West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on December 21, 2007, 06:02:07 AM
-
Who wants to bet Ron Paul doesn't carry a single state in the primaries? ME, I'll take that bet!
Any Ron Paul Supporters, please come in this thread and talk about how nice his cock is so that people can publicly see you on record for a loser before any of the voting begins.
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him. However I'm just pointing out that it's obvious to anybody with a brain that he has no chance of winning in washington. I mean is the guy even going to carry his home state? He's running 6th in Texas!
Good Luck, Ron.... you're gonna need it!
-
Who are you voting for and why?
-
You are asking a rationale question to him and expect a rationale response? good luck
-
Who wants to bet Ron Paul doesn't carry a single state in the primaries? ME, I'll take that bet!
Any Ron Paul Supporters, please come in this thread and talk about how nice his cock is so that people can publicly see you on record for a loser before any of the voting begins.
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him. However I'm just pointing out that it's obvious to anybody with a brain that he has no chance of winning in washington. I mean is the guy even going to carry his home state? He's running 6th in Texas!
Good Luck, Ron.... you're gonna need it!
why do you post here you faggot? No one cares about what you predict stupid. Youve been proven to be a dumb ass time and time again. Sure, it was proven years after I originally declared you stupid, but the point is we all know now, that youre stupid.
Listen to your prediction? Id rather have Arthur Anderson do my accounting, and Vince Macmahon test me for steroids
-
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him.
What in the hell does that mean? Just because hes not the favorite? So in your logic, your gonna vote for whoever is most popular, and has a higher chance of winning?
So your a "follow the crowd" type person?
-
Ron Paul supporters are well aware that he's a long shot, this isn't some big fucking surprise. Here's a better prediction, he's going to run as independent and will get so much support that both parties will have to adjust some of their platforms to appeal to the Ron Paul supporters. It's fucking great that this is happening, all Americans should be proud of what Ron Paul has done.
-
Just because he won't become president it doesn't mean he has zero impact or that the support he gets will have zero impact... and you know this, dude.
-
Way to go out on a limb Trauma.
-
Here's a better prediction, he's going to run as independent and will get so much support that both parties will have to adjust some of their platforms to appeal to the Ron Paul supporters
idk..he recently stated in an interview on 'Mad Money' that theres a 99.9% chance that he will not run as an independent..
-
Him and neither is that dumb nigga Obama, I don't care how light his complexion is. No way people voting a nigga into office.
-
Even Ron Paul supporters know this so why waste your time making this post ? Are you that desperate for attention Ronnie ?
-
He has a good chance of winning. You guys are very pessimistic.
-
People who simply right Paul off as not having a chance of winning just don't understand the nature of primary elections. If Paul can place third in Iowa and New Hampshire then I'd say he'd most likely win the primaries. He is only about 7 points below 2nd place in Iowa, and they only poll people who voted in the Republican primaries in 2004. Paul has attracted a huge amount of first time voters and can obviously get democratic support.
-
Him and neither is that dumb nigga Obama, I don't care how light his complexion is. No way people voting a nigga into office.
If Paul were to lose the primaries and run Indy and Obama were to win the nomination then Paul would take enough conservative voters away from the republicans and Obaa would back door his way in there like Bill Clinton did. Ron Paul can do one thing and that is ensure a democratic win in 08. If he wanted to.
-
People who simply right Paul off as not having a chance of winning just don't understand the nature of primary elections. If Paul can place third in Iowa and New Hampshire then I'd say he'd most likely win the primaries. He is only about 7 points below 2nd place in Iowa, and they only poll people who voted in the Republican primaries in 2004. Paul has attracted a huge amount of first time voters and can obviously get democratic support.
hope man
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That's weak.
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
Nah man, he converted because all the cool black people he knew were Mormons. Or was that someone else?
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
I thought Trauma was born and raised Mormon and then drifted away from it.
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
Nah man, he converted because all the cool black people he knew were Mormons. Or was that someone else?
why u always on infinites nuts for?
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
Nah man, he converted because all the cool black people he knew were Mormons. Or was that someone else?
why u always on infinites nuts for?
It was a light hearted joke. Take it easy. He begs for attention and I respond as such.
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
Nah man, he converted because all the cool black people he knew were Mormons. Or was that someone else?
why u always on infinites nuts for?
It was a light hearted joke. Take it easy. He begs for attention and I respond as such.
fair enough,lol....i think his aight but whatever, i shouldnt have called you out like that,
pz
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
Nah man, he converted because all the cool black people he knew were Mormons. Or was that someone else?
why u always on infinites nuts for?
It was a light hearted joke. Take it easy. He begs for attention and I respond as such.
fair enough,lol....i think his aight but whatever, i shouldnt have called you out like that,
pz
It's all good.
I don't have any real problem with Infinite. He purposely says stupid things to get a rise out of people and I respond with stupid things to get a rise out of him. I don't mean any of it as an insult, and I don't think he takes it as such.
-
Him and neither is that dumb nigga Obama, I don't care how light his complexion is. No way people voting a nigga into office.
Why do you call Obama dumb? Obama works for me and supports my goal of a Pan-African Socialist Republic. If he becomes President, it will mark the beginning of my revolution.
-
Trauma is entertaining, personally I missed him.
As for him predicting Ron Paul will lose, you don't stop supporting a great candidate just because he's not polling in first or second place. That shows how weak Trauma is and why he is just a fake who would convert to Mormonism just to hang out with a pretty girl.
Nah man, he converted because all the cool black people he knew were Mormons. Or was that someone else?
why u always on infinites nuts for?
It was a light hearted joke. Take it easy. He begs for attention and I respond as such.
fair enough,lol....i think his aight but whatever, i shouldnt have called you out like that,
pz
It's all good.
I don't have any real problem with Infinite. He purposely says stupid things to get a rise out of people and I respond with stupid things to get a rise out of him. I don't mean any of it as an insult, and I don't think he takes it as such.
its cool homie
as lunatic would say..
+1
pz
-
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him.
What in the hell does that mean? Just because hes not the favorite? So in your logic, your gonna vote for whoever is most popular, and has a higher chance of winning?
So your a "follow the crowd" type person?
No, I'm a "You can't elect a guy if he doesn't get nominated" type of guy. The Republican party will NEVER nominate this dude. EVER. The Democrat party would never nominate him either, because he talks about change that would have tons of consequences, but yet he doesn't talk about how to solve any of the consequences. For instance. You can't just get rid of the I.R.S. right now. It would not work. It'd put millions of people who live on food stamps and shit out on the street. So his idea is a flat tax. What happens if the money doesn't match what was collected before? You've got hundreds of politicians in Washington that can override any idea he has, good or bad, with a 2/3rds vote and you better bet your ass that 2/3rd's of washington wants the status quo.
-
Has Ron Paul won anything yet, btw? I guess I'm still right.
-
Who are you voting for and why?
Hillary Clinton because she has the experience.
-
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him.
What in the hell does that mean? Just because hes not the favorite? So in your logic, your gonna vote for whoever is most popular, and has a higher chance of winning?
So your a "follow the crowd" type person?
No, I'm a "You can't elect a guy if he doesn't get nominated" type of guy. The Republican party will NEVER nominate this dude. EVER. The Democrat party would never nominate him either, because he talks about change that would have tons of consequences, but yet he doesn't talk about how to solve any of the consequences. For instance. You can't just get rid of the I.R.S. right now. It would not work. It'd put millions of people who live on food stamps and shit out on the street. So his idea is a flat tax. What happens if the money doesn't match what was collected before? You've got hundreds of politicians in Washington that can override any idea he has, good or bad, with a 2/3rds vote and you better bet your ass that 2/3rd's of washington wants the status quo.
well actually he doesnt want to replace the IRS with anything, but believes that the few people who are dependent on goverment will still do so but wont be permanent. And even if the income tax was elimianted we will still have the same revenues from 10 years ago, not to mention alot more money flowing into the economy
and yes you are right, most people in washighton want the status quo. its all about money and power for them.
