Ron Paul Republican Has Shot at McCotter’s Open Seat

[Synthaholic]

No.

'No', what? That it wouldn't be a pussy move to meekly keep quiet?

When has Dr. Paul ever put politics ahead of his convictions? Never that I know of. He's been the lone no vote on many a popular, and sometimes patriotic bill. He didn't worry about the political ramifications because in his understanding, it wasn't Constitutional.

So, why would he put his son's politics ahead of his own convictions now? Not the way to cap off a respected career.

I haven't "endorsed" anybody for President, and I don't feel like that's a "pussy move." So why shouldn't I give Ron Paul the same consideration?

Because nobody gives a flying fuck if you endorse anybody, while millions of people look to Dr. Paul for leadership?

Jesus!

If you are about to go retard on me, give me a heads up, please. Or was this post the heads up?

 

[Synthaholic]

Not endorsing someone IS saying something. It's saying NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Ooooh! Nice spin!

So if there's no one he feels is deserving of his endorsement, he should still endorse someone? Why? To avoid looking like a "pussy?"

So, Gary Johnson isn't deserving?

If he doesn't endorse the Mittwit, the vast majority of people and all of the media is going to see it as a slam at the bishop. That's gonna piss off the GOP establishment, which will be felt by the failed eye doctor sitting in the Kentucky Senate seat. Any money will dry up for his re-election.

 

[Synthaholic]

Also, anyone who thinks for one second that the establishment would put Rand Paul a heartbeat away from the Oval Office is still fast asleep. Romney will not be choosing Rand.

Who even imagined such a ridiculous scenario?

He's not even fit to be an eye doctor, never mind a Senator, and certainly not a Veep.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ooooh! Nice spin!

So if there's no one he feels is deserving of his endorsement, he should still endorse someone? Why? To avoid looking like a "pussy?"

So, Gary Johnson isn't deserving?

If he doesn't endorse the Mittwit, the vast majority of people and all of the media is going to see it as a slam at the bishop. That's gonna piss off the GOP establishment, which will be felt by the failed eye doctor sitting in the Kentucky Senate seat. Any money will dry up for his re-election.

He isn't endorsing him, so no he's not deserving of one according to Paul.

Not sure when Ron has ever cared about whether or not he's going to piss off the GOP establishment. He attacks the party far more than even the democrats do.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Also, anyone who thinks for one second that the establishment would put Rand Paul a heartbeat away from the Oval Office is still fast asleep. Romney will not be choosing Rand.

Who even imagined such a ridiculous scenario?

He's not even fit to be an eye doctor, never mind a Senator, and certainly not a Veep.

But you support Obama.....................

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

'No', what? That it wouldn't be a pussy move to meekly keep quiet?

When has Dr. Paul ever put politics ahead of his convictions? Never that I know of. He's been the lone no vote on many a popular, and sometimes patriotic bill. He didn't worry about the political ramifications because in his understanding, it wasn't Constitutional.

So, why would he put his son's politics ahead of his own convictions now? Not the way to cap off a respected career.

I haven't "endorsed" anybody for President, and I don't feel like that's a "pussy move." So why shouldn't I give Ron Paul the same consideration?

Because nobody gives a flying fuck if you endorse anybody, while millions of people look to Dr. Paul for leadership?

Jesus!

If you are about to go retard on me, give me a heads up, please. Or was this post the heads up?

Seems like a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation.

If he doesn't endorse anybody then he's a "coward," but if he endorsed Mitt I assume you'd call him a "sellout." It seems to me like you just want him to endorse Gary Johnson because you're a partisan hack that wants to hurt Romney.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Gary johnson lost me and many other like minded people when he started talking about his interventionist foreign policy. I can understand why Ron Paul wouldn't endorse him. I don't expect him to endorse anyone and I would be disappointed if he did.

 

[Synthaholic]

So if there's no one he feels is deserving of his endorsement, he should still endorse someone? Why? To avoid looking like a "pussy?"

So, Gary Johnson isn't deserving?

If he doesn't endorse the Mittwit, the vast majority of people and all of the media is going to see it as a slam at the bishop. That's gonna piss off the GOP establishment, which will be felt by the failed eye doctor sitting in the Kentucky Senate seat. Any money will dry up for his re-election.

He isn't endorsing him, so no he's not deserving of one according to Paul.

Not sure when Ron has ever cared about whether or not he's going to piss off the GOP establishment. He attacks the party far more than even the democrats do.

He never cared until his idiot son got elected. Now he walks on eggshells to keep Rand in good favor with the GOP.

 

[Synthaholic]

Also, anyone who thinks for one second that the establishment would put Rand Paul a heartbeat away from the Oval Office is still fast asleep. Romney will not be choosing Rand.

Who even imagined such a ridiculous scenario?

He's not even fit to be an eye doctor, never mind a Senator, and certainly not a Veep.

But you support Obama.....................

President Obama has never even tried to be an eye doctor.

FAIL.

 

[Synthaholic]

I haven't "endorsed" anybody for President, and I don't feel like that's a "pussy move." So why shouldn't I give Ron Paul the same consideration?

