I love Ron Paul. He keeps Republicans from voting for Republicans.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.[/quote]
Goldwater was indeed a sacrificial lamb. Everyone was aware that LBJ was going to be reelected and the GOP had no one to stop him. In fact, Nixon and others didn’t even try for the nomination because of LBJ’s strength.
Ronald Reagan attempted to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976 and was about as successful as Ted Kennedy was in trying to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980. So, Reagan naturally tried again in 1980 and won the nomination and the Presidency. By the way they were wondering then if at the age of 68 he was too old to be President. Reagan was also the Governor of the largest state in the US. Shall we now discuss Ron Paul’s age and his political background?
Give it up John you only look more foolish with every post.[/quote]
Yes lets compare Ron Paul’s multiple times as a congressman to Reagan’s Govenorship. Which one had/has more experiance with the Federal Government?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What do you call some one that has an exaggerated self opinion ,Overbearing , lordly where should I stop[/quote]
[/quote]
HAHA
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I love Ron Paul. He keeps Republicans from voting for Republicans.[/quote]
He’s so awesome he even takes dumbocrats, too.
A news commentator that actually shills for Paul?! Only on RT.
(for a former marine he has a shitty salute.)
Read that John Stossel’s show tomorrow is pretty much dedicated to interviewing Ron Paul.
We should learn from Native Americans
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/04/27/we-should-learn-from-native-americans/
From the article:
"This week on my show (Thursday, 10 pm EST) I devote the whole hour to likely Presidential candidate Ron Paul. He explains how he would downsize the government and protect your liberty.
He gets it. Unfortunately, most people donâ??t.
Whenever people see problems, itâ??s intuitive to look for a solution in more government spending, more rules, more government control.
But what happens when government gets that control? We now know, thanks to a 200 year experiment. For one group in America, one the government had treated badly, government has made a special effort to â??help.â??
I write about it in my syndicated column this week:
The U.S. government has “helped” no group more than it has “helped” the American Indians.
Twenty different departments and agencies have special “native American” programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothersâ?¦
Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage most Indian land. Indians compete to serve on tribal councils because they can give out the government’s money. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs, members of tribes aspire to become bureaucratsâ?¦
Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C. – a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the “help” given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribesâ?¦
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/04/27/we-should-learn-from-native-americans/#ixzz1KkYKByaB"
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.[/quote]
Goldwater was indeed a sacrificial lamb. Everyone was aware that LBJ was going to be reelected and the GOP had no one to stop him. In fact, Nixon and others didn’t even try for the nomination because of LBJ’s strength.
Ronald Reagan attempted to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976 and was about as successful as Ted Kennedy was in trying to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980. So, Reagan naturally tried again in 1980 and won the nomination and the Presidency. By the way they were wondering then if at the age of 68 he was too old to be President. Reagan was also the Governor of the largest state in the US. Shall we now discuss Ron Paul’s age and his political background?
Give it up John you only look more foolish with every post.[/quote]
Yes lets compare Ron Paul’s multiple times as a congressman to Reagan’s Govenorship. Which one had/has more experiance with the Federal Government?[/quote]
It seems to me that executive experience is far more important than how many times someone was elected to a tiny district. In fact if all the people who voted for Paul lived in one city and they voted for Paul as mayor he would be considered a small town Mayor.
Besides, arguing this point with you is as foolish as you saying that Paul will be elected President. History bears out that I am correct. How many Congressmen have been elected to the Presidency? Do you even know? Do you even care as you walk around in your Ron Paul stupor? One John. One Congressman was elected to the Presidency in the history of the US. That was James Garfield way back in 1881. Now how many Governors have become President? That would be 20 John. 20 Governors rose to become President. And that happened because the American people appreciated their executive experience.
Stop the Paul worship John, you’re no better than the Obama lap dogs on this site.
A funny thought occured to me. I just left the “birther” thread and realized something interesting. There is a far better chance that Obama was born outside the US than Ron Paul becoming President.
Now don’t get me wrong I’m not a birther and at this point I think the case should be closed. But really all the time spent talking about Ron Paul could be better spent doing anything else. Mowing your lawn, lifting, watching a good movie.