-
Has Ron Paul won anything yet, btw? I guess I'm still right.
The primaries don't start for another 2 days, dumbass.
-
why u always on infinites nuts for?
It's all good.
I don't have any real problem with Infinite. He purposely says stupid things to get a rise out of people and I respond with stupid things to get a rise out of him. I don't mean any of it as an insult, and I don't think he takes it as such.
Your trying to make it sound like it's joking between friends. That is definitely not the case. Lyrical G called it correctly above.
-
why u always on infinites nuts for?
It's all good.
I don't have any real problem with Infinite. He purposely says stupid things to get a rise out of people and I respond with stupid things to get a rise out of him. I don't mean any of it as an insult, and I don't think he takes it as such.
Your trying to make it sound like it's joking between friends. That is definitely not the case. Lyrical G called it correctly above.
Well I guess you do take it as such. Maybe you even seriously offended Taruma's faith and reasons for it and weren't just taking a harmless jab, but I do not personally insult people with ill intent. If you take it the wrong way I could care less. Stop saying stupid shit and I'll stop responding with it.
-
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him.
What in the hell does that mean? Just because hes not the favorite? So in your logic, your gonna vote for whoever is most popular, and has a higher chance of winning?
So your a "follow the crowd" type person?
No, I'm a "You can't elect a guy if he doesn't get nominated" type of guy. The Republican party will NEVER nominate this dude. EVER. The Democrat party would never nominate him either, because he talks about change that would have tons of consequences, but yet he doesn't talk about how to solve any of the consequences. For instance. You can't just get rid of the I.R.S. right now. It would not work. It'd put millions of people who live on food stamps and shit out on the street. So his idea is a flat tax. What happens if the money doesn't match what was collected before? You've got hundreds of politicians in Washington that can override any idea he has, good or bad, with a 2/3rds vote and you better bet your ass that 2/3rd's of washington wants the status quo.
I don't really even know where to start here. One, you're grossly misinformed or simply ignorant to Paul's platform apparently. He's not for a flat tax (thats Huckabee who is truly leftist masquerading as a Republican), he's for NO INCOME TAX. Our country and government worked just fine before we amended the constitution for it. It ties in perfectly with his foreign policy of non-intervention. When we're not spending $1 TRILLION (yes, I said TRILLION) on a war that 70% of the country is against, you don't need nearly as much in tax dollars. And Paul acknowledges that you can't just walk in and flip the switch to turn off the IRS. He's 72 years old, he's been around the block. He will propose phasing it out. Paul introduces more legislation to congress than any other member. Trust that he will continue to do so in regards to the income tax. If America elects Ron Paul and Congress is vetoing everything he does, the American people will not sit by idly. These people will be replaced by those who hold ideals similar to Paul when the elections for Senate and House come around again.
And I'll say it again, not supporting ideals and fundamentals of someone because you don't think they'll win is bitchmade. It reeks of accepting failure and uselessness.
You're supporting Hillary Clinton? Are you serious? She's a corrupt, communist, career politician which makes her an extremely slimy bitch. Do you have any clue about how much scandal her and ol Billy have been entrenched in over the last 40 years? You'd really trust someone like that? And if you think taxes are high now, just wait till she steps in.
And of course the Democrats would never elect a guy like Paul. What would make you think a party based on high taxes and socialism would embrace Ron Paul? He's for self-reliance and accountability. Pretty much the polar opposite of a Democrat.
Stick to the nintendo games bro.
-
Has Ron Paul won anything yet, btw? I guess I'm still right.
The primaries don't start for another 2 days, dumbass.
lol
-
We cannot afford socialism, period
-
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him.
What in the hell does that mean? Just because hes not the favorite? So in your logic, your gonna vote for whoever is most popular, and has a higher chance of winning?
So your a "follow the crowd" type person?
No, I'm a "You can't elect a guy if he doesn't get nominated" type of guy. The Republican party will NEVER nominate this dude. EVER. The Democrat party would never nominate him either, because he talks about change that would have tons of consequences, but yet he doesn't talk about how to solve any of the consequences. For instance. You can't just get rid of the I.R.S. right now. It would not work. It'd put millions of people who live on food stamps and shit out on the street. So his idea is a flat tax. What happens if the money doesn't match what was collected before? You've got hundreds of politicians in Washington that can override any idea he has, good or bad, with a 2/3rds vote and you better bet your ass that 2/3rd's of washington wants the status quo.
well actually he doesnt want to replace the IRS with anything, but believes that the few people who are dependent on goverment will still do so but wont be permanent. And even if the income tax was elimianted we will still have the same revenues from 10 years ago, not to mention alot more money flowing into the economy
and yes you are right, most people in washighton want the status quo. its all about money and power for them.
So basically his platform is to end the IRS, even though it's the sole source of income for the U.S. government, and not replace it with anything? Yeah.... o.k. Let me know ho does with that!
-
I don't really even know where to start here. One, you're grossly misinformed or simply ignorant to Paul's platform apparently. He's not for a flat tax (thats Huckabee who is truly leftist masquerading as a Republican), he's for NO INCOME TAX. Our country and government worked just fine before we amended the constitution for it. It ties in perfectly with his foreign policy of non-intervention. When we're not spending $1 TRILLION (yes, I said TRILLION) on a war that 70% of the country is against, you don't need nearly as much in tax dollars. And Paul acknowledges that you can't just walk in and flip the switch to turn off the IRS. He's 72 years old, he's been around the block. He will propose phasing it out. Paul introduces more legislation to congress than any other member. Trust that he will continue to do so in regards to the income tax. If America elects Ron Paul and Congress is vetoing everything he does, the American people will not sit by idly. These people will be replaced by those who hold ideals similar to Paul when the elections for Senate and House come around again.
And I'll say it again, not supporting ideals and fundamentals of someone because you don't think they'll win is bitchmade. It reeks of accepting failure and uselessness.
You're supporting Hillary Clinton? Are you serious? She's a corrupt, communist, career politician which makes her an extremely slimy bitch. Do you have any clue about how much scandal her and ol Billy have been entrenched in over the last 40 years? You'd really trust someone like that? And if you think taxes are high now, just wait till she steps in.
And of course the Democrats would never elect a guy like Paul. What would make you think a party based on high taxes and socialism would embrace Ron Paul? He's for self-reliance and accountability. Pretty much the polar opposite of a Democrat.
Stick to the nintendo games bro.
The sole source of the u.s. government's money is the income tax. If you're saying Paul doesn't want to replace it with a fair tax than you just described him as more crazy than he existed in even my own mind. It's impossible to simply phase out the I.R.S., it would never work. You say that we spend a trillion in Iraq, following Ron's policy would leave the country with no money to defend itself if a war ever presented that was inevitable.
As for his record, yeah, I know about his record. For instance, he makes sure to get his own earmarks in congressional budgets to bring home tax money to his state, even though he says he's against that. That's interesting.
He introduces more legislation than any other member (arguably) but how many pass? That's a good example of what a Ron Paul presidency would be like.
Or even better, look at a Ron Paul campaign. He can't win 1 state. Anybody with any intelligence sees that he talks a good talk, but doesn't accomplish anything.
Now, Hillary! THERE'S Somebody ready to lead on day 1 in Washington. Vote Hillary!!!!
-
[
Now, Hillary! THERE'S Somebody ready to lead on day 1 in Washington. Vote Hillary!!!!
