26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

[Kevin_Kennedy]

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying | Tom Woods

 

[Decepticon]

You forgot one.

I'm not crazy, nor am I voting for a crazy old bastard who is UNELECTABLE and even if he were to win, who could not govern worth a damn because he's a libertarian in a democrat/republican dichotomy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You forgot one.

I'm not crazy, nor am I voting for a crazy old bastard who is UNELECTABLE and even if he were to win, who could not govern worth a damn because he's a libertarian in a democrat/republican dichotomy.

Thank you for that perfect illustration of what points 22 and 23 would look like in practice.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

 

[Decepticon]

You forgot one.

I'm not crazy, nor am I voting for a crazy old bastard who is UNELECTABLE and even if he were to win, who could not govern worth a damn because he's a libertarian in a democrat/republican dichotomy.

Thank you for that perfect illustration of what points 22 and 23 would look like in practice.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

Funny how points 22 and 23 make it impossible to criticize Ron Paul.

22 and 23 state that anything said about Ron Paul, by anyone other than Ron Paul is a lie.
That's not an argument. That's a way of HIDING all the STUPID shit he's said over the years.

I mean when the media reports that white supremacists are working on his campaign, we shouldn't believe it huh?
When the media brings up old racist newsletters, written in first person and signed by the Grand Poobah of the Ronulans himself, we shouldn't believe it?
When his idiot son refuses to cooperate with airport security and Ron says he was "detained" we shouldn't believe the media?

The problem isn't that Ron Paul is so great and people just don't recognize it.
The problem is that Ron Paul is a fucking idealist who stands ZERO chance of implementing ANY of his ideas in a practical sense because he won't compromise on his crazy.

Eliminate the Fed?
You could also watch your economy go right into the shitter.
Would that make you happy? After wrecking the economy and making hundreds of millions living in misery, what will be your excuse for bad Ronulan press then? That the MEDIA is to blame?

You Ronulans are a bunch of Pollyannas with your head in the clouds thinking he's the answer to everything. The only thing he's an answer to is teh question of how crazy can you be and still be considered a viable conservative candidate.
Had Ron Paul really given a crap about this country, he would have run for something other than his safe House seat and accumulating all those sweet taxpayer funded federal benefits and perks for 30 years.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You forgot one.

I'm not crazy, nor am I voting for a crazy old bastard who is UNELECTABLE and even if he were to win, who could not govern worth a damn because he's a libertarian in a democrat/republican dichotomy.

Thank you for that perfect illustration of what points 22 and 23 would look like in practice.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

Funny how points 22 and 23 make it impossible to criticize Ron Paul.

22 and 23 state that anything said about Ron Paul, by anyone other than Ron Paul is a lie.
That's not an argument. That's a way of HIDING all the STUPID shit he's said over the years.

I mean when the media reports that white supremacists are working on his campaign, we shouldn't believe it huh?
When the media brings up old racist newsletters, written in first person and signed by the Grand Poobah of the Ronulans himself, we shouldn't believe it?
When his idiot son refuses to cooperate with airport security and Ron says he was "detained" we shouldn't believe the media?

The problem isn't that Ron Paul is so great and people just don't recognize it.
The problem is that Ron Paul is a fucking idealist who stands ZERO chance of implementing ANY of his ideas in a practical sense because he won't compromise on his crazy.

Eliminate the Fed?
You could also watch your economy go right into the shitter.
Would that make you happy? After wrecking the economy and making hundreds of millions living in misery, what will be your excuse for bad Ronulan press then? That the MEDIA is to blame?

You Ronulans are a bunch of Pollyannas with your head in the clouds thinking he's the answer to everything. The only thing he's an answer to is teh question of how crazy can you be and still be considered a viable conservative candidate.
Had Ron Paul really given a crap about this country, he would have run for something other than his safe House seat and accumulating all those sweet taxpayer funded federal benefits and perks for 30 years.

You are a fucking IDIOT!! What taxpayer funded benefits and perks are you babbling about? All the ones that he's REFUSED to take? Like a Congressional pension?

