Even FOX says so.

Sounds like a lot of fun.

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/04/fox-...allot-in-tampa-inevitable-april-25-2012/

It's too bad the loser won't quit and go away.

Should be fun.

Only thing "brokered" are the idiots who sent him money.

No, B.....getting his name placed in nomination does not equal a brokered convention. Romney will come in with far more than a majority of delegates already committed. A brokered convention is one where nobody has a majority going in.

It means RP will get to give a speech which he would have gotten to do anyway.

If you're referring to Romney,I doubt that he'll quit.The last mountain to climb for the uber-rich is garnering power.

After all,he and his wife have both stated,"it's Mitt's turn".LOL.

lol,...yet another stampede of big government worshipping leftists jumping into the thread.

....just trying to correct the misstatement which is the thread title....sorry if the facts aren't what you'd like, but they're still the facts.

It'll be interesting to see what the RNC does to keep the GOP national convention from turning into a Ron Paul rally.

Now THAT I'd pay to see. We Paulistas might have a few tricks left after all.

So, is Harold Stassen Ron Paul going to ride it out to the end?

Here's what the Daily Beast says:

"It�s garbage time in the Republican primary and Ron Paul is getting his layups. Even on the unfriendly turf of the Northeast, Paul managed to pick up a handful of delegates in Tuesday�s Republican primaries. Although Mitt Romney�s nomination is all but a foregone conclusion at the GOP convention in Tampa, the libertarian gadfly is still trying to influence the party�s platform by any means available."

===================

Easy...they'll just give away free beer and pizza down the street. But,since Paul will be allowed 30-60 minutes to speak,I'm sure there are many Paul supporters who could afford the steep price of admission.

Nomination is de facto over, daydreamer...The pressure will be on Rand to make sure his dad doesn't embarrass himself or the party.

Win lose or draw, there promises to be an enormous turnout of Ron Paul supporters at the national convention. They're going to be loud too.

Considering what has already transpired, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the RNC take steps to limit their participation.

,...might end up looking like Chicago circa 1968.

Maybe that's a good thing.

You fellas act as though the convention is open to the public.

Just to put things in perspective,there are more black Obama supporters than supporters of Ron Paul.

And they are crazier[but not by much],louder[but not by much] and get a whole lot more press coverage.

Even I must admit Romney will get the nod and nothing will be brokered.

Yeah but we can tailgate in the parking lot.

The city of Tampa is open to the public.

That's an interesting thought.

Where are you getting your information?

=================

Will Paul's speech happen inside or outside of the convention? He's getting a opportunity to give a speech during prime time television. It will be his single greatest political accomplishment. Quit your bitching!

The percentage of black voters in the general population multiplied by.9 versus the percentage of RP voters in the much smaller universe of Republican primary voters.

This thread is a waste of time.

Steve.

Really? I've enjoyed it.

I don't know.

I'll guess that he'll give a speech at the convention,..and maybe a few more wherever he finds a crowd of Constitutionalist Patriots gathered.

I'm actually back to feeling sorry for the Paulies. I had moved beyond pity to annoyance but this is obviously an incurable mental disorder.
Last night's results for Ron Paul:
Pennsylvania - Lost to the front runner by 45% and to a guy that's not even in the race anymore by 5% (or over 41,000 votes)
New York - Lost to the front runner by 46% but he did manage manage to beat a guy that's not in the race anymore by 7%.
Delaware - Lost to the front runner by 54%. Also lost to the 2nd place finisher by 16%, but he did manage to beat a guy that's not in the race anymore by 1,327 votes or 5%.
Connecticut - Lost to the front runner by 54% but did beat a guy no longer in the race by 6%.

RON PAUL 2016!

Do not encourage them.

What do the Occu-squaters and Paul-Bots have in common?

Loud, few, and inconsequential...

Oh,...don't worry about us.

Worry about the GOP.

When a Constitution Originalist loses the GOP nomination to a Massachusetts liberal,...it's not the Constitutional Originalist who has problems,...it's the party,...and the country, of course.

it's always amusing to hear the "I HATE all Republicans" crowd pontificate on the GOP election process.

Kinda like listening to liberal talking heads on NPR telling how the GOP should do things. lol

Yeah,....having a Massachusetts liberal as the GOP nominee is *exactly* like that.

That's OK since he is considering an "arch conservative"-Christie- as a running mate.

What will that change?

For one thing..........it might keep me home on election day.

I wonder what Paul has up his sleeve. I am a huge Paul supporter and I recognize that he is not going to win. Paul knows this too.

I highly doubt he is doing this just for a speech at the convention. That seems pretty petty. I think he is trying to get some kind of appointment for himself (chairman of the FED) or for his son (VP). But I don't know how successful he will be at either. The whole speech theory is off base though I think.

Paul doesn't have anything up his sleeve.

He's just believes that the people should have a chance to vote for a candidate who isn't financed by Goldman Sachs.

This is what you should have said. miles

Steve, you might as well be talking to the bulkhead. Notice how when presented with the facts refuting the erroneous OP, he misdirects with other inane issues and eventually with his standard Horst Wessel League response...

Let's look at the big picture here. BEAT OBAMA! How does RP factor into that?

Some of us want more. Replacing Obama with Mitt doesn't change a phuggin thing.

Hasn't every citizen qualified to vote in every primary thus far had a chance to vote for him?

Behold the power of propaganda. Never ceases to amaze me.

jorge's greatest hits

http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2302814/36

Lots of things 'amaze' Paulies. Not the least of which is reality.

Ron Paul...

The American people are not worthy of his leadership.

He has been stabbed in the back by the International (you know) Banking Conspiracy.

Soon, the Russians will come. You'll see. Oh, yes, you'll see.

Whatever you say, komrade.

Yep, you got me and every non kook aid drinker all figured out.
Keep writing those checks to the good doctor.

But why do you hate The Constitution and freedom!!!!!
















Just figured I'd save the typing for one of the bots....

Must be tough to be a hardcore partisan when your party leadership limits you to a Massachusetts liberal as the alternative to Obama.

I can't imagine the humiliation you're going to feel the day you actually have to mope into the booth and cast your vote for him.

The GOP leadership has made fools of its membership yet *again!*

Bush,...McCain,..and now *this*.

*whew*,...

One thing you bots are excellent at... making assumptions. Hit the accerlerator. You're in full glory. But I understand, watching the slow death fizzle of a campaign that was once a roaring flame little ember, has got to be tough. I keep trying to prop you fella's up.... http://www.ronpaul2016.com/

What part is an assumption?

You don't know the voting demographics of your own state yet you feel compelled to educate the numb masses on their own ignorance?
Bristoe, let me help you out. As a "hardcore partisan" I did not vote for McCain in 2008. By my personal estimation, he was the most liberal of the last handful of potential candidates and was wrong on too many issues. I couldn't do it. So I wrote in candidates. A shallow stance perhaps as Georgia was going to be red regardless. This time, there is a 'chance' Georgia could actually swing to be for zero. Not a great chance but now there is a chance. I'm not so dillusional to think that by making some pretend stance by voting for someone other than the only two viable choices or by staying home and pouting that he is way less than MY idea of the perfect candidate is going to do anything but increase that chance. Yes the candidate is only slightly more palatable but the risks are much much MUCH higher. You and your 2% can continue to 'occupy the voting booth' to your hearts content. Reality once again will be shoved in our faces on the morning of November 7th and it would be nice if all the non-Marxists were on the same page on November 6th so that the 7th will be a little brighter as sadly, we will need each and every one.
And to say there is 'no difference' between the two is not only disingenuous, it's dangerous. Not as much difference as you'd like? Fine. But no difference? Don't be part of the problem. It's going to kill us.

that's the kind of dumbass statement that makes it impossible to take Paulies seriously. Anybody who isn't their unelectable eccentric is the same as Obama.

Just for a start, it changes the Supreme Court, it changes whether the Ryan budget gets passed and signed, it changes whether the program of the new Republican Congress has to be enacted over vetoes.

To argue otherwise is just silliness.

One of my best beacuse it pisses you off so. That "American Citizen" of which Bristoe speaks of Mr. Letelier(which by yours and others here isn't really a "real" American like me) was an agent of a Marxist Regime using his citizenship to undermine a government that had eradicated the marxists from power.
General Pinichet (check my avatar) cleaned out the commnunist rats that were destroying his country (and BTW their system of goverment had a proviso for that) put it back on it's feet economically with among other things privatizing their Social Security, then held FREE elections where he himself was a candidate. He lost, ceded power and went home. The assasination of Letelier was a thing of beauty on a par with a Mossad hit which I'm sure just makes your day.

ANOTHER OBAMA VOTER. YOU DIDN'T FOR MCCANT, SO NOW OBAMA IS PRESIDENT. SHAME ON YOU. YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.

People are funny. Sort of like funny but still funny.
You are right, since if I would have voted for McCain instead of writing in a conservative candidate, instead of McCain only getting Georgia's 16 electoral college votes and Obama getting zero, McCain would have gotten 16 and Obama would have have gotten zero.
Wait a minute....

So you're going to mope into the booth and vote for the liberal Massachusetts candidate that the RNC selected for you.

,..looks like my assumption was correct.

Well, no,...it doesn't piss me off.

It just shows you for what you are.

Here's the write up about your hero,...the one you applaud for murdering American citizens,...Jewish American citizens, by the way.

http://old.post-gazette.com/columnists/19981024roddy5.asp

An excerpt:

On a Sunday morning in West Orange, N.J., Murray Karpen, 70, opened his apartment door, bent to pick up his New York Times, and saw the headline:

Britain Arrests Pinochet to Face Charges in Spain.

"There is a God," he whispered.

For a moment, he could see his daughter, Ronni, forever 25. It is a terrible thing to bury a child. It is beyond understanding to watch for 22 years as the man responsible for her death is feted as a head of state, abetted in his climb by your own government.

Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean general, overthrew socialist president Salvador Allende in 1973 with the aid of the CIA.

In power, Pinochet oversaw the murders of enemies real and imagined. One of them was Ronni Karpen Moffitt. Her offense was to sit alongside an exiled Chilean diplomat, Orlando Letelier,

Good read here,...

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/kelly-t1.1.1.html

An excerpt:

Goyette does not pull any punches in his criticism of the current economic system. He even uses the F-word: Fascism. The fascistic nature of the U.S. economy has been obvious to keen observers for decades although most have preferred not to use that word.

In a section of the book called "The Wormhole Express," Goyette details the revolving door relationship between Goldman Sachs and the U.S. Treasury. That such an arrangement is a conflict of interest is obvious but when Goldman Sachs is the beneficiary of multiple decisions taken by high level government officials who are former employees of that well-connected firm, the system's utter corruption is laid bare.

This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. The continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations proves as much. The Bush administration waged bankrupting elective wars and arranged for the largest corporate bailout in our nation's history. The Obama White House has pushed through its own series of corporate bailouts and continued to wage undeclared and unnecessary wars. As the rock group The Who sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Goyette writes:


"If Americans are serious about restoring their prosperity, they will have to take a realistic look at Republicans and Democrats, who have been managing (or mismanaging) our political and economic affairs for generations now. Economic orthodoxies have been held in common by both parties. These doctrines have advanced in Republican and Democratic administrations and prevailed despite the control of Congress and being handed back and forth."

And our resident Cuban American Fascist says you and I are not Americans nor patriotic.

Excellent cherry-picking and misdirection(you brought up Letelier) on the OP where your statement was 100% wrong and Steve proved it so, then instead of owning up, you misdirect without discussing any of the facts stated. He was never convicted of anything and unlike your Horst Wessel League buddies, he was a free man. And of course the Pinochet issue pisses you off, otherwise why go back and dig that post up.

I tell you what Bristoe, I'll try and get a little mope on just for a second, just for you, between my smiles thinking that maybe, just maybe, my vote for Romney might unseat that unholy Marxist currently destroying this once greater nation.
Did I want Romney to win the nomination? Absolutely not. Would I consider in THIS election voting for anyone but him since he's the only one with a chance to unseat Obama? Absolutely not. That would be counter productive (note I didn't say idiotic in deference to all my dillusional Paulie friends).

Put down the joint and tell me where I said either of you were not Americans. For one thing, according you your crowd, I'm not qualified to make that observation. And did you click on the link to see where my views were or is a computer mouse too difficult to manage. As for Bristoe, he's made it clear on more than one occasion he has no use for the US, so the not being patriotic is accurate.

Well,...if you're not still a slightly attenuated Cuban/American Fascist with a predisposition for applauding the murder of Jewish American citizens by your fellow Hispanic Fascists,..just say so.

Otherwise, you're doing nothing but pecking keys and making words which serve to show your Fascist ass.

Maybe you also oughtta get rid of the wannabee Nazi that you chose as an avitar,...but of course, it's your choice.

The last time a brokered convention happened for Republicans was in 1940. At that time there were a dozen primaries, compared to the thirty-plus of 2012. Most of them were held closer to the convention rather than �front-loaded� by states in January or February. The bulk of delegates were picked in caucuses or conventions run by state party organizations and more of them came to the convention in Philadelphia uncommitted to any candidate than committed.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49657

Nice circle jerk. He was a Chilean national first who became a US citizen and continued to ply his treason against Chile. But I understand your issues with defending one's country, you're on the record with that and on many occasions and you even threatened us with leaving this country. Once again good job and evading the fact Steve handed you your ass...again. That hit was a thing of beauty and justified, no different than us whacking an enemy of the US on foreign soil.

Like I said,..it's your choice.

Congratulations.

You just made the ADL list.

If your computer starts acting up and running slow, it's because Abe Foxman has tied into it.

It's going to be mobbed with Ron Paul supporters. Will be hard to maintain the fiction that he wasn't robbed.

Me too.

the media will probably be looking for something entertaining during those hot, muggy nights.

i just hope romney in his blue-jeans finds an acceptable running mate. they appear to be lining up. it'll be interesting to see who he chooses.

Robbed? really?

Didja miss the primaries......where folks went and VOTED?

He doesn't get to choose. He's a puppet, like Obama. The string pullers will let him know who his running mate is going to be.

North Korea holds regular elections, too.

Who are the "String Pullers"?

They must have incredible power to force all those primary voters to vote for Romney. I know, they are the International Banksters and the Tri-Lateral Commission, and the Federal Reserve and the Mormons and the Catholics, and the Jews and the evil Capitalists. Did I miss any of your Boogeymen, Hawk?

And the same guy always wins. Hum, sounds familiar.

Explain why Mittsy didn't win the nomination in Ioway, ala NK?

I figure you have 2 choices:
1) Get behind Mitt and push...

2) or get in front of Barry and bend over.


Don't confuse the choices you have now with being a Mitt-fan.

I figure that's a damn sorry choice.

This statement should have been followed by a "no homo" coming from any heterosexual male.

But, when it comes down to Barry/Mitty, I will give the polygamist a push.

no homo

I'll write in Ron Paul and sleep well that night knowing I've done my part.

I think that's where I'm headed to.

You RP'ers sure are a wacky bunch, it's no wonder he didn't win a single primary. Puff, puff, pass...... lol

Sure it is, B. But that IS the choice. Distasteful vs. treasonous, IMO.

And there it is.
Obama has to go in November. Our country can't afford four more years of his 'rule'.

no homo

Just when I start to think you have some vestiges of normalcy, you come up with this off the scale idiocy. So just to be clear, your claim is that RP really won all the primaries but the whatever conspiratorial cabal you're peddling this week rigged it and gave the votes to Romney? A simple yes or no suffices although something tells me I'm going to get the spin-of-the-day response.

Eliminate the middle man; just vote for BHO, you'll sleep just as well.

If RP was the Republican nominee I'd vote for BHO. He is a better President than RP could ever be.

Whatever you say jughead.

You've got a boner for Mitt. We're happy for ya.

There are two crucial matters to consider regarding Ron Paul (or anybody, for that matter) as a candidate for President �

� his ideas, proposals, and principles

� his ability to make 'em work

If he can make 'em work, great. If not, his best are worthless.

Eager approval of his proposals must accompany comfortable confidence that he can and will do 'em.

There's a big difference between a candidate and a candy date!

A politician has two jobs:

Job one: get elected

Job two: get re-elected.

I dispise Ron Paul and his worshippers.

Where is that shocked face emoticon?

I despise Democrats and Republicans in that order but what the hey.

done your part to get a Supreme Court that will reverse Heller?

gee, thanks, you guys are great Americans.

Havin a little hope that Rinomney won't do the same? Bet you thought that on Bush 1 too...

Lotsa dummaces do,...you're in good company.

Romney will pick from a completely different universe than Obama...i.e. the Federalist Society. Souter was GHWB's worst mistake, and one that no Republican will repeat. If you can't wrap your head around that reality, there's little hope for you.

yep...never...it is always right

There's a lot to choose from.

It'd be hard to decide which one was the worst.

What gets me is that whether blue or red poms poms, some of these gals still think they can fit into their cheer-leading outfits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

It is fortunate that there are so few RP acolytes in the general population. Also fortunate that they will hold absolutely no sway in the November election.

Hang it up, children, maybe the "Nuge" or Perky will next catch your attention.

Judging by the hash that the current SCOTUS-including the so called originalists-have made in the last two Fourth Amendment cases, Florence and King, I can't see that it will make a he!! of a lot of difference.

I'll bet you a FRN$ to a Krispy Kreme that they vote to uphold the mandate in ObamaCare in June too. Reverse Heller? They won't even hear related cases to reinforce it.

Refusing to hear any cases on Obama's citizenship is also an act of cowardice and political calculation on their part too.

You place a very high regard on who will be appointed to the SCOTUS when overall the choices made by the R candidates in the last 30 years have been relatively poor, at least if you believe what is written in the actual document, as opposed to whatever tortured conclusions nine politically appointed fools decide it really means, regardless of the language in it. What do you believe, your lying eyes, or what they tell you?

Believing that a liberal from Massachusetts will appoint originalist justices when every action and speech that he has taken through 2007 screams the opposite is a forlorn hope at best, and delusional at worst, especially since the man has lied about and flipped on every position that he ever espoused in order to make himself palatable to so called conservatives. It might as well be John Kerry running as a Republican in '12, and I'm sure that's what you'll get.

Dead cat looks like the ticket.

Maybe you can put on your wonkiest lookin' hat and go out fer beers with Swampman.

He's a dummace too.

All the stops were pulled out on the corrupt establishment machine from day one. It was only necessary early on, however, as once momentum isn't permitted to get a start early on, that sets the pattern for later primaries.

I doubt anyone's surprised to hear that.

You beat me to it.

Souter was no mistake. He was handpicked by the establishment. Sununu was the messenger who informed Bush who he was to pick. Similar "mistakes" will be made by Romney, too. No doubt about it.

I guess the "yes" or "no" request went over your head, or more accurately you just flat refuse to answer.

Now you're just quoting what people have said about you on here for years.

There will be no brokered convention. Romney will have the delegates. What universe are you guys living in?

Really, guys? Are you really that far out of touch with reality that you think a man who has not won a single, not FRIGGIN ONE, primary has a snowball's chance in hell??? In tough economic times he is doing a disservice to people by still taking their money solely for his ego and personal gain when he has absolutely ZERO chance of winning. That bespeaks of a man who doesn't give a damn about his supporters, but only cares about himself. He is an egomaniac, pure and simple. The American people do not want him as their leader..that's why he didn't win a single primary or caucus. I thought the primary season had brought y'all back to reality, but apparently it just made you go dormant. Your choices will be Obama or Romney or nothing. You choose.

