Question for Paul supporters

[Oddball]

Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.

So, I'll do the asking again; what is the differences you see between the GOP candidates and Obama? Is this just an "anyone but Obama" plea?

Can you make the case for any of the others that could sway a RP supporter to vote for a GOP candidate?

The GOP candidates would be less likely to break so many pledges they are making during the campaign.

The GOP candidates would be far less likely to promise to not approve any earmarks and then go against that pledge the very first appropriations bill signed into law.

The GOP candidates would never have passed anything as unconstitutional as Obamacare.

The GOP candidates would never have passed that stimulus package.

The GOP candidates would not have seized major auto manufacturers and turned them over to union ownership.

The GOP candidates would not be clamoring for still more government spending in the face of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see

The GOP candidates would not go three years without submitting a budget for Congress to consider.

That includes ALL the GOP candidates.

Shall I go on? I could. . . .but I think you get my drift.

Do any of them have the balls or ability to really rachet back the size and scope of government ? I don't know. But even if they don't, they will not do the damage that a Barack Obama has done and is almost certain to do even more of if he is re-elecvted.

They would if a GOP president was proposing them....Or did you miss little Ricky's excuse-a-thon last night?

According to him, you gotta "take one for the team".

 

[Foxfyre]

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

Yeah but by not voting you may get the worst of the two, and you still don't accomplish anything.

I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?

You could well lose the ability to buy a little more time to re-educate the American people so that we can turn this shipwreck of a government around. Maybe Gingrich, Romney, and/or Santorum will continue to grow government as all the past GOP presidents have done. But they'll do it a damn sight more slowly than will Barack Obama. And that buys us some time.

I fear we are fast approaching the edge of the cliff and the point where nobody will have the will or ability to turn it around.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They all supported the bailouts

They all supported (except sanitarium) version of obamacare

They all have pushed for more spending

They can't be trusted (on the pledge tip)


This is sounding really just like a log in your eye, fox.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah but by not voting you may get the worst of the two, and you still don't accomplish anything.

I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?

You could well lose the ability to buy a little more time to re-educate the American people so that we can turn this shipwreck of a government around. Maybe Gingrich, Romney, and/or Santorum will continue to grow government as all the past GOP presidents have done. But they'll do it a damn sight more slowly than will Barack Obama. And that buys us some time.

I fear we are fast approaching the edge of the cliff and the point where nobody will have the will or ability to turn it around.

Which is why it is Paul or I'm taking my ball and leaving!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Try to buy some time. Good luck with that. I've been in the trenches of educating folks for years! It's all for not until someone with the "authority" is driving it home.

 

[Avorysuds]

Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.

So, I'll do the asking again; what is the differences you see between the GOP candidates and Obama? Is this just an "anyone but Obama" plea?

Can you make the case for any of the others that could sway a RP supporter to vote for a GOP candidate?

The GOP candidates would be less likely to break so many pledges they are making during the campaign. "less likely" LOLz!

The GOP candidates would be far less likely to promise to not approve any earmarks and then go against that pledge the very first appropriations bill signed into law.

The GOP candidates would never have passed anything as unconstitutional as Obamacare.
"as unconstitutional" LOLz!

The GOP candidates would never have passed that stimulus package. But they did, under Bush, then Obama.

The GOP candidates would not have seized major auto manufacturers and turned them over to union ownership. Was TARP all Obama??? Nope!

The GOP candidates would not be clamoring for still more government spending in the face of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Yet all ther other candidates on stage offer more spending than Obama, more wars and more programs... No one but Paul offers cuts... Odd... Are you making this up as you go? Cold war with Cuba ring any bells?

The GOP candidates would not go three years without submitting a budget for Congress to consider. Nope, they would just raise the debt celing and spend more, as they did under Bush and Obama.

That includes ALL the GOP candidates.

Shall I go on? I could. . . .but I think you get my drift.

Do any of them have the balls or ability to really rachet back the size and scope of government ? I don't know. But even if they don't, they will not do the damage that a Barack Obama has done and is almost certain to do even more of if he is re-elecvted.

What a dip shit post.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah but by not voting you may get the worst of the two, and you still don't accomplish anything.

I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?

You could well lose the ability to buy a little more time to re-educate the American people so that we can turn this shipwreck of a government around. Maybe Gingrich, Romney, and/or Santorum will continue to grow government as all the past GOP presidents have done. But they'll do it a damn sight more slowly than will Barack Obama. And that buys us some time.

I fear we are fast approaching the edge of the cliff and the point where nobody will have the will or ability to turn it around.

Then let's go off the cliff and quit screwing around...I have zero evidence that the GOP is serious about reversing course in any case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They all supported the bailouts

They all supported (except sanitarium) version of obamacare

They all have pushed for more spending

They can't be trusted (on the pledge tip)


This is sounding really just like a log in your eye, fox.

