Ron Paul Republican Has Shot at McCotter’s Open Seat

[Synthaholic]

You've all run away.

Come back so we can talk about how Nick Gillespie shit the bed on Real Time With Bill Maher tonight. (Rachel Maddow was also a guest).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You've all run away.

Come back so we can talk about how Nick Gillespie shit the bed on Real Time With Bill Maher tonight. (Rachel Maddow was also a guest).

Nobody ran away. We're just not interested in your condescending attitude.

 

[Synthaholic]

You've all run away.

Come back so we can talk about how Nick Gillespie shit the bed on Real Time With Bill Maher tonight. (Rachel Maddow was also a guest).

Nobody ran away. We're just not interested in your condescending attitude.

Speaking for the group, Kevin? I thought you were all individuals.

What "condescending attitude"? Because I challenge your rigid ideology?

What did you think of that Maddow segment I linked to a few posts back?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You've all run away.

Come back so we can talk about how Nick Gillespie shit the bed on Real Time With Bill Maher tonight. (Rachel Maddow was also a guest).

Nobody ran away. We're just not interested in your condescending attitude.

Speaking for the group, Kevin? I thought you were all individuals.

What "condescending attitude"? Because I challenge your rigid ideology?

What did you think of that Maddow segment I linked to a few posts back?

There it is again. I don't care if you challenge my ideology or not, but it gets tiring trying to have a discussion with adults who come online to act like children and call people names. As for the Maddow segment, I didn't bother watching it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nobody ran away. We're just not interested in your condescending attitude.

Speaking for the group, Kevin? I thought you were all individuals.

What "condescending attitude"? Because I challenge your rigid ideology?

What did you think of that Maddow segment I linked to a few posts back?

There it is again.

There what is again?

I don't care if you challenge my ideology or not, but it gets tiring trying to have a discussion with adults who come online to act like children and call people names. As for the Maddow segment, I didn't bother watching it.

Exactly. You won't even watch a pro-Paul segment if it is from Rachel Maddow. Because of your rigid ideology that anything from her must be bad.

It's common for alcoholics to not admit they have a problem also, so you have company.

 

[Paulie]

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.

How badly could it really hurt Rand? He's done a pretty good job so far as an actual conservative, so there's really no reason to assume the GOP would potentially shoot themselves in the foot by running someone against him in '16, only to potentially lose a seat.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

How badly could it really hurt Rand? He's done a pretty good job so far as an actual conservative, so there's really no reason to assume the GOP would potentially shoot themselves in the foot by running someone against him in '16, only to potentially lose a seat.

Well, I think the endorsement of Bishop Romney is Rand trying to fend off any potential problems. I think he will continue to distance himself from his dad, and follow along with the GOP playbook, no matter what they want.

Remember: Rand has no principles, unlike dear old dad.

 

[Paulie]

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.

How badly could it really hurt Rand? He's done a pretty good job so far as an actual conservative, so there's really no reason to assume the GOP would potentially shoot themselves in the foot by running someone against him in '16, only to potentially lose a seat.

Well, I think the endorsement of Bishop Romney is Rand trying to fend off any potential problems. I think he will continue to distance himself from his dad, and follow along with the GOP playbook, no matter what they want.

Remember: Rand has no principles, unlike dear old dad.

But that doesn't address the original discussion, though. You think that if Ron doesn't endorse anyone, or endorses anyone other than Romney, that the GOP will take it out on Rand. I'm pointing out why that wouldn't make any sense. Why dry his funding up or run someone else only to possibly lose a seat they can probably keep with Rand?

 

[Synthaholic]

How badly could it really hurt Rand? He's done a pretty good job so far as an actual conservative, so there's really no reason to assume the GOP would potentially shoot themselves in the foot by running someone against him in '16, only to potentially lose a seat.

Well, I think the endorsement of Bishop Romney is Rand trying to fend off any potential problems. I think he will continue to distance himself from his dad, and follow along with the GOP playbook, no matter what they want.

Remember: Rand has no principles, unlike dear old dad.

But that doesn't address the original discussion, though. You think that if Ron doesn't endorse anyone, or endorses anyone other than Romney, that the GOP will take it out on Rand. I'm pointing out why that wouldn't make any sense. Why dry his funding up or run someone else only to possibly lose a seat they can probably keep with Rand?

The thought was that he, like his dad, and would be a pain in the establishment's neck. They have had to put up with Ron, despite him not voting with them in so many bills, because he safely gets re-elected. But if Rand was being a contrary Libertarian on all these bills, especially in the Senate where his 1 out of 100 vote means a lot more than dad's 1 out of 435(?), I could see them trashing him very easily and quickly.

But Rand is going along to get along.

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending with you, Paulie.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Speaking for the group, Kevin? I thought you were all individuals.

What "condescending attitude"? Because I challenge your rigid ideology?

What did you think of that Maddow segment I linked to a few posts back?

There it is again.

There what is again?

I don't care if you challenge my ideology or not, but it gets tiring trying to have a discussion with adults who come online to act like children and call people names. As for the Maddow segment, I didn't bother watching it.

Exactly. You won't even watch a pro-Paul segment if it is from Rachel Maddow. Because of your rigid ideology that anything from her must be bad.

It's common for alcoholics to not admit they have a problem also, so you have company.

Your condescension.