But Delgue, don't you know our elections were mirrored after North Korea's according to the head kookista here and RP really had 100% of the vote? come on!

You know, I almost hope none of the Paulista's vote this election. A lot of those folks are just waaaay too crazy to be entrusted with a vote. It's not far off going to the mental asylum and handing out ballots. Not all of them, mind you, but more than a few of them.

If you have the reading comprehension of a middle schooler, you got your answer. The question doesn't neatly lend itself to a bare yes or no response.

When I think of paultards.


dave

Amazing ignorance.

Spoken like RP, when asked if he would consider running as an independent. The truth is not a friend of the RP campaign.

Bush 1 appointed Thomas. Thomas voted with us on Heller. That's one more than all the Democrat appointees for the past 30 years.

Stupid has been an infestation around here lately, about like chiggers in June.

"Chiggers for Ron Paul!"

Middle school, isn't that what you teach? impressive.
Sure it does lend itself to a yes or no answer, then again given your level of accomplishment in life I can see how my simple question confused you. Early on or the entire campaign it really doesn't matter. Your posit was that our primaries were just like Norht Korea's and that is about standard "fleet average" kook-idiocy for you.

Here's your original exchange, even to semi-literate screw makers it seems yes or no would suffice to my original question that is it your contention our elections were rigged like N Korea's:


Robbed? really?

Didja miss the primaries......where folks went and VOTED? North Korea holds regular elections, too. [quote=The_Real_Hawkeye]

your bizarro conspiratorial mindset....combined with the fact you've never been involved in politics other than in the teacher's lounge....leads you to say the silliest stuff.

Sununu was a trusted senior adviser who vouched for Souter....Bush naively went along.

The president doesn't take orders from "the establishment"...by which you really mean those mysterious people who somehow keep Ron Paul from ever winning a primary. The president gives orders.

As a non-lawyer, 41 never had sufficient understanding of the importance of judges, and not just at the SC level. He went along to get along, as he did in many things.

The judge selection arena has been transformed by the work of the Federalist Society and other originalist lawyer groups....this isn't 1990 any more.

More comprehension issues, I see. My statement suggested no such equivalency.

Republicans have made 1 mistake in SCOTUS appointments in the last 6.

Democrats are 0 for the last 4.

It's no wonder Paulistas drink Ron's crazy economic Kool Aid, they can't even handle simple math.

Somehow these numbnuts look at 83% and 0% and think it's equal.

Hows that?
The guy tells you just what you want to hear.
And has made a career of it.
Well, hes getting alittle old...so lets get his son.
The look in the young mens faces in the pic is paultards to a tee.
Opps, time for a conspiracy theory against RP again.
The look in the young mens faces in the pic above again.....


dave

Bush 41, naive?? The guy was the ultimate insider.

What happened to the messenger when Bush 41 chose Thomas? Or when his son chose Roberts and Alito?

Whack nut conspiracy theories don't work out so well when your theory is based upon exceptions to the rule.

Not letting you off the hook. I even out the relevant portions is bold for you:

Just enough "mistakes" need to be made by Republicans to keep the Supreme Court on a razor's edge. Even the so called strict constructionists aren't that, however.

Exactly. But why would I want "off the hook" of a post that I made? That's exactly the post I was referring to. If you see that as drawing an equivalency, then you need more remedial reading assistance than I thought.

Let me give you a little test to discover the depth of your basic reasoning deficiency: Paul says, "That candle flame is hot." Jane replies, "So is the surface of the sun." Is Jane suggesting that the candle flame is as hot as the surface of the sun?

Puff puff pass man!

Puff puff pass...

This is too funny. If there was ever a man who told people what they wanted to hear, it would be Romney. The man is the unltimate flip flopper.

Oh, ok, so it's bad to vote for the party that appoints well 83% of the time, but OK to help the party that appoints well 0% of the time?

Ron Paul can't even collect more delegates than two guys no longer in the race. All supporting this guy does is help that 0% team.

He's Ross Perot and the result will be the same.

If stupid [bleep] hadn't helped Clinton and Obama get elected, that GOP 83% SCOTUS rate would have us sitting pretty with a 7-2 court right now instead of a coronary away from losing the majority.

I wish people would quit mentioning this!

he worked on trust and long standing relationships and wanted to believe he was dealing with gentlemen like himself, which he usually wasn't. Sununu was an idiot not to realize that Souter was a goofball and no conservative, and Bush was a fool not to vet him better.

But Bush isn't a lawyer....like most of the "legal experts" on the fire who opine about cases they know very little about. he never really understood the significance of SC and lower court judges for thwarting the left's attempts to get what they could never win in elections through litigation. Reagan understood that much better than his veep did.

THAT'S TEN!!!
Break out the champagne!

I knew if we kept hammering, and advertised like nobody's business, we'd break out of single digits! It's nowhere but up from here!!!

I could not have said it better. Right on Mike!

Bush was a lot of things, but a fool wasn't one of them. Stupidity is a longstanding favorite excuse for corrupt government.

Find me a picture of people sitting around Romney looking like that.

dave

What ignorance!

You mean the fact that his followers aren't enthusiastic about him is the basis of your recommendation?

You won't. Romney doesn't galvanize anyone enough to get behind him (with the possible exception of Mass. and left-coast libs, I guess) with any kind of conviction.

Raw charisma isn't always a bad thing!

George

ETA: Son of a bisch, now you people have me agreeing with TRH and DD! If it wasn't Romney, I'd probably feel dirty...

Well that's true. RP's 'followers' (good choice of words by the way, instead of 'supporters') are definitely 'enthusiastic'.

Arguing with Paultards is like arguing with a bowl of Jello. The more reason you toss their way the sillier they get.

It's not going to make a damn bit of difference if they all vote for the nutcase. It sure didn't make any difference in the primaries, did it?

It's certainly true that, try as you may, you won't find a single Romney supporter with his image tattooed on his shoulder. Hell, he has a hard enough time getting any of them to his rallies.

Ron Paul will never be president.

That needs to be played on an endless loop around here. That just might become my response to every conversation at the campfire.

A serious question, what is it about freedom and liberty that is so frightening to so many of you?

I hear Christians screaming and moaning about the attacks on Christianity.

Most on here are hunters and/or shooters.

Most of us want a strong economy and dollar.

All of this requires freedom and liberty and a very limited government especially at the national level.

Ron Paul and his supporters will never attack Christians especially with laws. We are unconditional pro-gun supporters. We want a strong economy and dollar.

Why do you all fear freedom and liberty so much or are you all that ignorant.

I'm thinking new sig line.

THERE it is! Took longer than I thought.

"Why do you hate freedom and the Constitution?!?!?"

Ron Paul doesn't frighten me. It's simply a math thing. Rational folks have figured it out and it ain't because the Paulistas are on the inside track and everyone else is stupid. It's a freakin' math thing. If he won the primary, I would support him. He won't. It's a freakin' math thing. Doesn't matter how many libs blow smoke up your azz that Paul is the only Republican that they could support. They'll turn on him like they did McCain and he won't win. It's a freakin' math thing.

What cracks me up is the notion that since one is not 100% behind RP, then they are somehow against freedom.


To quote 280shooter, "Ron Paul will never be President."

So.... is it a math thing?


FREEDOM HATER!

Before you give me a test, I suggest you dedicate more time with those tests that keep kicking your ass, specifically reading comprehension and the Florida Bar. I'll let whomever has the patience to ready your drivel draw their own conclusions.

Let's be honest. It's a little bit of a crazy thing too.

[quote=280shooterRon Paul doesn't frighten me. It's simply a math thing. Rational folks have figured it out and it ain't because the Paulistas are on the inside track and everyone else is stupid. It's a freakin' math thing. If he won the primary, I would support him. He won't. It's a freakin' math thing. Doesn't matter how many libs blow smoke up your azz that Paul is the only Republican that they could support. They'll turn on him like they did McCain and he won't win. It's a freakin' math thing. [/quote]

------------------------------------

So you're sayin' it's a freakin' math thing?

I'm not sure, he was a bit unclear on that point....

I'm a bit slow and fairly easily influenced by the Military/Industrial Complex and Fluoride pushers as well.I won't even get into the International Banking Cartel, Buildabetterburgers, or UFO deniers.

How about the Jews and Zionism, can we talk about that!?

That isn't a serious question and you know it, your just being an ass. You RP'ers are whacked and there's no hiding it.

Answer the question guys, why do you hate freedom and liberty?

Don't say Ron Paul can't win the nomination because he could have if we collectedly who love freedom and liberty were to vote for him.

You guys call of us who support freedom and liberty kooks, nut cases, etc. yet you all say you love freedom and liberty but vote other wise.

Be honest with yourselves, you all hate freedom and liberty.

Jorge, never been to a junta before, whats it like?

DD,
If thinking a Ron Paul administration's foreign policy would be disasterous beyond repair or RP as Commander in Chief would be national suicide, please write my name down for me as a willing member of your 'hates freedom and liberty' list.

If Obama had an "R" after his name...the majority of the campfire would vote for him...and still hate Paul

Why do YOU hate freedom and liberty?

Sorry, my post was aimed at rational folks. There is no answer that will satisfy the True Believers with their 'Only I' complex. Reality trumps delusional fantasy every time.

To steal a tactic from the RP crowd, I'm just going to continue to repeat the question back to them. "Why do you hate liberty and freedom? "

If I ask it enough then it must be true.

Oh, and Ron Paul will never be President.

That fact also must mean I hate liberty and freedom

As a group we should not allow ourselves to be distracted from the real threat...and that is another four years of the same and worst.

Here is a video to share (for our fence sitting friends).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-FGgoReyNE&feature=player_embedded

I'll beat them to it.


