf)
Ron Paul fits into some portions of the Republican Party Platform, but for the most part, he is not a republican.
-
I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy. What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up. People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does the constitution say about the nomination process for the republican presidential candidate?
I don't know. But I would imagine democrats are more democratic, while Republicans follow a republic styled philosophy more. But I wasn't an English major so who knows how each party decided to name themselves. Maybe it was opposites day and republicans believe in a democracy over a republic. :dunno:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It says absolutely nothing about the republican or democratic parties.
-
So who gives a crap if Ron Paul getting the nominee isn't democratic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So who gives a crap if Ron Paul getting the nominee isn't democratic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The people who actually show up and vote at the primaries and caucuses do.
-
This article also implies that anyone that says Santorum is the only true republican and the party has not changed while Ron Paul is not a republican is wrong and doesn't know their history. But like I said, I would like to read more into it before I base arguments off of one article.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf)
Ron Paul fits into some portions of the Republican Party Platform, but for the most part, he is not a republican.
nice link. I especially like the part where it specifies the 2008 platform. Like it matters because the republican ideology hasn't changed right? But anyway instead of making me read a book. Why don't you explain to me why he isn't a republican.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Get inspired. Make a difference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcKwv_FWCQs&feature=related
-
So who gives a crap if Ron Paul getting the nominee isn't democratic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The people who actually show up and vote at the primaries and caucuses do.
at which point you tell them they are mistaken if they think we live in a democracy. How the eff do you not get this?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Paul has started something great. I look for someone else to grab the torch. South Carolina State Sen. Tom Davis is primed for big movement imo.
Its Rand Paul. He is the future.
-
This article also implies that anyone that says Santorum is the only true republican and the party has not changed while Ron Paul is not a republican is wrong and doesn't know their history. But like I said, I would like to read more into it before I base arguments off of one article.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf)
Ron Paul fits into some portions of the Republican Party Platform, but for the most part, he is not a republican.
nice link. I especially like the part where it specifies the 2008 platform. Like it matters because the republican ideology hasn't changed right? But anyway instead of making me read a book. Why don't you explain to me why he isn't a republican.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The platform has not been updated since 2008. The 2012 platform will be finished for the RNC in Tampa, but as of today, that is the most current copy of the official Republican Party Platform. I can assure you that the new platform won't be much different. They are called "conservative" for a reason.
Ron Paul is not a republican because he does not share the views of the republican party regarding national defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, the war on drugs, foreign aid, Israel and the Middle East, trade policy, gay marriage, internet gambling, the environment, or anything else other than fiscal conservatism, really. And if you look at the republican party's views on the aforementioned issues, he doesn't really even share their views on fiscal policy, either.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and I think he's great, but he is only running on the republican ticket because he knows there is absolutely no shot of a third party candidate ever winning the presidency when he would split the republican vote at best.
-
So who gives a crap if Ron Paul getting the nominee isn't democratic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The people who actually show up and vote at the primaries and caucuses do.
at which point you tell them they are mistaken if they think we live in a democracy. How the eff do you not get this?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Republican Party is not a republic or a democracy. It is a political party. They are free to nominate whoever they choose. It would just be completely asinine to nominate a candidate who wasn't the most popular amongst their members in a single state. Disenfranchising their members before the actual presidential election where votes really will matter would be incredibly stupid.
-
Rick Sandstorum (http://fuckyeahricksantorum.tumblr.com/)
-
You're right. They are free to nominate whoever they chose. And by they, I mean the delegates. I'm going to explain this in detail, because I get the feeling you & several people here, like myself a couple of years ago, don't fully understand the process. Depending on what state you live in, there are different ways of becoming a delegate. In caucus states, like kansas, delegates are elected at a precinct level by your very own neighbors. Often times, only showing your willingness to dedicate yourself to the republican party and proving you are level headed person that represents the morals, desires & principles of your peers is enough to prove your ability to be a state delegate. If you are able to gain enough support and enough people show up to your precinct caucus, you can be voted a delegate. Not because you support Ron Paul, Newt Gengrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, but because your neighbors trust you as someone that has similar morals, principles & interest - and your best interest is their best interest.
