Put a fork in Ron and Rand

Althea said:
Right...so did Bachmann/Perry/Pizza Guy/ and Jesus Freak.

All before anyone would even consider the whoring gazillionaire.

Paul's problem is that the 'free market approach' simply doesn't work. You can sing it all you want, but when you delve into specifics, the answers are never found in an unfettered corporate approach.

He does have some good ideas, though. He's exactly where he belongs. The POTUS is something that he'll never achieve. Nor will his racist spawn.
Click to expand...

Bawahahaha,Pizza Guy and Jesus Freak, sounds like a group of dysfunctional super heros!
 
Bijou said:
Wrong again. Or should I say, wrong still. I have a more than adequate grasp on the Constitution and what it means and I don't need to interpret it through the vision of a whack job idiot like Ron Paul or one of his dozen or so fawning Paulbots, such as yourself, who all spew the same nonsense about him. There's no debate to be had with any of you 'bots. You all drink from the same cup and share the same brainwashed view. The thread's titled, 'Put a fork in Ron and Rand'. What a wonderfully apt title. He won't win and never had a chance. That's a good thing. Good riddance and happy retirement, Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
wow! you totally guzzled the statist koolaid, didn't ya? You still don't believe in the constitution. I was right and you know it.
 
C'Thulhu said:
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that actually proposed and has voted constitutionally during his time in office.
Click to expand...

What does it say about you, when even your own son won't support you. What happened to cause this? I seriously have not followed Ron Paul this last election because he seems to have lost his way.
 
Rana said:
What does it say about you, when even your own son won't support you. What happened to cause this? I seriously have not followed Ron Paul this last election because he seems to have lost his way.
Click to expand...

Paul hasn't lost his way, the rest of the nation has. what does it say about we the people when the only constitutionalist is regarded as a whacko?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Paul hasn't lost his way, the rest of the nation has. what does it say about we the people when the only constitutionalist is regarded as a whacko?
Click to expand...

I won't argue, I feel the nation has lost its way, I just don't feel that Paul has what it takes to lead this country. I don't feel like any of the candidates has what it takes. I am facing a real dilemma. It is the first time in my voting life that I don't have a definite, clear choice for my vote. Obama's choices of late have greatly disappointed me. Mitt is such a bad choice, I could never bring myself to vote for him. Romney will most likely win Alaska, so it is why I am thinking of opting for a third party candidate. I just need to hear more from them.
 
Rana said:
I won't argue, I feel the nation has lost its way, I just don't feel that Paul has what it takes to lead this country. I don't feel like any of the candidates has what it takes. I am facing a real dilemma. It is the first time in my voting life that I don't have a definite, clear choice for my vote. Obama's choices of late have greatly disappointed me. Mitt is such a bad choice, I could never bring myself to vote for him. Romney will most likely win Alaska, so it is why I am thinking of opting for a third party candidate. I just need to hear more from them.
Click to expand...

there's the word.....'disappointed'. but in the end, I do not doubt that you'll vote for Obama.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there's the word.....'disappointed'. but in the end, I do not doubt that you'll vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

Well, you will be wrong, once again. In the case of the drones it is more than disappointed, it is pissed. I do not plan to vote for Obama, and I don't feel the need to make you believe me.
 
Rana said:
Well, you will be wrong, once again. In the case of the drones it is more than disappointed, it is pissed. I do not plan to vote for Obama, and I don't feel the need to make you believe me.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't plan to vote for him, but again...you will not be able to help yourself. You will most certainly not vote for Romney and any look at 3rd parties you give, you will find something less desirable than Obama has done or stands for. Obama campaign people will put together enough plausible excuses for you to find some way to blame republicans and you will vote for him.
 
Rana said:
What does it say about you, when even your own son won't support you. What happened to cause this? I seriously have not followed Ron Paul this last election because he seems to have lost his way.
Click to expand...

It says his son differs from him politically or that Rand, in the very beginning of his politcal career, does not want to be attached to his fathers failure in the end of his (Rons) career.
 
Rana said:
I won't argue, I feel the nation has lost its way, I just don't feel that Paul has what it takes to lead this country. I don't feel like any of the candidates has what it takes. I am facing a real dilemma. It is the first time in my voting life that I don't have a definite, clear choice for my vote. Obama's choices of late have greatly disappointed me. Mitt is such a bad choice, I could never bring myself to vote for him. Romney will most likely win Alaska, so it is why I am thinking of opting for a third party candidate. I just need to hear more from them.
Click to expand...

GARY

MOTHER

FUCKING

JOHNSON
 
C'Thulhu said:
So if someone differs from you politically, they're insane? No detailing how you reached said conclusion? Noted.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Insane people are insane. My take on Ron Paul has nothing to do with his politics. The man's nuts. And - again - there is no debate to be had with Paulbots. Nothing I would say would ever convince you to waver from your undying devotion to Ron Paul. And anyway, this thread's about how Paul's done, which is a good thing, and that's what my posts on this thread are pertaining to.
 
Althea said:
Can you list these 'ideas', so we can delve into them one at a time?
Click to expand...

Well, the stimulus for one. It was supposed to jump start the economy, but if failed. It was supposed to ensure unemployment didn't fall below 8%... it hasn't been below 8% since Obama has been president, so again, FAILED. Bailing out GM and Chrysler... was supposed to 'save' the industry, but Chrysler still filed bankruptcy, and GM is far from saved. Ford, who didn't take any bailout money, is doing fine, profits are up, things are looking good for them. Again, the Keynesian approach FAILED. Nationalized health care, was supposed to be the end-all be-all to our problems, and reduce the cost of health care while increasing availability, it hasn't done so thus far. What it did, was kill jobs.

I tell ya, it might be better for you to list out all the ideas Obama has had that worked! The list of failed ideas is pretty long.
 
Nemo said:
People are blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.
Click to expand...

Washington didn't advise against "political parties" he advised against "factions." Now you can interpret "factions" to mean the same as "political party" but they are not the same thing, in the context of what Washington was saying. What Washington warned against, is what we currently see today as 'Conservative or Liberal' "factions." In other words, the Democrat party is not supposed to be comprised totally of Liberals, and the Republican party is not supposed to be comprised totally of Conservatives. It has become that way over time with the political parties evolving into "factions" but this was not the purpose or intent of political parties. The actual purpose, was to define distinctions and differences between people who shared common interest in the country. A "faction" is devoted to a particular idea or ideology, in direct contradiction of the opposite, and has no mutual interests, except advancing their own faction's ideology. That is what Washington feared would tear us apart, and damned if I don't think he may have had a point!
 
Nemo said:
People are blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.
Click to expand...

Washington didn't advise against "political parties" he advised against "factions." Now you can interpret "factions" to mean the same as "political party" but they are not the same thing, in the context of what Washington was saying. What Washington warned against, is what we currently see today as 'Conservative or Liberal' "factions." In other words, the Democrat party is not supposed to be comprised totally of Liberals, and the Republican party is not supposed to be comprised totally of Conservatives. It has become that way over time with the political parties evolving into "factions" but this was not the purpose or intent of political parties. The actual purpose, was to define distinctions and differences between people who shared common interest in the country. A "faction" is devoted to a particular idea or ideology, in direct contradiction of the opposite, and has no mutual interests, except advancing their own faction's ideology. That is what Washington feared would tear us apart, and damned if I don't think he may have had a point!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top