PDA

View Full Version : General Politics So much for Ron Paul not being electable


Chocolate Hog
07-22-2011, 02:32 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37







LMAO

go bowe
07-22-2011, 02:37 PM
do you have the numbers for any other recent polls?

Pants
07-22-2011, 02:40 PM
That poll shows that Palin is more electable than Paul.

JFC.

lambs

vailpass
07-22-2011, 02:41 PM
How does that gibe with this poll?

President Barack Obama's approval rating has held steady in the past three months, settling at just under 47 percent, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday morning.

The president's average approval numbers from mid-April to mid-July were below 50 percent for the sixth straight quarter.

Of the last eight presidents that Gallup has tallied quarterly averages for, Obama falls on the lower end of the spectrum.

Only Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter had lower approval numbers at this stage in their presidency. Reagan, of course, was reelected, with his numbers bouncing up 10 percent by April of 1984, from about 44 percent of Americans approving of his presidency to a 54 percent approval rating.

Carter's approval numbers looked the worst of the eight during his 10th quarter as president: 31 percent. Those numbers eventually improved to 48 percent by April of 1980, but it was not enough to get him another term.

It can go the other way, too. At the same point in his presidency, George H.W. Bush's Gallup approval numbers topped 73 percent, only to decline by more than 30 points over the next nine months on the way to defeat at the hands of Bill Clinton.

In its conclusion, Gallup found that the president's static approval numbers have not yet indicated a trajectory for Obama's performance in 2012. However, on Wednesday, a report by Public Policy Polling showed the president in a virtual tie with current GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, according to numbers based on voter preferences leading up to the 2012 election. PPP reported it was the first time in a year that Obama did not lead Romney.
The Arizona Republic is a member of the Politico Network.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1SmVHKXrw

RedNeckRaider
07-22-2011, 02:53 PM
do you have the numbers for any other recent polls?

This why I blow off polls. People always post whatever poll fits their stance. I would be willing to bet large Paul does not sniff the White house. That said I would gladly take him over anyone in the race now, and damn sure over Barry~

Otter
07-22-2011, 03:24 PM
This why I blow off polls. People always post whatever poll fits their stance. I would be willing to bet large Paul does not sniff the White house. That said I would gladly take him over anyone in the race now, and damn sure over Barry~

What do you think the reason(s) is/are for Paul being unelectable given our present and past presidents?

Iowanian
07-22-2011, 03:28 PM
This why I blow off polls.

nevermind.

RedNeckRaider
07-22-2011, 03:29 PM
What do you think the reason(s) is/are for Paul being unelectable given our present and past presidents?

A divided republican base. As in he will not command enough of it to win the nomination, and he stands no chance as a independent. That and his age, a man near 80 will not do well with many people fair or not...IMO~

RedNeckRaider
07-22-2011, 03:29 PM
nevermind.

LMAO asshole~

Iowanian
07-22-2011, 03:31 PM
LMAO asshole~
oooooooh, so something else is on your mind besides blowing off poles?

Raiderfans...

RedNeckRaider
07-22-2011, 03:33 PM
oooooooh, so something else is on your mind besides blowing off poles?

Raiderfans...

Ok I served that up for you...cheap home run ;)

SNR
07-22-2011, 03:33 PM
Iowanian's raping you, RNR. It's probably better that you just keep your mouth shut.

You know, so penises don't fly in...

RedNeckRaider
07-22-2011, 03:35 PM
Iowanian's raping you, RNR. It's probably better that you just keep your mouth shut.

You know, so penises don't fly in...

I thought it was funny and do not run away that easy~

vailpass
07-22-2011, 03:35 PM
nevermind.

LMAO RR tee that one up a little too easy for you?

Dave Lane
07-22-2011, 03:39 PM
That poll shows that Palin is more electable than Paul.

JFC.

lambs

And thats his good poll you should see the others...

vailpass
07-22-2011, 03:47 PM
And thats his good poll you should see the others...

I'm sure you've seen quite a few.

Chocolate Hog
07-22-2011, 04:13 PM
I'm sure you've seen quite a few.

ROFL

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Ron Paul draws 37% in heads-up poll against Obama.

Ron Paul supporters point to said poll and declare victory.

Hydrae
07-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Rick Perry polled better than Ron Paul and he has not declared to be running yet. (and I like Paul, I wrote him in in '08)

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 04:50 PM
From the same site:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot
Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot
Generic Republican Candidate 47%, Obama 41%

In other words, Generic Republican garners 27% more support than RP.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 04:52 PM
In other news from the same site, Romney is supported by 16% more people than RP in a comparative matchup against Obama.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_romney_43_obama_42
Election 2012: Romney 43% Obama 42%

Chocolate Hog
07-22-2011, 05:13 PM
In other news from the same site, Romney is supported by 16% more people than RP in a comparative matchup against Obama.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_romney_43_obama_42
Election 2012: Romney 43% Obama 42%

You mean 6%?

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 05:15 PM
You mean 6%?

I mean 16%.

Chocolate Hog
07-22-2011, 05:20 PM
I mean 16%.

You meant 6%.

CoMoChief
07-22-2011, 05:20 PM
polls don't mean shit most of the time. the fact that BO has a 47% approval rating proves that. If there are Americans out there that think this scumbag is doing a good job then they need to be prevented from having children.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 05:55 PM
You meant 6%.

Ronnie has 37 cookies. Paulie has 16% more cookies. How many cookies does Paulie have?

vailpass
07-22-2011, 06:02 PM
polls don't mean shit most of the time. the fact that BO has a 47% approval rating proves that. If there are Americans out there that think this scumbag is doing a good job then they need to be prevented from having children.

There are those, especially among a certain demographic, who don't need to know if obama is doing a good job in order to vote for him.
This is how he got elected in the first place. Travesty that it is.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 06:51 PM
Ronnie has 37 cookies. Paulie has 16% more cookies. How many cookies does Paulie have?

C'mon, billay. You can do it.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zqi0DwNLJdM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Radar Chief
07-23-2011, 12:02 PM
C'mon, billay. You can do it.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zqi0DwNLJdM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:eek: Oh. Em. Gee. :eek:
Smartest thing she said, "I don't know what I'm doing."

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 01:35 PM
In other news from the same site, Romney is supported by 16% more people than RP in a comparative matchup against Obama.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_romney_43_obama_42
Election 2012: Romney 43% Obama 42%

But that support is tepid which means things can change.

Jaric
07-23-2011, 06:50 PM
I'm starting to think that we're going to be stuck with Obama for another 4 years.

Dave Lane
07-23-2011, 06:53 PM
I'm starting to think that we're going to be stuck with Obama for another 4 years.

It's pretty much guaranteed. I really only see Romney as having half a chance. All the other Rs are dead on arrival

BucEyedPea
07-24-2011, 07:20 AM
It's pretty much guaranteed. I really only see Romney as having half a chance. All the other Rs are dead on arrival

I thought you like Romney yourself, at least out of all the Republicans.

Chocolate Hog
07-26-2011, 10:46 AM
And thats his good poll you should see the others...

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/26/3794608/president-obama-would-lose-if.html

BucEyedPea
07-26-2011, 11:02 AM
Hey, the favored "mainstream" Republican candidates all support socialized medicine even if they won't admit it. Even that poser named Perry. This is what "mainstream" means. Bachmann is one exception other than Paul.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-26-2011, 10:11 PM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uNI82O5Y6_A&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uNI82O5Y6_A&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Saul Good
09-21-2011, 10:14 AM
Bumped by popular demand

vailpass
09-21-2011, 10:28 AM
People want Paul for president, they just don't know it.

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 10:30 AM
LMAO Classic Math Fail!

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:00 AM
I'm starting to think that we're going to be stuck with Obama for another 4 years.

I think so too.

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 11:01 AM
I think so too.

Honestly, that thought alone keeps me up at night.:Lin:

Taco John
09-21-2011, 11:08 AM
I'm starting to think that we're going to be stuck with Obama for another 4 years.