I didn't watch the Rachel Maddow clip because I don't care what you think we "Paulbots" need to be "informed about," not because I refuse to watch Rachel Maddow.

 

[Synthaholic]

There it is again.

There what is again?

I don't care if you challenge my ideology or not, but it gets tiring trying to have a discussion with adults who come online to act like children and call people names. As for the Maddow segment, I didn't bother watching it.

Exactly. You won't even watch a pro-Paul segment if it is from Rachel Maddow. Because of your rigid ideology that anything from her must be bad.

It's common for alcoholics to not admit they have a problem also, so you have company.

Your condescension.

I didn't watch the Rachel Maddow clip because I don't care what you think we "Paulbots" need to be "informed about," not because I refuse to watch Rachel Maddow.

Yes, information is bad when it doesn't come from your pre-approved sources. And you already know everything, so there is NOTHING you could possibly learn by watching that segment.


Stay rigid, my friend.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There what is again?

Exactly. You won't even watch a pro-Paul segment if it is from Rachel Maddow. Because of your rigid ideology that anything from her must be bad.

It's common for alcoholics to not admit they have a problem also, so you have company.

Your condescension.

I didn't watch the Rachel Maddow clip because I don't care what you think we "Paulbots" need to be "informed about," not because I refuse to watch Rachel Maddow.

Yes, information is bad when it doesn't come from your pre-approved sources. And you already know everything, so there is NOTHING you could possibly learn by watching that segment.


Stay rigid, my friend.

I applaud your ability to completely miss the point.

 

[Synthaholic]

Your condescension.

I didn't watch the Rachel Maddow clip because I don't care what you think we "Paulbots" need to be "informed about," not because I refuse to watch Rachel Maddow.

Yes, information is bad when it doesn't come from your pre-approved sources. And you already know everything, so there is NOTHING you could possibly learn by watching that segment.


Stay rigid, my friend.

I applaud your ability to completely miss the point.

Oh, I understand your point. You won't watch it because I was mean to you, and you think you're punishing me, somehow.

 

[Paulie]

Well, I think the endorsement of Bishop Romney is Rand trying to fend off any potential problems. I think he will continue to distance himself from his dad, and follow along with the GOP playbook, no matter what they want.

Remember: Rand has no principles, unlike dear old dad.

But that doesn't address the original discussion, though. You think that if Ron doesn't endorse anyone, or endorses anyone other than Romney, that the GOP will take it out on Rand. I'm pointing out why that wouldn't make any sense. Why dry his funding up or run someone else only to possibly lose a seat they can probably keep with Rand?

The thought was that he, like his dad, and would be a pain in the establishment's neck. They have had to put up with Ron, despite him not voting with them in so many bills, because he safely gets re-elected. But if Rand was being a contrary Libertarian on all these bills, especially in the Senate where his 1 out of 100 vote means a lot more than dad's 1 out of 435(?), I could see them trashing him very easily and quickly.

But Rand is going along to get along.

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending with you, Paulie.

Rand has been the best actual conservative congress has seen in a long time. The constituency that put him into office is going to most likely continue to reelect him because he's done just about EVERYTHING they elected him for. So I don't really see any reason why the GOP would cut off its nose to spite its face, so to speak.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes, information is bad when it doesn't come from your pre-approved sources. And you already know everything, so there is NOTHING you could possibly learn by watching that segment.


Stay rigid, my friend.

I applaud your ability to completely miss the point.

Oh, I understand your point. You won't watch it because I was mean to you, and you think you're punishing me, somehow.

It's pretty obvious you aren't the least bit self-centered................

My guess is he didn't watch it because he doesn't care. If Maddow says she loves Paul and has reasons for it great, if she says she hates Paul and has reasons for it great. Couldn't mean less.

I can't watch any videos at work, that's why I haven't watched it and I don't get on this board at home.

 

[Synthaholic]

I didn't express Maddow's feelings either way. I talked about the reporting.

For you FOX watchers, that means actual reporting of news.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I didn't express Maddow's feelings either way. I talked about the reporting.

For you FOX watchers, that means actual reporting of news.

Fox and MSNBC report the same lies. Those lies being that the 2 parties are polar opposites, that they never agree on anything, and you have to pick a side be it Team A or Team B.



They've just picked different teams in order to secure ratings from the team members.

 

[uscitizen]

Massies district is along the river composed of almost Buckeyes.
He probably plays Natzi with them.

 

[Paulie]

I'll play ball here. Maddow did do a pretty decent job of reporting the Paul campaign's delegate situation during the primary season, althought not with complete accuracy and not as comprehensively as she could have. There was a local Fox affiliate out of Cincinnati that has the absolute best coverage hands down. After watching that guy's daily piece I really don't think I could stomach watching anyone else's. Maddow injects her opinion and wit into her pieces because she's of course looking for ratings at the end of the day, so I can only give her so much credit. I don't need anyone else's opinion when I get my news. I'll form my own.

 

[Synthaholic]

I didn't express Maddow's feelings either way. I talked about the reporting.

For you FOX watchers, that means actual reporting of news.

Fox and MSNBC report the same lies. Those lies being that the 2 parties are polar opposites, that they never agree on anything, and you have to pick a side be it Team A or Team B.



They've just picked different teams in order to secure ratings from the team members.

Really? On what have the teabagger Republicans agreed with Obama on?

They won't even agree that President Obama's operation to kill Osama bin Laden was a good thing, fer fuck's sake!