Dumber than a box of rocks, you are!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You forgot one.

I'm not crazy, nor am I voting for a crazy old bastard who is UNELECTABLE and even if he were to win, who could not govern worth a damn because he's a libertarian in a democrat/republican dichotomy.

Thank you for that perfect illustration of what points 22 and 23 would look like in practice.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

Funny how points 22 and 23 make it impossible to criticize Ron Paul.

22 and 23 state that anything said about Ron Paul, by anyone other than Ron Paul is a lie.
That's not an argument. That's a way of HIDING all the STUPID shit he's said over the years.

I mean when the media reports that white supremacists are working on his campaign, we shouldn't believe it huh?
When the media brings up old racist newsletters, written in first person and signed by the Grand Poobah of the Ronulans himself, we shouldn't believe it?
When his idiot son refuses to cooperate with airport security and Ron says he was "detained" we shouldn't believe the media?

The problem isn't that Ron Paul is so great and people just don't recognize it.
The problem is that Ron Paul is a fucking idealist who stands ZERO chance of implementing ANY of his ideas in a practical sense because he won't compromise on his crazy.

Eliminate the Fed?
You could also watch your economy go right into the shitter.
Would that make you happy? After wrecking the economy and making hundreds of millions living in misery, what will be your excuse for bad Ronulan press then? That the MEDIA is to blame?

You Ronulans are a bunch of Pollyannas with your head in the clouds thinking he's the answer to everything. The only thing he's an answer to is teh question of how crazy can you be and still be considered a viable conservative candidate.
Had Ron Paul really given a crap about this country, he would have run for something other than his safe House seat and accumulating all those sweet taxpayer funded federal benefits and perks for 30 years.

It's not impossible to criticize Ron Paul. Points 22 and 23 are specifically referring to media fabrications such as his being "unelectable," despite the polling showing that Romney is the only Republican to do better than Ron Paul in head to head match ups against the sitting President of the United States. Not to mention that Ron Paul has more support from independents than any other Republican, and often even more than President Obama. So his being "unelectable" is hogwash, and points 22 and 23 simply point out how conservatives will often rail against the "liberal" media but many will then turn around and parrot their lies about Ron Paul.

There are no white supremacists working on his campaign, and the newsletters are nonsense. Should he have had to answer for them? Sure. They did have his name on them, and he was too defensive in answering questions about them. However, nobody actually believes he wrote them. Politicians often employ ghostwriters. It's an open secret that Tom Woods, who wrote this blog, ghostwrote Paul's book The Revolution, and probably End The Fed and Liberty Defined as well. Is it really such a stretch that he had ghostwriters for his newsletter while he was delivering babies? As for it being written in the first person, I bet Mitt Romney and Rick Perry's books are written in the first person as well, and somehow I doubt they actually wrote much if any part of them.

There's a security video that was released that shows Rand was detained in a cubicle just as he said he was.

And GuyPinestra took care of your nonsensical claim that Ron Paul receives taxpayer funded benefits, so I won't bother.

 

[Decepticon]

Thank you for that perfect illustration of what points 22 and 23 would look like in practice.

Funny how points 22 and 23 make it impossible to criticize Ron Paul.

22 and 23 state that anything said about Ron Paul, by anyone other than Ron Paul is a lie.
That's not an argument. That's a way of HIDING all the STUPID shit he's said over the years.

I mean when the media reports that white supremacists are working on his campaign, we shouldn't believe it huh?
When the media brings up old racist newsletters, written in first person and signed by the Grand Poobah of the Ronulans himself, we shouldn't believe it?
When his idiot son refuses to cooperate with airport security and Ron says he was "detained" we shouldn't believe the media?

The problem isn't that Ron Paul is so great and people just don't recognize it.
The problem is that Ron Paul is a fucking idealist who stands ZERO chance of implementing ANY of his ideas in a practical sense because he won't compromise on his crazy.

Eliminate the Fed?
You could also watch your economy go right into the shitter.
Would that make you happy? After wrecking the economy and making hundreds of millions living in misery, what will be your excuse for bad Ronulan press then? That the MEDIA is to blame?