She can lead you alright, straight into hell.
You can oppose taxes and still take tax rebates. And still stand against something and vote with your constituency (it's called democracy). Paul won't oppose wars that the American people want, and if Income Tax was the only income how did the country survive those hundred years before it was there?
-
We cannot afford socialism, period
Too bad. My Pan-African Socialist Republic is inevitable.
-
I don't really even know where to start here. One, you're grossly misinformed or simply ignorant to Paul's platform apparently. He's not for a flat tax (thats Huckabee who is truly leftist masquerading as a Republican), he's for NO INCOME TAX. Our country and government worked just fine before we amended the constitution for it. It ties in perfectly with his foreign policy of non-intervention. When we're not spending $1 TRILLION (yes, I said TRILLION) on a war that 70% of the country is against, you don't need nearly as much in tax dollars. And Paul acknowledges that you can't just walk in and flip the switch to turn off the IRS. He's 72 years old, he's been around the block. He will propose phasing it out. Paul introduces more legislation to congress than any other member. Trust that he will continue to do so in regards to the income tax. If America elects Ron Paul and Congress is vetoing everything he does, the American people will not sit by idly. These people will be replaced by those who hold ideals similar to Paul when the elections for Senate and House come around again.
And I'll say it again, not supporting ideals and fundamentals of someone because you don't think they'll win is bitchmade. It reeks of accepting failure and uselessness.
You're supporting Hillary Clinton? Are you serious? She's a corrupt, communist, career politician which makes her an extremely slimy bitch. Do you have any clue about how much scandal her and ol Billy have been entrenched in over the last 40 years? You'd really trust someone like that? And if you think taxes are high now, just wait till she steps in.
And of course the Democrats would never elect a guy like Paul. What would make you think a party based on high taxes and socialism would embrace Ron Paul? He's for self-reliance and accountability. Pretty much the polar opposite of a Democrat.
Stick to the nintendo games bro.
The sole source of the u.s. government's money is the income tax. If you're saying Paul doesn't want to replace it with a fair tax than you just described him as more crazy than he existed in even my own mind. It's impossible to simply phase out the I.R.S., it would never work. You say that we spend a trillion in Iraq, following Ron's policy would leave the country with no money to defend itself if a war ever presented that was inevitable.
As for his record, yeah, I know about his record. For instance, he makes sure to get his own earmarks in congressional budgets to bring home tax money to his state, even though he says he's against that. That's interesting.
He introduces more legislation than any other member (arguably) but how many pass? That's a good example of what a Ron Paul presidency would be like.
Or even better, look at a Ron Paul campaign. He can't win 1 state. Anybody with any intelligence sees that he talks a good talk, but doesn't accomplish anything.
Now, Hillary! THERE'S Somebody ready to lead on day 1 in Washington. Vote Hillary!!!!
over 30% of goverments money is from the income tax. how do u think this county worked for 130 years without income tax? tarifs, user fees,...anything thing is better then the income tax though if u have to replace it with anything.
and he's a congressman, he represents the people of his district. if they want want tax money is he gunna say no? thats his whole point
-
The sole source of the u.s. government's money is the income tax. If you're saying Paul doesn't want to replace it with a fair tax than you just described him as more crazy than he existed in even my own mind. It's impossible to simply phase out the I.R.S., it would never work. You say that we spend a trillion in Iraq, following Ron's policy would leave the country with no money to defend itself if a war ever presented that was inevitable.
Income tax only makes up about 33% of income for the government. Since 1996 the government has increased spending by about one third. I'm sure even you can do the math.
-
Now, just for clarity: I have no problem with Ron Paul. If he was the candidate, I would vote for him.
What in the hell does that mean? Just because hes not the favorite? So in your logic, your gonna vote for whoever is most popular, and has a higher chance of winning?
So your a "follow the crowd" type person?
No, I'm a "You can't elect a guy if he doesn't get nominated" type of guy. The Republican party will NEVER nominate this dude. EVER. The Democrat party would never nominate him either, because he talks about change that would have tons of consequences, but yet he doesn't talk about how to solve any of the consequences. For instance. You can't just get rid of the I.R.S. right now. It would not work. It'd put millions of people who live on food stamps and shit out on the street. So his idea is a flat tax. What happens if the money doesn't match what was collected before? You've got hundreds of politicians in Washington that can override any idea he has, good or bad, with a 2/3rds vote and you better bet your ass that 2/3rd's of washington wants the status quo.
well actually he doesnt want to replace the IRS with anything, but believes that the few people who are dependent on goverment will still do so but wont be permanent. And even if the income tax was elimianted we will still have the same revenues from 10 years ago, not to mention alot more money flowing into the economy
and yes you are right, most people in washighton want the status quo. its all about money and power for them.
So basically his platform is to end the IRS, even though it's the sole source of income for the U.S. government, and not replace it with anything? Yeah.... o.k. Let me know ho does with that!
It's not the sole source of income, The IRS makes up less than 1/2 of our tax revenue brah.
-
if rp doesnt win is he gonna want to run again in candidacy in the next elections?
-
if rp doesnt win is he gonna want to run again in candidacy in the next elections?
doubt it, but more people will adapt his message and veiws
-
Hillary *creamed* Ron Paul tonight. Geesh. He got like 11% of the 80 or 90 thousand republicans that turned out, and Hillary got 29% of the 200 thousand democrats that turned out. It's time we get rid of these republicans (Ron Paul is a republican, by the way) in the white house!!!
VOTE HILLARY!!!! '08
-
Trauma weren't you a neo-con a few years back. Now you embrase socialism. hmmmm. Paul got 11% in a very religious Iowa. Not too bad.
-
Hillary *creamed* Ron Paul tonight. Geesh. He got like 11% of the 80 or 90 thousand republicans that turned out, and Hillary got 29% of the 200 thousand democrats that turned out. It's time we get rid of these republicans (Ron Paul is a republican, by the way) in the white house!!!
VOTE HILLARY!!!! '08
LOL. Too bad they weren't actually running against each other. :loser:
-
Ron Paul is a fucking con man. His taking in all this money and the only thing I've ever seen in MN or CA is ONE BILLBOARD on the 215/10 intersection in San Bernardino. SB is a Democrat city, no way anyone votes for someone with an R next to their name. Ron Paul has jacked everyone's money and ain't doing shit with it. He makes as much in a day as Edwards in a quarter, and Edwards is actually trying, putting out commercials, and Ron Paul is doing jack shit. You guys are paying to his kids student loans.
-
Ron Paul is a fucking con man. His taking in all this money and the only thing I've ever seen in MN or CA is ONE BILLBOARD on the 215/10 intersection in San Bernardino. SB is a Democrat city, no way anyone votes for someone with an R next to their name. Ron Paul has jacked everyone's money and ain't doing shit with it. He makes as much in a day as Edwards in a quarter, and Edwards is actually trying, putting out commercials, and Ron Paul is doing jack shit. You guys are paying to his kids student loans.
He never actually asked for the money? This is the time it should start being spent anyway. First you spend only in the first primaries to try and get high early numbers then you spend the money later promoting your position. If he could somehow finish 3rd or above in Hew Hampshire then he'll be in a good position.
-
Ron Paul is a fucking con man. His taking in all this money and the only thing I've ever seen in MN or CA is ONE BILLBOARD on the 215/10 intersection in San Bernardino. SB is a Democrat city, no way anyone votes for someone with an R next to their name. Ron Paul has jacked everyone's money and ain't doing shit with it. He makes as much in a day as Edwards in a quarter, and Edwards is actually trying, putting out commercials, and Ron Paul is doing jack shit. You guys are paying to his kids student loans.