The difference between this method & a democracy is obviously the popular vote is used at the very lowest of levels. A true democracy would take everyone's votes into account at the very highest level (the nomination & then again for the president) and there would be no delegates. Here's why delegates are important: How many people do you know invest any time into educating themselves on who the best candidate is? Who checks to make sure a presidential candidate's voting record jives with is campaign? Who does enough research to hold politicians accountable when it turns out they're a big fat liar? Certainly not the average voter. I would say you, and maybe three or four other people in this thread are that dedicated to learning as much as possible about these candidates. Think of it this way, a democracy would work if it were electing a president to govern your city block. You would know if he mows his lawn, yells at the neighbor kids or smokes weed in his basement. You know if they would represent your best interest. In a republic, these delegates do the research and because the masses elected them due to their morals, wishes & principles - They represent the masses with 1 vote for president. The process becomes slightly circumvented by binding the delegates to agree with the popular vote if there is an agreeance between all of the masses (otherwise known as a majority) However, in the event a candidate does not gain the necessary amount of delegates, and the masses are not in agreeance, delegates are no longer bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote of their precincts and are indeed free to vote for whoever they wish to be the republican nominee. This very process is the definition of a Republic. Individuals being granted power by their peers to represent them in voting. And THAT is why no one will have the right to bitch and moan if Ron Paul gets the nomination through a brokered convention. They gave the delegates the power to put him there. People get too wrapped up in this being a popularity contest. What's popular among the people is NOT what's in their best interest. Sarah Palin COULD NOT beat Obama. Period. Yet I know hundreds of Republicans that worship the ground she walks on and can't seem to understand why she isn't running. Republicans want Obama GONE. They would vote for any republican to achieve that. I know tons of Liberals that would vote for Paul if he was an option - much more than conservatives that would refuse to vote for Paul if he were the only republican option.
As to Ron Paul not being a republican. How is it fair to change the stance of the political party to accommodate the current crop of candidates, while suggesting someone is not a republican, who happens to be an individual that has tailored his very principles from some of how the republican party was formed. You may say the republican party has not changed, but that is not true.
The First Republican President to take office was Abraham Lincoln. Lets look at some of his principles; In the industrial sector he fought for the Union to be formed. While Ron Paul is not a strong proponent of the Union, he believes in the right to work states. Here's a direct quote from his web site: "While Ron Paul supports the right of every American to join a private sector union if they wish, he believes, like most Americans, that forcing workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job is wrong." Lincoln supported the Unions because they advocated for the laborers. Ron Paul also advocates for the Laborers by giving them a choice whether they want to be in a Union or Not. Lincoln valued the founding fathers and often fell back on their principles during debates. His approach to abolishing slavery was based off of the concept that ALL men are created equal - even though his main motivation was to empower unions- but whatever. There isn't a single republican nominee in the past 20 years that has quoted the founding fathers as much as Ron Paul. But speaking of Slavery - "Free Soil" ring a bell? Early republicans wanted to provide a free market to the newly freed slaves by giving everyone a chance to purchase land rather than be give free worthless swamp land to live on. Slaves were begging for the right to pool their $$ to purchase land that they could actually farm & build wealth on. Republicans wanted to allow them this right, with principles built on smaller government - a.k.a Not interfering with civil liberties. Surely you can draw comparisons of allowing a free market within the social & welfare politics with slaves to the non-interventionist accusations Dr. Paul deflects by suggesting Foreign Aid does nothing to actually help people on a permanent basis but causes them to be dependents on government. Don't give them a hand out - Allow them to participate in helping themselves. People that call themselves republicans don't acknowledge this because it's not popular. Very few people admit to this line of thinking - but it's been a recurring message over the years. Take a look into what a social engineer is if you want more info on this subject. I've a great article if you're interested
