Is Ron Paul Irrelevant Yet?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul is but a sad living metaphor for the naïve, reactionary idiocy that is ‘libertarianism.’

Well that's not very nice.

I think he was being kind.

Not surprising, given how rude you're being.

 

[jillian]

Valerie is a piece of garbage who refuses to debate on the issues. Instead, she resorts to erroneously calling people sock puppets, wasting band-space, and posting choo-choo trains.

You are a piece of garbage, you dumbass troll. Come back when you can actually debate the issues.

Do you need some tissues for your issues...???

methinks it has issues.

 

[jillian]

Yep a honest man the yells loud about wasteful spending, but is the biggest porker of the bunch! That is honesty already faux honesty!

yah...an honest man who shrieks about term limits but made his living on the government dime and then sent his boy into the family business.

an "honest man" who claims he's a libertarian well... except when women's control over their own bodies is concerned.

an "honest man" who railed against earmarks but never met one he didn't like.

lol.. yeppers.

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

The only Paul who might run in 2016 is Rand, and even that's questionable to me considering he'll also presumably be running for re-election to his Senate seat.

He's a bigger idiot than Ron.

I've posted for years on other boards. Heard about this one and decided to give it a try. I'm politically very liberal and try to get along.

You don't seem to try very hard.

How does this have anything to do with getting along. Ron Paul is an idiot. His vote total says he is a loser. How is not getting along? IT is a fact and I suppose if you don't like the numbers in the actual votes you may think it's nasty pointing out how futile and stupid it was for Paul even to attempt a run. His spending one dollar on this effort shows he wastes money.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Well that's not very nice.

I think he was being kind.

Not surprising, given how rude you're being.

Who have I been rude to? You might want to read my posts. I think Paul is a fool and a waste of genetic material and he proved it by spending money on a campaign that has gone no where.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

yah...an honest man who shrieks about term limits but made his living on the government dime and then sent his boy into the family business.

an "honest man" who claims he's a libertarian well... except when women's control over their own bodies is concerned.

an "honest man" who railed against earmarks but never met one he didn't like.

lol.. yeppers.

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's a bigger idiot than Ron.

I've posted for years on other boards. Heard about this one and decided to give it a try. I'm politically very liberal and try to get along.

You don't seem to try very hard.

How does this have anything to do with getting along. Ron Paul is an idiot. His vote total says he is a loser. How is not getting along? IT is a fact and I suppose if you don't like the numbers in the actual votes you may think it's nasty pointing out how futile and stupid it was for Paul even to attempt a run. His spending one dollar on this effort shows he wastes money.

How is insulting people not getting along? I think it speaks for itself. Someone being an "idiot" is never a fact. It's an opinion. As is saying his run was futile and stupid.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think he was being kind.

Not surprising, given how rude you're being.

Who have I been rude to? You might want to read my posts. I think Paul is a fool and a waste of genetic material and he proved it by spending money on a campaign that has gone no where.

Calling people names is rude. As for the campaign going nowhere, well that's your opinion.

 

[jillian]

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

i understand you like him.

i am fully entitled to my opinion that he is a hypocrite and i think that opinion is solidly grounded.

I don't think i've ever seen your comment about elizabeth warren. but i also don't go around posting thread after thread about her. as far as i know, with respect to the donations she's accepted from purported wall-streeters are from companies like berkshire hathaway which support liberal causes. so i'm not seeing where she's taking money so she will change her positions...

it's also besides the point. we're talking about the disparity between words and actions. nothing in elizabeth warren's history would indicate she doesn't want to reform practices on wall street.

i stand by what i said about paul.

 

[Valox]

Valerie is a piece of garbage who refuses to debate on the issues. Instead, she resorts to erroneously calling people sock puppets, wasting band-space, and posting choo-choo trains.

You are a piece of garbage, you dumbass troll. Come back when you can actually debate the issues.

Do you need some tissues for your issues...???

methinks it has issues.

Me thinks you can't debate on the issues.

 

[jillian]

Do you need some tissues for your issues...???

methinks it has issues.

Me thinks you can't debate on the issues.

you haven't raised any issues.

you've done a lot of ranting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

i understand you like him.

i am fully entitled to my opinion that he is a hypocrite and i think that opinion is solidly grounded.