We will. There aren't enough R voters that will get behind one candidate. I know I have no intention of voting for either Romney or Perry.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2011, 11:10 AM
We will. There aren't enough R voters that will get behind one candidate.....

The lunatic fringe will hand the election to a very vulnerable, and beatable Obama.

Bummer, man. LMAO

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 11:10 AM
Honestly, that thought alone keeps me up at night.:Lin:

It made me feel dirty too.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 11:12 AM
The lunatic fringe will hand the election to a very vulnerable, and beatable Obama.

Bummer, man. LMAO


I'm not handing an election to anybody. I'm voting for the candidate who I believe has the best potential to actually solve the problems we are in. Not my concern if people disagree with me - they can vote for whoever they want.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 11:53 AM
I'm not handing an election to anybody. I'm voting for the candidate who I believe has the best potential to actually solve the problems we are in. Not my concern if people disagree with me - they can vote for whoever they want.

what potential?

do you really believe that paul's policies would actually be implemented by congress?

Taco John
09-21-2011, 12:13 PM
what potential?

do you really believe that paul's policies would actually be implemented by congress?

If Ron Paul gets elected, it will be because America has finally come to grips with the problem, and wants to implement the actual solution. Do I think that's going to happen? I don't know - there's a lot hanging in the air right now with this economy. A black swan event is not out of the question.


Do I think every last policy that Ron Paul has will be implemented overnight? No. But I think enough of them would to change the course of history and put America on a much better track than we are on right now.

I think this article by the Daily Capitalist provided a fair analysis of whether or not Paul can win. Here is an excerpt:

If Paul wins, it won’t be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business — a new political and economic paradigm — and then he’ll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he’ll be the only shot.

http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/09/17/ron-paul-can-win/


For what it's worth, Rassmussen has Paul within 1 point of Obama right now (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups) (39% - 38%) - he runs the closest of any Republican in the race.

Donger
09-21-2011, 12:25 PM
Well, this type of stuff doesn't help:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says-hed-consider-putting-dennis-kucinich-in-his-cabinet

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.

Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 12:34 PM
Well, this type of stuff doesn't help:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says-hed-consider-putting-dennis-kucinich-in-his-cabinet

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.

Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.


This is the "Blue Republican" strategy in action. If Ron Paul wins, he'll have to do it the same way Reagan did: by attracting Democrats to support his bid.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 12:38 PM
This is the "Blue Republican" strategy in action. If Ron Paul wins, he'll have to do it the same way Reagan did: by attracting Democrats to support his bid.

There is a movement called Progressives for Ron Paul, who are registering as Democrats temporarily for this year, in order to nominate Ron Paul.

There's also a website.

Dave Lane
09-21-2011, 02:10 PM
This is the "Blue Republican" strategy in action. If Ron Paul wins, he'll have to do it the same way Reagan did: by attracting Democrats to support his bid.

Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president of the US. Stop already with the IF portion.

IF is a huge word.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 02:13 PM
Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president of the US. Stop already with the IF portion.

IF is a huge word.

That's what they said about Winston Churchill's chances of being elected.

Either way it doesn't matter to me. I'm voting for him regardless of your view of his chances. Whether he gets elected or not doesn't guide my vote. The fact that I believe he's the best candidate to solve our problems is what guides my vote.

Calcountry
09-21-2011, 02:46 PM
Ron Paul=Ross Perot.

evenfall
09-21-2011, 02:48 PM
The fact that Ron Paul would want Dennis Kucinich, probably the farthest left politician in Washington, in his cabinet tells you some things.

It tells you that all this narrative about Paul being a sensible Conservative that conservative America would be happy with and can trust to represent their beliefs in Washington is so much mularkey.

It makes you question his judgement, because frankly Kucinich is nuts. And apart from his political beliefs, this is the guy who claims to have seen UFOs (though I suspect most Paul types are rabid conspiracy theorists and love the UFO stuff)

So what cabinet post does Ron Paul think Kucinich is a fit for, I wonder?

Since they seem to have little in common except being pacifists, would he like to nominate Kucinich for Secretary of War or Secretary of Defense? Maybe Secretary of State, and send foreign policy even left of the Obama administration, if it were possible?

Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of Energy? It would be a good day for those worried about those tasty subsidies and loan guarantees drying up for "Corporate Green"

Secretary of Labor? Maybe Paul thinks we should unionize down to babysitters and grocery baggers?

Health and Human Services? HUD? Education? Where does Kucinich fit with a supposed conservative in these areas?

The only thing I can think of is Homeland Security, maybe Denny Kuchie could quisle with the otherworldly threats and get us a better deal. He for one welcomes our new insect overlords, and as a respected public figure, would be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.


But seriously, why should any mainline conservative consider voting for someone who wants Kucinich in a high office?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 02:52 PM
But seriously, why should any mainline conservative consider voting for someone who wants Kucinich in a high office?

Because on FP Kucinich represents the traditional Old Right wing of conservativism— not the belligerent jingoism that is typical of the New Right. Paul is now a libertarian whose roots are in the paleo right conservative wing.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-21-2011, 02:52 PM
The fact that Ron Paul would want Dennis Kucinich, probably the farthest left politician in Washington, in his cabinet tells you some things.

It tells you that all this narrative about Paul being a sensible Conservative that conservative America would be happy with and can trust to represent their beliefs in Washington is so much mularkey.

It makes you question his judgement, because frankly Kucinich is nuts. And apart from his political beliefs, this is the guy who claims to have seen UFOs (though I suspect most Paul types are rabid conspiracy theorists and love the UFO stuff)

So what cabinet post does Ron Paul think Kucinich is a fit for, I wonder?

Since they seem to have little in common except being pacifists, would he like to nominate Kucinich for Secretary of War or Secretary of Defense? Maybe Secretary of State, and send foreign policy even left of the Obama administration, if it were possible?

Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of Energy? It would be a good day for those worried about those tasty subsidies and loan guarantees drying up for "Corporate Green"

Secretary of Labor? Maybe Paul thinks we should unionize down to babysitters and grocery baggers?

Health and Human Services? HUD? Education? Where does Kucinich fit with a supposed conservative in these areas?

The only thing I can think of is Homeland Security, maybe Denny Kuchie could quisle with the otherworldly threats and get us a better deal. He for one welcomes our new insect overlords, and as a respected public figure, would be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.


But seriously, why should any mainline conservative consider voting for someone who wants Kucinich in a high office?

Paul values Honesty, as do I. I'm sure the people that prefer liars will oppose him.

evenfall
09-21-2011, 03:00 PM
Paul values Honesty, as do I. I'm sure the people that prefer liars will oppose him.

For what cabinet appointment do you feel Dennis Kucinich would be a good fit?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 03:00 PM
Paul values Honesty, as do I. I'm sure the people that prefer liars will oppose him.
Sounds about right for the ostriches. ;)

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:05 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8kOG-gVn4Ck" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

go bowe
09-21-2011, 03:05 PM
For what cabinet appointment do you feel Dennis Kucinich would be a good fit?

mmmmm...

a kitchen cabinet?

Donger
09-21-2011, 03:09 PM
For what cabinet appointment do you feel Dennis Kucinich would be a good fit?

Department of (Mental) Health and Human Services?

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 03:14 PM
Dennis Kuchniach is a dumbass what an awful thing for Paul to say.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 03:15 PM
Department of (Mental) Health and Human Services?

LMAO LMAO LMAO

go bowe
09-21-2011, 03:23 PM
Dennis Kuchniach is a dumbass what an awful thing for Paul to say.

hold on there, skippy...

ron paul would never say something awful...

never...

ever...

can't happen...

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:23 PM
Dennis Kuchniach is a dumbass what an awful thing for Paul to say.

It's a calculated strategy. This race is going to turn into a 3 person race in the long term (Mitt or Perry vs. Obama vs. Paul). Paul will need to swing Obama voters if he wants to win. By doing this now, he can attract disillusioned voters into the "blue republican" caucus and boost his numbers. He's not expecting he's going to swing a bunch of neocons into his camp. The campaign recognizes that they have to build a new coalition, and it has to be built now or never.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 03:25 PM
Dude Kuchnich polls like 1% of Democrats. There are much better Democrats he could have talked about putting in his cabinet.