Lets see, What did you provide as examples... national defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, the war on drugs, foreign aid, Israel and the Middle East, trade policy, gay marriage, internet gambling, the environment,
National Defense: early republicans only concerned themselves with their own civil wars - Not other peoples civil wars. If our current crop of republicans would adopt a free market - no one would give a crap about isreal and oil in the middle east. I covered Trade Policy & Foreign Aid already and gave examples why I think Ron Paul is in line with Republican thinking. Gay Marriage. Oooh. I was hoping you would say that one. Ever heard of John C. Fremont? First guy to run as a republican, but anyway - his campaigns were often linked to the "Free Love" movement. Can you guess what that's about? Basically open marriages and women able to be whores - but given that all men are created equal, I would imagine if a woman was able to sleep with whoever she wanted, two dudes were certainly allowed to fornicate. Doesn't sound very conservative does it? It was definitely one of the original principles of the Republic. The environment. I don't know dude - He's open to drilling for oil any where & any time. Not sure how that's not a common republican view. War on drugs. You got me. Prohibition was put in place by Republicans - but it was also repealed by a Republican. Call it even? Internet gambling... Is this really an issue? I don't have much on national defense. But I think there's a lot of misconception of his actual stance. He's a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. He voted TO authorize military force to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice. Here's a link to read more: Ron Paul on National Defense/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/)
He's also Pro-Life. Certainly a very Republican point of view - you conveniently left that out. Oh, and he actually has a voting record and a philosophy that makes one believe he's not a liar when he says he will repeal Obamacare. Social Security - He wants to eliminate taxes on them. REPUBLICAN POINT OF VIEW. Medicare medicaid - lot of spending cuts - smaller government yada yada yada. Read above about early republicans holding principles of smaller government. You could even compare this to my foreign aid argument. But I can go on and on.
So if you're still reading this, I have more examples of how much the republican party has changed in it's history. The last forty years of the 1800's, the first congressional republicans to ever exist passed some pretty major legislation, the first government funded educational system, a national banking system, sky-high tariffs, the first income tax, paper money with no commodity driven backing all while allowing a huge national debt. All those things sound more like a bunch of democrats to me - certainly not conservative.
-
I guess the point I'm trying to make, is it's ridiculous to say Ron is not a republican while saying Newt, Mitt & Rick are. Political parties are, like you said, an umbrella - which I see as a lot like religion. You're making the statement that Baptist are not Christians as only Catholics are. If anyone wants to run under the Republican party, it's because they want to generalize their stance on politics - just like if anyone says they're a Christian, they want to generalize their stance on religion. Republicans can disagree with each other on basic fundamental principles without being cast out of their party. I certainly don't know anyone that agrees 100% with everything their political party stands for.
-
You're right. They are free to nominate whoever they chose. And by they, I mean the delegates. I'm going to explain this in detail, because I get the feeling you & several people here, like myself a couple of years ago, don't fully understand the process. Depending on what state you live in, there are different ways of becoming a delegate. In caucus states, like kansas, delegates are elected at a precinct level by your very own neighbors. Often times, only showing your willingness to dedicate yourself to the republican party and proving you are level headed person that represents the morals, desires & principles of your peers is enough to prove your ability to be a state delegate. If you are able to gain enough support and enough people show up to your precinct caucus, you can be voted a delegate. Not because you support Ron Paul, Newt Gengrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, but because your neighbors trust you as someone that has similar morals, principles & interest - and your best interest is their best interest.