He never actually asked for the money? This is the time it should start being spent anyway. First you spend only in the first primaries to try and get high early numbers then you spend the money later promoting your position. If he could somehow finish 3rd or above in Hew Hampshire then he'll be in a good position.
If he uses his resources, he could beat Romney, but Huckabee is going to be hard to beat.
-
Ron Paul is a fucking con man. His taking in all this money and the only thing I've ever seen in MN or CA is ONE BILLBOARD on the 215/10 intersection in San Bernardino. SB is a Democrat city, no way anyone votes for someone with an R next to their name. Ron Paul has jacked everyone's money and ain't doing shit with it. He makes as much in a day as Edwards in a quarter, and Edwards is actually trying, putting out commercials, and Ron Paul is doing jack shit. You guys are paying to his kids student loans.
He never actually asked for the money? This is the time it should start being spent anyway. First you spend only in the first primaries to try and get high early numbers then you spend the money later promoting your position. If he could somehow finish 3rd or above in Hew Hampshire then he'll be in a good position.
If he uses his resources, he could beat Romney, but Huckabee is going to be hard to beat.
In New Hampshire? I didn't think Huckabee was strong there.
And if Huckabee wins the whole thing that 25% sales tax is gonna kill him. Democrats will be convinced it'll hurt the poor to no end and conservatives won't even show up to vote.
-
Ron Paul is a fucking con man. His taking in all this money and the only thing I've ever seen in MN or CA is ONE BILLBOARD on the 215/10 intersection in San Bernardino. SB is a Democrat city, no way anyone votes for someone with an R next to their name. Ron Paul has jacked everyone's money and ain't doing shit with it. He makes as much in a day as Edwards in a quarter, and Edwards is actually trying, putting out commercials, and Ron Paul is doing jack shit. You guys are paying to his kids student loans.
He never actually asked for the money? This is the time it should start being spent anyway. First you spend only in the first primaries to try and get high early numbers then you spend the money later promoting your position. If he could somehow finish 3rd or above in Hew Hampshire then he'll be in a good position.
If he uses his resources, he could beat Romney, but Huckabee is going to be hard to beat.
In New Hampshire? I didn't think Huckabee was strong there.
And if Huckabee wins the whole thing that 25% sales tax is gonna kill him. Democrats will be convinced it'll hurt the poor to no end and conservatives won't even show up to vote.
I'm thinking the whole thing. Paul is the perfect candidate for NH, as it's the Live Free or Die state, a state that's so conservative, and one that Paul should be the front runner. Whoever is running his campaign is missing out on a lot. Paul could have challenged Romney in NH, but it's too late. NH should have been Paul's coming out party. It is the lack of Paul's presents in NH that has lead me to believe he just jacked everyone's money.
-
Ron Paul is a fucking con man. His taking in all this money and the only thing I've ever seen in MN or CA is ONE BILLBOARD on the 215/10 intersection in San Bernardino. SB is a Democrat city, no way anyone votes for someone with an R next to their name. Ron Paul has jacked everyone's money and ain't doing shit with it. He makes as much in a day as Edwards in a quarter, and Edwards is actually trying, putting out commercials, and Ron Paul is doing jack shit. You guys are paying to his kids student loans.
Don't be stupid. He released 2 TV commercials in the past week. Have you seen his appearance on Bill Mayer? Paul draws great bipartisan support. Now personally I think he can run his campaign better, but just because one thinks that way, doesn't make the candidate a con man.
-
if rp doesnt win is he gonna want to run again in candidacy in the next elections?
I doubt it. His family had to convince him to run this year.
-
Lemme let everybody in on a lil' secret. Hear how everybody keeps saying that Ron Paul introduces more legislation in Congress than any other member? He has a little game he likes to play...
He comes up with these 'pork barrel' projects for his district in texas, and introduces them into the budget, or as bills, or whatever. Many, Many times asking for money for whatever project he's harping on this week... then the neat little thing he does is, he votes *against* the bill or budget whenever it comes up for vote.
Now, what's the purpose of that? The purpose of that is he gets to have his cake and eat it too. He can tell people he has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted for a special interest bill, blah blah blah... but yet he's the one who introduced many of them, and they go through anyways with or without his vote. It's really pretty hilarious... and it's kind of morally wrong.
Ron Paul is not the savior. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians can't win anything... so he runs as a Republican. If he loses this primary, which he will... he won't run as an independent or a libertarian, because he wasn't able to get elected to congress as a libertarian in the first place! That's the only reason he's in the republican primary. This is all much to do about nothing.
-
Lemme let everybody in on a lil' secret. Hear how everybody keeps saying that Ron Paul introduces more legislation in Congress than any other member? He has a little game he likes to play...
He comes up with these 'pork barrel' projects for his district in texas, and introduces them into the budget, or as bills, or whatever. Many, Many times asking for money for whatever project he's harping on this week... then the neat little thing he does is, he votes *against* the bill or budget whenever it comes up for vote.
Now, what's the purpose of that? The purpose of that is he gets to have his cake and eat it too. He can tell people he has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted for a special interest bill, blah blah blah... but yet he's the one who introduced many of them, and they go through anyways with or without his vote. It's really pretty hilarious... and it's kind of morally wrong.
Ron Paul is not the savior. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians can't win anything... so he runs as a Republican. If he loses this primary, which he will... he won't run as an independent or a libertarian, because he wasn't able to get elected to congress as a libertarian in the first place! That's the only reason he's in the republican primary. This is all much to do about nothing.
Ross Perot had no chance in winning ether but he ran and basicallt gave Clinton the presidency. No Perot in 92 and Bush walks right over Bill. If Obama wins and runs on immediate withdrawal then Paul might run just to take away Republican votes. I'd do it. Then Obama back doors his way in like Clinton did. That's assuming he couldn't beat the dope that already going to get the nod. I think Huckabee's the only one that can beat Obama but only if he drops that fair tax garabage.
-
^Why are you so sure that he would take away significantly more Republican votes, when running as an independent? I'm sure a lot of "democrats" are going to vote for him, too.
Btw how's that Giuliani bastard doing, ain't nobody talking bout him?
-
Lemme let everybody in on a lil' secret. Hear how everybody keeps saying that Ron Paul introduces more legislation in Congress than any other member? He has a little game he likes to play...
He comes up with these 'pork barrel' projects for his district in texas, and introduces them into the budget, or as bills, or whatever. Many, Many times asking for money for whatever project he's harping on this week... then the neat little thing he does is, he votes *against* the bill or budget whenever it comes up for vote.
Now, what's the purpose of that? The purpose of that is he gets to have his cake and eat it too. He can tell people he has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted for a special interest bill, blah blah blah... but yet he's the one who introduced many of them, and they go through anyways with or without his vote. It's really pretty hilarious... and it's kind of morally wrong.
Ron Paul is not the savior. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians can't win anything... so he runs as a Republican. If he loses this primary, which he will... he won't run as an independent or a libertarian, because he wasn't able to get elected to congress as a libertarian in the first place! That's the only reason he's in the republican primary. This is all much to do about nothing.
Wrong again as usual. I'm getting tired of debunking your wack ass posts so do us a favor and speak on shit you halfway comprehend - Nintendo games.
When congress gets together and comes up with various budgets, say $500 Billion allocated to various projects and municipalities across the country. Ron vetoes, stating it is entirely too much money. Well, Ron is grossly outnumbered and the decision is final - There will be $500 Billion allocated. The next question is - Where? Well guess what, if the question is no longer "how much" but "where", Ron is going to step up and fight for his constituents to get their tax dollars back. Can your feeble mind grasp that concept or do I need to go below a 5th grader comprehension level for you?
