PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Ron Paul VS Rick Perry


Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 02:44 PM
<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kUHlIPJTMIg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rick Perry is a political machine but how do you crush a guy who doesn't give a fuck about what he says?

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 02:45 PM
Perry responds:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/06/blast-from-the-past-ron-paul-quits-the-republican-party/

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Perry responds:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/06/blast-from-the-past-ron-paul-quits-the-republican-party/

Look at the comments—a bunch of squealing pigs in mud with lies about him not wanting a strong military.:deevee:

Paul was right to resign. It just depends on the reasons. If they're not being Republican it's good enough in my book. He came back for his own purposes to help them see the light.

Donger
09-06-2011, 03:23 PM
Perry responds:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/06/blast-from-the-past-ron-paul-quits-the-republican-party/

LMAO

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 03:29 PM
LMAO

Are you laughing at it being called "hot air" ? Or is it your nerves, again?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 03:39 PM
RP gaining on Perry is he?

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 03:52 PM
RP gaining on Perry is he?
No. Just pointing out how the top two Republicans are liberals in Republican clothing.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 03:53 PM
RP gaining on Perry is he?

Not yet Perry's numbers will fall eventually. Ron Paul doesn't need to be doing this shit he needs to leave this kind of stuff to the professionals like Karl Rove. What he needs to do if he wants a bump in the polls is to roll out an economic plan.

Donger
09-06-2011, 03:54 PM
Are you laughing at it being called "hot air" ? Or is it your nerves, again?

No, I'm laughing at Ron Paul. I had forgotten that had a hissy back in 1987. Nice to see that he's consistent.

Why did he come back to the GOP, anyway?

Donger
09-06-2011, 03:55 PM
You people don't really think that Paul has a realistic chance at being the nominee, do you?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 03:56 PM
When do the yard signs go up?

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 03:56 PM
Not yet Perry's numbers will fall eventually. Ron Paul doesn't need to be doing this shit he needs to leave this kind of stuff to the professionals like Karl Rove.

Well it must be someone in his campaign. He's finally learning to attack unless it's someone else. Does Paul say " I am Ron Paul and I approve this message at the end?" I'll have to replay it to see.

What he needs to do if he wants a bump in the polls is to roll out an economic plan.

He has one.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 03:56 PM
No, I'm laughing at Ron Paul. I had forgotten that had a hissy back in 1987. Nice to see that he's consistent.

Why did he come back to the GOP, anyway?

To be fair he has been consistent all these years. There were probably better ways to go after Perry.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 04:01 PM
He does those words but it is his campaign. What the Perry response shows is that Paul is using positioning. He's positioning with Reagan because that's who Rs identify as matching Paul's vision. Although, it's at a rhetorical level though because Reagan didn't live up to all of what he said. ( not going to argue all the factors that led to that)

Taco John
09-06-2011, 04:04 PM
You people don't really think that Paul has a realistic chance at being the nominee, do you?


I think he has the same chance that Barry Goldwater had. But even then, that's a slim chance. I don't think Ron Paul is going to get the nomination. I think he'll end up running as an independent and showing strength for his platform by splitting the vote. I think the Republicans will make gains in both the house and the senate, but Obama will win re-election. He will essentially be a dead duck president.

patteeu
09-06-2011, 04:26 PM
Who else ran for President in 1988 trying to undo Ronald Reagan's revolution (and then tried to deceive the American people 24 years later by claiming to have stood with Reagan)?

Answer: Ron Paul

Edit: I see that Bo Pelini has already linked us to someone at HotAir who already made this point.

Donger
09-06-2011, 04:32 PM
He's positioning with Reagan because that's who Rs identify as matching Paul's vision.

You've got to be kidding me...

patteeu
09-06-2011, 04:36 PM
This isn't the first time that Ron Paul has tried to fool people into believing that he's on the same page Reagan was on.

Donger
09-06-2011, 04:37 PM
I think he has the same chance that Barry Goldwater had. But even then, that's a slim chance. I don't think Ron Paul is going to get the nomination. I think he'll end up running as an independent and showing strength for his platform by splitting the vote. I think the Republicans will make gains in both the house and the senate, but Obama will win re-election. He will essentially be a dead duck president.