WARMONGER!!!

and girl scouts, apple pie, football...

see steve no 1st post - he's correct.

Right, because they are exactly the same thing...

You funny man G.I.!!!

Raw charisma?
Is that all it takes to get your vote.Throw in alittle drivel about liberty and freedom and your all set?
If your loooking for someone to make you feel good, vote for the raghead.
Well theres always Rand.
Maybe we can get Rand to run next time.
I dont dislike RP.I dont.
But I dont want him as POTUS either.

dave

Cut the Paulie Gals a break,gents. The moaning and pouting that follows, after "the man who could save the world" but not a primary pulls a 3-PEAT is understandable. This time it's a more solemn event because it's over for Paul and we'll never again have to be subjected to the kookery of his knee-pad wearing 'bots.

Give them their day...or days. They've been eating crow since '07. All kinds of bad tastes have been left in their mouths. Let them spit it out as best they know how. Spewing HS seems to be their best.

That's because you hate freedom and liberty!
People really have a hard time paying attention around here....

BLASPHEMY!!! RON PAUL 2016!!!!!!

Sits well with me.

Yup.

SHUN THE NONBELIEVER!!!

SHUNNNNNNNN!












Now, for a moment of silence in remembrance of RP's political career and what "could have" been....

They really should be taking notes.


btw, you're a neocon!

Some folks garner a large and loyal following based on charisma, but others, like Ron Paul (who has about as much charisma as Lurch from the Addams Family), do so based on their message. Paul's loyal following results from a long track record of consistency, character, authenticity, and being proven right over a long period of time.

You're welcome.

I have a remote starter for your vehicle I can let you have...

Freaking Zionist Bankers always raining on my parade!

Folks with a scintilla of integrity highlight where they've made alterations to quotes. Just a heads up. Never expected you to follow that rule.

It, like many things that escape you, is apparent.

*Fixed it for the slow*

Your right.

This meeting of the Ron Paul Mutual Masturbation Society will now come to order!

Pet peeve, sorry Tim, I had to fix that.


No, it's dishonest at best, and you both know it.

A character defect we have in common.

I assume you are asking a serious question. I don't hate freedom and liberty. It should be self evident that I'm for freedom and liberty by my posts but obviously it's not.

I'm anarchist so I favor no government at all but if we must have a government I favor a limited government especially on the national level. I would love to get back to the original constitution but it's apparent to me that's never going to happen.

It's also self evident to me that voting for a Progressive Republican who is one step to the right of Obama is not going to get this country back on track nor is it going to restore freedom and liberty. But apparently, I'm one of five or so on the Fire that can see that.

Does Ron Paul�s �long track record of consistency, character, authenticity, and being proven right over a long period of time� include his newsletters from the 1990�s about signing up and sending money to get the latest on the changing the colors of our currency conspiracy?

Well if the Government says so, must be ok.

Good post Geaux. You've convinced me.

I give up on these political threads they are a waste of my time.

unfortunately, you're right about 2016. Even if the actuarial tables were to catch up with ol' Ron before then, they will prop him up and tie him on his horse like El Cid and ride out for another fleecing of the Bots.

unless Rand decided he doesn't need the embarrassment and distraction from his own future any more and tells him to shut it down.

A little creative editing...

Because kool aid doesn't transport over the innuhnet?

I don't know. What about Newt's News Letter praising Hillary Care? He claimed that his name being on the newsletter didn't mean he wrote it. Paul gave the same explanation. Paul gave to a group he generally agrees with on the subject of economics permission to run a news letter with his name on it. His mistake was in not closely monitoring its contents for material that could easily be taken the wrong way. Not complicated.

Promise?

Anarchy provides little in security, which means a sure loss in freedom and liberty.

Take it to it's core and that's just a fact. The core of anarchy is to mind your own business. If that is applied then you can count on little help when a united front is aimed at taking your possessions.

So, if I was to apply the same snobbery to it that RP'ers apply to non RP'ers then it just simply mean that you hate freedom and liberty.

Mind your own business will lead to a loss of freedom and liberty. History has shown this repeatedly.

Romney is far from one step to the right of Obama. Tbaker and I had this conversation before, and I've proven it repeatedly, Romney is fully as much a conservative as Reagan, and possibly more so.

That said, I did not vote for him in my primary here in Alabama.

The thing that gets me about Ron Paul types is their condescending, judgmental attitudes, without any grasp on the facts or reality of individuals or American politics as a whole.


Just because I don't follow Ron Paul does not mean I detest and hate liberty.

Just because I see the unarguable fact that as of this moment in time, our best bet at beating Obama (the TRUE enemy of Liberty) is to accept that Romney is going to be the nominee and get behind unseating Obama.

That, somehow makes me a hater of freedom? You wonder why so many people think you guys are crazy!

The man won't be in congress anymore either. 2012-2016 will be known as "The era of darkness".
I actually feel bad for Rand. Can you imagine?

I can actually do his voice perfectly....

Who the hell is talking about Newt?

Repeatedly over 16 years!?

That's some oversight there.

Yeah, he'd make a GREAT POTUS....

Nope. It's because it's impossible to counter the power of stupid people in large groups.

Also I don't care anymore. Let the nation destroy itself, I just don't care anymore. I've lived a long and fruitful life and I don't have any children so I just don't care anymore.

The nation and it's people can go straight to Hell and it is. I just don't care anymore.

It's called a redirect. See chapter 1, Paulbot handbook.
"Any question clearly demonstrating why the good doctor is a dangerous choice, especially one involving documented historical facts, must immediately be met with a redirect to an unrelated person or topic ideally aimed at someone the non-adherent supports. Of course you can just guess at who they support and lob the attack at that person since if it's not Ron Paul, it's all the same, literally."

Over that period of time, one or two items could be taken out of context and convincingly twisted by the Campfire's leftists. Not a bad record.

If by one or two, you mean dozens, then yeah, I guess you're correct....

The Elijah Complex - Only I...

No. In reviewing those presented by the Campfire's leftists, I didn't find that to be the case. Only one or two could, removed from context, be convincingly twisted.

That's silly.

It's like asking you if you have stopped beating your wife?

Quick survey here, as this may require a separate thread, and I need to know who would be interested in discussing the finer points of it.

There are four groups that exist on the right.

RINO's: who are somewhat fiscal conservative but are very much big government minded.

Conservatives: Constitutionalists

Libertarians: Confederates

Anarchist: Anti-Government but would accept the Confederation concept.


The topic: Libertarians and Anarchist join behind their poster boy Ron Paul to attempt to redefine Constitutionalism and re-institute the Articles of Confederation even though anywhere in History a Confederacy has been tried, they've failed.

Compare and Contrast the pro's and con's of a Confederacy form of Government vs. a Constitutional Republic.

Does this belong in this thread, as RP is the poster boy for all of this, or should I make a new one?

BTDT....see Federalist papers. See further, founding fathers who tried the experiment and quickly abandoned it. How many times do you have to pee on the electric fence?

You must be smokin' some good schit.

Course Derby didn't care anymore in 2008, either, when he helped elect Obama and if we went back to 2004, we'd probably find the same whining from this crew.

Paul is just the latest flavor for these guys. They were all Perot supporters in 1992 and 1996 as well. If we could talk with their parents, we'd probably find out they were the kids that kept trying to stick the fork in the outlet and wet the bed until they were 9.

Relatively speaking, Obama has made Bush 43 look like Calvin Coolidge.

emphasis was on the word "somewhat" as compared to true Liberals.

For example, the RINO's still voted against Obamacare...

That's what I thought too. The Paulista's see themselves more as the Anti-federalist, and as such they are in fact NOT constitutionalists.

Yet, they seek to claim that they are the true conservatives, which is just laughable. If anyone is the definition of Neocon, it would be Paulbots.

Bush and McInsane were both flaming liberals in regard to fiscal responsibilty. Both are warmongering sumbitches too.

The [bleep] are you talking to me for you moron dickweasel?

Spot on and the "Redirect" post was also right on the money. And of course the one that ties them to the leftists, "warmongering." When all is said and done they cannot be defined by one word but rather a compilation of a few like anarcho-isolationist-conspiracy----KOOKS.

Mark I don't think that was directed at you but at a post previous to yours.

I didn't say I thought that the convention will be brokered because it won't be. I liked/like Ron Paul, but he isn't going to be the Republican nominee and I could have said that a couple of months back. Some of us fought the good fight and I have no illusions that Romney will be anything but a RINO, however, Obama must be kept from getting a second term. His current term is nothing less than a disgrace and another will spin us into a Banana Republic at best.

As to your pic, that's the difference between me and you. I simply don't think of you.

So, you truly believe that they would have signed the healthcare bill?

Interesting....

So noted and edited.

Oh, I think one word is doable...

aniscons: pronounced anus-cons.

Exactly!

I've actually only read a few pages of this epic but I'm getting off of it now...hopefully, before I get pisssed. I don't understand the hostility towards the Paul supporters exhibited here. Y'all won. Personally, I'm a better winner than that. YMMV. Over and out.

Edited to say I'm not talking about Ironbender.

I'd flat out say that you're the smartest and most reasonable of the whole lot. Reality is not lost on you, and a condescending attitude has not been your mantra.

Though we often disagree, I have nothing but respect for you.

I gots me some thick skin.

I agree. Leftist, banker lapdog, presidents, regardless of party, feel freer in their second terms to further tear apart our republic. Apart from someone like Ron Paul being in office, we really should work to keep them all down to one term for this reason. This will at least somewhat slow our dissent into thirdworldism.

Really?? You're a bold sumbitsch behind that keyboard, ace. You're a regular keyboard commando. I expect you'd be keeping a more civil tongue in your punkazz mouth were we face to face. Now go look at yourself in the mirror and puff out your birdlike chest and tell yourself what a badazz you are in the safety of your [bleep] bathroom.