You Ronulans are a bunch of Pollyannas with your head in the clouds thinking he's the answer to everything. The only thing he's an answer to is teh question of how crazy can you be and still be considered a viable conservative candidate.
Had Ron Paul really given a crap about this country, he would have run for something other than his safe House seat and accumulating all those sweet taxpayer funded federal benefits and perks for 30 years.

It's not impossible to criticize Ron Paul. Points 22 and 23 are specifically referring to media fabrications such as his being "unelectable," despite the polling showing that Romney is the only Republican to do better than Ron Paul in head to head match ups against the sitting President of the United States. Not to mention that Ron Paul has more support from independents than any other Republican, and often even more than President Obama. So his being "unelectable" is hogwash, and points 22 and 23 simply point out how conservatives will often rail against the "liberal" media but many will then turn around and parrot their lies about Ron Paul.

There are no white supremacists working on his campaign, and the newsletters are nonsense. Should he have had to answer for them? Sure. They did have his name on them, and he was too defensive in answering questions about them. However, nobody actually believes he wrote them. Politicians often employ ghostwriters. It's an open secret that Tom Woods, who wrote this blog, ghostwrote Paul's book The Revolution, and probably End The Fed and Liberty Defined as well. Is it really such a stretch that he had ghostwriters for his newsletter while he was delivering babies? As for it being written in the first person, I bet Mitt Romney and Rick Perry's books are written in the first person as well, and somehow I doubt they actually wrote much if any part of them.

There's a security video that was released that shows Rand was detained in a cubicle just as he said he was.

And GuyPinestra took care of your nonsensical claim that Ron Paul receives taxpayer funded benefits, so I won't bother.

Oh, so Ron Paul NEVER MET with A3P members? He wasn't on a conference call with their board of directors?
Ron Paul Linked To Racists? - Auburn Journal


Ron Paul SIGNED HIS NAME to the following....

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

[After the Los Angeles riots] “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

[Martin Luther King was] “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” [who] “seduced underage girls and boys.”
And he's not racist?

As for his son being "detained"
You are DETAINED in a PRISON CELL, you WAIT in a cubicle.
How LONG was he "detained" 20 minutes? For mucking about with airport security? Sounds like he was treated rather favorably to me.
Rand was kept just long enough to be told what a moron he was before he was sent on his way and he came back and acted like an ADULT this time instead of a petulant child and was able to fly.

Ron Paul doesn't receive taxpayer funded benefits? Really? He pays his own health insurance then? His own retirement? He's not taking say, his retirement income from his cushy House seat job then? And way to not answer my challenge...that if Ron Paul wanted to affect change to suit him, he could have done more than failed to win any primaries for President.

Ron Paul has sucked on the government teat for 30 years and you suggest he's not a gravy-trainer? BWAH HA HA HA HAH!

 

[Warrior102]

(27) He's not going to get the nomination.

 

[g5000]

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying | Tom Woods

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what a list of 26 logical fallacies known as "strawmen" look like.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Funny how points 22 and 23 make it impossible to criticize Ron Paul.

22 and 23 state that anything said about Ron Paul, by anyone other than Ron Paul is a lie.
That's not an argument. That's a way of HIDING all the STUPID shit he's said over the years.

I mean when the media reports that white supremacists are working on his campaign, we shouldn't believe it huh?
When the media brings up old racist newsletters, written in first person and signed by the Grand Poobah of the Ronulans himself, we shouldn't believe it?
When his idiot son refuses to cooperate with airport security and Ron says he was "detained" we shouldn't believe the media?

The problem isn't that Ron Paul is so great and people just don't recognize it.
The problem is that Ron Paul is a fucking idealist who stands ZERO chance of implementing ANY of his ideas in a practical sense because he won't compromise on his crazy.

Eliminate the Fed?
You could also watch your economy go right into the shitter.
Would that make you happy? After wrecking the economy and making hundreds of millions living in misery, what will be your excuse for bad Ronulan press then? That the MEDIA is to blame?

