Ron Paul "Loons" at it again!!!

[Nevadamedic]

Are you attempting to prophesie?




Or you just pretending your premonitions to be truths as suggested by DemTurds?

Are you drunk again? I guess no 24 hour coin for you yet.

 

[Psychoblues]

Just one more time (I suspect there will be many more), nm.

Are you drunk again? I guess no 24 hour coin for you yet.

Your premonitions are pure bullshit.

Can you in any way at all address the topic or the question at hand?

 

[Nevadamedic]

Just one more time (I suspect there will be many more), nm.




Your premonitions are pure bullshit.

Can you in any way at all address the topic or the question at hand?

I already have, sober up and re read the thread again.

 

[Psychoblues]

You still talking shit?

I already have, sober up and re read the thread again.

And you claim to be such a saint?

 

[Gunny]

"Hitlery",...thats funny! I call her "Hillarious".

Again, Ron Paul is not going to win anything,....but what he may do is give the election to the Dems,..which is bad news.

You're wasting your breath. That real possibility is beyond the grasp of some.

 

[Gunny]

The only thing Paul is going to do is F#$% up the primaries. The votes that go to him could goto a worthy candidate...............

The same applies to your no-name candidates.

 

[JeffWartman]

Like I care what you or your friend think and do you realize how many people were there?

This thread has proven that 1) you are a liar and 2) you are an idiot who doesn't understand politics.

That's not our opinion. That's a fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

The same applies to your no-name candidates.

Recognizing that your post was not directed at me, and while I don't agree with the rationale expressed by many of the anti-Paul group or the pro-Paul group for that matter, I do think Paul has been useful in the debate. However 'looney' he seems to some of us, he has caused us to at least look at some issues that might not otherwise have surfaced.

He won't get the nod in the Republican primary which is good since I'm pretty confident he would ensure a Clinton victory. If he chooses to run as an independent or other third party candidate, I think he will also ensure a Clinton victory. Even with his minimal support, he would likely pull enough GOP votes for Hillary to win.

Our best bet to have a shot at appointing another conservative Supreme Court justice or two and try to hold the line on taxes and spending is to choose a reasonably conservative Republican who can win. And right now, that seems to come down to a choice between Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. Unfortunately, Giuliani is the most electable of the three even as more stuff is surfacing that is going to make it tougher and tougher for conservatives to vote for him.

 

[jillian]

Funny, the minute someone thinks, after the last 7 years, that repuiblicans held the line on "taxing and spending", I know they aren't making any decisions based on fiscal conservatism and it's all about the religious right or "staying the course" in Iraq.

 

[Gunny]

Recognizing that your post was not directed at me, and while I don't agree with the rationale expressed by many of the anti-Paul group or the pro-Paul group for that matter, I do think Paul has been useful in the debate. However 'looney' he seems to some of us, he has caused us to at least look at some issues that might not otherwise have surfaced.

He won't get the nod in the Republican primary which is good since I'm pretty confident he would ensure a Clinton victory. If he chooses to run as an independent or other third party candidate, I think he will also ensure a Clinton victory. Even with his minimal support, he would likely pull enough GOP votes for Hillary to win.

Our best bet to have a shot at appointing another conservative Supreme Court justice or two and try to hold the line on taxes and spending is to choose a reasonably conservative Republican who can win. And right now, that seems to come down to a choice between Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. Unfortunately, Giuliani is the most electable of the three even as more stuff is surfacing that is going to make it tougher and tougher for conservatives to vote for him.

I agree with most of what you say except who is most electable of the three. Thompson can appeal across the board in a Reagan-esque way. Guiliani turns off true conservatives.

I just think the people who say "I won't vote for this person or that person" need to look at their hole cards and the end result ... Hillary Clinton as President with a Democrat Congress. THAT is downright scary.

 

[Gunny]

Funny, the minute someone thinks, after the last 7 years, that repuiblicans held the line on "taxing and spending", I know they aren't making any decisions based on fiscal conservatism and it's all about the religious right or "staying the course" in Iraq.

Partisan rhetoric. What are Democrats running on? They're running on not being Republicans. If they say they will end the crap going on in Iraq they're lying.

Democrats have nothing. If they win, it'll be for the same reason Clinton won in 92 ... a fragmented GOP.

 

[Paulie]

I agree with most of what you say except who is most electable of the three. Thompson can appeal across the board in a Reagan-esque way. Guiliani turns off true conservatives.