Thanks for the answer.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 04:53 PM
This isn't the first time that Ron Paul has tried to fool people into believing that he's on the same page Reagan was on.

He was on the same page in 1976.

patteeu
09-06-2011, 04:58 PM
He was on the same page in 1976.

He's not today. When the going got tough and governing was required, Reagan looked around and Paul wasn't there. It appears that Paul is only good at criticism and opposition. In that way, he seems similar to our current President.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 05:00 PM
He's not today. When the going got tough and governing was required, Reagan looked around and Paul wasn't there. It appears that Paul is only good at criticism and opposition. In that way, he seems similar to our current President.

Perry was never on Reagans side. Like I said the ad should have been done differently but Ron Paul has been consistent for years now while Perry has changed to win elections. Theres only one conservative in this race from Texas and it isn't Rick Perry http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8184/bushlaugh.png

patteeu
09-06-2011, 05:15 PM
Perry was never on Reagans side. Like I said the ad should have been done differently but Ron Paul has been consistent for years now while Perry has changed to win elections. Theres only one conservative in this race from Texas and it isn't Rick Perry.

I don't have a problem with a politician who changes for the better over a 24 year period. And not only did Perry change, Al Gore transitioned from a fairly conservative democrat to left wing whack job during the same period.

BTW, what party was Ronald Reagan in 24 years before he ran for President the first time?

Answer: democrat party

Dave Lane
09-06-2011, 05:21 PM
<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kUHlIPJTMIg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rick Perry is a political machine but how do you crush a guy who doesn't give a **** about what he says?

Dumbest ad I've ever seen. Seriously if that's the best he can do yuk...

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 05:23 PM
I don't have a problem with a politician who changes for the better over a 24 year period. And not only did Perry change, Al Gore transitioned from a fairly conservative democrat to left wing whack job during the same period.

BTW, what party was Ronald Reagan in 24 years before he ran for President the first time?

Answer: democrat party

Reagan became a Republican in the 1950's and atleast his views actually changed. Rick Perry changed because Democrats don't have a chance in Texas. Put party affiliation aside and look at his record. Pro-amnesty, Pro-bailout, Pro-Hilary care. This guy is nothing more than a political opportunist. I would like to see a real conservatives get elected.

patteeu
09-06-2011, 05:28 PM
Reagan became a Republican in the 1950's and atleast his views actually changed.

Right, like I said, he was a full blown democrat 24 years before he ran for POTUS.


Rick Perry changed because Democrats don't have a chance in Texas. Put party affiliation aside and look at his record. Pro-amnesty, Pro-bailout, Pro-Hilary care. This guy is nothing more than a political opportunist. I would like to see a real conservatives get elected.

I'm not in this thread to support Rick Perry. He may be a complete fraud for all I know. I'm in this thread pointing out the fraudulence of Ron Paul's ad. The guy seems to have made it a habit of pretending to be an extension of Ronald Reagan when the truth is that he turned his back on Reagan and left Reagan's Republican party.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 05:33 PM
Right, like I said, he was a full blown democrat 24 years before he ran for POTUS.




I'm not in this thread to support Rick Perry. He may be a complete fraud for all I know. I'm in this thread pointing out the fraudulence of Ron Paul's ad. The guy seems to have made it a habit of pretending to be an extension of Ronald Reagan when the truth is that he turned his back on Reagan and left Reagan's Republican party.

He was 1 of 4 congressmen to support Reagan. We've talked about this before but it wasn't Paul who turned his back on conservatism it was Reagan. Paul's positions have stayed the same ever since he was elected which is rare for a politician. Thats what they should have focused on.

And Reagan did endorse Paul. So did Gov. Bush in the 90's.

Donger
09-06-2011, 05:36 PM
Okay, so why did Paul rejoin the GOP?

patteeu
09-06-2011, 05:36 PM
He was 1 of 4 congressmen to support Reagan. We've talked about this before but it wasn't Paul who turned his back on conservatism it was Reagan. Paul's positions have stayed the same ever since he was elected which is rare for a politician. Thats what they should have focused on.

And Reagan did endorse Paul. So did Gov. Bush in the 90's.