Donger
09-21-2011, 03:28 PM
It's a calculated strategy. This race is going to turn into a 3 person race in the long term (Mitt or Perry vs. Obama vs. Paul). Paul will need to swing Obama voters if he wants to win. By doing this now, he can attract disillusioned voters into the "blue republican" caucus and boost his numbers. He's not expecting he's going to swing a bunch of neocons into his camp. The campaign recognizes that they have to build a new coalition, and it has to be built now or never.

I'm pretty sure that Paul expressed his man crush on Dennis back in 2008, too.

I'm surprised that Paul fans would actually welcome Dennis to Paul's administration.

Or, maybe I'm not.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 03:32 PM
I'm pretty sure that Paul expressed his man crush on Dennis back in 2008, too.

I'm surprised that Paul fans would actually welcome Dennis to Paul's administration.

Or, maybe I'm not.

I'm not surprised about it if he is limited to FP.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 03:32 PM
Paul spokesmen Jesse Benton later said the remark was a joke, and said Kucinich is too ideologically different from Paul to be a candidate for a Cabinet spot.

"Ron works with Dennis on some coalition issues, and respects him as a thinker, but was joking and would not consider him for Cabinet position. He made clear he did not want to name Cabinet officials," Benton said.



Whew.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 03:32 PM
Paul spokesmen Jesse Benton later said the remark was a joke, and said Kucinich is too ideologically different from Paul to be a candidate for a Cabinet spot.

"Ron works with Dennis on some coalition issues, and respects him as a thinker, but was joking and would not consider him for Cabinet position. He made clear he did not want to name Cabinet officials," Benton said.



Whew.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:34 PM
Dude Kuchnich polls like 1% of Democrats. There are much better Democrats he could have talked about putting in his cabinet.


Polls 1% what? President? Irrelevant.

There are a LOT of disillusioned Obama voters who are flirting with the Paul campaign right now and are looking for reasons to sign on. Paul has to find a way to tip them over to the Republican side. He's trying to manufacture new Republicans and expand his base. Is it a risky strategy? Maybe it is. I don't think it's that risky though. The people voting for Perry or Romney aren't likely to vote for Paul, just as the people voting for Paul aren't likely to vote for Perry or Romney. It's pretty well deadlocked, and the only thing that is going to change that is to expand the Paul base and build some new momentum.

Paul and Kucinich has long been allies in congress on militarism, economics, and foreign trade. Anyone who is turned off by this likely aren't familiar with this history. Kucinich is wrong about a lot of things, but he's right about a lot of others. Same goes for Barney Frank. A Paul presidency would lean heavily on support from Barney Frank where Federal Reserve matters are concerned.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 03:36 PM
I will lay down a 6 month sig bet he does not win the Republican nomination. I will sport whatever sig you choose, however you will do the same if I win~

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:39 PM
I'm pretty sure that Paul expressed his man crush on Dennis back in 2008, too.

I'm surprised that Paul fans would actually welcome Dennis to Paul's administration.

Or, maybe I'm not.


I don't know what role Kucinich would fill in an administration. What I do know is that replacing Nancy Pelosi with Dennis Kucinich and replacing Harry Reid with Barney Frank would ultimately be a good thing.

As far as whether or not I would welcome him - right now I recognize that the campaign has to shake things up to get the poll boost he needs to be in striking distance. I'm open to anything that accomplishes that at this point.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 03:40 PM
I've never predicted Paul winning the Republican nomination. I always said the R Establishment will pull any dirty trick to prevent it. Already Texas isn't going to hold it's straw poll because it might embarrass Perry as Paul is favored in the state that knows Perry best. That's what they do— cancel things like that and caucuses as well as keeping his message off the main communication channels.

Donger
09-21-2011, 03:41 PM
I will lay down a 6 month sig bet he does not win the Republican nomination. I will sport whatever sig you choose, however you will do the same if I win~

Paul fans know that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination, but they just ignore that pesky little fact. It's not much different than their candidate ignoring other things as well.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Paul fans know that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination, but they just ignore that pesky little fact. It's not much different than their candidate ignoring other things as well.

Name the Paul fans that have said this? Oh, and nothing is a fact yet until the primary has passed.

I think you've ignored a few things.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 03:44 PM
Polls 1% what? President? Irrelevant.

There are a LOT of disillusioned Obama voters who are flirting with the Paul campaign right now and are looking for reasons to sign on. Paul has to find a way to tip them over to the Republican side. He's trying to manufacture new Republicans and expand his base. Is it a risky strategy? Maybe it is. I don't think it's that risky though. The people voting for Perry or Romney aren't likely to vote for Paul, just as the people voting for Paul aren't likely to vote for Perry or Romney. It's pretty well deadlocked, and the only thing that is going to change that is to expand the Paul base and build some new momentum.

Paul and Kucinich has long been allies in congress on militarism, economics, and foreign trade. Anyone who is turned off by this likely aren't familiar with this history. Kucinich is wrong about a lot of things, but he's right about a lot of others. Same goes for Barney Frank. A Paul presidency would lean heavily on support from Barney Frank where Federal Reserve matters are concerned.

First of all the comment Paul made was a joke....

2nd of all thats not true there are many conservatives who would consider Paul but he just says some dumbass things like Dennish Kuchinch comment.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:44 PM
I will lay down a 6 month sig bet he does not win the Republican nomination. I will sport whatever sig you choose, however you will do the same if I win~


He won't win the Republican nomination, but what we will do is take his coalition with him when they reject his bid and leave the Republicans short at the ballot box. Ron Paul is going to split the vote for whoever gets nominated. The question for his campaign right now is whether or not he can split enough off of the Obama voters to compete as a third party. That's why they are floating trial balloons like this right now.

Donger
09-21-2011, 03:44 PM
Name the Paul fans that have said this? Oh, and nothing is a fact yet until the primary has passed.

I think you've ignored a few things.

Errrr, you just did (tacitly at least) in post 74.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 03:46 PM
Name the Paul fans that have said this? Oh, and nothing is a fact yet until the primary has passed.

I think you've ignored a few things.

I'll say it. Ron Paul isn't going to win the Republican nomination.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 03:51 PM
He won't win the Republican nomination, but what we will do is take his coalition with him when they reject his bid and leave the Republicans short at the ballot box. Ron Paul is going to split the vote for whoever gets nominated. The question for his campaign right now is whether or not he can split enough off of the Obama voters to compete as a third party. That's why they are floating trial balloons like this right now.

He will "Nader" the Republicans and that is all. He should be very proud he is the strongest factor in getting the current embarrassment re-elected :shake:

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 03:54 PM
He will "Nader" the Republicans and that is all. He should be very proud he is the strongest factor in getting the current embarrassment re-elected :shake:

That's not our fault. It's the Republicans big spending and foreign policy that is costing the Rs some of the Independents.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 03:58 PM
That's not our fault. It's the Republicans big spending and foreign policy that is costing the Rs some of the Independents.

Whatever makes your world work. Like it or not you have a choice Barry or someone else. You may as well vote for Barry. Unless you wish to have the weak ass cop out that you did not vote for him when in all reality you did~

evenfall
09-21-2011, 03:59 PM
It's amusing that Paul said Dennis Kucinich was his kind of man for the Cabinet, and Paul's vassals fell all over themselves about how right he was and how great it was and how Reaganlike it was. Now Paul's PR man is out there walking back on it. I doubt we will see much of the same, though.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 03:59 PM
Whatever makes your world work. Like it or not you have a choice Barry or someone else. You may as well vote for Barry. Unless you wish to have the weak ass cop out that you did not vote for him when in all reality you did~

Yes, I know, but there is a method to my madness. But it's a secret only a few know when I'm using the symbol for it. ;) * waves arm a certain way while walking on some egg shells *


I would never vote for Obama and never have. This is not a secret. But he'd only Nader the Rs if he ran as a third party.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 04:01 PM
It's amusing that Paul said Dennis Kucinich was his kind of man for the Cabinet, and Paul's vassals fell all over themselves about how right he was and how great it was and how Reaganlike it was. Now Paul's PR man is out there walking back on it. I doubt we will see much of the same, though.