The difference between this method & a democracy is obviously the popular vote is used at the very lowest of levels. A true democracy would take everyone's votes into account at the very highest level (the nomination & then again for the president) and there would be no delegates. Here's why delegates are important: How many people do you know invest any time into educating themselves on who the best candidate is? Who checks to make sure a presidential candidate's voting record jives with is campaign? Who does enough research to hold politicians accountable when it turns out they're a big fat liar? Certainly not the average voter. I would say you, and maybe three or four other people in this thread are that dedicated to learning as much as possible about these candidates. Think of it this way, a democracy would work if it were electing a president to govern your city block. You would know if he mows his lawn, yells at the neighbor kids or smokes weed in his basement. You know if they would represent your best interest. In a republic, these delegates do the research and because the masses elected them due to their morals, wishes & principles - They represent the masses with 1 vote for president. The process becomes slightly circumvented by binding the delegates to agree with the popular vote if there is an agreeance between all of the masses (otherwise known as a majority) However, in the event a candidate does not gain the necessary amount of delegates, and the masses are not in agreeance, delegates are no longer bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote of their precincts and are indeed free to vote for whoever they wish to be the republican nominee. This very process is the definition of a Republic. Individuals being granted power by their peers to represent them in voting. And THAT is why no one will have the right to bitch and moan if Ron Paul gets the nomination through a brokered convention. They gave the delegates the power to put him there. People get too wrapped up in this being a popularity contest. What's popular among the people is NOT what's in their best interest. Sarah Palin COULD NOT beat Obama. Period. Yet I know hundreds of Republicans that worship the ground she walks on and can't seem to understand why she isn't running. Republicans want Obama GONE. They would vote for any republican to achieve that. I know tons of Liberals that would vote for Paul if he was an option - much more than conservatives that would refuse to vote for Paul if he were the only republican option.
I understand how the nomination process works. I never said it was impossible Ron Paul to get the nomination. I just said that it would be bullshit. Delegates are selected and trusted to vote according to how the results went in their precinct. It is possible that the Ron Paul campaign infiltrated this process and intends to hijack the Republican Party, but it just doesn't seem very likely to me.
As to Ron Paul not being a republican. How is it fair to change the stance of the political party to accommodate the current crop of candidates, while suggesting someone is not a republican, who happens to be an individual that has tailored his very principles from some of how the republican party was formed. You may say the republican party has not changed, but that is not true.
The First Republican President to take office was Abraham Lincoln. Lets look at some of his principles; In the industrial sector he fought for the Union to be formed. While Ron Paul is not a strong proponent of the Union, he believes in the right to work states. Here's a direct quote from his web site: "While Ron Paul supports the right of every American to join a private sector union if they wish, he believes, like most Americans, that forcing workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job is wrong." Lincoln supported the Unions because they advocated for the laborers. Ron Paul also advocates for the Laborers by giving them a choice whether they want to be in a Union or Not. Lincoln valued the founding fathers and often fell back on their principles during debates. His approach to abolishing slavery was based off of the concept that ALL men are created equal - even though his main motivation was to empower unions- but whatever. There isn't a single republican nominee in the past 20 years that has quoted the founding fathers as much as Ron Paul. But speaking of Slavery - "Free Soil" ring a bell? Early republicans wanted to provide a free market to the newly freed slaves by giving everyone a chance to purchase land rather than be give free worthless swamp land to live on. Slaves were begging for the right to pool their $$ to purchase land that they could actually farm & build wealth on. Republicans wanted to allow them this right, with principles built on smaller government - a.k.a Not interfering with civil liberties. Surely you can draw comparisons of allowing a free market within the social & welfare politics with slaves to the non-interventionist accusations Dr. Paul deflects by suggesting Foreign Aid does nothing to actually help people on a permanent basis but causes them to be dependents on government. Don't give them a hand out - Allow them to participate in helping themselves. People that call themselves republicans don't acknowledge this because it's not popular. Very few people admit to this line of thinking - but it's been a recurring message over the years. Take a look into what a social engineer is if you want more info on this subject. I've a great article if you're interested
You gave me crap for linking the most current copy of the official Republican Party Platform because it was 4 years old, yet you come back and say that Ron Paul would have fit right in 200 years ago. . . :dunno:
Lets see, What did you provide as examples... national defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, the war on drugs, foreign aid, Israel and the Middle East, trade policy, gay marriage, internet gambling, the environment,
National Defense: early republicans only concerned themselves with their own civil wars - Not other peoples civil wars. If our current crop of republicans would adopt a free market - no one would give a crap about isreal and oil in the middle east.
It doesn't matter what the early republicans would have done. The party of today believes in a strong worldwide military presence where we fight wars for other people. Also, a free market includes trade with everyone, even the middle east.