Oooh! Are we going to have some wrestling going on here now!?

You're right, it wasn't directed at him, but if he wants to break bad instead of inquring civilly first, that's on him.

It wasn't my original intention, but I guess that's his call. He's the one that got rude and personal all of a sudden. Don't know why it has to go that way, but again, that wasn't my call. If he wants to rock, we'll rock. If he wants to chill, that's all good, too.

The funny thing is that a few posts after he broke bad he seemed to be taking a very reasonable position ref RP, one that I would have agreed with. Too bad.

No we ALL didn't. I voted for the latest flavor of R to be run in '92, '96 and '08. I also see where it got us. I won't be doing that again. If the R party wants to keep running Dem lite, then they don't need my vote. The older I get the more that I'm coming to find that H.L. Mencken was absolutely correct when he said:

�Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses. It is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.�

That's why we don't have a democracy.

Three options in November, two of which benefit Obama.

You can either:

A.)Stay home. (Not voting for his opponent benefits Obama)


B.) Vote for Obama.Obviously benefits him.


C.) Vote for Romney. (In no way does this benefit Obama)


So, what are you going to do, support Obama or not?

Another way of saying that people generally get the government that they deserve.

Romney fixes nothing. Romney is another plastic happy-face to paste over things so we can all pretend everything is fundamentally ok.

I'll vote for him, because it's a karmic debt. Otherwise I'd sit this one out or vote for someone I thought would at least tell the truth about where chit is at.

WRONG!!!!
Using someone else mistake to justify a mistake is illogical.
Newt has never given the same explanations or excuses as Paul.
Never said he didn�t know what went out over his name.
And Paul�s own people say he knew very well what was in his newsletters.

Newt was wrong about HillaryCare and has said so.
Show me where Newt has denied authorship of anything with his name on it?
He proposed alternatives to HillaryCare that were also wrong and has said so.

�In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to HillaryCare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of ObamaCare and advocates for a �patient power� replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.�


For sure Newt put out a newsletter in 2006 supporting some parts of RomneyCare, but show me when he ever asked for or tried to scare his readers into subscriptions or donations?


Congressman Ron Paul
Monday morning (undated)
Dear Fellow American:
You may not have much time left.
Next year, or next month, the New Money could wipe you out � destroy everything you�ve worked and saved for � and leave your family destitute.
It could happen any time. And I don�t mind telling you I�m scared. For myself, for my family, for my friends, for my country.
We�ve seen a lot of financial tyrannies from Washington in this century. This one could take the cake. And popping out of the cake, with a big Surprise!, will be an IRS agent with an AK-47.
[�]
I uncovered the New Money plans during my last term in the U.S. Congress, and I held the ugly new bills in my hands. I can tell you � they made my skin crawl.
These totalitarian bills were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads, and chemical alarms. It wasn�t money for a free people. It was a portable inquisition, a paper �third-degree,� to allow the feds to keep track of American cash, and American citizens.
As one federal scientist confirmed to me, these bills can be computer imprinted and read, to lay a paper trail hundreds of transactions long. Who uses them, when, and where. The taggents � chemical alarms � will set off federal cash-detection machines at airports and anyplace else they choose. And there are other swindles involved as well.
[�]
Trouble is coming, and you must be prepared.
Surviving the New Money, the Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report will be your survival kit, and if you act now, you can get this $224 value for just $99 � 55% off!
[�]
Sincerely,
Congressman Ron Paul


Selling Snake Oil.

Laughable.

It's either stupidity or dishonesty. I haven't completely determined that you're a stupid man TRH, yet.

That may be a wee bit of a stretch there, Hawkie.

There went what little credibility you had left.

I can't wait to find out.

The only reason Romney gets my vote is because first termer banker lapdogs are less deadly dangerous to our remaining liberties than are second termer banker lapdogs. That's not to say I think Romney will win. I'd say we have a fifty fifty chance.

April 24, 2012, 2:19pm EST. TRH declares he hates freedom....

This whole thread seems to have had its birth in the fact that Newt has withdrawn, seemingly giving RP's supporters the mistaken belief that because he is nominally still in the race, that it's now him and Romney and that simply because RP hasn't dropped out yet, he consequently has some shred of a chance. This is faulty logic and not even close to true. They have about 7 months to look inside themselves and poll their conscience and make a decision on what they are going to do. Hopefully they will back Romney and continue to try to influence his administration, should he be elected, and bring some fiscal restraint and order to our house, as it is sorely needed. They would be doing themselves, the nation, and even RP a disservice to simply take their toys and go home.

You have a good sense of humor, Hawkie!

You're a good man, Charlie Brown! And I agree ref the chances.

I fully understand and respect the decisions of conservatives here to vote third party this time around. Just not my choice, due to the degree of deadly threat to what's left of our Republic that a second Obama term represents, during which he won't have any concerns about reelection and thus no sense of restraint.

[img]http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Ron+Paul+meme_3636e0_3125974.jpg[/img]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rVxp1u0ROt8/TkNSLDa7DWI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/_qS9PpKreu0/s320/RonPaulFoil.jpg[/img]

[img]http://toxichominid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ron-paul-zombies.jpg[/img]

Smartest thing I think I've seen you say yet!

See why the verdict is still out on you, for me?

No, this thread was started by somebody with no clue of the process, and when confronted with facts, digs up years old threads completely unrelated to the topic at hand in an attempt to divert from the fact he was wrong.

You know, that kinda mirrors what a lot of other folks here have been trying to tell you, seemingly for months now. Glad to see the light has come on. I am by FAR from a Romney supporter and in fact closer to many of RP's tenets but I'm also a realist and it appears you seem to be headed that way as well.

Romney + GOP Congress = Ryan budget + Obamacare repeal + federalists on the Supreme Court

It's just that damn simple. Pick that formula or four more years of Obama, with all the permanent damage to the country that will cause.

Hope you don't live in a house with such false framing.

D.) Pull for or write in a candidate or party that most closely reflects your ideals... i.e. 3rd party- Constitution, Libertarian, etc.

We are all damned to the consequences of our choices.

If only it were that simple...

I'm just glad the Republican Party didn't puke up a Bible-thumping social conservative wacko.

so you think the purpose of elections is your self-fulfillment? news flash...the purpose of elections is to pick who runs the machinery of government, and when you cast a vote for someone with objectively zero chance of being elected or influencing the result, you're engaging in narcissism, not citizenship.

Well, we most certainly do not have a Republic either, even though you seem to delude yourself that we do. Stay home? No. Vote for Oabma? No. Vote for ObamaLite-Romney? No. Vote for Dead Cat? Yes.

Like I said earlier, I don't buy the R's BS about Romney being a "born again conservative", and they and the country deserve what they and we get for nominating such a lying POS.

Since you seem to not mind being lied to continuously, I'll let you vote for him, and then make excuses for him if by chance he is elected and doesn't seem to be doing what he promised to do when he was pandering for your vote. Kind of like we were and are doing for Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger, neither of whom governed how they ran.

Some might want to hold themselves up as "realists", and "pragmatists", and prate about "that's how the 'game' is played". I for one am tired of the lies and the BS and refuse to vote for candidates who seem to do nothing else. Your mileage obviously varies.

I would suggest that you read the book, "How Do You Kill 11 Million People?". The short answer is that you lie to them, and they believe the lies because they want to, even though the evidence proves the mendacity. We're traveling down a very well worn road with increasing speed, and we deserve the results, because we voted for it.

Yes, we know, you'll be supporting Obama. You should be proud.

yeah, I know what you mean. I hate it when those Bible thumpers come out against infanticide and redefining marriage and crack smoking and all those other harmless liberal programs.

So, another one for Obama...

Mike....Romney's economic program is the Ryan budget, which is the most rational thing that has any chance of enactment that has been seen in Washington in a very long time. He is pledged to repeal Obamacare. What more do you really need to know, compared to the alternative?

You're an intelligent man, Mike, but the bottom line is, Ron Paul had his chance. No one voted for him.

Now is the time for intelligent men to weigh the potential damage of the finalists and do the right thing. It's not a worship thing, it's a matter of pragmatism.

Our system of government s simply not designed for a 3rd party. Pretending it is, will always result in evil triumphing, as too many people are now tied to the government teat and no longer care about the issues.

If you want to jump on the fast train to tyranny, that's your right. It's inevitable and since there is nearly zero chance of a viable revolution taking place anytime soon, I'd prefer to put off living in the German Democratic Republic for as long as I can.

What I do know, is that Ryan's budget is a sham, and mathematically, will not work.

I seem to remember that Romney pledged to do many things that weren't even close to conservative when he was running for governor, and carried them out. I judge a man, especially a politician, by his past acts, and Romney comes up well short. He really isn't any different than Kerry in '04, except his flips and promises to do the opposite if he is elected President. Believe that if you like, I'm done voting for candidates like him.

If Obama is re elected, then it will only accelerate what is the end game, and I would rather deal with that now while I'm young enough to do so, rather than have the same thing staring me down ten years from now.

As opposed to riding the slow train to the same destination?

Whatever floats your boat.

It's really quite simple.

Your actions in November will either be for Obama or his opponent.

No other realistic way to look at things.

Doing anything other than showing up and voting for the nominee is either out right giving or surrendering aid to the Obama campaign.

Maybe some folks can live with supporting the Obama campaign, but I just cannot.

Curious, to which candidate will your state's electoral votes most likely go?

Thanks Steve, The obvious escapes many.

TRH!!!! Someone has taken over your userid!!!!!
For crying out loud man, what on earth do you think folks have been trying to say since... oh.... I don't know.... Septemeber?

What would float my boat is removing Obama from office.


The battle you are trying to wage was one for the primary. We lost that fight. Now, we have to fight the next battle and defeat Obama.

