Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Put a fork in Ron Paul

So is Florida, but I haven't noticed anybody coddling me. It's give and take, you promote your champion unless and until he or she is eliminated, then you try to find the next best.

My father is from Pennsylvania. Butler, to be exact. My mom was from across the line in New York.

Don't give up. If you give up, nothing gets done, and the mess gets deeper.

Have a glass of hot chocolate, get some sleep, and as long as the sun comes up tomorrow, there is always hope.

I know it may seem like it, and if it does, I apologize, but I've never meant anything personal towards you guys. Any of you. We all want what is best for our country. Sometimes we just see things differently is all.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Hell, there have been times myself, more than a few, when I've wished I could be somebody else so I could meet myself and see if I'd like me or consider me an azzhole.

I'm sure you're a good dude. At least we share an appreciation of Zevon.

The werewolf reference was just facetious, just a poor attempt at humor.

National Review Online had another "Who won last night's debate?" poll with Ron Paul deliberately excluded from the available choices.

It's par for the course for dumbass lightweights who have no idea what they're talking about and no interest in finding out to call people names: you expect it from them. You'd be a little sad for them if they had to stop, because it obviously gives them such joy and for some of them seems to be all they have.

But it's different when major and semi-major Republican media outlets specifically disrespect Ron Paul and his supporters. Once Romney is nominated, he's not going to do well at all against Obama. The Republicans are going to be desperate for every last vote they can eke out, including those of Paul supporters. When that happens, my guess is that they'll wish they hadn't been such buttwads.

Paul supporters, by and large, aren't planning to vote for Romney anyway because he's just another Obama; but the way to change their mind is not to ridicule them.

Barak, I'll agree with you. Paul was in the debate, he shouuld have been included in the available choices. It was wrong to exclude him. But then, I liked National Review a whole lot more when William F. Buckley was around and in charge.

I also agree Romney may not do well. I didn't like his passive, defensive appearance last night. He appears to be just trying to hang on and outlast his competition, which is not how you win and doesn't speak well of his self-confidence. And he's chickenschit in not releasing his tax returns. I decided last night not to vote for Romney in the primary.

My guess is that the Republicans, like you, have tended to discount any potential Paul voters voting for the nominee based on their extreme loyalty and often-pronounced stance of his supporters not to support anyone else but Paul. And of course the Republicans will want any and all votes they can get, Paul supporters included.

How many will actually find it within themselves to be able to vote for the Republican nominee, I don't know. This is why primaries are so destructive within the parties, as feelings get hurt and things get said and done and then we're all supposed to just come together and forget everything that went on before, and sometimes that's hard.

I can tell you one thing. Every candidate, every one of them, dreams of having supporters as loyal and enthusiastic and dedicated as Ron Paul supporters are, because they set the benchmark in those qualities. That's a simple fact.

I'm afraid Barak is right about Romney. I don't see him beating Obama either. I've seen several op eds from conservative types (who don't like RP) bemoaning the nomination of Romney. The red team may have shot itself in the foot right out of the gate on this deal. Unbelievable really.

I'll speak to both of your posts to me and also the one to rrroe where you actually lined things out, briefly.

Last first, you could have just said that rather than some of the other stuff.

As to "[bleep]", I don't think Paul's people on the 'fire throw that around any worse than anybody else, or possibly even as much. As to "neocon", lots of people either admit it or use it as a descriptor of themselves, with honor. Kinda like "redneck". I very seldom use the word myself. Of course I'm seldom outright called a "paulbot" or whatever, the word usually being thrown around me rather than at me. I've been a Paul supporter now for quite some time, so whether it's being used on or at...

At any rate, I'm a big boy and it really doesn't matter.

Ron Paul is not a polished politician despite years in the House. The reason he keeps getting elected is twofold. One, his ideas resonate deeply. Two, he does his job in his district-which he's been criticized roundly for.

Paul is not going to wuss out if there's a war. He's also not going to be able to decimate any frontline forces in another country like you think he wants to because Congress won't allow it. As to his commentary on things like the American Taliban member, etc. it's the product of having been on the extreme defensive where his ideas regarding what is Constitutionally and therefore legally allowable in regards to war, its prosecution, treatment of foes, etc etc etc for years. IOW he feels as do a large segment of the populace, that we have been doing illegal things for a long time now. Looking backwards, we sure haven't gotten much out of either Afghanistan or Iraq. Free flow of oil? Hell, it's over twice as high as it was before the wars started. Katrina is over and done with, yet it's Obama's fault that oil is so high because he won't let us drill.

I could go on all night, but the bottom-line is that both sides have had their chances multiple times. It's high time somebody different who still has American values, is elected so we can try to save the Republic before we are completely swamped by our debt.