I covered Trade Policy & Foreign Aid already and gave examples why I think Ron Paul is in line with Republican thinking. Gay Marriage. Oooh. I was hoping you would say that one. Ever heard of John C. Fremont? First guy to run as a republican, but anyway - his campaigns were often linked to the "Free Love" movement. Can you guess what that's about? Basically open marriages and women able to be whores - but given that all men are created equal, I would imagine if a woman was able to sleep with whoever she wanted, two dudes were certainly allowed to fornicate. Doesn't sound very conservative does it? It was definitely one of the original principles of the Republic.
Again, it doesn't really matter what the first republican would have done. The current republican platform devotes nearly an entire page to protecting traditional marriage.
The environment. I don't know dude - He's open to drilling for oil any where & any time. Not sure how that's not a common republican view.
There are several key differences on environmental policy, and I honestly would not be surprised if the republicans change their stance on this when the next platform comes out. First of all, Ron Paul wants to abolish the EPA and just let the market handle all environmental issues (a bad idea, imo). The Republican Party wants to address climate change by working with the international community and using government dollars to fund research for zero emission technology.
War on drugs. You got me. Prohibition was put in place by Republicans - but it was also repealed by a Republican. Call it even?
No.
Internet gambling... Is this really an issue?
Apparently it's enough of an issue to warrant its own subsection on the party platform.
I don't have much on national defense. But I think there's a lot of misconception of his actual stance. He's a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. He voted TO authorize military force to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice. Here's a link to read more: Ron Paul on National Defense/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/)
He also believes that national defense does not include preemptive wars, wars without the approval of congress, occupation of foreign lands, etc.
He's also Pro-Life. Certainly a very Republican point of view - you conveniently left that out.
Sure, he's pro-life, but does he believe in using government bureaucracy (paid for by the American people) to increase the steps needed to get an abortion like the republicans do? I honestly don't know.
Social Security - He wants to eliminate taxes on them.
The republicans don't.
Medicare medicaid - lot of spending cuts - smaller government yada yada yada.
Republicans don't really want to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid. They just want to give the patient more options and root out fraud. Ron Paul would prefer if those programs just did not exist and he would make massive cuts to both of them.
Read above about early republicans holding principles of smaller government. You could even compare this to my foreign aid argument. But I can go on and on.
So if you're still reading this, I have more examples of how much the republican party has changed in it's history. The last forty years of the 1800's, the first congressional republicans to ever exist passed some pretty major legislation, the first government funded educational system, a national banking system, sky-high tariffs, the first income tax, paper money with no commodity driven backing all while allowing a huge national debt. All those things sound more like a bunch of democrats to me - certainly not conservative.
Again, it doesn't really matter what the early Republicans (who much more resemble the democrats on most issues) would have done. The Republican Party is what it is. I'm sorry it's not what you want it to be.
-
Rick Sandstorum (http://fuckyeahricksantorum.tumblr.com/)
This was amazing.
-
Not sure you do understand the process if you don’t understand that the people elect delegates; and If the people elect delegates that will support Ron Paul – it’s their fault for not paying attention. They’re welcome to get involved to choose whatever delegates would support whoever they want for president. Don’t know how you have a beef with that. You keep saying the delegates are elected to support the most popular candidate. If the candidate doesn’t get to 1144 delegates, then he’s not real damn popular is he? If they go with Romney – The Santorum people will be pissed – and likewise for the opposite. Would it upset you more if they selected Geb Bush or Ron Paul? Only one could beat Obama in my opinion – so as a republican I would be pretty pissed if the GOP is handing the keys back over to Obama without a fight.
As for the history lesson; dude, the entire premise of my post was to show you that the Republican party has changed. I wasn’t busting your balls for posting a link that was four years old, I was pointing out how absurd it is that the republican party changes so much that they release an update to their platform every four years – yet you won’t admit that Ron Paul would have been considered a Republican – but the party has changed. If they change so often, what’s the point to making the statement a particular candidate is not a republican? I could pick an arbitrary point in time and argue that Obama is a Republican. This is how political platforms change. Someone breaks the barriers, or in this case – returns to something once traditional, and the party grows. How do you think it got to this point? At points in time, some historically know republicans were probably accused of “not being a real Republican”. He’s running under the Republican platform. Deal with it.