I don't think i've ever seen your comment about elizabeth warren. but i also don't go around posting thread after thread about her. as far as i know, with respect to the donations she's accepted from purported wall-streeters are from companies like berkshire hathaway which support liberal causes. so i'm not seeing where she's taking money so she will change her positions...

it's also besides the point. we're talking about the disparity between words and actions. nothing in elizabeth warren's history would indicate she doesn't want to reform practices on wall street.

i stand by what i said about paul.

And I understand you don't like him, which as I already stated is your prerogative. However, I merely think you're being partisan in who you call a hypocrite. If it's smart for Elizabeth Warren to accept money from Wall Street while she simultaneously rails against them, then I think the same logic has to apply to Ron Paul for not voluntarily term limiting himself despite supporting term limits for everybody.

 

[Valox]

methinks it has issues.

Me thinks you can't debate on the issues.

you haven't raised any issues.

you've done a lot of ranting.

For ****'s sake, it was just two pages ago where I addressed your issues in which you refused to debate.

You are garbage.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Ron Paul is not against earmarks he is against the system as a whole. Earmarks get money back from the federal government and get it back to the people in his constituency where it belongs. He has said that all the money should be earmarked because that way it wouldn't be spent by the executive branch when it gets put into the general fund. If the other idiots in congress are going to pass these bills then he would be doing a disservice to the people who voted for him if he didn't get their money back for them. That's his job.

 

[The Rabbi]

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for supporting term limits for everyone but himself? Elizabeth Warren we know is a hypocrite. That isn't the issue here.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

i understand you like him.

i am fully entitled to my opinion that he is a hypocrite and i think that opinion is solidly grounded.

I don't think i've ever seen your comment about elizabeth warren. but i also don't go around posting thread after thread about her. as far as i know, with respect to the donations she's accepted from purported wall-streeters are from companies like berkshire hathaway which support liberal causes. so i'm not seeing where she's taking money so she will change her positions...

it's also besides the point. we're talking about the disparity between words and actions. nothing in elizabeth warren's history would indicate she doesn't want to reform practices on wall street.

i stand by what i said about paul.

And I understand you don't like him, which as I already stated is your prerogative. However, I merely think you're being partisan in who you call a hypocrite. If it's smart for Elizabeth Warren to accept money from Wall Street while she simultaneously rails against them, then I think the same logic has to apply to Ron Paul for not voluntarily term limiting himself despite supporting term limits for everybody.

So Ron Paul is just like Elizabeth Warren? That really isn't saying much.

 

[LibertyForAll]

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for supporting term limits for everyone but himself? Elizabeth Warren we know is a hypocrite. That isn't the issue here.

He is in favor of term limits for every one including himself. Why should he limit himself when others won't? That would put him at a disadvantage since they will remain after he leaves and continue to work on their agendas. He has been working hard to get the republicans to return to their conservative roots and its a losing battle and you are a shining example of that. I hope he gets the nom so you have to decide between him and Obama just because it might drive you insane.

 

[paulitician]

Do you need some tissues for your issues...???

methinks it has issues.

Me thinks you can't debate on the issues.

Aw, don't let Jillian bother you. She's just a cranky ole Ex-Mod failure. She's still not over them taking her little badge away. All she has left now is her snotty one-liner retorts and Neg-Rep stalking. She's pretty pathetic. So just laugh at her like i do.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Newt Gingrich is not in office and he ran for President anyone really think Paul won't make a run again in 2016?

The only Paul who might run in 2016 is Rand, and even that's questionable to me considering he'll also presumably be running for re-election to his Senate seat.

He's a bigger idiot than Ron.

Translation for Paul supporters..."He's even more awesome than Ron"

 

[jillian]

Yep a honest man the yells loud about wasteful spending, but is the biggest porker of the bunch! That is honesty already faux honesty!

yah...an honest man who shrieks about term limits but made his living on the government dime and then sent his boy into the family business.

an "honest man" who claims he's a libertarian well... except when women's control over their own bodies is concerned.

an "honest man" who railed against earmarks but never met one he didn't like.

lol.. yeppers.

1. Hate the game, not the player.

2. Ron Paul broke ranks against his fellow Republicans to allow teenagers to cross state lines to get an abortion.

3. Earmark spending has never been a focal point of the Ron Paul Campaign.

Try harder, you dumb troll.

paulians are so funny...

ron paul's never passed a bill.

that makes him a failure at his job.