I just think the people who say "I won't vote for this person or that person" need to look at their hole cards and the end result ... Hillary Clinton as President with a Democrat Congress. THAT is downright scary.

I can't allow myself to vote for someone who I don't agree with...or worse, someone who I feel is corrupt, just because they are 'electable'. How has your voice really been heard then? How can you empower yourself as a US citizen by voting for someone just because they will make your party 'electable'?

If American's realized the power they really do have, this country would be in such better shape. We as citizens should either vote for who we truely feel is the most honest person, that cares about the citizens FIRST, or we should simply not participate in the election.

A mass no-show on election day would send a strict message to the establishment, that Americans will not just accept the candidates that are being forced down our throats, just so that SOMEONE who tows their party line can manage to occupy the White House.

This is the reason I support Ron Paul, and this is the reason that for the first time in my life I will be participating in a Federal vote. I finally feel as though there's a candidate that isn't corrupt to the core.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with most of what you say except who is most electable of the three. Thompson can appeal across the board in a Reagan-esque way. Guiliani turns off true conservatives.

I just think the people who say "I won't vote for this person or that person" need to look at their hole cards and the end result ... Hillary Clinton as President with a Democrat Congress. THAT is downright scary.

Exactly. No matter how she packages herself on any given day, Hillary has been unable to fully conceal her socialist, anti-military, pro world government self that would certainly emerge in all its glory once the oath of office is taken. If you like far left proactive, edict uttering Supreme Court Justices that would declare a new world order patterned after 1960's liberalism, we could see the Court packed with them. I don't think being able to feel noble or virtuous or righteous because we voted for our principles is worth risking that.

Do you honestly think true Conservatives would refuse to vote for Rudy if Hillary was the alternative? Are his conservative negatives that bad?

Honestly, for me, Ron Paul comes in dead last on the GOP list. But on the theory that Congress could block his most damaging goals, I would vote for him in a heartbeat before I would vote for Hillary.

More importantly, will Ron Paul supporters support the more conservative candidate or will they stay home out of principle or vote for Hillary out of spite?

 

[eots]

The Texas Congressman has now raised over $7 million since October 1st, putting him well on track to achieve a goal of $12 million by the end of the year.

"Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field," reports the Associated Press . "When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama."

Paul's campaign raised over 5 million in the third quarter and had over 5 million cash on hand at the start of this quarter, figures that initially baffled those in the mainstream media who completely underestimated the reach and power Ron Paul's campaign of freedom and limited government had, before engaging in a deliberate smear policy in order to dismiss his chances.

The liars who claimed that Ron Paul's success was a result of "spambots", as was inferred by a recent article , or that his entire support base was a complete hoax, as was ludicrously announced by a Murdoch owned newspaper , are looking very stupid today as debunkers are forced to eat their words and accept the fact that Ron Paul's popularity is wildly accelerating.

The "spambots" claim took another battering today as it was confirmed that the source of the emails was not Ron Paul's office, and was most likely a deliberate attempt to discredit his campaign on behalf of a rival, according to PC World experts who analyzed the e mails.

.

The concept for the November 5th "money bomb" which was responsible for the surge in donations yesterday originates from the movie V For Vendetta, the 2005 cult dystopian hit which grasped the imaginations of many with its extreme relevance to modern day politics in America. It was organized in large part through a specially constructed website at http://www.thisnovember5th.com/

Another donation day is scheduled for Veterans Day, this Sunday, November 11.

The meteoric success of Ron Paul's campaign thus far is also reflected in figures we highlighted this weekend, revealing the websites of all the other presidential candidates to be flat and floundering, attracting no new visitors whatsoever. In contrast www.ronpaul2008.com has seen an 80+% rise in hits over the past three months.

 

[Gunny]

I can't allow myself to vote for someone who I don't agree with...or worse, someone who I feel is corrupt, just because they are 'electable'. How has your voice really been heard then? How can you empower yourself as a US citizen by voting for someone just because they will make your party 'electable'?

If American's realized the power they really do have, this country would be in such better shape. We as citizens should either vote for who we truely feel is the most honest person, that cares about the citizens FIRST, or we should simply not participate in the election.

A mass no-show on election day would send a strict message to the establishment, that Americans will not just accept the candidates that are being forced down our throats, just so that SOMEONE who tows their party line can manage to occupy the White House.