Santorum endorsed Specter, Specter supported obamacare.

 

[Foxfyre]

They all supported the bailouts

They all supported (except sanitarium) version of obamacare

They all have pushed for more spending

They can't be trusted (on the pledge tip)


This is sounding really just like a log in your eye, fox.

Really? You have not read my posts before have you. I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal government should provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and secure our rights and nothing else. The Federal government should then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

You don't get any more libertarian than that.

We don't have that. We won't have that under Ron Paul or any of the other candidates. We could easily get a GOP candidate that will really suck. But what we will have will be far more acceptable than what we'll get with Barack Obama at the helm.

This is the argument I have been making. And I vehemently oppose throwing the country under the bus in retaliation for the people choosing a different candidate than the candidate you want.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?

You could well lose the ability to buy a little more time to re-educate the American people so that we can turn this shipwreck of a government around. Maybe Gingrich, Romney, and/or Santorum will continue to grow government as all the past GOP presidents have done. But they'll do it a damn sight more slowly than will Barack Obama. And that buys us some time.

I fear we are fast approaching the edge of the cliff and the point where nobody will have the will or ability to turn it around.

Then let's go off the cliff and quit screwing around...I have zero evidence that the GOP is serious about reversing course in any case.

Exactly! If we're gonna break this mutha, I say we do it and do it soon. It gives us all the time we need to form a decentralized authority again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They all supported the bailouts

They all supported (except sanitarium) version of obamacare

They all have pushed for more spending

They can't be trusted (on the pledge tip)


This is sounding really just like a log in your eye, fox.

Really? You have not read my posts before have you. I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal government should provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and secure our rights and nothing else. The Federal government should then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

You don't get any more libertarian than that.

We don't have that. We won't have that under Ron Paul or any of the other candidates. We could easily get a GOP candidate that will really suck. But what we will have will be far more acceptable than what we'll get with Barack Obama at the helm.

This is the argument I have been making. And I vehemently oppose throwing the country under the bus in retaliation for the people choosing a different candidate than the candidate you want.

promoting the general welfare is not welfare programs.

 

[Crackerjack]

... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.

Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.

So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.



Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!

Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.

Because your opinion of what is in the best interests of the country is fact and everyone else's is not.

I take great exception to being labeled as unpatriotic. Don't expect me to take that lying down.

 

[Crackerjack]

... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.

Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.

So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.



Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!

I am surprised and a little disappointed at Foxy.

I've never dealt with him/her before, but so far I am decidedly unimpressed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They all supported the bailouts

They all supported (except sanitarium) version of obamacare

They all have pushed for more spending

They can't be trusted (on the pledge tip)


This is sounding really just like a log in your eye, fox.

Really? You have not read my posts before have you. I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal government should provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and secure our rights and nothing else. The Federal government should then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

You don't get any more libertarian than that.

We don't have that. We won't have that under Ron Paul or any of the other candidates. We could easily get a GOP candidate that will really suck. But what we will have will be far more acceptable than what we'll get with Barack Obama at the helm.

This is the argument I have been making. And I vehemently oppose throwing the country under the bus in retaliation for the people choosing a different candidate than the candidate you want.

You're playing the "lesser of two evils card". I don't think you get where Paul supporters are at with this line of nonsense. I've already played that game and it doesn't work.

"Far more acceptable."

I'm sorry you're still in the death throws of the republic. We're trying to regain it and losing.

"More of shit is shit, people. If they really want to fuck us, they'll give us three of these things." Dennis Miller

 

[Crackerjack]

I am surprised and a little disappointed at Foxy.

Sorry that you're disappointed with me, but neg repping me, insulting me, and/or accusing me is not likely to persuade me either that the best interests of the country should not come ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate. And I'm sorry, I do see it as unpatriotic, naive, and unwise to intentionally throw the election to Barack Obama just because the majority of us prefer somebody other than Ron Paul.

Who negged or insulted you?

I negged Foxy. I'm glad it upset her, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

They all supported the bailouts

They all supported (except sanitarium) version of obamacare

They all have pushed for more spending

They can't be trusted (on the pledge tip)


This is sounding really just like a log in your eye, fox.

Really? You have not read my posts before have you. I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal government should provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and secure our rights and nothing else. The Federal government should then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

You don't get any more libertarian than that.

We don't have that. We won't have that under Ron Paul or any of the other candidates. We could easily get a GOP candidate that will really suck. But what we will have will be far more acceptable than what we'll get with Barack Obama at the helm.

This is the argument I have been making. And I vehemently oppose throwing the country under the bus in retaliation for the people choosing a different candidate than the candidate you want.

promoting the general welfare is not welfare programs.

That's right. I am opposed to the Federal government using the people's money to dispense any form of charity or benevolence. I believe the Founders saw that as unconstitutional and I have been beating that drum for like forever.