Oh, nope I had no problem with it if it were limited to FP. That truly would not surprise me because they agree there. So you can skip the "s" at the end of vassals, while being a vassal for the Establishment.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:04 PM
Yes, I know, but there is a method to my madness. But it's a secret only a few hear know when I'm using the symbol for it. ;)


I would never vote for Obama and never have. This is not a secret.

I like Paul and this is not intended to be an attack on him. Still the fact of the matter is, a vote for him (after the nomination) is a vote for Barry~

Pawnmower
09-21-2011, 04:05 PM
I'll say it. Ron Paul isn't going to win the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul fan here as well. He ain't gonna win it....I would vote for him in the main election though. I disagree with some of his views but on economic issues I am almost 100% agreed with him, from what I know of.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 04:10 PM
I like Paul and this is not intended to be an attack on him. Still the fact of the matter is, a vote for him (after the nomination) is a vote for Barry~

If he runs as a third party. So far there's no indication he plans on that. I will, however, cross that bridge when it comes.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:12 PM
I like Paul and this is not intended to be an attack on him. Still the fact of the matter is, a vote for him (after the nomination) is a vote for Barry~

How do you come to that conclusion? Paul and Obama are totally different.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:12 PM
If he runs as a third party. So far there's no indication he plans on that. I will, however, cross that bridge when it comes.

Girl you know I am not a rightwinger but damn I would vote for just about anyone to get this clown out of office~

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 04:13 PM
Also, RNR, as I said before Mitt is a vote for the same policies anyway. Perry nearly as much plus war, war, war for Israel first. I can't stomach that idea. However, if congress can get more Rs, and the senate some, I can stomach a stymied Obama for four years. It may be gridlock but it prevents damage and can be the true lesser of two evils.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:13 PM
How do you come to that conclusion? Paul and Obama are totally different.

Try and keep up scooter~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:15 PM
Try and keep up scooter~

So it's just something you heard on the radio and can't explain it in your own words? Got it.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:21 PM
So it's just something you heard on the radio and can't explain it in your own words? Got it.

Ok read slow and then read it again. He will "Nader" the Republicans. It is clear you struggle at basic comprehension so here is an explanation to what I mean with "Nader" the Republicans, as in a vote for him is a vote for Barry. Wow and I mean wow~

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

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:23 PM
Ok read slow and then read it again. He will "Nader" the Republicans. It is clear you struggle at basic comprehension so here is an explanation to what I mean with "Nader" the Republicans, as in a vote for him is a vote for Barry. Wow and I mean wow~

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

I'm asking you to explain it in your own words so far you've used very vague terms. According to most on here Paul is a fringe candidate with a small following that wouldn't be enough to throw the election for Obama.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:27 PM
I'm asking you to explain it in your own words so far you've used very vague terms. According to most on here Paul is a fringe candidate with a small following that wouldn't be enough to throw the election for Obama.
I have used very clear terms you fucking twit. After the nomination which he will lose (see my sig bet post) any vote for him only helps Barry~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:29 PM
I have used very clear terms you ****ing twit. After the nomination which he will lose (see my sig bet post) any vote for him only helps Barry~

How does any vote for him help Obama? You are under the assumption that all these people would support Perry or Romney if Paul wasn't in the race? Polling has proved this to not be the case. You can't explain why either because it's something you've either heard or read.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:30 PM
How does any vote for him help Obama? You are under the assumption that all these people would support Perry or Romney if Paul wasn't in the race? Polling has proved this to not be the case. You can't explain why either because it's something you've either heard or read.

You are too fucking stupid to vote~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:34 PM
You are too ****ing stupid to vote~

Still can't explain it I see. Next time don't use the Rush Limbaugh talking point.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:41 PM
Still can't explain it I see. Next time don't use the Rush Limbaugh talking point.

So much for Ron Paul... 09-21-2011 04:23 PM Bo's Pelini shut your cum dump cannon fodder
I was curious so I looked and sure enough there it was LMAO I have never given neg rep as I just tell the person what I think out in the open. Rep is a joke and only clowns use this tactic. Anyone who has read my posts know I am not a rightwinger and do not follow Rush you fucking simpleton~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:42 PM
5 post in still waiting.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:43 PM
Hey Redneck is a vote for Ralph Nader or the Constitution Party a vote for Obama too? I'd love to hear your explanation on how it is.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:45 PM
5 post in still waiting.

I will play along for a little while because I am bored. Just what are you waiting for? Nobody else seems to disagree or is confused by what I posted~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:48 PM
Hey Redneck is a vote for Ralph Nader or the Constitution Party a vote for Obama too? I'd love to hear your explanation on how it is.

Please answer.

BTW Mitt Romneys positions are much closer to Obama's than Paul's. Is a vote for Romney a vote for Obama too?

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:51 PM
Please answer.

BTW Mitt Romneys positions are much closer to Obama's than Paul's. Is a vote for Romney a vote for Obama too?

:rolleyes: ok now I am bored with this LMAO bye billy~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 04:52 PM
Yea couldn't explain I figured.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 04:59 PM
Yea couldn't explain I figured.
Not to a simpleton who cannot grasp the basic concept that voting for an unelectable fringe candidate that only draws votes from the opposite side of the incumbent only helps the incumbent. Enjoy your hard fought debate win dipshit~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:01 PM
You'd have a point if it were all Republicans who support Paul but truth be told they are a very small % of his base. Nice try though.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:05 PM
I will play along for a little while because I am bored. Just what are you waiting for? Nobody else seems to disagree or is confused by what I posted~

oh con trayer, mon ami...

i am confused...

much of the time...

but even i understood your post...

billay's strength is not reading comprehension...

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 05:07 PM
Not to a simpleton who cannot grasp the basic concept that voting for an unelectable fringe candidate that only draws votes from the opposite side of the incumbent only helps the incumbent. Enjoy your hard fought debate win dipshit~

He's not fringe anymore. He's in third place with most of the Republicans below him.
Plus Mitt is funded by corporate money and his support really isn't that deep.
Besides two mainstream polls show Paul is within striking distance of beating Obama and that he carries most of the Independents. For one, he resonates with the greater majority of Americans who poll at 73% as being sick of war.

So I think the derogatory "fringe" label is not true anymore. I think you could say that about some of his other stands but NOT on the issues that matter anyway — not unless you want to label that many Americans "fringe."

And if those polls are changing showing any generic R can win—then that applies to Paul as well.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:08 PM
oh con trayer, mon ami...

i am confused...

much of the time...

but even i understood your post...

billay's strength is not reading comprehension...

It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. I asked him to explain his position in detail and he couldn't.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:08 PM
Not to a simpleton who cannot grasp the basic concept that voting for an unelectable fringe candidate that only draws votes from the opposite side of the incumbent only helps the incumbent. Enjoy your hard fought debate win dipshit~

well, why can't you explain quantum physics?

er, greek philosophy?

or the art of war?

or billay's utter and complete dumbassery?

i'll go with utter...

no more billay, just call him "utter"... :D :D :D

(or is it mutter?)

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:11 PM
It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. I asked him to explain his position in detail and he couldn't.

it has everything to do with reading comprehension or lack thereof...

clear simple statements do not need to be explained to the literate...

but then there's you, billay, er utter...

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 05:15 PM
He's not fringe anymore. He's in third place with most of the Republicans below him.
Plus Mitt is funded by corporate money and his support really isn't that deep.
Besides two mainstream polls show Paul is within striking distance of beating Obama and that he carries most of the Independents. For one, he resonates with the greater majority of Americans who poll at 73% as being sick of war.

So I think the derogatory "fringe" label is not true anymore. I think you could say that about some of his other stands but NOT on the issues that matter anyway — not unless you want to label that many Americans "fringe."

And if those polls are changing showing any generic R can win—then that applies to Paul as well.

On this I will concede, although it only strengthens my point as to votes for him will only assist the incumbent in re-election~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:15 PM
it has everything to do with reading comprehension or lack thereof...

clear simple statements do not need to be explained to the literate...

but then there's you, billay, er utter...