This just in.

http://ivn.us/2012/04/26/ron-pauls-...mination-looks-like-it-might-be-working/

An excerpt:


In Colorado, Romney pulled 13 delegates, but 13 other delegates will be voting for Ron Paul at the convention. Santorum, who has dropped from the race, secured 7 delegates, and the 3 at-large delegates will likely vote for Romney, putting his Colorado total at 16. In Iowa, Ron Paul�s supporters swept into power over the weekend and essentially took over the entire state GOP. Sources close to the Ron Paul campaign are estimating that as many as 22 of the Hawkeye State�s 28 delegates will be voting for Ron Paul at the national convention. On Monday night, MSNBC�s Rachel Maddow blurted out, �I think Ron Paul just won Iowa.� In Minnesota, Ron Paul won in a landslide, taking 20 of the 24 delegates that the state party�s conventions locked in over the weekend.

If the trend continues, and a well-funded, highly-organized, and very energetic Ron Paul campaign continues to sweep up delegates (with a majority of the party�s delegates still up for grabs in large states like California) there is a real and growing possibility that Mitt Romney will not secure enough delegates to win his party�s nomination on the first ballot at the Republican Party convention in Tampa. If this happens, the convention will become a brokered convention and all bound delegates will be �unbound,� allowed to change votes for whichever candidate they choose.

Although it is impossible to determine the actual number without official counts, Paul�s campaign seems quietly self-assured that at this point, many of Mitt Romney�s bound delegates will vote for Ron Paul and hand him the nomination, not because Paul thinks he can charm and persuade them in Tampa, but because the Paul campaign has already stacked each state�s slate of delegates with his own supporters, who have been stealthily getting elected as delegates. There�s no telling how many of Mitt Romney�s currently bound delegates are actually covert Ron Paul supporters ready to turn on a dime after being unbound in a brokered convention and vote for Ron Paul.

Tennessee will go Republican anyway, so Mike's indulgence will be harmless....whether he writes in Dead Cat, Ron Paul or Harold Stassen.

I know! I had to read it a few times to believe it!

I thought he was solidly in the "nobody but Paul" camp.

Interesting, Bristoe!

Sooo, you want the perfect candidate or you're not gonna vote? That could take a while. Expecting a lot of a politician, too...any politician.

Or, you could vote for the lesser to two evils, since one of thsoe two guys is gonna win.

But if you don't wanna vote, that's certainly your right. Kinda pre-empts your right to complain about what you get, though, at least in some people's eyes.

I'm thinking that one was misdirected.

Quick reply??

So, how many super delagates does RP have?

I think so.

If you think so, I'd better reevaluate my first principles.

Steve_NO is right�it really is that simple�with Romney the GOP House and Senate is Critical with a capital C.

If there is one thing for sure about Romney�he will bend with the wind.

For a third party vote to work it would take a Tea Party leader with the leadership dimensions of a magnitude of Ronald Reagan.

Not saying it can�t be done; almost happened with Teddy Roosevelt.
But sure don�t see it happening this fall.

Not sure if this was brought up, but what about future appointments for the SCOTUS?
Surely that has to figure into a guy's decision about whether to vote or abstain?

Was directed Mike's way. I guess I shoulda labeled it. My bad.

he don' need no stinkin' super delegates, he's the super candidate:

http://www.infowars.com/new-ron-paul-super-hero-comic-book-cover/

That's the counterpoint to what I said earlier, and it's compelling.

BS.

Originally Posted By: Steve_NO
Romney + GOP Congress = Ryan budget + Obamacare repeal + federalists on the Supreme Court
It's just that damn simple. Pick that formula or four more years of Obama, with all the permanent damage to the country that will cause.

No harm done, it's what I thought.

Encouraging news.

...or cherry picking just a piece of a quote, perhaps?

George

And don't forget about the video game!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75459.html

Awesom!

I've been trying to watch the dang Rays game while checking in here when I get a chance. Quick reply ain't so quick on a fast-moving thread like this one.

Sorry, I don't have a man-crush on R(ino)mney like you do. I don't much like unions, either.

If Rand had made a run this election, he wouldn't have had a bigger supporter. IMO, Romney is a schit candidate....he would have been a schit candidate if he had the raw charisma of deflave and his aviators.

I want a candidate that isn't a [bleep] career politician, that actually stands on the right, and has the charisma to get things done. In other words, someone who probably doesn't exist. I would have gladly stood behind Rand....I'll despise myself after voting for Romney.

Very good. Wasn't sure which state he resided in. Being principled and harmless is occasionally still therapeutic. I know so from 2008.

I used to reproduce an entire post with the quote feature, but got my head chewed off by so many here for not isolating my quotes to the part I'm commenting on that I altered my practice. You folks are a fickle lot.

Can't fault ya for that! I'm a Mets fan, and I'm hoping that this is their year!


Their year to finish over .500 that is....

My bad.
Thanks, BOW

Huh? Are you saying several here haven't had that exact sentiment (even before the candidate was known but about RP in general) since last fall? Seriously?
I tell you what, it matters not. Late to the party or the first one there, still glad you showed up. Nobody to blame but yourself if the keg is already floating though.....

Rays came from behind in the 9th to win and sweep the Angels. Good times!

Congrats! A full sweep huh!? That's quite nice over a team like the Angels. The Rays may have something this year...

When a thread goes 32 pages due to people mean mouthin' Romney, the country will be on the road to recovery.

Again with the false (or is it lazy?) premise.

But just keep right on voting for the lesser of two lessers.

Rino mediocrity has been counting on the reward for a few cycles now...

At least a few get it.

I'll take Alito and Roberts hands down over Sotomayor and Kagan. The Bushes were far from my favorites. Elder did as I suspected and W disappointed. Both are better than what we currently have and what the Dems offered. Romney is far from my favorite as well - until compared to Obama. I'll vote for Romney at this point and hope that enough pressure can be brought to bear p him forced to the right.

Except that Romney won't beat Obama, whether Jeff_O votes for him or not. He simply doesn't have the electoral votes.

This one belongs to Obama--not because he deserves it, but because the Republicans deserve it even less.

He simply doesn't have the electoral votes.
================

You simply don't know what you're talking about when you assert such a guess.

Keep sticking that fork in the outlet, I'm sure the result will change one day if you just keep hoping.

The time for change was in the primary.

If you can point to one presidential election in the last 100 years where the 3rd party vote wasn't wasted, you might actually have a spark to your point.

It is absurd that some people think that voting for a guy that couldn't win in a primary, with multiple candidates involved to dilute the "RINO" vote, is somehow going to win in a general election.

Y'all sure taught the GOP a lesson in 2006 and 2008. We're so much better off with radical Africans running the DOJ and the country.

Go ahead and give Obama another 4 years and let him replace Scalia and Kennedy with a couple gun hating feminazi's. and When the piss all over Heller, you boys will be the first ones crying like girls and blaming others for your traitorous decisions.

He's in California. You can't get much more detached from the real world without a Saturn V rocket.

You think Barak lives in California?

I thought he did, if not I stand corrected.

I don't know either, as he holds that card close, but I think I've read some sign. Really don't think he's in CA.

I'm sure he won't tell.

When reasonable and prudent changes are effected in the way the country does business, both with its finances and the way the two parties interact and govern, THEN the country will be on the road to recovery. We don't need talk and mean-mouthin'...we need ACTION to bring about prudent and reasonable changes.

I believe I know where he and Penny live, unless they've moved in the past few years. Decorum keeps me from saying but I think California can be scratched off your list.

Im just happy a political thread like this went 33 pages before California got slammed!!

The premise is sound. Maybe truth and reason are not your strong suits?

Lazy is the one staying home...

Mediocrity is the one who has given up...







You seem to have both covered. Congrats?

Sorry, it was time. We have to check all the boxes off as we go.

Who mentioned that?


hmmm... no.

Giving up and mediocrity of the palate is about taking your food tray back to your table with whatever the R's lunch lady splattered it with because you forgot what decent food tastes like.

Continuously.

True or False?

The two political power houses in the United States are the Republicans and the Democrats.

The nominee backed by either of the two power houses stands the best chance at defeating the nominee of the other power house.

The nominee of the Democrats will be Obama.

A vote for Obama helps to keep him in office.

A vote for the Republican nominee does not help Obama.

Not voting at all, means not casting a vote for Obama's opponent in the Republican party.

Not casting a vote for his opponent helps Obama.

A third party, at this time, does not possess the money, resources, or clout to defeat Obama.

A vote for a third party candidate is not a vote for the Republican Party backed nominee.

A vote that does not go towards the most able to defeat Obama helps Obama.

Fill in the blank: __________ stands a better chance at defeating Obama than the Republican nominee.






One has to be completely obtuse to not see how doing anything other than supporting the Republican nominee aids Obama.

I would say that if you live in a solidly red state then do whatever, but the problem with that is that it's contagious and we can't have a Red State split the power and therefore turn blue. The time for that was in the State Primary.

I did not support or vote for Romney in the Primary here. I lost. Since I couldn't effect change as much as I wanted to in the Republican Party, I now have to turn my focus on defeating Obama. To not support the Republican nominee is to give aid to Obama. Either by reprieve or by direct support, it's still aid.

If too many people give him reprieve by going third party or write in, then he remains in power.

Like it or not, that's the reality of politics in America.


Our chance for change is in two areas. The primaries and the legislature. If one is lost, focus on the other, which is a check against the executive. Romney needs to be held in check, so choose your legislatures wisely. If this is done, then good things WILL happen.

One of the two fascists running for President.

Obama does what he's told.

Romney will be told the same thing.

What you fail to grasp is that some of us don't give a schit.

The GOP can kiss my fuzzy white ass.

oh, puh-lease. do you guys not hear how loony you've gotten?

But But Steve


Only paultard is different and better.
Only paultard talks about liberty and freedom.
dave

As the accused resident Fascist, I take umbrage and being compared with Obama (the marxist).