Ron ran as a Libertarian in 1988. That's the extent of his party affiliation. He has been in the House as a Republican for 20 straight years, keeping his seat while many Repubs were ousted. Reagan endorsed Ron Paul numerous times.
Paul's current platform of small governement, non-interventionist foreign policy, and decreased spending is the EXACT forum Bush ran under in 2000. The difference being that your idol, George Bush is a corporate lobbyist whore and he lied his way to the top. Paul isn't going to do that.
And again, you're a giant gaping pussy because you support the person who you perceive has the best chance to win. You have no opinion or independant thought, you let a faceless mindless majority dictate your thought process. I feel sorry for your mother.
And I thought you picked winners dipshit? In case you didn't notice, Obama fucked Hillary up in Iowa and he's set to do it again in New Hampshire. I mean, even when you try to pick the person that you think everyone else is gonna pick, you lose. Which further emphasizes my earlier statement that I'd bet you lose regularly in life.
-
^Why are you so sure that he would take away significantly more Republican votes, when running as an independent? I'm sure a lot of "democrats" are going to vote for him, too.
Btw how's that Giuliani bastard doing, ain't nobody talking bout him?
Paul got about 3x as many votes as Rudy in Iowa, which is amazing because the neocons there love the idea of killing muslims. Have you seen his new campaign ad? It's probably the most disgusting thing I've seen in a long time.
-
If Paul doesn't finish 4th or better in NH, his campaign is over.
-
^Why are you so sure that he would take away significantly more Republican votes, when running as an independent? I'm sure a lot of "democrats" are going to vote for him, too.
Btw how's that Giuliani bastard doing, ain't nobody talking bout him?
Paul got about 3x as many votes as Rudy in Iowa, which is amazing because the neocons there love the idea of killing muslims. Have you seen his new campaign ad? It's probably the most disgusting thing I've seen in a long time.
I saw his ad and it was one of the most fucked up things I have ever seen in a while. Like I said before if you think Bush is a war monger. Rudy will make him look like a peace loving hippie. Rudy is evil. Life long New Yorkers know the deal with him. They know he will be worse then Bush.
-
^Why are you so sure that he would take away significantly more Republican votes, when running as an independent? I'm sure a lot of "democrats" are going to vote for him, too.
Btw how's that Giuliani bastard doing, ain't nobody talking bout him?
Paul got about 3x as many votes as Rudy in Iowa, which is amazing because the neocons there love the idea of killing muslims. Have you seen his new campaign ad? It's probably the most disgusting thing I've seen in a long time.
I saw his ad and it was one of the most fucked up things I have ever seen in a while. Like I said before if you think Bush is a war monger. Rudy will make him look like a peace loving hippie. Rudy is evil. Life long New Yorkers know the deal with him. They know he will be worse then Bush.
https://www.youtube.com/v/y2iFhGtKO-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q)
-
When congress gets together and comes up with various budgets, say $500 Billion allocated to various projects and municipalities across the country. Ron vetoes, stating it is entirely too much money. Well, Ron is grossly outnumbered and the decision is final - There will be $500 Billion allocated. The next question is - Where? Well guess what, if the question is no longer "how much" but "where", Ron is going to step up and fight for his constituents to get their tax dollars back. Can your feeble mind grasp that concept or do I need to go below a 5th grader comprehension level for you?
Ron ran as a Libertarian in 1988. That's the extent of his party affiliation. He has been in the House as a Republican for 20 straight years, keeping his seat while many Repubs were ousted. Reagan endorsed Ron Paul numerous times.
Paul's current platform of small governement, non-interventionist foreign policy, and decreased spending is the EXACT forum Bush ran under in 2000. The difference being that your idol, George Bush is a corporate lobbyist whore and he lied his way to the top. Paul isn't going to do that.
And again, you're a giant gaping pussy because you support the person who you perceive has the best chance to win. You have no opinion or independant thought, you let a faceless mindless majority dictate your thought process. I feel sorry for your mother.
And I thought you picked winners dipshit? In case you didn't notice, Obama fucked Hillary up in Iowa and he's set to do it again in New Hampshire. I mean, even when you try to pick the person that you think everyone else is gonna pick, you lose. Which further emphasizes my earlier statement that I'd bet you lose regularly in life.
You just confirmed everything I was saying. Ron Paul on record is against tax spending, but makes sure to get his portion of it. Hypocrite.
George Bush isn't my idol. I just like making bitches like you get pissed. God Bless George Bush!
Ron Paul, like I said, doesn't run as a libertarian because he cannot win as a libertarian. So he runs where he can win; as a republican. You're chiding me for voting for people that *can* win, when you're idol runs his entire political career in the wrong party because it's the only way he can get elected.
The Hillary thing was a joke, only you're too intellectually devoid to get it. Nearly everybody else on the entire messageboard caught it immediately... as it was intended.
By the way; has Ron won anything yet? So, basically, I'm still right, and you're still wrong, correct?
-
When congress gets together and comes up with various budgets, say $500 Billion allocated to various projects and municipalities across the country. Ron vetoes, stating it is entirely too much money. Well, Ron is grossly outnumbered and the decision is final - There will be $500 Billion allocated. The next question is - Where? Well guess what, if the question is no longer "how much" but "where", Ron is going to step up and fight for his constituents to get their tax dollars back. Can your feeble mind grasp that concept or do I need to go below a 5th grader comprehension level for you?
Ron ran as a Libertarian in 1988. That's the extent of his party affiliation. He has been in the House as a Republican for 20 straight years, keeping his seat while many Repubs were ousted. Reagan endorsed Ron Paul numerous times.
Paul's current platform of small governement, non-interventionist foreign policy, and decreased spending is the EXACT forum Bush ran under in 2000. The difference being that your idol, George Bush is a corporate lobbyist whore and he lied his way to the top. Paul isn't going to do that.
And again, you're a giant gaping pussy because you support the person who you perceive has the best chance to win. You have no opinion or independant thought, you let a faceless mindless majority dictate your thought process. I feel sorry for your mother.
And I thought you picked winners dipshit? In case you didn't notice, Obama fucked Hillary up in Iowa and he's set to do it again in New Hampshire. I mean, even when you try to pick the person that you think everyone else is gonna pick, you lose. Which further emphasizes my earlier statement that I'd bet you lose regularly in life.
You just confirmed everything I was saying. Ron Paul on record is against tax spending, but makes sure to get his portion of it. Hypocrite.
George Bush isn't my idol. I just like making bitches like you get pissed. God Bless George Bush!
Ron Paul, like I said, doesn't run as a libertarian because he cannot win as a libertarian. So he runs where he can win; as a republican. You're chiding me for voting for people that *can* win, when you're idol runs his entire political career in the wrong party because it's the only way he can get elected.
The Hillary thing was a joke, only you're too intellectually devoid to get it. Nearly everybody else on the entire messageboard caught it immediately... as it was intended.
By the way; has Ron won anything yet? So, basically, I'm still right, and you're still wrong, correct?
republican is just a party...you can be liberal, liberaltarian, moderate, conservative w.e...he's just a liberatarian slanted republican
-
No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics. He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
-
As for Ron Paul not winning 'a fucking thing'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses%2C_2008#Results_of_the_January_2008_caucuses
What's the yellow area doing on that map? ;)
-
No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics.
Then what would 'Republican politics' be? Should that follow the guidelines of 'republicanism' or something? Well, peep game:
"Republicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism) is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule by the people, and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government."
Then tell me, how is Ron Paul opposing to that?