Ha.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But really all the time spent talking about Ron Paul could be better spent doing anything else. Mowing your lawn, lifting, watching a good movie.
Ha.[/quote]
And yet, here you are, posting in another Ron Paul thread.
Ha.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.[/quote]
Goldwater was indeed a sacrificial lamb. Everyone was aware that LBJ was going to be reelected and the GOP had no one to stop him. In fact, Nixon and others didn’t even try for the nomination because of LBJ’s strength.
Ronald Reagan attempted to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976 and was about as successful as Ted Kennedy was in trying to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980. So, Reagan naturally tried again in 1980 and won the nomination and the Presidency. By the way they were wondering then if at the age of 68 he was too old to be President. Reagan was also the Governor of the largest state in the US. Shall we now discuss Ron Paul’s age and his political background?
Give it up John you only look more foolish with every post.[/quote]
Yes lets compare Ron Paul’s multiple times as a congressman to Reagan’s Govenorship. Which one had/has more experiance with the Federal Government?[/quote]
It seems to me that executive experience is far more important than how many times someone was elected to a tiny district. In fact if all the people who voted for Paul lived in one city and they voted for Paul as mayor he would be considered a small town Mayor.
Besides, arguing this point with you is as foolish as you saying that Paul will be elected President. History bears out that I am correct. How many Congressmen have been elected to the Presidency? Do you even know? Do you even care as you walk around in your Ron Paul stupor? One John. One Congressman was elected to the Presidency in the history of the US. That was James Garfield way back in 1881. Now how many Governors have become President? That would be 20 John. 20 Governors rose to become President. And that happened because the American people appreciated their executive experience.
Stop the Paul worship John, you’re no better than the Obama lap dogs on this site.[/quote]
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.[/quote]
Goldwater was indeed a sacrificial lamb. Everyone was aware that LBJ was going to be reelected and the GOP had no one to stop him. In fact, Nixon and others didn’t even try for the nomination because of LBJ’s strength.
Ronald Reagan attempted to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976 and was about as successful as Ted Kennedy was in trying to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980. So, Reagan naturally tried again in 1980 and won the nomination and the Presidency. By the way they were wondering then if at the age of 68 he was too old to be President. Reagan was also the Governor of the largest state in the US. Shall we now discuss Ron Paul’s age and his political background?
Give it up John you only look more foolish with every post.[/quote]
Yes lets compare Ron Paul’s multiple times as a congressman to Reagan’s Govenorship. Which one had/has more experiance with the Federal Government?[/quote]
It seems to me that executive experience is far more important than how many times someone was elected to a tiny district. In fact if all the people who voted for Paul lived in one city and they voted for Paul as mayor he would be considered a small town Mayor.
Besides, arguing this point with you is as foolish as you saying that Paul will be elected President. History bears out that I am correct. How many Congressmen have been elected to the Presidency? Do you even know? Do you even care as you walk around in your Ron Paul stupor? One John. One Congressman was elected to the Presidency in the history of the US. That was James Garfield way back in 1881. Now how many Governors have become President? That would be 20 John. 20 Governors rose to become President. And that happened because the American people appreciated their executive experience.
Stop the Paul worship John, you’re no better than the Obama lap dogs on this site.[/quote]
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.[/quote]
If Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket , I would surely vote for him, I believe many would have trouble checking the Retardlican box
[quote]ZEB wrote:
A funny thought occured to me. I just left the “birther” thread and realized something interesting. There is a far better chance that Obama was born outside the US than Ron Paul becoming President.
Now don’t get me wrong I’m not a birther and at this point I think the case should be closed. But really all the time spent talking about Ron Paul could be better spent doing anything else. Mowing your lawn, lifting, watching a good movie.
Ha.[/quote]
As much as I hate to say it, I agree with you.
I think there’s a better chance of Lincoln getting resurrected than of Paul becoming President of anything more than his lake association.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.[/quote]
If Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket , I would surely vote for him, I believe many would have trouble checking the Retardlican box
[/quote]
With Ron Paul you know you are not voting for a Retardican, I think most would be able to look past that. But yes I would love to see the rise of the libertarian party.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.[/quote]
Goldwater was indeed a sacrificial lamb. Everyone was aware that LBJ was going to be reelected and the GOP had no one to stop him. In fact, Nixon and others didn’t even try for the nomination because of LBJ’s strength.