It's a lot easier to a politician who never runs anything and never gets anything done to maintain a consistent, uncompromising position. Notice how Ron Paul cuts and runs when people he claims to agree with actually try to accomplish something in the real world.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 05:38 PM
It's a lot easier to a politician who never runs anything and never gets anything done to maintain a consistent, uncompromising position. Notice how Ron Paul cuts and runs when people he claims to agree with actually try to accomplish something in the real world.

The only one who cut and ran from there beliefs was Reagan.

patteeu
09-06-2011, 05:43 PM
The only one who cut and ran from there beliefs was Reagan.

I see. So Reagan cut and ran from Reagan's beliefs. Fine. At least you admit that Reagan and Ron Paul weren't on the same page when all was said and done. That's more honesty than we can get from BucEyedPea (or Ron Paul, himself, apparently).

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 05:46 PM
I see. So Reagan cut and ran from Reagan's beliefs. Fine. At least you admit that Reagan and Ron Paul weren't on the same page when all was said and done. That's more honesty than we can get from BucEyedPea (or Ron Paul, himself, apparently).

Reagan cut and ran from conservative beliefs when he was president did he not? I'm not defending the ad it's stupid and poorly communicates the point but at the same time I do think it has the right idea exposing Perry's phoney political beliefs. It's also gotten Paul some attention which is good at this point.

patteeu
09-06-2011, 05:50 PM
Reagan cut and ran from conservative beliefs when he was president did he not?

No, he didn't. What good does it do to refuse any and all compromise when that approach will inevitably lead to complete failure?

Saul Good
09-06-2011, 05:53 PM
No, he didn't. What good does it do to refuse any and all compromise when that approach will inevitably lead to complete failure?

You're asking a RP true believer this question? This ought to be good.

Pitt Gorilla
09-06-2011, 05:58 PM
I'm trying to figure out why Republicans/Tea Partiers aren't falling over themselves to elect Ron Paul. He's one of the few that isn't a smarmy haircut parroting some popular line. He's sincere and consistent, even when it's not popular. He was espousing "tea party" ideals long before the tea party was cool. How is this guy NOT the Republican leader?

Calcountry
09-06-2011, 05:58 PM
I don't have a problem with a politician who changes for the better over a 24 year period. And not only did Perry change, Al Gore transitioned from a fairly conservative democrat to left wing whack job during the same period.

BTW, what party was Ronald Reagan in 24 years before he ran for President the first time?

Answer: democrat partyYeah, I voted for Mondale;Dukakis;Clinton;Dole;Bush;Bush;McFriends. Looks like I wised up once I started paying taxes?

Donger
09-06-2011, 06:15 PM
I'm trying to figure out why Republicans/Tea Partiers aren't falling over themselves to elect Ron Paul. He's one of the few that isn't a smarmy haircut parroting some popular line. He's sincere and consistent, even when it's not popular. He was espousing "tea party" ideals long before the tea party was cool. How is this guy NOT the Republican leader?

Because he's a kook.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 06:20 PM
Because he's a kook.

Mitt Romeny believes that one day he will be given an entire planet to rule over and populate with his wife.

Michelle Bachmann is - well, she's Michelle Bachmann.

Perry campaigned for Al Gore, praised Hillarycare, and then switched to be a Republican when it was politically convenient to him, and now parrots Ron Paul applause lines on the stump.

Ron Paul believes in liberty. What a kook!

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 06:22 PM
I'm trying to figure out why Republicans/Tea Partiers aren't falling over themselves to elect Ron Paul. He's one of the few that isn't a smarmy haircut parroting some popular line. He's sincere and consistent, even when it's not popular. He was espousing "tea party" ideals long before the tea party was cool. How is this guy NOT the Republican leader?

May have a lot to do with his "the fed should be abolished" stand and his lets bring all our folks home and ignore the world stand. And his lets let everybody be an addict if they want stand.

RP has a few good ideas, a couple great ideas but he is like the Edsel...the car in total, not much good. Plus, an effective president has the ability to see good on both sides of the aisle and forms coalitions and finds the best idea, not the best idea that comes from one party. RP would have zero support from both sides and we would sit in a stew for 4 years. Sorta like Obama and his inability to bring his party toward the right and bring the right his way to actually do what needs to be done.

Ron is a fun watch. But President? No.

Pitt Gorilla
09-06-2011, 06:42 PM
May have a lot to do with his "the fed should be abolished" stand and his lets bring all our folks home and ignore the world stand. And his lets let everybody be an addict if they want stand.