Because nobody gives a flying fuck if you endorse anybody, while millions of people look to Dr. Paul for leadership?

Jesus!

If you are about to go retard on me, give me a heads up, please. Or was this post the heads up?

Seems like a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation.

If he doesn't endorse anybody then he's a "coward," but if he endorsed Mitt I assume you'd call him a "sellout." It seems to me like you just want him to endorse Gary Johnson because you're a partisan hack that wants to hurt Romney.

I want him to endorse, and explain his reasons for endorsing. That's it.

I don't care if it's for the LP, the Constitution Party, Obama, or Bishop Romney.

You keep operating under the assumption that I am anti-Paul, which is untrue. I voted for him for president as the LP candidate, and have always respected his views even when I thought he was totally wrong. And I support a lot of his positions. He has been very brave in his votes, especially since he is a Texas Rep, since Texans have more faux patriotism than anyone. I just don't want him ending his career by selling out to the GOP.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because nobody gives a flying fuck if you endorse anybody, while millions of people look to Dr. Paul for leadership?

Jesus!

If you are about to go retard on me, give me a heads up, please. Or was this post the heads up?

Seems like a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation.

If he doesn't endorse anybody then he's a "coward," but if he endorsed Mitt I assume you'd call him a "sellout." It seems to me like you just want him to endorse Gary Johnson because you're a partisan hack that wants to hurt Romney.

I want him to endorse, and explain his reasons for endorsing. That's it.

I don't care if it's for the LP, the Constitution Party, Obama, or Bishop Romney.

You keep operating under the assumption that I am anti-Paul, which is untrue. I voted for him for president as the LP candidate, and have always respected his views even when I thought he was totally wrong. And I support a lot of his positions. He has been very brave in his votes, especially since he is a Texas Rep, since Texans have more faux patriotism than anyone. I just don't want him ending his career by selling out to the GOP.

So you don't want him to not endorse because you think that's somehow placating the GOP establishment, but you want him to endorse somebody to placate you? How about if we allow him to disregard what other people want him to do, including yourself, and let him make his own decisions? You claim you respect his independent spirit, but then turn around and insult him for not doing what you think he should do. It's blatant hypocrisy.

And no, I'm not operating under the assumption that you dislike Ron Paul. I had no idea what your views regarding Paul were. I was operating under the assumption that you don't like Mitt Romney, and want to use Ron Paul to hurt his chances against Obama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul is a fucking hypocrit, like all the rest of 'em:

Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to 'Slavery' | ThinkProgress

And yet:

Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutional
On Morning Joe, Sam Stein Grills Ron Paul About Why He Collects Social Security | Mediaite

The Republican mantra: Fuck entitlements but keep your hands off mine!!

From your link:

I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn’t to cut. I think this is where the Republicans make a mistake. They’re seen as cutting food stamps and increasing the military budget. I think that’s bad politics and so, in my more pragmatic stance on how we get to the place where i want to go, actually, I’m offering a program where some of the programs we have taught people to be so dependent on, I would probably preserve them longer than others because we’re going to lose them because of the bankruptcy that is coming.

and he continues

“Social security, like I said, I would preserve the Social Security the best I can,” said Paul, “but we want to get off. But this is one program we were supposed to be paying into an insurance program.”

Bullshit!
Why doesn't Ron Paul lead by example and opt out of Social Security himself? Because he's a fucking hypocrit.

He said it himself: Social Security is unconstitutional. If he doesn't believe in it, he shouldn't collect it.

The latest unwarranted attack on Ron Paul is that he is a hypocrite: he opposes social security, and yet accepts checks from that organization for his own personal use.

Ron responds, plaintively, that he opposes fiat currency, and yet has some of it in his wallet. He favors the privatization of the post office, and yet mails letters through that system, and accepts mail others have sent him through the US Post Office. He also uses government highways, even though he would like to see this service privately provided. (See my book on that subject, for free, here)

But the story goes deeper than that; far deeper. This is only the beginning of Dr. Paul’s hypocrisy. This evil hypocrite also eats food, despite the fact that the government subsidizes agricultural products. He also wears clothing, ditto. And, sinner that he is, he also lives in a house. But the statists are also busily subsidizing housing, not least by lowering interest rates to unwarranted levels. Does this man’s hypocrisy never end? No. This is only the tip of the iceberg for this scalawag. Why, the man gives lectures to tens of thousands of students at public universities, and private ones, too, that accept government funding.

I could go on and on in this vein, but I think that a mainstream journalist, even of the meanest intelligence as virtually all of them are, can now see where I am going with this. It is impossible to live in the present day U.S. without being involved, in numerous ways, with the state apparatus. Does this mean that we are all precluded from advocating the free enterprise system, private property rights and the marketplace? Evidently it does, at least for some folk. For shame.

Ron Paul as Hypocrite? « LewRockwell.com Blog

 

[Synthaholic]

Seems like a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation.

If he doesn't endorse anybody then he's a "coward," but if he endorsed Mitt I assume you'd call him a "sellout." It seems to me like you just want him to endorse Gary Johnson because you're a partisan hack that wants to hurt Romney.

