Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Reality jolt for Bristoe and other Paulistas

Was that directed to me? If so, please translate.

Who? me? My last comment was a response to Steve_No's points about about my getting a "self-righteous buzz" from refusing to vote for a crappy candidate and his instance on voting only for a candidate the polls tell him have a chance of winning - regardless of how bad they suck.

Scorpion....you're going to have to explain this...I'm a little slow today...how are the two most left-wing major candidates of either party the most conservative?

"the most conservative of either party that stands a chance is Obama or Edwards,"

Kart, no I'm dealing with reality..... in a land where neither Stalin, nor Mao, nor TR is on the ballot. TR is a good example though....his quixotic Bull Moose run in 1912 put the liberal Wilson in the White House.

Somebody is going to be elected...you can affect who that is, or you can choose not to. But don't come on here whining about Hillary and her Democrat congress in 2009 if you threw your vote away.

The only candidates who have a shot in this election are Rudy, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. Realistically, I don't think Edwards has a chance, and Obama may not either, but let's say they do. Rudy is not liked by a lot of Republicans for being more or less liberal on a lot of social issues, but he's the only member of the GOP who could defeat a Democrat. What I was trying to get at was more or less there's not much of a chance for a true conservative to get elected, that's all.

Ending an ill advised occupation, following an unwarranted invasion and defeat of that country, does not a surrender make. We achieved our goal, legitimate or no. The government of Iraq was toppled and replaced. The leader was hung. It's not really any of our business what goes on there at this point. We don't need an embassy that would put Alexander the Great to shame, larger than Vatican City. Do you realize the cost of that thing? The cost of the annual upkeep alone will be in the Billions, with a B. Holy moly! What we're building is not an embassy. It's a modern day version of a Crusader fortress/city. Don't you even question the appropriateness of a free republic engaging in this sort of thing with our tax dollars?

I like the man, but he doesn't remind me of a billy goat so much. He reminds me of Moses the raven, in Animal Farm, who kept telling the animals that things were great living under the rule of Farmer Jones, and that to wish for better was plain folly.

Sorry, Steve.

Being principled is not about feeling good, though it usually does feel good in the long run. This is a byproduct of being principled, however, and not the motivation.

Recent history proves that you are sadly mistaken. Ronald Reagan was PERCEIVED by the public to be super conservative. He was portrayed that way to the hilt by the mainstream media, in an effort to scare the public, which at that time had a strangle hold on information available to the public. He won in two huge landslide elections. What this proves is the opposite of your assertion, i.e., that the more authentically conservative a Republican presidential candidate appears to the public to be, the larger will be his landslide victory. The only problem is that in order to become a candidate, one needs to be permitted to be one by the powers that be. They will not allow another Ronald Reagan on the top of another Republican presidential ticket, and will do whatever is necessary to prevent it. Just study Pat Buchanan's first bid for the nomination. He was winning the early primaries by a solid margin, which triggered the establishment to pull out all the stops to destroy his reputation. Then he began to fall in the polls and faded away. Same thing has been done to Ron Paul. We will, therefore, ultimately get the president we deserve as a people.

No, sir. The folks who voted FOR Wilson put him in the White House. Nobody else. A vote for one candidate is NOT a vote for or against any other. Why is that so hard to understand? When you go to vote they will have one question, and one question only, which you will have to answer personally. "OUT OF ALL THE CANDIDATES, WHO DO YOU WANT IN OFFICE?" "not so-and-so" is NOT an option on the ballot.

The popular "conservative" candidates suck big time and will only accelerate our slide into ever deepening socialism, federalism, and financial ruin. There isn't one of them who will stand up for the constitution. That's the reality. If that's what you want leading our nation, then go ahead and vote for one of them. Otherwise, why would you insist on following the crowd over the cliff? The whole train is running off the rails and the two major parties are only concerned with fighting over who gets to hold the throttle wide open. It's madness. And the main thing perpetuating this whole debacle are the idiots who can't conceive of the idea that it could be any different.

Me, I don't personally care if it's Barak Thompson wiping his buttocks with the constitution or if it's Rudy Clinton. They're all birds of a feather and I ain't voting FOR none of them. I'll not vote at all before I do that. Pizz on this Republican leadership that dares call itself "conservative". HA! If you don't want Hillary in the White House in 2009 then you dang sure better hope and pray the Republican Party wises up and changes its ways.

Actually, I just might rather see the worst of two evils get elected (although the hard part may be determining which of the popular candidates that is). The sooner we can get this whole charade over with, maybe the sooner we can start over.

Of course, by your logic, I should vote for Hillary just so I can have the privilege of complaining about it.



"One man with courage makes a majority" Think about it.

I don't think that's correct. I think any decent Republican who doesn't turn out to have some horrible skeleton or commit some huge blunder in a debate can beat Hillary.....for Heaven's sake we're talking about a woman with negatives that usually top 50% nationally.

Now, it will be tough because the MSM will be in full cry to get their girl in, but there are a very large number of people, probably close to 40%, who absolutely will not vote for her. And there are those 30% or so hard core democrats who would never vote GOP. Those numbers favor us, and it is very hard for me to think of a state won by Bush which would be carried by Hillary against any of the top Republicans.