Wonder how much the national debt will increase from 4 years of a Romney administration?

Looney? Not really. Do you ever hear yourself making apologies and rationalizing the laws and acts passed by .gov which diminishes our rights and liberty? I do, and I have to wonder why. Making excuses for each of those is much more looney than calling these two Presidential candidates what they truly are.

They are fully owned by the banks and financial entities, who have provided them both with the lions share of their contributions.

Before you go into your usual banker spiel making fun of us who see a problem, I would suggest that you at least check and see how many of both White House and Congressional staff are or have been members of the banking/financial system either before or after their "public service". The number is astonishing, and they have fully captured the government.

Yes fascist, fully captured by the corporate entities who support them.

A train is a great analogy for our economy. You can adjust the speed fairly easily, but to adjust direction... not so much. Your destination is largely predetermined.

The passengers of the train, being human and all, tend to vote for engineers who promise to keep the thing running on time and keep the food carts coming.

Of course, running on time isn't so good when the destination is a cliff.

A blueprint in how to circumvent the will of the voters.

We�re trying to take delegates and delegations,� says Paul national campaign chairman Jesse Benton of the campaign�s strategy. �Obviously, we want to do as well as we can in the beauty contests, like Maine�s beauty contest, but the most important thing is that we�re electing a majority of delegates as Ron Paul delegates to state conventions.�
�
�We think that�s the way a party should really pick its nominee,� Benton says. �We think that the activists that are most tuned in to the issues, most engaged in the process should be the ones selecting the nominee.�

That may be ever so fine in Colorado, Minnesota or Maine to steal delegates, but it ain�t working very well here in Missouri�so far.

Most of the Santorum vote seems to be shifting to Romney who finished second in our beauty contest primary.

I dunno but some folks might get a bit offended by someone stealing their votes. Not sure Paul wants to move from underdog to underworld. Could backfire bigtime. Course it might be refreshing to see a real conspiracy emerge from the conspiracy theorists. But for now. I see a moneybomb on the horizon. Dig deep.

Where are you getting that information?

Nobody stole any votes.

Delegates are voted for. One person,..one vote.

Wait.
Hawk told us the North Koreans stole RP's delegates and gave them to Romney.

Are you saying this isn't true?

Mike, there is a huge difference between "those of us who see a problem" and labeling anybody who isn't a Paulbot a fascist. It's just silly.

EVERYTHING you posted was about Paul getting more delegates in the caucus states then were voted for him!

�We�re trying to take delegates and delegations,� says Paul national campaign chairman Jesse Benton of the campaign�s strategy. �Obviously, we want to do as well as we can in the beauty contests, like Maine�s beauty contest, but the most important thing is that we�re electing a majority of delegates as Ron Paul delegates to state conventions.��

�We think that�s the way a party should really pick its nominee,� Benton says. �We think that the activists that are most tuned in to the issues, most engaged in the process should be the ones selecting the nominee.�




Screw the vote count!

BOWSINGER,...

By pushing Romney's candidacy, the RNC is throwing the election.

They would rather have an establishment Democrat President than an anti establishment Republican President.

Romney is quite likely the worst candidate that the GOP could put up against Obama.

You're confusing the party sponsored state polls with the election of delegates. The only official aspect is the latter, and Paul is winning many of them by winning the majority of votes. Romney's supporters were just as free to vote for Romney delegates as Paul supporters were to vote for Paul delegates. Fair and square. Whose fault is it that Romney's supporters lacked sufficient dedication and organization to do so?

Well, let's see....

Romney's totals in the last 4 states before Santorum left:

Maryland 49.2%
Wisconsin 41%
Louisiana 26.7%
Illinois 46.7%

Avg - 40.9%


Romney in the next 5 states after Santorum left:

New York - 62.4%
Penn - 58%
Conn 67.5%
Rhode Island 63.2%
Delaware 56.5%

Avg 61.5%

A 20.6% point average increase since Santorum ended his campaign.


Let's see how Ron did....

Paul's totals in the last 4 states before Santorum left:

Maryland 9.5%
Wisconsin 11.2%
Louisiana 6.2%
Illinois 9.3%

Avg - 9.0% LOL


Paul in the next 5 states after Santorum left:

New York - 15.7%
Penn - 13.2%
Conn 13.4%
Rhode Island 23.9%
Delaware 10.6%

Avg 15.36% or 13.2% excluding tiny RI

So Paul increased an average of 5.36% (4.2% ex RI) compared to Romney increasing 20.6%.

And if we take into consideration that Rhode Island is virtually irrelevant due to it's microscopic size, Paul only increased from 9% to 13.2% with Santorum's followers free to choose, excluding Rhode Island.

So who do you think Santorum's followers went to? 20>5

Only on the Internet forums could one find folks daffy enough to believe a man who couldn't win one primary would beat the incumbent. The desperation is sad to witness but I do have a much better understanding of how PaulTards came about.

Paul posts a few whoppers on his website and the forever-duped are all ready to sell their baseball card collections for the next Mother of all MoneyBombs!

ron paul and his supporters define insanity;do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

They must dig Ronny for the legal pot vote, because these boys are stoned...immaculate.

Why exclude R.I. from RP's results but include that data in Romney's results?

Foxbat, that's pretty convincing analysis. The bottom line is....Ron Paul cannot win a primary...anywhere. even after every other candidate but Romney has quit or is in zombie mode like Newt. there is no there there. Paul is and always has been a curiosity and a fringe candidate, beloved by his disciples, whose zeal far outstrips their numbers.

They love him so much they just can't accept the fact that most people don't, so they have to concoct these bizarre conspiracy theories to explain why he just can't seem to get many votes.

He lost because the vast majority of primary voters rejected him. Not too complicated, really, but more than the Bots can cope with.

You're free to exclude RI for both.

It changes Romney's average from 61.5% to 61.1%. Still a 20 point increase and not worth the extra work to calculate it IMO.

Good point. He does give them a good feeling about disposing of their disposable income, and his paid campaign members, ie:family, appreciates that, I'm sure.

i know it did not change the outcome significantly, but only wondered why you would apply different analysis to each data set.

It was just kind of an afterthought after I typed it and thus why I left the original numbers and put the "Ex RI" number in parenthesis, just so people could weigh it either way.

Rhode Island made a pretty big difference in Paul's average, as it was his best showing, while Romney's total in RI was near his average, thus not really effecting it much.

RI was near-double RP's other bumps.

This has nothing to do with Paul. This has to do with who is giving money to the campaigns and why they are doing so.

Jon Corzine is Obama's biggest bundler, yet he literally stole $1.6 Billion of customer segregated funds and is still walking around a free man and collecting bribe money for the President.

The largest campaign contributors to Romney are the banks. Why? Because Romney is "one of them", ref Bain Capital. He will continue the Ponzi up to the point of collapse, and after the collapse will assume the mantle of economic dictator, czar, or whatever name you wish to place on it in order to maintain the status quo.

The framework for doing so is in place. Regardless of whether you think that the various "acts" implemented over the last 11 years are detrimental to liberty, each of them gives .gov the intrinsic ability to usurp authority over large segments of society. The Patriot Act gives warrantless wiretaps and Writs of Assistance to .gov police entities. The recent decisions by the "Supremes" reinforces this, especially King. The NDAA has the potential to suspend Habeas Corpus and indefinitely detain US citizens, dependent upon how the Executive defines affiliation with "terror" groups. The latest PEO gives Executive Branch Department Heads authority over every aspect of our lives. The establishment of "Stellar Wind" by the NSA in Utah makes all communications in the US subject to oversight, as does the recent CISPA introduced in Congress-by a Republican no less. All of this adds up to a turn key police state that only requires someone with the reason and power to do so. Both current candidates for President have shown themselves more than willing to use the State to advance their agendas, so I have very little faith that Romney would refrain from doing so.

Fascist? Most definitely. Looney? I suppose it depends upon how you view .gov.

Spot on. Excellent analysis.

Find one dollar paid by any national bank to Romney's campaign....or any other presidential candidate for that matter. You can't, because they can't.

It is also a crime for them to reimburse employees for political contributions to a candidate.

Major buzzkill dude...

lolol,....

You're funny when you go into that naive routine thing you do.

nothing takes the edge off that Ron Paul buzz.....it is immune to facts, witness the bizarro drum circle celebration of his virtually invisible delegate count.

note to Paulbots......even if there were a brokered convention, which there won't be, RP don't have enough chips to even sit down at the table.

This 13th hour last gasp by the resident bots has moved from entertaining to disturbing....

They're scaring me.

From opensources.com:

Mitt Romney (R)
Top Contributors

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Goldman Sachs $564,580
JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
Bank of America $364,850
Morgan Stanley $363,550
Credit Suisse Group $316,160
Citigroup Inc $286,015
Kirkland & Ellis $235,802
Barclays $229,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $208,750
HIG Capital $191,000
Wells Fargo $183,100
UBS AG $182,500
Blackstone Group $179,550
Bain Capital $151,500
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $125,625
Bain & Co $122,800
Elliott Management $118,475
Sullivan & Cromwell $108,650
Ernst & Young $104,750
Percent of Contributions Coded How to read this chart
legend Coded $50,735,999 (68%)
legend Uncoded $24,133,093 (32%)
Total $74,869,092

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Saturday, April 21, 2012.
("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
Presidential



Yeah, the individual banks didn't donate, but their PAC's and employees certainly did. No banking involvement here, none at all. Move along, these aren't the 'droids that you're looking for.

Missouri no delegate beauty contest primary Feb 4.
Santorum 139,000 votes
Romney 64,000 votes
Paul 31,000 votes
Gingrich 0 votes, not on ballot

Missouri non-binding delegate caucus April 21.
Romney 12 delegates
Santorum 7 delegates
Paul 4 delegates
Gingrich 1 delegate

That is 24 delegates with 28 to go for a total of 52.