RP has a few good ideas, a couple great ideas but he is like the Edsel...the car in total, not much good. Plus, an effective president has the ability to see good on both sides of the aisle and forms coalitions and finds the best idea, not the best idea that comes from one party. RP would have zero support from both sides and we would sit in a stew for 4 years. Sorta like Obama and his inability to bring his party toward the right and bring the right his way to actually do what needs to be done.

Ron is a fun watch. But President? No.Which of the candidates is campaigning on the "see good on both sides of the aisle" and "form coalitions" and "find the best idea regardless of side platform"?

patteeu
09-06-2011, 06:48 PM
Which of the candidates is campaigning on the "see good on both sides of the aisle" and "form coalitions" and "find the best idea regardless of side platform"?

Romney and Perry both have track records of governing effectively in a bipartisan environment.

BigChiefFan
09-06-2011, 06:52 PM
Ron Paul has the establishment shaking in their boots. Kook? Bullshit. His ideals are Constitutionally based. Since when did being for the Constitution equate to being a kook? Only to the status quo crooks.

The Ron Paul refusers are dinosaurs hanging on to what little they profess to know about politics. Keep grasping. It's fun to watch you squirm. If you aren't for the Constitution, you're against it.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 07:03 PM
Plus, an effective president has the ability to see good on both sides of the aisle and forms coalitions and finds the best idea, not the best idea that comes from one party.

You're wrong about this. Ron Paul works very well with the left to build coalitions. The audit of the Federal Reserve was a huge coalition building achievement. There are a lot of issues he would be able to advance through coalitions.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:10 PM
You're wrong about this. Ron Paul works very well with the left to build coalitions. The audit of the Federal Reserve was a huge coalition building achievement. There are a lot of issues he would be able to advance through coalitions.

I give him credit on his good stuff. Its his kookie stuff that sends me to take cover. That and his crazy zealot supporters. If people who like RP would occasionally say hey, some his ideas are kookie, Id like that.

But Im a neocon Hamiltonian closet lib. Or so i'm told.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 07:12 PM
Romney and Perry both have track records of governing effectively in a bipartisan environment.

47th in job creation is effective leadership?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:18 PM
47th in job creation is effective leadership?

Who is 1st in Job creation and what are the facts? Id like to see the entire list.

Saul Good
09-06-2011, 07:27 PM
The Ron Paul refusers are dinosaurs hanging on to what little they profess to know about politics. Keep grasping. It's fun to watch you squirm.

Yep. You RP fanatics have this race right where you want it. Everyone else is squirming.

Perry: 38
Romney: 23
Paul: 9

patteeu
09-06-2011, 07:27 PM
47th in job creation is effective leadership?

What are you talking about?

CoMoChief
09-06-2011, 07:29 PM
Texas govt has at least doubled in size since Perry got into office.

He's a fucking liberal in disguise. People need to wake up.

Why are people against Ron Paul....other than ridiculous answers like "he's a kook" or "he just can't win"....what is it about Paul that people don't like?

- He wants to audit/abolish the Fed, you know....the non-govt ran secret behind closed doors banking cartel that controls our money and has drove this country into the shitter.

- He doesn't want to be in war

- He wants less govt/ and less spending.

Just to name a few. He abides by the constitution, which hardly anyone in congress does anymore....he doesn't flip flop....he sticks to his word.

Ace Gunner
09-06-2011, 07:47 PM
I give him credit on his good stuff. Its his kookie stuff that sends me to take cover. That and his crazy zealot supporters. If people who like RP would occasionally say hey, some his ideas are kookie, Id like that.

But Im a neocon Hamiltonian closet lib. Or so i'm told.

yes because more of the same is not kooky.


To you.

SNR
09-06-2011, 07:52 PM
It's a lot easier to a politician who never runs anything and never gets anything done to maintain a consistent, uncompromising position. Notice how Ron Paul cuts and runs when people he claims to agree with actually try to accomplish something in the real world.Have you looked at Gary Johnson's record as a governor? Why is there no way Ron Paul could run a governmental organization like that?