If it was so easy why couldn't he explain how it was a vote for Obama when polling suggest 50% of those who support Paul now would not vote for other Republican candidates no matter what?

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:29 PM
On this I will concede, although it only strengthens my point as to votes for him will only assist the incumbent in re-election~

i predict that in the open primary states paul will be a big winner...

nothing could make the libs happier than facing ron paul in the general election...

well, maybe they'd rather face bachman...

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:31 PM
If it was so easy why couldn't he explain how it was a vote for Obama when polling suggest 50% of those who support Paul now would not vote for other Republican candidates no matter what?

link?

what polls?

and even if you're right, which i highly doubt, that still leaves 50% who would vote for other republican candidates...

so, by your claims a vote for paul is half a vote for obama...

still benefits obama, a lot...

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:38 PM
link?

what polls?

and even if you're right, which i highly doubt, that still leaves 50% who would vote for other republican candidates...

so, by your claims a vote for paul is half a vote for obama...

still benefits obama, a lot...

I'm trying to find it was a Rassmussen poll from a few months ago.


It would only hurt in states like Montana, Iowa, and New Hampshire. His support in battle ground states in Ohio & Florida are pretty damn low.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 05:38 PM
link?

what polls?

and even if you're right, which i highly doubt, that still leaves 50% who would vote for other republican candidates...

so, by your claims a vote for paul is half a vote for obama...

still benefits obama, a lot...

He is full of shit, Paul is a true conservative. Anyone with that line of thinking would vote for that shitbag Mitt before voting for Barry. This idiot is scrambling to save face when it is clear he is in over his head in this discussion~

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:40 PM
utter is in over his head in most discussions...

why should this one be any different?

Dave Lane
09-21-2011, 05:45 PM
Ron Paul=Ross Perot.

Repaul

Dave Lane
09-21-2011, 05:47 PM
i predict that in the open primary states paul will be a big winner...

nothing could make the libs happier than facing ron paul in the general election...

well, maybe they'd rather face bachman...

He would be annihilated.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 05:51 PM
I have used very clear terms you ****ing twit. After the nomination which he will lose (see my sig bet post) any vote for him only helps Barry~

The problem with that argument is that if I vote for Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, then I'm helping to elect Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. Why would I want to do that?

go bowe
09-21-2011, 05:53 PM
The problem with that argument is that if I vote for Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, then I'm helping to elect Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. Why would I want to do that?

so why would you vote for paul if it means helping obama win?

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:53 PM
He would be annihilated.

That's not what the polls say.

Dave Lane
09-21-2011, 05:54 PM
It's a calculated strategy. This race is going to turn into a 3 person race in the long term (Mitt or Perry vs. Obama vs. Paul). Paul will need to swing Obama voters if he wants to win. By doing this now, he can attract disillusioned voters into the "blue republican" caucus and boost his numbers. He's not expecting he's going to swing a bunch of neocons into his camp. The campaign recognizes that they have to build a new coalition, and it has to be built now or never.

So after this gets squashed like a bug on a light speed freight train, will you finally be willing to jump off the bandwagon and on to reality?

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:54 PM
so why would you vote for paul if it means helping obama win?

Durrrr...


The best thing about you? You're 63 years old which means you don't have much longer on here to disgrace humanity.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 05:54 PM
He is full of shit, Paul is a true conservative. Anyone with that line of thinking would vote for that shitbag Mitt before voting for Barry. This idiot is scrambling to save face when it is clear he is in over his head in this discussion~

Is that why Mitt Romney polls better with the Conservative Tea Party groups?

Dave Lane
09-21-2011, 05:55 PM
That's not what the polls say.

It would make Paul look like Tyrone vs Epic Beard Man.

Rand call the ambulamps!!

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 05:59 PM
Gonna have to disagree with equating Paul to Perot. Perot dropped out when it looked like he was going to win. Afterall, this phony outsider ran to help get Clinton elected until it looked like he could win. Perot made his money off govt contracts. He was never really going to rock the boat. Perot was a Constitutional illiterate wanting to run the country on polls as if we're a direct participatory democracy which would have been a disaster. Paul is NO Ross Perot and the sentiments are different this time in this country. Then it was only the economy, this time it's the economy but as part of the larger feeling that the country is on the wrong track a sentiment which began under Bush.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 06:01 PM
The problem with that argument is that if I vote for Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, then I'm helping to elect Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. Why would I want to do that?

It is a bad situation we are in. I really think if Paul was 10 to 15 years younger he could have made a race out of it as a republican this election. At this point we have to pick the less of two evils. It stuns me the right could not come up with someone who was able to make this a blowout. Barry is as beatable as W was last time. Just another election closer to a 3rd party candidate being taken serious, we are not there yet but we are getting there~

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 06:02 PM
Perot was filthy rich and had enough money to compete in a general election. It would be very hard for Paul to do so.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2011, 06:03 PM
It is a bad situation we are in. I really think if Paul was 10 to 15 years younger he could have made a race out of it as a republican this election. At this point we have to pick the less of two evils. It stuns me the right could not come up with someone who was able to make this a blowout. Barry is as beatable as W was last time. Just another election closer to a 3rd party candidate being taken serious, we are not there yet but we are getting there~

What's wrong with a strongly R House and Senate? Our system is based on legislative power more than presidential. A president is not even supposed to craft legislation. I think this scenario is workable for the time being.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 06:04 PM
Wow.

newtgingrich Newt Gingrich
@ @David_Kretzmann there is no question ron paul was the first serious national leader to take on federal reserve history will recognize him

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 06:06 PM
What's wrong with a strongly R House and Senate? Our system is based on legislative power more than presidential. A president is not even supposed to craft legislation. I think this scenario is workable for the time being.

Whole new topic. Even labeling the POTUS as a figure head we are in need of a change~

go bowe
09-21-2011, 06:15 PM
Durrrr...


The best thing about you? You're 63 years old which means you don't have much longer on here to disgrace humanity.

oh billay...

i'll be here long enough to continue to enjoy your ridiculous takes and marvelous reading comprehension skills...

besides, you will die in an aids fire fueled by antifreeze long before i kick the bucket...

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2011, 06:37 PM
I love you too

Taco John
09-21-2011, 08:07 PM
so why would you vote for paul if it means helping obama win?


When I vote for Paul, I am voting against Obama. I'm also voting against Mitt Perry. I see little difference in whether Mitt Perry wins, or whether Obama wins from my point of view. It's like voting for whether I'd like to drive off a cliff in a VW Bus or a Chevy Luv.

But that said, I refuse to see my vote as voting against things. I vote for my preferred candidate.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 08:23 PM
He will "Nader" the Republicans and that is all. He should be very proud he is the strongest factor in getting the current embarrassment re-elected :shake:

I'm perfectly ok with that. I'm not in a coalition with the single goal of supplanting Obama. I'm working to get Ron Paul elected. I don't intend to vote for lesser of evils. I intend to vote for the right person for the job. If you want to split the vote by voting for a lesser candidate because they're prettier and "more electable," I'm not here to stop you. You vote for what you think is right. But don't hold any illusions that I'm going to change my vote. The Paul base is going to vote Paul in November with or without you. I don't expect this is news to anyone. We did it in 2008, and we will do it in even greater numbers in 2012.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 08:42 PM
When I vote for Paul, I am voting against Obama. I'm also voting against Mitt Perry. I see little difference in whether Mitt Perry wins, or whether Obama wins from my point of view. It's like voting for whether I'd like to drive off a cliff in a VW Bus or a Chevy Luv.

But that said, I refuse to see my vote as voting against things. I vote for my preferred candidate.

as you should, as you should...

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 09:47 AM
Sorry, Ron Paul fans. The latest from Rasmussen shows that Paul has slipped to sixth place with 6%. He now trails Perry, Romney (who closed the gap from 11% to 4% since the last Rasmussen poll), Gingrich, Bachmann, and Cain.

He is, however, slightly outpolling Huntsman and Saul Good.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Saul votes based on polls—not integrity and for real change.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2011, 10:59 AM
Saul votes based on polls—not integrity and for real change.