He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
It just so happens that the USA have a very stiff constitutional system with only two big parties. If Ron Paul's a Republican libertarian, why shouldn't he run for Republican nominee? It's true, the Libertarian Party isn't likely to ever bring forth a president. Neither is the Green Party or the Constitution Party. Third party members simply don't get the attention it takes. It has very little to do with those parties not being trustworthy, and all the more with people such as yourself who live with a tunnel vision and who refuse to look any further than the obvious options.
So yeah, Ron Paul's a Republican libertarian. He's different from all the other candidates the Republicans have had in the past so many years. Does it matter though? Would you say the votes he's getting now aren't legitimate because of that? That if he gets elected, it's for fraudulent reasons - that people still don't approve of his political views and that they were mislead? Get real now.
-
Ron Paul is actually the closest to a traditional republican than all of the other establishment candidates.
-
No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics. He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
You cumstain, the traditional republicans were small government and non-interventionalist. Your gods, the neocons, hijacked the party and changed it into a bunch of radical christians hell bent on war and bloated government in order to feed the Military Industrial Complex and Corporatism. And they've conditioned you into believing that that is the definition of a Republican. You do realize that the United States was founded as a REPUBLIC and not a democracy right? And our founders were, get this, for a small federal government and states rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is more Republican than any alleged Republican in years.
In case you haven't noticed, our political system is EXTREMELY biased towards a two party system. I don't give a shit who you are, it's next to impossible to run and win as a third party candidate. You can't get into debates, you can't get your name on ballots across the country, etc.
I'm not chiding you for supporting someone who has the potential to win. I'm chiding you because your lack of independant thought lets others decide who is electable and who isn't. It's called having integrity and principals. Maybe someday you'll develop those personality traits. You view politics as a game and somehow feel better about yourself if the person you pick is the same as the majority. Did you have a lot of trouble being accepted growing up? Maybe didn't really have opinions of your own, just went with the crowd in order to fit in?
And no, Paul hasn't won anything. And I never made the claim that he would. I just made the claim that whether you or anyone else think he is electable has zero impact on the fact that I'm supporting him. I'm not a follower, I'm a leader. You on the other hand, claimed that Hillary would win and so far she has lost. Remember when you made all your bitchmade posts "I'm a winner, I pick winners". Well looks like you ended up looking like a dumb fuck once again. So keep on chasing fads and support who you think is going to win. I mean how does somebody go from a staunch George Bush supporter to a Hillary Clinton supporter? You're a joke bro.
-
No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics. He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
You cumstain, the traditional republicans were small government and non-interventionalist. Your gods, the neocons, hijacked the party and changed it into a bunch of radical christians hell bent on war and bloated government in order to feed the Military Industrial Complex and Corporatism. And they've conditioned you into believing that that is the definition of a Republican. You do realize that the United States was founded as a REPUBLIC and not a democracy right? And our founders were, get this, for a small federal government and states rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is more Republican than any alleged Republican in years.
In case you haven't noticed, our political system is EXTREMELY biased towards a two party system. I don't give a shit who you are, it's next to impossible to run and win as a third party candidate. You can't get into debates, you can't get your name on ballots across the country, etc.
I'm not chiding you for supporting someone who has the potential to win. I'm chiding you because your lack of independant thought lets others decide who is electable and who isn't. It's called having integrity and principals. Maybe someday you'll develop those personality traits. You view politics as a game and somehow feel better about yourself if the person you pick is the same as the majority. Did you have a lot of trouble being accepted growing up? Maybe didn't really have opinions of your own, just went with the crowd in order to fit in?
And no, Paul hasn't won anything. And I never made the claim that he would. I just made the claim that whether you or anyone else think he is electable has zero impact on the fact that I'm supporting him. I'm not a follower, I'm a leader. You on the other hand, claimed that Hillary would win and so far she has lost. Remember when you made all your bitchmade posts "I'm a winner, I pick winners". Well looks like you ended up looking like a dumb fuck once again. So keep on chasing fads and support who you think is going to win. I mean how does somebody go from a staunch George Bush supporter to a Hillary Clinton supporter? You're a joke bro.
NO, the traditional Republican are people like the Rocafellers and George Bush Sr. Ronald Reagan changed the Republican party forever, and now it's more libertarian leaning, but it's NEVER been a libertarian party. Eisenhower was more liberal than Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon wanted to work on health care and expand on education, and long time Republican leader was Gerald Ford who never looked like a libertarian. Reagan himself was not a total libertarian himself.
-
I just checked, looks like Ron Paul is running wayyyyyy behind in New Hampshire. For those keeping track, here's what's happend so far.
1. Iowa - Ron Paul Lost.
2. Wyoming - Ron Paul Lost.
3. New Hampshire - Ron Paul is in the process of losing.
By the end of the day, I should be able to update on the situation in New Hampshire, but by all accounts and measures, it looks like the outcome is going to be that Ron Paul Loses.
-
You sure proved the doubters wrong! Legendary work! I'm expecting a book from you on this groundbreaking work.
-
Well, no I won't be having a book come out. There's not enough people interested in Ron Paul to sell it.
-
I just checked, looks like Ron Paul is running wayyyyyy behind in New Hampshire. For those keeping track, here's what's happend so far.
1. Iowa - Ron Paul Lost.
2. Wyoming - Ron Paul Lost.
3. New Hampshire - Ron Paul is in the process of losing.
By the end of the day, I should be able to update on the situation in New Hampshire, but by all accounts and measures, it looks like the outcome is going to be that Ron Paul Loses.
I hope Hillary wins it all in November just to spite you.
-
3. New Hampshire - Ron Paul is in the process of losing.
By the end of the day, I should be able to update on the situation in New Hampshire, but by all accounts and measures, it looks like the outcome is going to be that Ron Paul Loses.
Not even 10% of the votes are in yet. And Paul isn't looking to win NH, just get a good showing (third place) to keep momentum going. Step your game up.
-
Indeed, would you say a third place for Ron Paul in New Hampshire would be a bad thing? They'll have him put above Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani... I say Ron Paul is doing very nice so far.
Edit: I'm not so sure about the legitimacy of my sources though :D
-
3. New Hampshire - Ron Paul is in the process of losing.
By the end of the day, I should be able to update on the situation in New Hampshire, but by all accounts and measures, it looks like the outcome is going to be that Ron Paul Loses.
Not even 10% of the votes are in yet. And Paul isn't looking to win NH, just get a good showing (third place) to keep momentum going. Step your game up.
Um... what momentum? He's losing. Everything. I geuss if he wants to keep *that* momentum up, then yeah a bad finish in New Hampshire would be good for him. And since I don't want to quote two losers in the same post, tell the guy below you that Ron Paul will not finish above Mitt Romney tonight. He must have got a couple of the old white guys confused or something.
-
This Just In: Ron Paul has officially LOST another state.
For those keeping score, here's where we stand right now.
1. Ron Paul LOST Iowa
2. Ron Paul LOST Wyoming
3. Ron Paul LOST New Hampshire.
Next up, is Michigan. Now, Michigan looks interesting. Of course not for Ron Paul, who's currently LOSING there as well, but it's interesting for virtually every other candidate you ever hear mention, because they all actually have a chance of winning it. So people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee etc. will all actually have a shot in the Michigan race.
I'll be sure to update this post as state by state goes by, so everybody can see that I'm annoyingly right, again.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
and you need to realize that Obama wont change shit if he gets elected, he's just like the rest of the republicans and democrats
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
... says the man all flagged out for Ron Paul. LOL come on man. It's all fun. I'm just showing you how pathetic it is to get wrapped up in a political candidate to the degree that you're wrapped up in Ron Paul. How much time have you wasted campaigning for this man? What has he given you in return?