I want him to endorse, and explain his reasons for endorsing. That's it.

I don't care if it's for the LP, the Constitution Party, Obama, or Bishop Romney.

You keep operating under the assumption that I am anti-Paul, which is untrue. I voted for him for president as the LP candidate, and have always respected his views even when I thought he was totally wrong. And I support a lot of his positions. He has been very brave in his votes, especially since he is a Texas Rep, since Texans have more faux patriotism than anyone. I just don't want him ending his career by selling out to the GOP.

So you don't want him to not endorse because you think that's somehow placating the GOP establishment, but you want him to endorse somebody to placate you? How about if we allow him to disregard what other people want him to do, including yourself, and let him make his own decisions? You claim you respect his independent spirit, but then turn around and insult him for not doing what you think he should do. It's blatant hypocrisy.

And no, I'm not operating under the assumption that you dislike Ron Paul. I had no idea what your views regarding Paul were. I was operating under the assumption that you don't like Mitt Romney, and want to use Ron Paul to hurt his chances against Obama.

He has put himself in a bad situation. If he endorses the bishop, his LP followers will rightly view him as a sellout. If he endorses anyone else, the GOP will see it as a slam at Romney. If he refuses to endorse anyone, it will appear cowardly, and the GOP will still see it as a slam against Romney, and it could hurt Rand's re-election money.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I want him to endorse, and explain his reasons for endorsing. That's it.

I don't care if it's for the LP, the Constitution Party, Obama, or Bishop Romney.

You keep operating under the assumption that I am anti-Paul, which is untrue. I voted for him for president as the LP candidate, and have always respected his views even when I thought he was totally wrong. And I support a lot of his positions. He has been very brave in his votes, especially since he is a Texas Rep, since Texans have more faux patriotism than anyone. I just don't want him ending his career by selling out to the GOP.

So you don't want him to not endorse because you think that's somehow placating the GOP establishment, but you want him to endorse somebody to placate you? How about if we allow him to disregard what other people want him to do, including yourself, and let him make his own decisions? You claim you respect his independent spirit, but then turn around and insult him for not doing what you think he should do. It's blatant hypocrisy.

And no, I'm not operating under the assumption that you dislike Ron Paul. I had no idea what your views regarding Paul were. I was operating under the assumption that you don't like Mitt Romney, and want to use Ron Paul to hurt his chances against Obama.

He has put himself in a bad situation. If he endorses the bishop, his LP followers will rightly view him as a sellout. If he endorses anyone else, the GOP will see it as a slam at Romney. If he refuses to endorse anyone, it will appear cowardly, and the GOP will still see it as a slam against Romney, and it could hurt Rand's re-election money.

Who will it appear cowardly to? Probably only to Obamabots and Bushbots who would find a way to twist him running into a burning orphanage saving kids as cowardly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I want him to endorse, and explain his reasons for endorsing. That's it.

I don't care if it's for the LP, the Constitution Party, Obama, or Bishop Romney.

You keep operating under the assumption that I am anti-Paul, which is untrue. I voted for him for president as the LP candidate, and have always respected his views even when I thought he was totally wrong. And I support a lot of his positions. He has been very brave in his votes, especially since he is a Texas Rep, since Texans have more faux patriotism than anyone. I just don't want him ending his career by selling out to the GOP.

So you don't want him to not endorse because you think that's somehow placating the GOP establishment, but you want him to endorse somebody to placate you? How about if we allow him to disregard what other people want him to do, including yourself, and let him make his own decisions? You claim you respect his independent spirit, but then turn around and insult him for not doing what you think he should do. It's blatant hypocrisy.

And no, I'm not operating under the assumption that you dislike Ron Paul. I had no idea what your views regarding Paul were. I was operating under the assumption that you don't like Mitt Romney, and want to use Ron Paul to hurt his chances against Obama.

He has put himself in a bad situation. If he endorses the bishop, his LP followers will rightly view him as a sellout. If he endorses anyone else, the GOP will see it as a slam at Romney. If he refuses to endorse anyone, it will appear cowardly, and the GOP will still see it as a slam against Romney, and it could hurt Rand's re-election money.

It only appears cowardly to you. Nobody else cares.

 

[Synthaholic]

Did any of you Paulbots watch Rachel Maddow tonight?

 

[Synthaholic]

Did any of you Paulbots watch Rachel Maddow tonight?

*bump*

 

[Dr.Drock]

Did any of you Paulbots watch Rachel Maddow tonight?

*bump*

No sir, I didn't and I can't imagine any Paul supporters watched her.

 

[Synthaholic]

Did any of you Paulbots watch Rachel Maddow tonight?

*bump*

No sir, I didn't and I can't imagine any Paul supporters watched her.

You should. She regularly reports on progress made by Paul supporters in state legislatures.

I would venture to say that her show gives the most coverage to Paul of any show on TV. And not to slam him, like FOX does every chance they get.

Here's last night's segment - Guerrillas In The Midst - really good reporting:

Rachel Maddow Show

Sorry - not on YouTube yet.

 

[Synthaholic]

I would be willing to bet that Rachel informed some Paul supporters on this site with that segment, if they are honest about it.