You Ronulans are a bunch of Pollyannas with your head in the clouds thinking he's the answer to everything. The only thing he's an answer to is teh question of how crazy can you be and still be considered a viable conservative candidate.
Had Ron Paul really given a crap about this country, he would have run for something other than his safe House seat and accumulating all those sweet taxpayer funded federal benefits and perks for 30 years.

It's not impossible to criticize Ron Paul. Points 22 and 23 are specifically referring to media fabrications such as his being "unelectable," despite the polling showing that Romney is the only Republican to do better than Ron Paul in head to head match ups against the sitting President of the United States. Not to mention that Ron Paul has more support from independents than any other Republican, and often even more than President Obama. So his being "unelectable" is hogwash, and points 22 and 23 simply point out how conservatives will often rail against the "liberal" media but many will then turn around and parrot their lies about Ron Paul.

There are no white supremacists working on his campaign, and the newsletters are nonsense. Should he have had to answer for them? Sure. They did have his name on them, and he was too defensive in answering questions about them. However, nobody actually believes he wrote them. Politicians often employ ghostwriters. It's an open secret that Tom Woods, who wrote this blog, ghostwrote Paul's book The Revolution, and probably End The Fed and Liberty Defined as well. Is it really such a stretch that he had ghostwriters for his newsletter while he was delivering babies? As for it being written in the first person, I bet Mitt Romney and Rick Perry's books are written in the first person as well, and somehow I doubt they actually wrote much if any part of them.

There's a security video that was released that shows Rand was detained in a cubicle just as he said he was.

And GuyPinestra took care of your nonsensical claim that Ron Paul receives taxpayer funded benefits, so I won't bother.

Oh, so Ron Paul NEVER MET with A3P members? He wasn't on a conference call with their board of directors?
Ron Paul Linked To Racists? - Auburn Journal


Ron Paul SIGNED HIS NAME to the following....

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

[After the Los Angeles riots] “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

[Martin Luther King was] “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” [who] “seduced underage girls and boys.”
And he's not racist?

As for his son being "detained"
You are DETAINED in a PRISON CELL, you WAIT in a cubicle.
How LONG was he "detained" 20 minutes? For mucking about with airport security? Sounds like he was treated rather favorably to me.
Rand was kept just long enough to be told what a moron he was before he was sent on his way and he came back and acted like an ADULT this time instead of a petulant child and was able to fly.

Ron Paul doesn't receive taxpayer funded benefits? Really? He pays his own health insurance then? His own retirement? He's not taking say, his retirement income from his cushy House seat job then? And way to not answer my challenge...that if Ron Paul wanted to affect change to suit him, he could have done more than failed to win any primaries for President.

Ron Paul has sucked on the government teat for 30 years and you suggest he's not a gravy-trainer? BWAH HA HA HA HAH!

Oh my goodness! Anonymous says this happened do they? Well if you can't trust criminal hackers who can you trust?

He signed his name did he? Do you think your Representative signs their name to every single form letter sent out to their constituents?

de·tain   [dih-teyn]
verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay.
2.
to keep under restraint or in custody.

Detained | Define Detained at Dictionary.com

Sounds like what happened to Rand.

So Ron Paul refuses the Congressional pension, but keeps money he's earned and that qualifies him as a "gravy-trainer," huh?

 

[Valox]

Eliminate the Fed?
You could also watch your economy go right into the shitter.
Would that make you happy? After wrecking the economy and making hundreds of millions living in misery, what will be your excuse for bad Ronulan press then? That the MEDIA is to blame?

Here is Paul in 2001.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI&feature=related]Ron Paul: "This real-estate bubble will burst, as all bubbles do" (part 3) - YouTube[/ame]

Here the Fed in 2006...No housing bubble.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmqvibv4UU]Bernanke Was Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

According to boy genius Geithner, “We think the fundamentals of the expansion going forward still look good,"

lol....you fucktards didn't even see the housing bubble coming and were claiming that the economy was fundamentally sound right up until the crash, yet you want people to take their economic marching orders from you....lololololol.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying | Tom Woods

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what a list of 26 logical fallacies known as "strawmen" look like.