My honest opinion though, which is why I believe the statement you’re repeatedly making is absurd; Political affiliations exist so that ignorant people can choose a sides easier. “I’m a Democrat so I’m gonna vote for so & so – or - I’m a republican so I’m gonna vote for so & so.” As far as pissing off the voters – The have the option to vote for anyone they want when the actual election comes around. The only purpose of the GOP caucuses is to select the candidate most likely to beat Obama. The only reason the majority of people don’t like Ron Paul is because they’ve been told he’s not a republican. Ask the average person that supports Rick Santorum why they don’t like Ron Paul, and they won’t be able to give you anything but a non-informed answer. The only people that would be pissed about Ron getting the nominee is the GOP machine, because they know they’re losing control of what they’ve turned their party into.
Direct responses to your responses: No crap the free market includes the middle east. Do you really think we’d still be buying oil from the middle east if we were allowed to tap into the oil here? The policies on EPA are not guided by the republican party. Their guided by what the people want. There is a large majority of people that just want lower gas prices – but they’re getting sick of hearing about lack of supervision by the EPA. If something isn’t working – you don’t dump more $$ into it. If you explain it to the people this way, many will agree. Look, I think you’re giving the average voter WAY too much credit. Over half the population looks at who their going to vote for by A. can they still consider themselves a “Republican” or “Democrat” if they vote for this person (which we’ve covered how & why these parties are constantly changing) B. How physically attractive is this candidate? C. How good of a speaker is this Candidate? D. Does he tell me I’m awesome because I am a Christian and a Patriot?
That’s it. No one gives a crap about the issues. If they did – they probably wouldn’t hate Ron Paul so much.
-
The only reason the majority of people don’t like Ron Paul is because they’ve been told he’s not a republican. Ask the average person that supports Rick Santorum why they don’t like Ron Paul, and they won’t be able to give you anything but a non-informed answer.
There are plenty of republicans who do not support Ron Paul because they are afraid of terrorists getting nuclear weapons, agree with jailing drug addicts, don't like gay people, etc.
Direct responses to your responses: No crap the free market includes the middle east. Do you really think we’d still be buying oil from the middle east if we were allowed to tap into the oil here?
Yes. Unless we could magically make US oil cheaper to access, we would be pumping less domestic oil under a free market than we do today because the government wouldn't be subsidizing oil exploration to push "energy independent" policies. Economics drive oil exploration. Middle Eastern oil is shallower and has better yields than US oil. It is cheaper to import oil from the Middle East than it is to pump oil from American rigs.
As to everything else you said, Ron Paul has 50 delegates to date. If he can actually get enough delegates to vote for him in Tampa, more power to him. I just don't see it happening.
-
All I have to say is if your voting for Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich.... F*CK YOU :facepalm:
"Americans are looking for serious solutions, not more of same. In order to reject the status quo, lawmakers in Congress must act boldly and decisively on fiscal matters by adopting measures like those found in my own 'Plan to Restore America.' My plan actually cuts $1 trillion in spending in one year, and it sets the stage for serious reforms in entitlements while preserving benefits for seniors and the dependent. My plan also eliminates five unconstitutional cabinet departments, including the departments of Education and Energy. Additionally, my plan reduces the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, makes permanent the Bush-era tax cuts, and ends taxes on individual savings and repatriated capital. And it would balance the budget in only three years"“This is what a serious budget proposal looks like. Any proposal that doesn't cut real spending and adds to the deficit isn't one that will get us out of this mess and back on track"
“Of the five men seeking the office of President, I am the only one who has offered a serious plan with real cuts and a real path to economic prosperity.”