Don't be short-sighted.

Romney's not going to win, of course, so there's no particular reason to vote for him anyway; but suppose for the sake of argument that he did have a chance. Furthermore, while we're fantasizing, suppose it all depended on my vote: if I vote for Romney, he wins, and if I vote for somebody else, Obama wins.

So: what do I get if I vote Romney?

I get a President who is substantially indistinguishable from Obama except for one thing: since he's a Republican, the Republicans will let him get away with all sorts of atrocities that they'd scream bloody murder over if they came from Democrats--just like they did with Baby Bush.

I also get a triumphant Republican Party which has successfully presented a lineup of complete douchebags and gotten one of them elected. What will this triumphant party present for its next lineup? That's right: more douchebags. There's no demand for a decent contender, because douchebags get elected just fine and they're easier to control.

So what do I get if I vote someone other than Romney?

I do get four more years of socialist policy, but I'll be getting that with Romney anyway.

And I get a contrite, humble Republican Party that has lost an election and is desperate to find out what my beliefs are and cater to me. (With another worthless bevy of lying politicians, certainly, but at least not such a group of utter douchebags.)

Given that choice, I'd definitely vote for the other guy.

Third parties aren't supposed to win: they're supposed to make major parties that have abandoned their constituents (like both the Republicans and Democrats) lose.

How did this happen with a supposedly conservative SCOTUS.

I think that's true big picture. On specific issues, one of the two might be more in line with a particular person's beliefs. Like with guns, or abortion.

It depends upon what you mean by "conservative". If you mean conserve the status quo, then they have done what they were hired to do. If you mean conserve the original intent of the Constitution, then they have failed, and badly-at least from the viewpoint of non JD's who don't understand the intricacies of the law and only have the literal meaning of the words written in the document to go by.

I understand what you're saying, but the examples you picked don't really serve your point.

Private ownership of guns is something that will have to be outlawed in the not-too-distant-future if the government is going to get much bigger: and getting bigger is what governments do. I don't know whether it'll be a Democrat or Republican administration that does it, but the the important thing to realize, I think, is that the government is coming for your guns, regardless of whether it'll be painted with an R or a D when it does so. Hence, making deals with the government to let you keep your guns is like the hen pleading with the fox to kill her last. If you want to keep your guns, you're going to have to make your own arrangements to do so, rather than just beg politicians not to take them away.

As for abortion, I have never seen an anti-abortion law--particularly a federal one--that would not have done much more damage to the cause of liberty than it would have healed. Consider for a moment the powers that would have to be given to the government if it were to be responsible for knowing when every pregnancy in the US began and how and when it ended, so that it could judge whether or not the end counted as an abortion.

If abortion is to be reduced significantly or eliminated without completely enslaving the populace, it's going to have to be done without government, in a voluntary fashion, with social stigmas and shunning, the way it was in the first half of the 20th century. Any politician that claims he wants federal control of abortion actually wants more federal control of your body, and he's only using abortion as an emotional distraction to get it.

Maybe you can find an issue that makes me care passionately who the next President is, or at least care enough to get off my butt and vote in November; but I haven't been able to yet. It simply doesn't matter.

That is not the "big picture".

Big Picture is returning this Republic to its Conctitutional foundations. How does Romney factor into that?

This completely cracks me up. Willful ignorance is the best kind. Romney and Obama the same!?

I guess Reagan and Gorby were the same too, eh? I can see ol' Ronnie sitting at the table with Putin and saying "just give me until after this election, and we will have em all where we want them."

You guys spout this nonsense and wonder why people laugh at you! Oh well, enjoy LalaLand.

It sounds like a cool place, I've got to hand it to you. I mean, a place where when the GOP loses an election, they become contrite and listen to what the people have to say, yet they don't listen because the evil international banking cartel tell them to ignore the masses.

Cool world there Barak, I see why you like it so much!

Can you cite one significant way in which they're different?

Obama's ears are bigger; Romney's hair is better. Obama has a D and Romney has an R. But I'm only interested in significant ways.

For example, getting rid of the Federal Reserve. If Obama and Romney disagreed on that, that'd definitely be a significant difference. But no, they agree on that. Both of them want to keep it.

Or bringing the military home immediately from everywhere in the world. If they disagreed on that, that'd definitely be a significant difference. But no, they both want more war.

How about returning the government to its constitutional boundaries? Nope, they agree on that too: neither of them is in the least interested in it.

Cutting the budget by $1T in the first year? They agree on that one as well.

Where's a significant issue where they disagree?

Ryan budget. No amnesty. Repeal Obamacare. Originalist judges.

if you can't understand that, then you shouldn't be voting.

oh, that's right.....you don't vote. never mind.

Not to mention, taxation and the fact that one desires the power to create bureaucracies at will, and the other desires to do away with whole Government departments and shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Yeah, very very similar guys....

You Romneytards have the market corned on tinfoil. Good god man, get a grip.

Ryan budget? Just another plan to spend more money we don't have. Neither Ryan nor Obama have any interest in balancing the budget. Even Paul's $1T cut, while heroic, is a drop in the bucket. The economy is going down, and whether a politician has an R or a D by his name is completely irrelevant.

Amnesty is another silly distraction. Nobody is going to round up 20 million people and deport them: it's simply not going to happen. Nobody's going to round up one million people and deport them.

Obamacare is going to be repealed regardless of who is in the White House. You're right that they don't agree on that, but Obama can't keep it from happening. And it'll come back soon enough, piecemeal, regardless of who's in the White House, and that time it'll probably stick.

And the Supreme Court is such a crapshoot I'm not willing to claim significance for any difference that may or may not exist there.

You think Romney wants to do away with whole departments? I believe Paul wants to do that; Romney is lying through his teeth if he says that, which I've never heard him do.

As for taxation, with the economy uncontrollably piling up, taxation is going to matter very little; but is either of them seriously going to cut taxes? Of course not.

Keep trying.

You are one very gullible fellow.

Speaking of tinfoil....

You do know that I voted against Romney in the Primary, right?

Romney supports a balanced budget amendment.

Sure thing Chickenlittle.

You obviously haven't read Romney's immigration position.

This is where I sort of agree with you. I think Obamacare will be gone before the November election, thanks to the SCOTUS.

About it coming back, I disagree. Conservatives and Libertarian Paul Bots are starting to gain the favor of American youth. There is hope yet...



Originalist Justice's make a big difference in the crapshoot. How is more likely to appoint even one? I don't see Romney appointing any Kagens, but I see Obama stacking it full of that type. This matters.

HAJ,
Pay attention, if you're not drinking RP's bath water you are in love with Romney, always have been, regardless of what you've said about the man, say about the man, or if you voted against him in this primary and 4 years ago. It all makes perfect sense....

Say good bye to HUD, and see the DOE budget cut to nearly nothing as the power to educate is returned to the States.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

If by gullible you mean that I don't have my head stuffed up any politicians (to include Romney or Paul) bung hole, then yeah, I'm gullible....

He most certainly has said it but you have to get out of the RP echo chamber to hear it.
Trying going to this neat site called www.google.com
By the way, I realize Dr. paul would only have 4 years as president and wouldn't be allowed to write or repeal any legislation as chief executive and can only attempt to influence the Congress so..... how many years now has Dr. paul served in Congress? His accomplishments there (even though it's unfair since he's been there so long) should be a long list and great indicator of the dramatic change we can expect from his presidency. Can you please list the 'dramatic change' he has affected as a U.S. Congressman over the decades? To be fair let's keep it short, just name the top 100 10 5 3 things he's done over the decades please that would inspire all of America to sign up for some more of that and feel good about paying his salary all these year? Also, can you please list the trillions billions millions thousands of dollars he has saved the American tax payer by getting Congress to reduce or eliminate spending? (Of course no need to address his personal reimbursement philosophy from his campaign funds).
I know with such a long and accomplished career you'll feel hog tied to keep the list as short I've requested but we 'Romneytards' have short attention spans. Baby steps....
Thanks in advance.
www.RonPaul2016

Yeah, the fact that I don't have my head up any politicians poop chute must put me squarely in the tin foil crowed.....


Where's Ron Pauls pooper when ya need it!?

Don't confuse campaign promises with a candidate's actual beliefs, reality, or what will happen.

That's only because he hasn't been elected. Politicians depend for their power on an unbalanced budget: historically they only support a BBA if there's no real chance one will actually happen. Romney's no different.

Since he won't be elected, he'll no doubt continue to support one.


You're right, I hadn't. Are you talking about the "self-deportation" policy? Yeah--that's not going to happen either. As long as illegals are willing to provide good labor below minimum-wage prices, they're going to be such a cash cow that you're not going to be able to eliminate those jobs. The people who make all that money will spread enough of it around to make sure workable laws never get passed, or if they do they don't get enforced, at least not on the folks who matter. Just like drugs.


I don't think so. The Supreme Court exists to constantly increase the power of government. Some justices may slow it down and others may speed it up, but the trend is the important thing. If you want to make the government small and weak, you shouldn't be putting your faith in the Supreme Court: you won't get any permanent help from there.

The whole "Campaign speech vs. elected official" predictions are a joke. Paul is in the same category. Combine his outlandish promises with the reality of the legislature and tell me what you see him ACTUALLY accomplishing....

Immigration policies in Alabama (where I live) and AZ have proven that it works. Combine that with a genuine path to citizenship and the major issues surrounding illegals will resolve themselves. Which do you see actually supporting these measures vs. suing the states for inducting them? Romney and Obama are not the same.


I agree with you on the SCOTUS and it's trending history. Originalist Judges and a strong POTUS that actually will employ the checks and balances against the SCOTUS offered in the Constitution is the major reason I supported Newt in the Primary instead of Romney. He was the only one of the bunch (to include Paul) to discuss reigning in the scope of the courts.