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
... says the man all flagged out for Ron Paul. LOL come on man. It's all fun. I'm just showing you how pathetic it is to get wrapped up in a political candidate to the degree that you're wrapped up in Ron Paul. How much time have you wasted campaigning for this man? What has he given you in return?
Now here is where I disagree. Americans are stupid as a whole, Dick Nixon was right when he said it. They aren't ready to accept such logical change. They aren't ready to accept any responsibility for what goes on in other countries and how they benefit from it. They aren't ready to accept the fact that it was only US incompetence that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen and any private security agency with half a brain would have stopped those planes from taking off. Thanks to low lifes like Wilson and FDR Amercans ave decided to just put faith in government like it's their king and go on with thier lives. And they choose that king based on likability. I'll bet over 70% of voters couldn't name 3 differences in policy between candidates, or explain how the Bush and Clinton governments were any different (they weren't by the way).
But America was once a country that thought slavery was acceptable. And even in the beginning of formation there were strong abolitionists like Ben Franklin and others. It took decades for this to reach the main stream American thought. Ron Paul isn't going to win. America isn't that smart yet. But the seeds have been planted and one day you'll see enough Americans that are that smart mixed with the rest that are still stupid but have a candidate they like enough to vote for. Ron Regan couldn't have run on Paul's platform and won so no way could Paul. But in a couple decades a Reagan type in personality will run on a similar platform of freedom and logic, and win. And this movement right here, right now is an important part of that.
-
Let me just slap the shit out of you for insinuating Ron Paul is equivalent or even similar to Ronald Reagan. He's not. He may have a similar libertarian streak, but that's where the similarities end. Barack Obama is much more like Ronald Reagan than Ron Paul is. Pleasebelieveit.
-
This movement is not about Ron Paul, it is a movement of freedom, peace and prosperity. It doesnt stop at Ron Paul
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
Point me to a post where I said he would. Let me give you a priceless piece of advice: never cosign trauma.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
... says the man all flagged out for Ron Paul. LOL come on man. It's all fun. I'm just showing you how pathetic it is to get wrapped up in a political candidate to the degree that you're wrapped up in Ron Paul. How much time have you wasted campaigning for this man? What has he given you in return?
What you don't understand is regardless if Ron Paul wins or not, I'm going to support him, but even moreso, his ideals. He's a principled and honorable individual. Should I have a bitch with ass n titties in my sig (shit I have before and will again), or how about a rapper or some shit? Why are you so threatened by Ron Paul? It's not him, it's his message that I can identify with.
So you and your disciple can keep saying "See he's not gonna win" like someone is arguing with you. I've said it before - I'm not out here trying to pick a winner and feel better about myself because I was right. I'm reppin it because I think it's the truth.
And I don't dedicate my life to him. I guess I could be a massive douche and brag about smokin trees on my way to work, making out w/ twins on new years, driving my $40k car, and blowing hundreds of dollars a week on bullshit because I make more money than I need. But again, I'm not trying to get vindication on an internet board. I'm here to discuss things with people, get some entertainment, and that's it.
-
Let me just slap the shit out of you for insinuating Ron Paul is equivalent or even similar to Ronald Reagan. He's not. He may have a similar libertarian streak, but that's where the similarities end. Barack Obama is much more like Ronald Reagan than Ron Paul is. Pleasebelieveit.
You show me where I said that and I'll email you my address. I said REgan couldn't run on this platform and win. That means if Ron Reagan were alive today and the same age he was when he ran in 80 and 94 with all his jokes and charisma and style and likability and ran on the idea that Third World countries with no real militaries were no a threat to us, that Foreign Policy was a large part of why terrorism exists, that we should eliminate the income tax, bring every troop from every where home, that the FED, CIA, and Federal everything should dismantled, and that the Gold standard should be brought back, he'd still be competing for 3rd or 4th at best. The American masses are not ready for the message, just like the American masses weren't ready for the Republic in 1750. It takes time to change the hearts and minds of the stupid.
-
Ron Paul was one of only six incumbent Republican Congressmen to support Ronald Reagan over Ford in 1976. In fact, Paul led the Texas delegation for Reagan to the nominating convention.
(http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/ron_paul_reagan_3.jpg)
(http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/004-0610085829-ron_paul_reagan_2-(Small).jpg)
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
and you need to realize that Obama wont change shit if he gets elected, he's just like the rest of the republicans and democrats
Obama will get change done. Dude went into Detroit, infront of the UAW and said things need to get changed. His a man that tells you what he thinks, not what you want to hear. That's why Gore lost in 2000, he sold out his views. Gore in 2007 beats George Bush in 2000. Obama is that guy to turn the page, he was a community activist, civil rights lawyer and someone who fights for unions. Dude is the Democrat party, not no leader of it like the Clintons. That's change right there. Ron Paul is Andrew Jackson, for the gold standard, and racist... nuff said.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
and you need to realize that Obama wont change shit if he gets elected, he's just like the rest of the republicans and democrats
Obama will get change done. Dude went into Detroit, infront of the UAW and said things need to get changed. His a man that tells you what he thinks, not what you want to hear. That's why Gore lost in 2000, he sold out his views. Gore in 2007 beats George Bush in 2000. Obama is that guy to turn the page, he was a community activist, civil rights lawyer and someone who fights for unions. Dude is the Democrat party, not no leader of it like the Clintons. That's change right there. Ron Paul is Andrew Jackson, for the gold standard, and racist... nuff said.
Don't you know that you're like 6 months late w/ the racism allegations? The media picked up on it and tried to make it an issue, but it had absolutely no legs. It's been completely debunked. I know you're scraping for any sort of negativity to attach to Paul, but you're going to have to look elsewhere. He's repeatedly said some of his biggest idols are MLK, Rosa Parks, and Ghandi.
What about Obama being ashamed to admit his dad was Muslim? What about his not saluting the flag? What about that his favorite answer to any question is "i don't know"? What about the fact that he supports pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran? How about the fact that he's CFR?
I feel sorry for you if you think he's any different than Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani. They're all paid for.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
and you need to realize that Obama wont change shit if he gets elected, he's just like the rest of the republicans and democrats
Obama will get change done. Dude went into Detroit, infront of the UAW and said things need to get changed. His a man that tells you what he thinks, not what you want to hear. That's why Gore lost in 2000, he sold out his views. Gore in 2007 beats George Bush in 2000. Obama is that guy to turn the page, he was a community activist, civil rights lawyer and someone who fights for unions. Dude is the Democrat party, not no leader of it like the Clintons. That's change right there. Ron Paul is Andrew Jackson, for the gold standard, and racist... nuff said.
Don't you know that you're like 6 months late w/ the racism allegations? The media picked up on it and tried to make it an issue, but it had absolutely no legs. It's been completely debunked. I know you're scraping for any sort of negativity to attach to Paul, but you're going to have to look elsewhere. He's repeatedly said some of his biggest idols are MLK, Rosa Parks, and Ghandi.
What about Obama being ashamed to admit his dad was Muslim? What about his not saluting the flag? What about that his favorite answer to any question is "i don't know"? What about the fact that he supports pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran? How about the fact that he's CFR?
I feel sorry for you if you think he's any different than Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani. They're all paid for.
It's in his book his dad is Muslim, I own both of them. That picture was of the singing of the National Anthem, at the beginning, but put his hand over his heart right after the song started. As for the CFR, what the hell's that got to do with anything. Everything they listed about him on their website is exactly what he says in speeched. His about no-partisian politics, so you have to find a new angle. News break, the world is outside the US boarders too, Obama is an international child, why should that hurt him.