Ronald Reagan attempted to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976 and was about as successful as Ted Kennedy was in trying to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980. So, Reagan naturally tried again in 1980 and won the nomination and the Presidency. By the way they were wondering then if at the age of 68 he was too old to be President. Reagan was also the Governor of the largest state in the US. Shall we now discuss Ron Paul’s age and his political background?
Give it up John you only look more foolish with every post.[/quote]
Yes lets compare Ron Paul’s multiple times as a congressman to Reagan’s Govenorship. Which one had/has more experiance with the Federal Government?[/quote]
It seems to me that executive experience is far more important than how many times someone was elected to a tiny district. In fact if all the people who voted for Paul lived in one city and they voted for Paul as mayor he would be considered a small town Mayor.
Besides, arguing this point with you is as foolish as you saying that Paul will be elected President. History bears out that I am correct. How many Congressmen have been elected to the Presidency? Do you even know? Do you even care as you walk around in your Ron Paul stupor? One John. One Congressman was elected to the Presidency in the history of the US. That was James Garfield way back in 1881. Now how many Governors have become President? That would be 20 John. 20 Governors rose to become President. And that happened because the American people appreciated their executive experience.
Stop the Paul worship John, you’re no better than the Obama lap dogs on this site.[/quote]
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.[/quote]
Yes, very nice retort to my brief historical perspective on Congressmen winning the Presidency. (eye roll)
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
A funny thought occured to me. I just left the “birther” thread and realized something interesting. There is a far better chance that Obama was born outside the US than Ron Paul becoming President.
Now don’t get me wrong I’m not a birther and at this point I think the case should be closed. But really all the time spent talking about Ron Paul could be better spent doing anything else. Mowing your lawn, lifting, watching a good movie.
Ha.[/quote]
As much as I hate to say it, I agree with you.
I think there’s a better chance of Lincoln getting resurrected than of Paul becoming President of anything more than his lake association.[/quote]
LOL…or maybe the local Rotary club.
John S.
Paul got a whopping 46,000 votes when he was reelected to his Congressional seat in 2010. Wow, just think if all of those people turn out to vote for him for President he only needs another 65 million votes and he’s got it in the bag!
This is just one example of why Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency. Now let’s take a quick look at why a Governor has a far better chance to get elected to the highest office in the land. The population of Ohio, for example is over 11 million people. While they have a new Governor there and he’s not likely to run we can look at a smaller state like Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the Governor of that state and there is well over 5 million people who live in Minnesota. And no I’m not a Pawlenty fan, I’m just trying to drive a point home as to why in American history only one Congressman (Garfield 1881) has risen to the highest office in the land. In this post I have not even discussed the age issue or any other of the many liabilities that he has in attempting to get elected to the Presidency.
I am not saying it is wrong to be “pro Paul”. I am only saying it is foolish to think that he has a ghost of a chance of becoming President.
Is any of this sinking in?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
John S.
Paul got a whopping 46,000 votes when he was reelected to his Congressional seat in 2010. Wow, just think if all of those people turn out to vote for him for President he only needs another 65 million votes and he’s got it in the bag!
This is just one example of why Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency. Now let’s take a quick look at why a Governor has a far better chance to get elected to the highest office in the land. The population of Ohio, for example is over 11 million people. While they have a new Governor there and he’s not likely to run we can look at a smaller state like Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the Governor of that state and there is well over 5 million people who live in Minnesota. And no I’m not a Pawlenty fan, I’m just trying to drive a point home as to why in American history only one Congressman (Garfield 1881) has risen to the highest office in the land. In this post I have not even discussed the age issue or any other of the many liabilities that he has in attempting to get elected to the Presidency.
I am not saying it is wrong to be “pro Paul”. I am only saying it is foolish to think that he has a ghost of a chance of becoming President.