In other words, Saul understands how the two party system and plurality elections work. :shrug:

America has thrived without the "integrity and real change" of Eugene Debs, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader. America will overcome our current crisis and continue to thrive without the ideological dogma of the lunatic fringe that Ron Paul represents....thank you very much.

Paul's ideas that have merit, and that are embraced by a bipartisan consensus, may survive even if his candidacy will become another third party footnote in history. Chin-up, BEP.

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 11:07 AM
Saul votes based on polls—not integrity and for real change.

The person with whom I agree more than any other is me. I have no chance to win, though. Therefore, I don't write-in Saul Good. Instead, I find a viable candidate to support while understanding that I will not support 100% of his views.

If that means I vote based on the polls in your world, so be it. It won't be the first time you've mischaracterized my positions with asinine labels.

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 11:07 AM
Saul doesn't even know what a delegate is lets not confuse him with how an election works.

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 11:16 AM
I understand how an election works.

Step 1: Paul supporters post a bunch of straw polls showing that Paul is going to win.

Step 2: Paul draws 2% of the actual vote, losing in a landslide.

Step 3: ???????

Step 4: Profit

Taco John
09-22-2011, 11:21 AM
Sorry, Ron Paul fans. The latest from Rasmussen shows that Paul has slipped to sixth place with 6%. He now trails Perry, Romney (who closed the gap from 11% to 4% since the last Rasmussen poll), Gingrich, Bachmann, and Cain.

He is, however, slightly outpolling Huntsman and Saul Good.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary

He's out polling Perry in New Hampshire.

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 11:21 AM
You sit at home unemployed posting in this section pretending that you have a clue. You call yourself a conservative then make a thread proposing the government buys everyones house and propose tax increases. You're like a bad comedy.

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 11:22 AM
He's out polling Perry in New Hampshire.

Iowa/New Hampshire mean nothing. National Polls mean everything/ Saul

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 11:24 AM
He's out polling Perry in New Hampshire.

Good. I'd prefer Paul to Perry. Perry is the new Huckabee.

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 11:28 AM
You sit at home unemployed posting in this section pretending that you have a clue. You call yourself a conservative then make a thread proposing the government buys everyones house and propose tax increases. You're like a bad comedy.

Its a sweet house, though. It would be even better if I could screen in the porch.

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 11:33 AM
You got a hot tub?

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 11:35 AM
You got a hot tub?

Nope. I'd probably get one if I screened in my patio, but that doesn't look like its going to happen.

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 11:38 AM
Why not? That can't be too expensive.

go bowe
09-22-2011, 11:39 AM
a vote for saul is a vote for progress...

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 11:55 AM
Why not? That can't be too expensive.

My house is stucco all the way around, and my deck has big, arched pillars. Had some contractors come out, and it would be a huge hassle and probably wouldn't look right unless I dropped a fortune. I'm not willing to spend 15 grand for some screens.

Check this thread. Its got some pics of Casa del Saul, and you even get a shout-out. You might have been banned at the time.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242107

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 12:24 PM
My house is stucco all the way around, and my deck has big, arched pillars. Had some contractors come out, and it would be a huge hassle and probably wouldn't look right unless I dropped a fortune. I'm not willing to spend 15 grand for some screens.

Check this thread. Its got some pics of Casa del Saul, and you even get a shout-out. You might have been banned at the time.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242107

Nice looking house. South Joco would be my guess but it doesn't look like a cookie cutter.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 12:28 PM
Nice looking house. South Joco would be my guess but it doesn't look like a cookie cutter.

I like mine more. Plus I have a pool large enough to swim laps.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-22-2011, 12:51 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AW08qK0GhHs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AW08qK0GhHs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 01:20 PM
I like mine more. Plus I have a pool large enough to swim laps.

Its not a contest, woman. Any pics? I'm envisioning something out of Alice in Wonderland.

Saul Good
09-22-2011, 01:22 PM
Nice looking house. South Joco would be my guess but it doesn't look like a cookie cutter.

Most of the neighborhood is cookie cutter. Mine is custom built.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 02:18 PM
Its not a contest, woman. Any pics? I'm envisioning something out of Alice in Wonderland.

I'm just teasin' ya.* At least Alice led an adventurous life.


eventhough I own two

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 02:25 PM
Here:
http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/taj_mahal/images/taj_page_pix/tajmahal_large2.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
09-22-2011, 02:28 PM
Here:
http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/taj_mahal/images/taj_page_pix/tajmahal_large2.jpg

meh, i had a couple in the backyard and sold both of them.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 02:29 PM
meh, i had a couple in the backyard and sold both of them.

Another, reason to not want to close loopholes like the mortgage deduction on one's second home.

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 02:33 PM
I like mine more. Plus I have a pool large enough to swim laps.

Don't you live in Florida? Lucky you don't have winter.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 03:04 PM
Don't you live in Florida? Lucky you don't have winter.

Central west coast a few blocks from the Gulf...just a wee bit out of the flood zone, although they could have changed that.

Mines relatively new though, modern with cathedral ceilings, a skylight and a bathroom partly in a garden. I love it but I need money to fix some rundown areas. They don't have curb appeal here but inside it's really nice. I go to the Taj when I need curb appeal. LMAO

RedNeckRaider
09-22-2011, 04:15 PM
I'm perfectly ok with that. I'm not in a coalition with the single goal of supplanting Obama. I'm working to get Ron Paul elected. I don't intend to vote for lesser of evils. I intend to vote for the right person for the job. If you want to split the vote by voting for a lesser candidate because they're prettier and "more electable," I'm not here to stop you. You vote for what you think is right. But don't hold any illusions that I'm going to change my vote. The Paul base is going to vote Paul in November with or without you. I don't expect this is news to anyone. We did it in 2008, and we will do it in even greater numbers in 2012.

I support your right to vote for whoever you choose. This noble symbolic vote helps you feel good about yourself. That does not lessen the fact you will do nothing more than help the incumbent if you vote for him after he loses the Republican nomination. Knowing you threw away your vote and helped the exact opposite of him be re-elected will be alleviated by you stating proudly "I did not vote for him!" when in all reality you did~

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 04:33 PM
Throwing away your vote? Please. Was voting for McCain throwing away your vote?

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 04:35 PM
Throwing away your vote? Please. Was voting for McCain throwing away your vote?

Al Gore can better address the idea of a wasted vote.....

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Al Gore can better address the idea of a wasted vote.....

No shit the worst candidate since John Kerry.

RedNeckRaider
09-22-2011, 04:59 PM
Throwing away your vote? Please. Was voting for McCain throwing away your vote?

Oh. Billay, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now~

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 05:19 PM
Oh. Billay, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now~

Were you 1 of those guys who voted for John McCain only to protest the size of government less than 6 months later?

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 06:35 PM
Were you 1 of those guys who voted for John McCain only to protest the size of government less than 6 months later?

Good question.

Brainiac
09-22-2011, 06:44 PM
I support your right to vote for whoever you choose. This noble symbolic vote helps you feel good about yourself. That does not lessen the fact you will do nothing more than help the incumbent if you vote for him after he loses the Republican nomination. Knowing you threw away your vote and helped the exact opposite of him be re-elected will be alleviated by you stating proudly "I did not vote for him!" when in all reality you did~
Nailed it.

Rep.

Brainiac
09-22-2011, 06:46 PM
Throwing away your vote? Please. Was voting for McCain throwing away your vote?
When was McCain a 3rd party candidate?

Chocolate Hog
09-22-2011, 06:47 PM
When was McCain a 3rd party candidate?

He lost states that Republicans hadn't lose since the 60's. Nice spin.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2011, 07:04 PM
Nailed it.

Rep.

No he didn't. It's a cliche. Sorry RNR.

When you have evil Republicans in office, currently like Boehner, Cantor and most of the other Republicans who —" tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1." ( See link)—you're not really voting for anyone different.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/conservatives-stop-new-boehner-cr-permitted-funding-obamacare-planned-parenthood

Only 48 House Republicans opposed this. Their names are in the link but it is posters pushing us to vote for an R any R so long as it gets Obama out, would label "fringe." The 182 House Dems that opposed it did so for other reasons.