This is the reason I support Ron Paul, and this is the reason that for the first time in my life I will be participating in a Federal vote. I finally feel as though there's a candidate that isn't corrupt to the core.

Too idealisitic, not enough reality. A mass no-show on election day resulted in Democrats taking control of Congress, and worse, listening to them swear to God it's a mandate by the people.

In a perfect world, I would say you are correct. In THIS world, you're just throwing away your vote and getting someone you don't want anyway.

 

[Gunny]

Exactly. No matter how she packages herself on any given day, Hillary has been unable to fully conceal her socialist, anti-military, pro world government self that would certainly emerge in all its glory once the oath of office is taken. If you like far left proactive, edict uttering Supreme Court Justices that would declare a new world order patterned after 1960's liberalism, we could see the Court packed with them. I don't think being able to feel noble or virtuous or righteous because we voted for our principles is worth risking that.

Do you honestly think true Conservatives would refuse to vote for Rudy if Hillary was the alternative? Are his conservative negatives that bad?

In the primaries, Guiliani is a half-notch above Paul, IMO. In the Presidential election I will vote for either of them before I will vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Honestly, for me, Ron Paul comes in dead last on the GOP list. But on the theory that Congress could block his most damaging goals, I would vote for him in a heartbeat before I would vote for Hillary.

More importantly, will Ron Paul supporters support the more conservative candidate or will they stay home out of principle or vote for Hillary out of spite

Who really knows what Ron Paul supporters will do? Who knows what Ron Paul will do? Will he try to run as an independent, or will he throw in behind whoever wins the GOP nomination?

What his constiuents do may very well depend on what HE does.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the primaries, Guiliani is a half-notch above Paul, IMO. In the Presidential election I will vote for either of them before I will vote for either Clinton or Obama.





Who really knows what Ron Paul supporters will do? Who knows what Ron Paul will do? Will he try to run as an independent, or will he throw in behind whoever wins the GOP nomination?

What his constiuents do may very well depend on what HE does.

It's scary isn't it?

And who the heck knows how Hillary would really govern since she has taken every side of almost every prominent issue. The truth is, she wouldn't 'destroy the country' because the country has managed to survive leadership worse than what she would probably be. But, as I said, she can't fully conceal her socialist soul and it's almost a given that she would appoint socialist judges to the federal and Supreme courts, and that, I think could have far ranging and difficult to reverse very bad effects for generations.

It is for that reason that I will vote Republican no matter who the candidate is.

 

[CharlestonChad]

It's scary isn't it?

And who the heck knows how Hillary would really govern since she has taken every side of almost every prominent issue. The truth is, she wouldn't 'destroy the country' because the country has managed to survive leadership worse than what she would probably be. But, as I said, she can't fully conceal her socialist soul and it's almost a given that she would appoint socialist judges to the federal and Supreme courts, and that, I think could have far ranging and difficult to reverse very bad effects for generations.

It is for that reason that I will vote Republican no matter who the candidate is.

Please realize that we need diversity among the judges. If we elect another republican with neocon ideals, then we will have a very conservative lot of judges, which is never a good thing when one ideology can do what it pleases without criticism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please realize that we need diversity among the judges. If we elect another republican with neocon ideals, then we will have a very conservative lot of judges, which is never a good thing when one ideology can do what it pleases without criticism.

Agreed since that's what we have had for a very long time now with a heavily stacked liberal Court and it has been hugely detrimental. But I said nothing about wanting either conservative or liberal judges. I want Constitutionalists who understand that they are to interpret the existing law and that it corrupts the whole purpose of the Court to legislate from the bench as well as violates the integrity of the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

Agreed since that's what we have had for a very long time now with a heavily stacked liberal Court and it has been hugely detrimental. But I said nothing about wanting either conservative or liberal judges. I want Constitutionalists who understand that they are to interpret the existing law and that it corrupts the whole purpose of the Court to legislate from the bench as well as violates the integrity of the Constitution.

What on earth are you talking about? Until Sandra Day O'Connor retired, the Court was divided in half, with her vote going either way depending on the facts. That's a heavily stacked liberal Court? She was as moderate as they come.

It's only been an obscene mess since Bush got his hands on it and distorted the constitution for the next 30 years. You want everyone else on the bench to think like Scalia, too?