Is any of this sinking in? [/quote]
Before the information age was here you are right, a congressman being elected was almost impossible. Ron Paul’s name is probably more well known then most governors on the national stage now.
I have to wonder tho, would you be worried about someone being a congressman if it was Allen West running?
And lets say you are right and he doesn’t get the nomination, you have to agree the other candidates are going to be picking up his main selling points such as auditing the fed and establishing a sound currency.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
John S.
Paul got a whopping 46,000 votes when he was reelected to his Congressional seat in 2010. Wow, just think if all of those people turn out to vote for him for President he only needs another 65 million votes and he’s got it in the bag!
This is just one example of why Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency. Now let’s take a quick look at why a Governor has a far better chance to get elected to the highest office in the land. The population of Ohio, for example is over 11 million people. While they have a new Governor there and he’s not likely to run we can look at a smaller state like Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the Governor of that state and there is well over 5 million people who live in Minnesota. And no I’m not a Pawlenty fan, I’m just trying to drive a point home as to why in American history only one Congressman (Garfield 1881) has risen to the highest office in the land. In this post I have not even discussed the age issue or any other of the many liabilities that he has in attempting to get elected to the Presidency.
I am not saying it is wrong to be “pro Paul”. I am only saying it is foolish to think that he has a ghost of a chance of becoming President.
Is any of this sinking in? [/quote]
Before the information age was here you are right, a congressman being elected was almost impossible. Ron Paul’s name is probably more well known then most governors on the national stage now.
I have to wonder tho, would you be worried about someone being a congressman if it was Allen West running?
And lets say you are right and he doesn’t get the nomination, you have to agree the other candidates are going to be picking up his main selling points such as auditing the fed and establishing a sound currency.[/quote]
First of all you make a legitimate point that the media age does change the game somewhat. But the power of having a Governorship is that millions of people have already voted for you and will do so again for President. Now if that particular state is one of the key battle ground states then it is even more important. That’s quite a bit different than a bunch of 20 something’s (no offense) seeing your web site between college classes and getting all excited. Quite a bit different.
And I have no problem with the republican nominee picking up on some of his agenda. While I think that he is naive on some issues like foreign policy, he does make some good points about fiscal conservatism.
Look John the bottom line is for all of us to stand behind a candidate who can espouse some of these views get the nomination and beat Obama. There’s an old sang that my grandfather used to say: A half a loaf is better than none.
Start thinking that way.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.[/quote]
I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, over and over - and then you write something like this.
Conservative Democrats would not vote for Ron Paul - for at least one reason: he ain’t a conservative or a moderate.
Independents would not vote for Paul - independents tend to be pragmatic, non-ideological and conservative reformers (conservative in the procedural sense here - slow methodical change versus upheaval). Paul is the opposite of all those qualities - he is radically ideological, tunnel-visioned, and not pragmatic.
The vast majority of Republicans would not vote for him - not in the primaries, and under the fictional event he was the national candidate, Republicans would leave him in droves.
Paul couldn’t unite ants around a fallen ice cream cone.
And, you continue to sweep Paul’s unsavory connections to his newsletters under the rug - mainstream America would never validate such a vile man and such vile practices.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Ron Paul is the best chance republicans have, no one else can capture the conservative democrats, independents and republicans like Ron can.[/quote]
I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, over and over - and then you write something like this.
Conservative Democrats would not vote for Ron Paul - for at least one reason: he ain’t a conservative or a moderate.
Independents would not vote for Paul - independents tend to be pragmatic, non-ideological and conservative reformers (conservative in the procedural sense here - slow methodical change versus upheaval). Paul is the opposite of all those qualities - he is radically ideological, tunnel-visioned, and not pragmatic.
The vast majority of Republicans would not vote for him - not in the primaries, and under the fictional event he was the national candidate, Republicans would leave him in droves.
Paul couldn’t unite ants around a fallen ice cream cone.
And, you continue to sweep Paul’s unsavory connections to his newsletters under the rug - mainstream America would never validate such a vile man and such vile practices.[/quote]
I’ve tried searching for actual copies of these newsletters, I haven’t been able to find them.
Do you have any links to the newsletters?
Thanks.