Anyhow, this country is not going to be taken back until more people wake up and smell the coffee.

RubberSponge
09-23-2011, 04:36 AM
I support your right to vote for whoever you choose. This noble symbolic vote helps you feel good about yourself. That does not lessen the fact you will do nothing more than help the incumbent if you vote for him after he loses the Republican nomination. Knowing you threw away your vote and helped the exact opposite of him be re-elected will be alleviated by you stating proudly "I did not vote for him!" when in all reality you did~

That is a losing position. The Republican party will not beat Obama with Romney or Perry. The base voters are already settled. The Dem base will vote for Obama and the Repub base will vote for whoever gets the nomination. Where the winner will come from and they must be able to appeal to young voters, minority voters, independent voters and even Dem voters like myself who are hugely upset with Obama. Those voters(like myself) will not vote for Romney or Perry, under any circumstances. But make no mistake, we will still vote. Just not for your side if you go the path of Romney or Perry.

If Republicans want to win in 2012. There is only one choice for them. Ron Paul.

But most of you like to bitch and moan. You're extremely good at. So I can see you shooting yourself in the foot.

ROYC75
09-23-2011, 07:09 AM
That is a losing position. The Republican party will not beat Obama with Romney or Perry. The base voters are already settled. The Dem base will vote for Obama and the Repub base will vote for whoever gets the nomination. Where the winner will come from and they must be able to appeal to young voters, minority voters, independent voters and even Dem voters like myself who are hugely upset with Obama. Those voters(like myself) will not vote for Romney or Perry, under any circumstances. But make no mistake, we will still vote. Just not for your side if you go the path of Romney or Perry.

If Republicans want to win in 2012. There is only one choice for them. Ron Paul.

But most of you like to bitch and moan. You're extremely good at. So I can see you shooting yourself in the foot.

Exceptions to the rule apply here, you are an exception.I agree that Perry will not beat Obama, I's and ticked off D's will not vote for Perry. But Romney can swing enough votes to beat Obama. I also agree that Paul, Huntsman or possibly Johnson if he can get the country on board, is capable of pulling enough I's to the polls.

I just don't see one of the others capable of getting the I's to vote for them ( Newt, Michelle, Rick, Perry ).

TEX
09-23-2011, 07:21 AM
We will. There aren't enough R voters that will get behind one candidate. I know I have no intention of voting for either Romney or Perry.

Well if it comes to that, you will hopefully change your intentions. Even on their worst day, either would be better than Obama...Getting the country back on track is a step by step process. 1st step is voting NObama out of office. So, if you don't like either one, and one wins the nomination, I'd look at it as voting against Obama and his policies...Just my take.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 08:04 AM
Well if it comes to that, you will hopefully change your intentions. Even on their worst day, either would be better than Obama...Getting the country back on track is a step by step process. 1st step is voting NObama out of office. So, if you don't like either one, and one wins the nomination, I'd look at it as voting against Obama and his policies...Just my take.

Not if either one of them starts another war or bombs Iran. Nope sorry. Although Obama could do that eventually too.

ROYC75
09-23-2011, 08:38 AM
Not if either one of them starts another war or bombs Iran. Nope sorry. Although Obama could do that eventually too.

I do not think Obama would. Iran is a tiny nation and Obama is soft on FP.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 08:41 AM
I do not think Obama would. Iran is a tiny nation and Obama is soft on FP.

That's why he went along with bombing Libya and allows drones elsewhere? Sorry, I don't see it. Even Bill Kristol called him a born-again NeoCon.

But if true, for arguments sake, I could have another 4 years of him so long as there are more Rs in congress to stymie him on domestic policy. But so far most of the Rs are voting for a continuing resolution to fund Obamacare instead.

RubberSponge
09-23-2011, 08:45 AM
Exceptions to the rule apply here, you are an exception.I agree that Perry will not beat Obama, I's and ticked off D's will not vote for Perry. But Romney can swing enough votes to beat Obama. I also agree that Paul, Huntsman or possibly Johnson if he the country on board, is capable of pulling enough I's to the polls.

I just don't see one of the others capable of getting the I's to vote for them ( Newt, Michelle, Rick, Perry ).

I wholeheartedly disagree. Romney has zero appeal over Obama for young voters, minority voters and Dem voters. Either they will pull the lever for Obama with their eyes closed, or simply vote for the more libertarian candidate.

It will be another 4yrs of moaning and groaning from your side if you decide to plant your seeds with Romney.

VAChief
09-23-2011, 09:10 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree. Romney has zero appeal over Obama for young voters, minority voters and Dem voters. Either they will pull the lever for Obama with their eyes closed, or simply vote for the more libertarian candidate.

It will be another 4yrs of moaning and groaning from your side if you decide to plant your seeds with Romney.

Romney is the one Obama should fear facing. I like Paul's theoretical views, but practically he most likely would be neutered legislatively by Congress.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 09:18 AM
Romney is the one Obama should fear facing. I like Paul's theoretical views, but practically he most likely would be neutered legislatively by Congress.

I don't think he'd be completely neutered legislatively.

For one he would provide some leadership for the cowardly Rs. Since, he's only going to try to bring the budget back to 2008 or 2000, that's not extreme. Only a hard leftist or socialist who wants us to be like a European social democracy would oppose that.

He won't get everything though....but it will be on his more unconventional stands. Although a few of those are actually coming into favor such as on the Fed on both sides of the aisle. This is all okay by me so long as we're moving toward less govt without rocking the boat too much.

Paul would have more leeway on FP which for me, is the what I like most. But govt will at least stop growing. Under Mitt it will continue to grow. That you can count on. So I can see liberals making this claim that Mitt would be better, because is really a Democrat just not as extreme is someone like Obama.

RedNeckRaider
09-23-2011, 09:25 AM
That is a losing position. The Republican party will not beat Obama with Romney or Perry. The base voters are already settled. The Dem base will vote for Obama and the Repub base will vote for whoever gets the nomination. Where the winner will come from and they must be able to appeal to young voters, minority voters, independent voters and even Dem voters like myself who are hugely upset with Obama. Those voters(like myself) will not vote for Romney or Perry, under any circumstances. But make no mistake, we will still vote. Just not for your side if you go the path of Romney or Perry.

If Republicans want to win in 2012. There is only one choice for them. Ron Paul.

But most of you like to bitch and moan. You're extremely good at. So I can see you shooting yourself in the foot.
I am not republican, but I am willing to vote for anyone who has a chance to remove the current embarrassment out of office~

Taco John
09-23-2011, 09:30 AM
Well if it comes to that, you will hopefully change your intentions. Even on their worst day, either would be better than Obama...Getting the country back on track is a step by step process. 1st step is voting NObama out of office. So, if you don't like either one, and one wins the nomination, I'd look at it as voting against Obama and his policies...Just my take.

Don't count on it. I'm voting a guy into office, not to get a guy out of office. I'm voting for Ron Paul. If you guys want to elect Mitt Kerry into office, that's up to you, but I'm not going to be participating in that.

Taco John
09-23-2011, 09:35 AM
Romney is the one Obama should fear facing. I like Paul's theoretical views, but practically he most likely would be neutered legislatively by Congress.

You're wrong. Ron Paul would be the one with the veto pen. He would be the one doing the neutering.

"You don't seem to understand - I'm not locked in here with you... YOU'RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!"

Radar Chief
09-23-2011, 09:39 AM
You're wrong. Ron Paul would be the one with the veto pen. He would be the one doing the neutering.

"You don't seem to understand - I'm not locked in here with you... YOU'RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!"

/Rorschach

I’d take Paul over Romney and Obama but I’d take any of the three mentioned over Obama.

TEX
09-23-2011, 09:51 AM
Not if either one of them starts another war or bombs Iran. Nope sorry. Although Obama could do that eventually too.

I was speaking in general terms. Shoot "anything" is possible. However, I feel at least some lessons were learned.