On that page, Ron Paul and I are pretty closely aligned. It is for other reasons that put Ron Paul at the bottom of my preference list for who will be the GOP nominee. But despite RP being at the bottom of my list, I would nevertheless vote for him without reservation if the choices were him or Barack Obama.

And that is the quarrel I seem to be having with you and your other Ron Paul supporter buddies here. I don't fault you for supporting Ron Paul. I applaud you for your passion and convictions there.

I cannot applaud you for intentionally and purposefully making sure Barack Obama will be re-elected just because you're mad that everybody doesn't support your candidate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, I'll do the asking again; what is the differences you see between the GOP candidates and Obama? Is this just an "anyone but Obama" plea?

Can you make the case for any of the others that could sway a RP supporter to vote for a GOP candidate?

The GOP candidates would be less likely to break so many pledges they are making during the campaign.

The GOP candidates would be far less likely to promise to not approve any earmarks and then go against that pledge the very first appropriations bill signed into law.

The GOP candidates would never have passed anything as unconstitutional as Obamacare.

The GOP candidates would never have passed that stimulus package.

The GOP candidates would not have seized major auto manufacturers and turned them over to union ownership.

The GOP candidates would not be clamoring for still more government spending in the face of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see

The GOP candidates would not go three years without submitting a budget for Congress to consider.

That includes ALL the GOP candidates.

Shall I go on? I could. . . .but I think you get my drift.

Do any of them have the balls or ability to really rachet back the size and scope of government ? I don't know. But even if they don't, they will not do the damage that a Barack Obama has done and is almost certain to do even more of if he is re-elecvted.

I don't have time to tackle all of the wrong in this post but I'm confident some of the others here will take care of it.

That's exactly what I thought to myself.

 

[Crackerjack]

I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?

You could well lose the ability to buy a little more time to re-educate the American people so that we can turn this shipwreck of a government around. Maybe Gingrich, Romney, and/or Santorum will continue to grow government as all the past GOP presidents have done. But they'll do it a damn sight more slowly than will Barack Obama. And that buys us some time.

I fear we are fast approaching the edge of the cliff and the point where nobody will have the will or ability to turn it around.

Then let's go off the cliff and quit screwing around...I have zero evidence that the GOP is serious about reversing course in any case.

What's amazing is that they're proud of it, too. Especially Santorum. The more votes he gets, the more Reconstructionist stuff comes out of his mouth.

And there's only one GOP candidate that was against the bailouts. I will let the rest of you take a stab at who that was.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? You have not read my posts before have you. I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal government should provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups, and secure our rights and nothing else. The Federal government should then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

You don't get any more libertarian than that.

We don't have that. We won't have that under Ron Paul or any of the other candidates. We could easily get a GOP candidate that will really suck. But what we will have will be far more acceptable than what we'll get with Barack Obama at the helm.

This is the argument I have been making. And I vehemently oppose throwing the country under the bus in retaliation for the people choosing a different candidate than the candidate you want.

promoting the general welfare is not welfare programs.

That's right. I am opposed to the Federal government using the people's money to dispense any form of charity or benevolence. I believe the Founders saw that as unconstitutional and I have been beating that drum for like forever.

On that page, Ron Paul and I are pretty closely aligned. It is for other reasons that put Ron Paul at the bottom of my preference list for who will be the GOP nominee. But despite RP being at the bottom of my list, I would nevertheless vote for him without reservation if the choices were him or Barack Obama.

And that is the quarrel I seem to be having with you and your other Ron Paul supporter buddies here. I don't fault you for supporting Ron Paul. I applaud you for your passion and convictions there.

I cannot applaud you for intentionally and purposefully making sure Barack Obama will be re-elected just because you're mad that everybody doesn't support your candidate.

That's not the reason that we're not voting for the Republican nominee, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[Foxfyre]

promoting the general welfare is not welfare programs.

That's right. I am opposed to the Federal government using the people's money to dispense any form of charity or benevolence. I believe the Founders saw that as unconstitutional and I have been beating that drum for like forever.

On that page, Ron Paul and I are pretty closely aligned. It is for other reasons that put Ron Paul at the bottom of my preference list for who will be the GOP nominee. But despite RP being at the bottom of my list, I would nevertheless vote for him without reservation if the choices were him or Barack Obama.

And that is the quarrel I seem to be having with you and your other Ron Paul supporter buddies here. I don't fault you for supporting Ron Paul. I applaud you for your passion and convictions there.

I cannot applaud you for intentionally and purposefully making sure Barack Obama will be re-elected just because you're mad that everybody doesn't support your candidate.

That's not the reason that we're not voting for the Republican nominee, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

I am far less concerned with the reasons anybody does anything and far more concerned with the results. There is a very good reason for the old saw that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unless one is unwise, naive, and/or unpatriotic, anybody HAS to know that if a GOP candidate is not elected, whomever he/she is, then Barack Obama will be re-elected.