-
^^^I think you need to get laid bro.
just like you need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul wouldn't win a fucking thing.
and you need to realize that Obama wont change shit if he gets elected, he's just like the rest of the republicans and democrats
Obama will get change done. Dude went into Detroit, infront of the UAW and said things need to get changed. His a man that tells you what he thinks, not what you want to hear. That's why Gore lost in 2000, he sold out his views. Gore in 2007 beats George Bush in 2000. Obama is that guy to turn the page, he was a community activist, civil rights lawyer and someone who fights for unions. Dude is the Democrat party, not no leader of it like the Clintons. That's change right there. Ron Paul is Andrew Jackson, for the gold standard, and racist... nuff said.
What change exactly is that going to be? He doesn't really speak much about his policies. I could see withdrawal from Iraq starting under his regime but that's about it. The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is Iraq. If Obama wins and goes 8 years he'll find some mess to lead the country into. He'll use his African roots to lead the country into Darfur and create his own Iraq. He won't have any say in the matter either. He'll just have to go along with it. The right will jump on him just like they did Clinton with Kosovo and the left will letr their hearts bleed for the poor victims. In the end we'll leave just as much a mess there as we left in Iraq.
-
Word look at the reality instead of what you "think" is there,
Ron Paul's votes have clearly been rigged 31 votes accidentally not counted in a tiny jurisdiction and furthermore Obama suddenly losing a massively commanding lead. If that was not enough, the same voting machine manufacturer Diebold whose machines have been proven to be very easy to hack, deeply implicated in all of this. I am not even pointing the finger at just americans the next election in the UK was fought on a campaign of personalities and here we have Obama constantly recycling this line of change, however he does not specify what this change entails. It's certainly not an anti war stance because he is the guy who keeps raising this idea that attacking Pakistan is necessary or indeed that all options need to be left on the table regarding Iran i.e. he does not rule out nuking a country. it's certainly not a stance to bolster civil liberties this is one of the many so called americans who voted to support the military commissions act as well as the expansion of the patriot act. Supposing that you fully buy this idea that there is this secret underground seemingly unstoppable group of terrorists, the patriot act allows for draconian police state tactics to be imposed on everyone. It turns the american people into the enemies, under pemanent suspicion and therefore turns the idea of innocent into proven guilty into an absolute joke. Perhaps he is intent on following the Hilary Clinton model of a socialised health system but if you really think that solves shit, it's really time you stopped watching simplistic propaganda. If you really want a feel of hat socialised health care looks like, look at the complete mess of the NHS.
Obama will not do anything to bring about any peace in the middle east either. He might make a lot of gestures and there might be new so called peace proposals put on the table but he himself has clearly illustrated in his own actions he is not looking to back off the intimate relationship shared with AIPAC. The lobbyists have ensured through their bank accounts that he will not do anything to harm this relationship one iota. I don't see him campaigning with a message of bolstering the American economy either. Where are his messages about rebuilding Americas manufacturing base?. Some of you may shrug but if that is the reaction, you clearly don't understand the reason behind Americas dollar sinking into the toilet. America has gone from a strong self sufficient nation to one of which by design has become dependent on cheap imports. In turn this has led to the value of the economy becoming devalued because the balance of payments continues to sky rocket because there is a depleting level of output. This leads to borrowing becoming the only alternative and so the world becomes so awash in dollars, that the dollar becomes worthless. Again where is Obama on this key point? he is not interested because as his CFR membership clearly shows he is intent on world governance, where borders don't exist and a central body controls absolutely everything. America is being stripped bare, ram raided torched and pillaged and yet people are spending their time trying to prove that Ron Paul is somehow a racist? get the fuck out of here. In the last 4 years over 3 trillion dollars is unaccounted for in the pentagons budget, what is it with these idiots? is criminality something to be considered worthy of a government. I should also add that Obama was fully supportive of the war in Iraq, this guy could actually be worse than Hilary Clinton because he is black, he will have the so called rights scared to speak out for fear of being labeled an evil racist and the lefts drooling and worshipping at his feet. I will say this, the next few years promises to be some very unique and interesting times.
I agree absolutely that the message that is resonating loud and clear is that change has to come just not the type of change which Obama plans on implementing. Real change consists of dismantling the status quo which means changing the actual infrastructure and not just simply relaxing the rhetoric to give the impression of a genuine individual.
-
What a bitch, already claiming Ron Paul's votes have been tampered with. Comeon. Man up. He LOST. Nobody took it from him, he LOST.
Obama isn't going to change shit but the skin color of the president. I like Obama; he seems like a nice guy, he's a fantastic speaker, and I think he actually believes he's going to change washington. With that said, he generally speaks in generalizations (uh... you know what I mean) and doesn't give any concrete suggestions on how to do anything. In the end, he's just another democrat; long on words and platitudes but short on actual results.
As for the votes, in Iowa people go to caucauses. They stand around in groups, in their community, and vote in public. Liberals (who would be the only people attending a democratic caucaus!) are big on appearance. They want to appear to care, they want to appear to be doing something about a problem. Conservatives on the other hand generally couldn't give a fuck about appearances and are more apt to take no action if they think the action won't work. Liberals though have GOT to appear to be doing something about a problem or have got to appear to be compassionate, etc... so it's very hard for a democrat to stand up in front of his community and vote AGAINST the first major black candidate for president. A vote for Obama in Iowa was just as much about public appearance at the Caucus than it was about who they actually wanted to vote for.
In New Hampshire, the votes are private. So you can say you're voting for the black guy, if asked (polls said Obama would win) but then behind that curtain, vote for who you really want to vote for (Vanilla-White Hillary Clinton).
Personally, I would prefer Hillary win because the Republicans can more easily defeat Hillary than Barack. McCain I will never cast a vote for. If McCain is the republican candidate, I will not vote this time around because he doesn't share even half of my ideals. If Huckabee is the candidate, he will be defeated by Obama or Hillary. If Guiliani is the candidate, he will likely be defeated by the democratic candidate. I feel the only two guys that have a chance at winning on the republican side are Mitt Romney and John McCain, and I personally can't stand McCain. I feel Mitt Romney could do well against Clinton or Obama, and would like to see him win the republican nomination.
-
31 votes in one tiny jurisdiction (Sutton) not counted but then they say oh it was a mistake, many other jurisdictions without a single vote a massive swing for Hilary and Diebold massively involved again. This isn't about "man up" why can you not see this stinks? (rhetorical question)
-
Obama isn't going to change shit. He's CFR. If you don't think that's a big deal then you're not built to even have this discussion. Research the CFR and then come back and we'll talk.
-
Hey, I heard in the debate last night, Ron Paul came off looking like a fucking NUTCASE because they edited the video footage. Yeah, they actually pulled a R. Kelly and had somebody else's lips superimposed on a digital recreation of his voice, so as to make him look like a fuckin' looooon.
-
Obama isn't going to change shit. He's CFR. If you don't think that's a big deal then you're not built to even have this discussion. Research the CFR and then come back and we'll talk.
First off... the CFR is nonpartisian... meaning it's full of people who disagree. So just because Cheney was a member doesn't mean that everyone is on board with Cheney. The only one I hear talking bad about te CFR like it's an elite club is Ron Paul. But that makes sense, Libraterians are isolationist, they say we need to get out the world. So I aint madatcha.
Hey Trauma, that wasn't an editing job making Paul look crazy.... Ron Paul is crazy... the muthaphukka is nuts. His on board with the US from the 1870's, and 1920's. THe results each time, progressive had to come in and clean house.
-
What did Paul say that was so out of it? So far all debate clips that I saw made me think Paul >>>>>>> republican party
-
exactly. Ron Paul totally owned last night. He made the Neo Cons look rediculous.
-
exactly. Ron Paul totally owned last night. He made the Neo Cons look rediculous.