I make no predictions about primaries/caucuses but...Paul is polling low now despite grabbing over twenty percent of the vote in both referendums. One can throw around a lot of reasons, but if Paul comes in second in South Carolina, he is the clear choice of those who don't want Romney.

Liberatrians are going to restore honor to the GOP.

Just sit back and watch if you don't want to participate, but it won't be much longer that you have to suffer through any more liberal Romney type candidates.

You're welcome.

lol That sounds good on the surface but looking at it a little deeper it comes out like the Chinese curse..."may you live in interesting times".

All it means is that libertarians aren't going to vote for any liberals in the GOP,..and the libertarian's numbers are growing by leaps and bounds.

There will be candidates in the GOP selection process from now on who will espouse Ron Paul's basic platform,..and it's only a few years away from being the dominant these of the Republican party.

The American people are going to have to suffer through a severe economic collpase first, however. This is the young people's revolution.

They have no future in the current incarnation of America and more are being slapped in the face with that reality every day.

The big slap that will wake everybody up is coming very soon.

Pouting whispers by those delusional of the significance of their insignificant numbers.

You retards crack me up thinking those with more than a 8th grade education amongst your zombie-like ranks prefer a whiney,worthless protest vote over removing Obama from office.

Truly amazing you laughable loons think you represent the mature grown ups within Paul's voting base. Paul isn't running 3rd party,you can bank on that, so if a few thousand of you want to take time off from your part time jobs to cast in a write-in vote,go for it. Who cares.

Delusional dumbphucks!

Liberatrians are going to restore honor to the GOP.

Just sit back and watch if you don't want to participate, but it won't be much longer that you have to suffer through any more liberal Romney type candidates.
==================

Sit back and watch 0.47% of a voting population manifest their delusions? Yeah,sure!

Some of you RP supporters could fill a weeks worth of "World's Dumbest" episodes.

You may not realize that Delgue has admitted more than once that he considers himself politically closer to Obama (a Marxist banker's tool) than to Paul (a Constitutional strict constructionist, free market advocate), and as between the two he'd not hesitate to vote for Obama. That should adequately fill you in on Delgue's politics.

Closer to Obama? Now that's just flat out wrong, Hawkie, and you know it. If this is indicative of RP supporters, that they have to misrepresent and demonize their opponents, then I feel sorry for you. My problem with RP is his foreign policy and military views. I've made that clear. Even the moderator described, accurately, RP as left of Obama on foreign policy. Now I've tried the last several posts to tone down the rhetoric and be nicer to you guys, but if you wanna get things going full tilt boogie with your trash talking, then we can go back to that.

I worked in George H. W. Bush's campaign the first time he ran against Reagan, and I met Barbara Bush. I've voted for the Republican candidate for president every year there was a presidential election since I turned old enough to vote. And I will this year, too. And when that candidate is somebody other than RP, we'll see who you vote for, or if you're content with the leadership of Obama.

Either I can play nice, or I can start rattling your cage again. I would prefer the former, but it's your choice...

he already did.

Are you denying that you've at least twice stated here at the Fire that you'd prefer Obama to Paul, and would vote for Obama over Paul were that your choice??

I've stated that Ron Paul's foreign policy views are physically dangerous to the United States of America, and would put this nation in physical jeopardy. You're goddam right I'd vote for Obama, or anybody else who held more reasonable foreign policy positions, before I'd vote for Ron Paul. It's a sad state of affairs when we have a Republican candidate for president whose foreign policy positions are to the left of Barack Hussein Obama, but we do. And if my two choices to vote for were for Ron Paul or Barack Obama, I'd vote for Obama. At least HE is willing to hunt down and kill bin Laden, which Ron Paul clearly isn't.

Having said that, I'll happily vote for any other Republican candidate over Obama, excluding Ron Paul, since their foreign policy views are to the right of Obama and are more responsible and rational than Ron Paul's.

I AM NOT politically closer to Obama than to the mainstream Republican candidates, and I'll happily vote for whoever the Republican candidate is as long as it IS NOT Ron Paul.

Now, Hawkie, are you going to represent to The Fire that you are going to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is???

Man up.

If my client base lived in the arsehole of D.C. I would wouldn't want this big government party to end either.

Gentlemen---Simmer down you are arguing about an event that has less chance of occurring than Perky's nomination as candidate.

RP is not going to be the nominee, not this year not ever, it just ain't going to happen.

If, in some alternate universe, it should happen I would vote for BHO before I would vote for RP.

Here is an article on topic that is well worth reading:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/18/election-deceptions

Comments?