-
If Santorum gets the nod, which now seems increasingly inevitable due to the growing acceptance of anti-Mormon sentiment. Are Republicans bigotting their way to a guaranteed Barry second term?
Also this election cycle has shown me that I do not hate conservatives in general. Rather my views are fairly alligned with fiscal coservatives. However I hate social conservatives and those that pander to them.
-
If Santorum gets the nod, which now seems increasingly inevitable due to the growing acceptance of anti-Mormon sentiment. Are Republicans bigotting their way to a guaranteed Barry second term?
Also this election cycle has shown me that I do not hate conservatives in general. Rather my views are fairly alligned with fiscal coservatives. However I hate social conservatives and those that pander to them.
In a sense, yes. You can't imagine how disgusted I am with Santorum. If I had to choose only between Romney & Obama, I would take Romney only because I'm not yet sure if he's as big a liar as I think he is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If Santorum gets the nod, which now seems increasingly inevitable due to the growing acceptance of anti-Mormon sentiment. Are Republicans bigotting their way to a guaranteed Barry second term?
Also this election cycle has shown me that I do not hate conservatives in general. Rather my views are fairly alligned with fiscal coservatives. However I hate social conservatives and those that pander to them.
This is exactly where ive found myself.
And the Republicans dont like Ron Paul because they know he wouldnt persecute gays and bomb brown people.
-
If Santorum gets the nod, which now seems increasingly inevitable due to the growing acceptance of anti-Mormon sentiment. Are Republicans bigotting their way to a guaranteed Barry second term?
Also this election cycle has shown me that I do not hate conservatives in general. Rather my views are fairly alligned with fiscal coservatives. However I hate social conservatives and those that pander to them.
This is exactly where ive found myself.
And the Republicans dont like Ron Paul because they know he wouldnt persecute gays and bomb brown people.
Man, if a candidate would just nut up and say this, he would be a shoe in with most R voters.
-
If Santorum gets the nod, which now seems increasingly inevitable due to the growing acceptance of anti-Mormon sentiment. Are Republicans bigotting their way to a guaranteed Barry second term?
Also this election cycle has shown me that I do not hate conservatives in general. Rather my views are fairly alligned with fiscal coservatives. However I hate social conservatives and those that pander to them.
This is exactly where ive found myself.
And the Republicans dont like Ron Paul because they know he wouldnt persecute gays and bomb brown people.
Man, if a candidate would just nut up and say this, he would be a shoe in with most R voters.
. His name is Santorum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If Santorum gets the nod, which now seems increasingly inevitable due to the growing acceptance of anti-Mormon sentiment. Are Republicans bigotting their way to a guaranteed Barry second term?
Also this election cycle has shown me that I do not hate conservatives in general. Rather my views are fairly alligned with fiscal coservatives. However I hate social conservatives and those that pander to them.
This is exactly where ive found myself.
And the Republicans dont like Ron Paul because they know he wouldnt persecute gays and bomb brown people.
Man, if a candidate would just nut up and say this, he would be a shoe in with most R voters.
. His name is Santorum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So true.
-
Hating someone based on their political beliefs is so stupid.
-
For the record, I like everyone in this thread. Except Santorum supporters. Those people are dumb shits.
-
For the record, I like everyone in this thread. Except Santorum supporters. Those people are dumb shits.
Did someone here support Santorum?
-
For the record, I like everyone in this thread. Except Santorum supporters. Those people are dumb shits.
Did someone here support Santorum?
there were a couple post that could have been sarcastic - but I wasn't sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For the record, I like everyone in this thread. Except Santorum supporters. Those people are dumb shits.
Did someone here support Santorum?
I hope not.
-
Spoke with a Santorum supporter today. I've known this guy for 3 years. We've never talked politics and I had no idea he was a Santorum supporter, although he is a big NRA guy. The only time we come to disagreement is when I tell him I don't go to church; he'll often proceed to tell me I should check out his church sometime. I always thought he was rather intelligent... except for the few occasions when he treated me like there was a hole in my soul because I didn't go to church... that made me just think he was incredible naive. I really don't understand Santorum supporters.