The only way she wins is if the right of center vote splinters....and we get a libertarian candidate like Ron Paul pulling a per cent or two, and a social issue conservative like Gary Bauer or Pat Robertson pulling another few per cent. Then those close states Bush won turn blue and Hillary is in.

We need to guard against absorbing the MSM story line about the inevitability of a Hillary coronation.....and remember a lot more people can't stand her than love her in the states that matter.

"Of course, by your logic, I should vote for Hillary just so I can have the privilege of complaining about it."

You are going to vote for Hillary, you just don't realize it. Enjoy your delusions.

Hawk, much as I like a lot of Buchanan's positions, he did a number on himself, with a lot of help from the MSM. Much better as a speechwriter and author than a president, IMHO.

So nice, Ethan ... and so true.

Even months ago it was easy to see how the newly elected Democrats would fail in their stated initiatives. I'm on record calling that.

There's a very fluid process going on now, though, that seems to give weight to Clinton being elected, but that same set of parameters, given the outlets, also had Gore and Kerry winning too.

Ron Paul is important regarding how he may cast his vote if he says "enough" but I'm uncertain as to whether he'll ever get behind another candidate if his own effort proves futile (it isn't yet, you see, to either him or his supporters). Will he be a Ralph Nader? I don't know.

I'm betting RP hasn't even decided yet because he and his disciples have convinced themselves that their straw polls mean something, and he's on the verge of a breakout. I doubt it. A lot.

But when it finally dawns on him that he isn't going to be the nominee, or even in the top four, I think his decision will depend on who the nominee is, and whether he feels he and his followers are properly treated in the process by the GOP. And how much he'd like to keep his house seat. I doubt he'd get more than a percent or two in most states, but that could swing enough states to Hillary to elect her. Of course, she may have a Nader problem of her own.

True,... Boston is a very "blue" state and also a very anti war state, but Hillary isn't an anti war candidate.

The republican voters stayed home in Boston and the reason that Hillary drew such low numbers is because so many democrats there have changed their registration to Republican in order to vote for the anti war platform of Ron Paul in the primaries.

Here's a good explanation on Hillaries low numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVibkYbXhU

Here's something to be watching for in Boston on the 27th. My guess is that it'll draw a huge Ron Paul contingient.

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/482/calendar/6517452/

There is a massive anti-war rally in Boston scheduled for Oct. 27 @ noon. It would be a great place to let people know about Ron Paul, and his anti-war message.

There will be large contingents from all NE states, including CT. If a good number of us, from all different meetups, bring RP signs and end the war signs, it may allow other very committed anti-war activists to know they have a choice to bring the troops home immediately by supporting Ron Paul.

There will be a bus leaving from CT to the rally in Boston, or people can carpool to get there. Rally is at noon at Boston Common; march is at 2:00.

Please spread the word!


Also,.. make sure to catch Ron Paul on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on the 30th. There'll be a mob screaming for him there,... guarenteed!

Also,... here's an excellent expose on those polls you continually choose to cite.

http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I took a moment to scroll through the state-by-state results listed on the page. Bill Wyatt actually managed to scrape out 10% in Oklahoma, but the rest of the states are slam-dunk, 90% and higher, victories across the board. George W. Bush, in a landslide, state after state.

Why bother to vote when there's only one candidate running?

That mentality defined the Republican primaries. According to USAToday:

Republican turnout � at 6.6% � was the lowest on record, as Bush ran essentially unopposed.

These are the sample voters used for the 2008 polls. 6.6 percent of the Republicans in 2004--the bare handful who showed up to cast symbolic votes for the only name on the ticket.


Ya got that?

The polls numbers are generated from a sampling of the 6.6% of Republicans who bothered to vote in the 2004 GOP primaries,... where Bush ran virtually unopposed.

They're worse than useless.

That isn't the methodology used by the polls, most of them start with phone lists and the voter self-identifies as to party. None of them are limited to voters in some past primary....another RPer trying to fantasize away your boy's poll position.

You see, in the real world, campaigns buy polling data. Including Ron Paul. And they only are interested in data that is accurate, and hopefully predictive. So a silly poll as described in your link has no value and would not be conducted by any pollster. Because its a business, see? Not a conspiracy to underpoll Ron Paul. About whom they give not a rat's ass, except to the extent he buys their data.

And the idea that democrats are becoming independents in any measurable number to vote for Ron Paul is so nutty I really can't believe you said it. They've got their own surrender candidates, three of them....one even kookier than RP.

I don't know how other states operate, but here in Arkansas the low numbers of people that vote Republican in the primaries is due to the fact that you have to choose at the polls which ballot you want-Republican or Democrat. In nearly all of the local races there are no Republicans running and the winner is decided in the primary, so if you want a say-so on the local races for Sheriff or County Judge or so-forth, you choose a Democrat ballot. Then, in November you choose which you want for President. I wish it was so you could choose on each office, Democrat or Republican and then vote your choice for the candidate but it is not so. miles