Some of them are certainly tongue-in-cheek, but there's truth behind them as well.

 

[paulitician]

The honest Candidate can't win. It's just the way the System is set up. The Globalist Elite NWO assholes would never allow Ron Paul to be the U.S. President. But it's not just Ron Paul. No one opposing the Globalist Elite agenda can be elected President. That's just the way it is. You think you have real choices in Elections? Well, think again. Barack Obama & Mitt Romney are just two Global Elite-supported Harvard boys. They're the same Candidate working for the same Bosses. So as usual, the joke's on us.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

you forgot ...

Damn, I wish there was a real Libertarian running.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you forgot ...

Damn, I wish there was a real Libertarian running.

And what is a "real" libertarian?

 

[g5000]

I'm a non-Paul voter and I don't see what I say on that list. I say that a party has to earn my vote, and since I do not see a candidate who deserves my vote, I won't be voting this year.

I do not believe in making a protest vote by voting for propellerheads like the Libertarian Party. That just encourages the propellerheads.

I believe it is better to boycott an election than to encourage evil by voting for a lesser one.

I call for a national election boycott to send a message to the evil that has overtaken the parties.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm a non-Paul voter and I don't see what I say on that list. I say that a party has to earn my vote, and since I do not see a candidate who deserves my vote, I won't be voting this year.

I do not believe in making a protest vote by voting for propellerheads like the Libertarian Party. That just encourages the propellerheads.

I believe it is better to boycott an election than to encourage evil by voting for a lesser one.

I call for a national election boycott to send a message to the evil that has overtaken the parties.

I don't have a problem with that. If you simply disagree with Ron Paul then that's your prerogative, this is just a tongue-in-cheek response to those who peddle nonsense.

 

[Warrior102]

I'm a non-Paul voter and I don't see what I say on that list. I say that a party has to earn my vote, and since I do not see a candidate who deserves my vote, I won't be voting this year.

I do not believe in making a protest vote by voting for propellerheads like the Libertarian Party. That just encourages the propellerheads.

I believe it is better to boycott an election than to encourage evil by voting for a lesser one.

I call for a national election boycott to send a message to the evil that has overtaken the parties.

I don't have a problem with that. If you simply disagree with Ron Paul then that's your prerogative, this is just a tongue-in-cheek response to those who peddle nonsense.

Hey nutsack, is the Paul campaign paying you a nickle a post?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm a non-Paul voter and I don't see what I say on that list. I say that a party has to earn my vote, and since I do not see a candidate who deserves my vote, I won't be voting this year.

I do not believe in making a protest vote by voting for propellerheads like the Libertarian Party. That just encourages the propellerheads.

I believe it is better to boycott an election than to encourage evil by voting for a lesser one.

I call for a national election boycott to send a message to the evil that has overtaken the parties.

I don't have a problem with that. If you simply disagree with Ron Paul then that's your prerogative, this is just a tongue-in-cheek response to those who peddle nonsense.

Hey nutsack, is the Paul campaign paying you a nickle a post?

The 'nutsack' rests comfortably on your chin, while you gobble another load of statist ejaculate.

 

[Valox]

I'm a non-Paul voter and I don't see what I say on that list. I say that a party has to earn my vote, and since I do not see a candidate who deserves my vote, I won't be voting this year.

I do not believe in making a protest vote by voting for propellerheads like the Libertarian Party. That just encourages the propellerheads.

I believe it is better to boycott an election than to encourage evil by voting for a lesser one.

I call for a national election boycott to send a message to the evil that has overtaken the parties.

No offense, but you are one of the few and an aberration. Your posting history is consistent and this thread is not about consistency, but more about the inconsistency of Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum supporters.

In addition, I support your views of not voting if no one deserves votes. It is better to not vote, then vote and support the current mess. However, I would urge you to caste a vote for a third party. Not out of protest, but out of democracy. The Republican/Democrat duopoly has undermined our democratic traditions and it is difficult for a third party to gain traction, especially if they do not get 5% of the vote.