Dave Lane
09-23-2011, 09:55 AM
bathroom partly in a garden.

That's one way to cut down on fertilizer.

Dave Lane
09-23-2011, 09:56 AM
/Rorschach

I’d take Paul over Romney and Obama but I’d take any of the three mentioned over Obama.

So you're saying you would take Obama over Obama?

TEX
09-23-2011, 09:57 AM
Don't count on it. I'm voting a guy into office, not to get a guy out of office. I'm voting for Ron Paul. If you guys want to elect Mitt Kerry into office, that's up to you, but I'm not going to be participating in that.

You gotta do what you feel best in doing. Someone with my take on things will see it as a wasted vote in the long run, but at least you will stay true to your principles...that means "something." I can only hope the majority of others don't think like that becasue Obama staying in office would be far worse than any of the Republicans currently running being elected.

Taco John
09-23-2011, 10:01 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree. Romney has zero appeal over Obama for young voters, minority voters and Dem voters. Either they will pull the lever for Obama with their eyes closed, or simply vote for the more libertarian candidate.

It will be another 4yrs of moaning and groaning from your side if you decide to plant your seeds with Romney.


Mitt Kerry cannot get elected. The Tea Party wont vote for him. Young republicans won't vote for him. The same people who gave us John McCain will vote for him, and the same result will come out of it: Obama will get elected.

If someone wants to vote for Mitt Kerry, I'm not stopping them. But we've seen it again and again - these guys don't win. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney. These guys don't win. The only people who turn out to vote for these guys are the "we got to keep the other guy out of office" folks. There's not enough of these types to win an election. Only someone who can appeal to both the ideological base as well as the moderates can win. George W. Bush appealed to the ideological base. Reagan appealed to the ideological base, AND attracted people from the democrats own party. George HW Bush was one of the other types, but he rode in on Reagan's coattails and benefitted by having a Mitt Kerry to run against in Dukakis.

TEX
09-23-2011, 10:03 AM
/Rorschach

I’d take Paul over Romney and Obama but I’d take any of the three mentioned over Obama.

:clap: EXACTLY! - I know what you mean. That's what it's gonna take to get Obama out of office. Much harder for him to defeat a unified party, even if it's simply unified on the surface, aimed at getting him out of office. The Republican's could still F-this thing up, and I'm not talking about the candidates. That of course goes without saying.

vailpass
09-23-2011, 10:15 AM
How does any vote for him help Obama? You are under the assumption that all these people would support Perry or Romney if Paul wasn't in the race? Polling has proved this to not be the case. You can't explain why either because it's something you've either heard or read.

OMFG

vailpass
09-23-2011, 10:16 AM
Oh. Billay, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now~

Leave the shotgun.

Saul Good
09-23-2011, 10:19 AM
Romney would absolutely beat Obama. Tea Partiers not voting for Romney will be about as common as PUMAs who didn't vote for Obama.

Mr. Kotter
09-23-2011, 11:42 AM
.....Only someone who can appeal to both the ideological base as well as the moderates can win....

And that's precisely why Paul can not win; moderates know Paul is a kook.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 11:53 AM
And that's precisely why Paul can not win; moderates know Paul is a kook.

That's why two polls show he carries more Independents. :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 11:55 AM
Looks like even Huntsman is moving up. I wonder if it was his FP statement to Santorum on "Pakistan can take care of itself." Afterall, that aligns with the 73% that are sick of war. Even I liked that about Huntsman. Very nice! One has to wonder how much those pushing the lead clowns are underestimating this issue. Could Huntsman be the dark horse? Then again, this is a university poll and I hear they're not that reliable.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JViVLY_BRz4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Taco John
09-23-2011, 12:20 PM
Romney would absolutely beat Obama. Tea Partiers not voting for Romney will be about as common as PUMAs who didn't vote for Obama.

They're going to go from protesting him (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/tea-party-groups-to-protest-romney-in-n-h/) to voting for him? Mitt Kerry might get the "Kotters" of the tea party who are just there because the wind has been blowing in that direction and they like to follow the popular trends, but he's not going to draw the base of them. If McCain couldn't get them, what makes you think Mitt Kerry can?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2011, 12:44 PM
They're going to go from protesting him (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/tea-party-groups-to-protest-romney-in-n-h/) to voting for him? Mitt Kerry might get the "Kotters" of the tea party who are just there because the wind has been blowing in that direction and they like to follow the popular trends, but he's not going to draw the base of them. If McCain couldn't get them, what makes you think Mitt Kerry can?

I'll vote for the dog catcher before i cast it for Mitt Kerry/Soetoro.

BigChiefFan
09-23-2011, 12:51 PM
I'll vote for the dog catcher before i cast it for Mitt Kerry/Soetoro.Same with Perry in my opinion. Ron Paul sends the message many in this country want to convey and I don't see many I would vote for outside of him.

RedNeckRaider
09-23-2011, 02:44 PM
I'll vote for the dog catcher before i cast it for Mitt Kerry/Soetoro.

Well if it comes to that vote for Barry, although you will be giving dog catchers a bad name with that vote~

Chocolate Hog
09-23-2011, 02:51 PM
I do not think Obama would. Iran is a tiny nation and Obama is soft on FP.

We're gonna have 4 more years of Obama. Your senator will be a strong candidate next go around.

RedNeckRaider
09-23-2011, 03:26 PM
I do not think Obama would. Iran is a tiny nation and Obama is soft on FP.

You are naive if you think the US wants to tumble with Iran in conventional warfare. W invaded Iraq because he could setup the necessary infrastructure to facilitate a victory against an inferior opponent. Many people think he was finishing his daddy's war and they are wrong. He and his advisors picked a fight where they knew they could win. He avoided serious action in Afghanistan because he or his advisors were smart enough to know it was not winnable. Americans want to believe we are so superior that we can just appear anywhere and whip any countries ass with ease. This is simply not the case less an all in nuclear attack.

The days of marching a mass of men across a foreign country throwing casualties to the wind are long gone. Americans want play station type wars where we dominate with smart bombs and small causalty counts on our side. This is not the case with Iran or Afghanistan for that matter. Less turning them into glass it will be ugly and painful. A real war if you will and something we do not need and something this country no longer has the stomach for no matter who is the president~

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 03:40 PM
Well, I meant bombing Iran—as a bare minimum. That to me is starting a war.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2011, 10:31 PM
Well if it comes to that vote for Barry, although you will be giving dog catchers a bad name with that vote~

The Dog Catcher is underrated.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2011, 10:52 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lsjsudcaHJg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lsjsudcaHJg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Ace Gunner
09-23-2011, 10:55 PM
Looks like even Huntsman is moving up. I wonder if it was his FP statement to Santorum on "Pakistan can take care of itself." Afterall, that aligns with the 73% that are sick of war. Even I liked that about Huntsman. Very nice! One has to wonder how much those pushing the lead clowns are underestimating this issue. Could Huntsman be the dark horse? Then again, this is a university poll and I hear they're not that reliable.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JViVLY_BRz4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

hahaha. the media is ignoring Paul because the rep party doesn't like him? wait, I thought the media is liberal? what a bunch of garbage. a bunch of corrupt garbage and my teenage kids see right through it as do many young people.

Taco John
09-24-2011, 12:14 AM
hahaha. the media is ignoring Paul because the rep party doesn't like him? wait, I thought the media is liberal? what a bunch of garbage. a bunch of corrupt garbage and my teenage kids see right through it as do many young people.


The media is corporatist. But this is a new era. The media matters, but it matters less and less every year, certainly with children. I don't think Ron Paul is going to win this election. It's my belief that the Fed will be able to keep the bubble afloat through the election cycle, and the only way Paul wins is with a dollar event that wakes people up about the dollar itself, and forces the media to start asking the candidates about it. The only way Paul wins this election is if the Federal Reserve becomes a focus in the debate, and that isn't going to happen without a dollar event.

I don't know if your kids know anything about that.

go bowe
09-24-2011, 09:38 AM
wow, we had a dollar event the other day...

it was at a wedding reception and they called it the dollar dance... :) :) :)