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 07:57 PM
Perry campaigned for Al Gore, praised Hillarycare, and then switched to be a Republican when it was politically convenient to him, and now parrots Ron Paul applause lines on the stump.
Logic dictates this means Perry is a kook too.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:58 PM
Have you looked at Gary Johnson's record as a governor? Why is there no way Ron Paul could run a governmental organization like that?

Is he still running? He is pretty sharp.

What happened to him anyway?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:58 PM
Logic dictates this means Perry is a kook too.

Based on applause lines?

Donger
09-06-2011, 08:00 PM
Mitt Romeny believes that one day he will be given an entire planet to rule over and populate with his wife.

Michelle Bachmann is - well, she's Michelle Bachmann.

Perry campaigned for Al Gore, praised Hillarycare, and then switched to be a Republican when it was politically convenient to him, and now parrots Ron Paul applause lines on the stump.

Ron Paul believes in liberty. What a kook!

If it weren't for RP's foreign policy and a few other things, I'd be his biggest fan-boy.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:03 PM
Based on applause lines?

Do you know what that was referring to? It's referring Perry parroting Paul's lines on his stands. But you guys say those stands make Paul a kook. So why is Perry using them if they're so kooky? They're not. They're winning lines for a Paul that give him applause
with people that would vote Republican.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:03 PM
If it weren't for RP's foreign policy and a few other things, I'd be his biggest fan-boy.

But, but, but...you were against invading Iraq?

patteeu
09-06-2011, 08:12 PM
Have you looked at Gary Johnson's record as a governor? Why is there no way Ron Paul could run a governmental organization like that?

He's never demonstrated the ability or the aptitude for running anything. He's a career member of the opposition (regardless of which party is in power).

donkhater
09-06-2011, 08:13 PM
Some people are under the impression that just because a candidate believes in something, it will automatically come true if elected.

patteeu
09-06-2011, 08:16 PM
Some people are under the impression that just because a candidate believes in something, it will automatically come true if elected.

It sounds like you're talking about Ron Paul's disillusionment with Ronald Reagan (or billay's apology for it in this thread).

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 08:17 PM
He's never demonstrated the ability or the aptitude for running anything. He's a career member of the opposition (regardless of which party is in power).

Since both parties helped us get to this point i'd say thats a good thing.

Chocolate Hog
09-06-2011, 08:19 PM
What are you talking about?

Reporter Brett Arends looked at statistics from January 2003, when Romney took office, to January 2007, when he left, and reported:

During that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.

The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.

The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9 percent, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7 percent), California (4.7 percent) and North Carolina (7.6 percent).

The national average: More than 5 percent.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:25 PM
Reporter Brett Arends looked at statistics from January 2003, when Romney took office, to January 2007, when he left, and reported:

During that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.

The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.

The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9 percent, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7 percent), California (4.7 percent) and North Carolina (7.6 percent).

The national average: More than 5 percent.
Plus people are leaving the state since his version of Obamacare kicked in.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:38 PM
FromBrent Budowsky @ The Hill:


Remember where you heard it: Perry will self-destruct. The only question is how quickly — and the Ron Paul offensive is a major moment in the campaign.


The biggest story, in my view, is the pay-for-play Perry, who acts in the tradition of the biggest big-government believers by taking the Obama money and using it as leverage to auction off government programs and government posts to big donors.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 11:04 PM
Came here to post the Hill article... Thought it was a great read:


Ron Paul blasts Rick Perry
By Brent Budowsky - 09/06/11 01:52 PM ET

Labor Day has passed. The campaign has begun in earnest. And Ron Paul has launched a philosophy bomb against Rick Perry, which will probably be followed by a money bomb and a debate bomb by Paul. As The Hill reports, Ron Paul is taking out ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire for an ad blasting Perry for his staunch support of Al Gore in 1988, and comparing this to Ron Paul's early support for Ronald Reagan in 1976.

This is a significant moment in the campaign, because Ron Paul has philosophical credibility to drive home the point that Rick Perry is not a true conservative or a legitimate libertarian. I have been predicting that a debate blowup is coming between Paul and Perry, and Paul's attack ad sets the stage.

Labor Day has passed. The campaign has begun in earnest. And Ron Paul has launched a philosophy bomb against Rick Perry, which will probably be followed by a money bomb and a debate bomb by Paul. As The Hill reports, Ron Paul is taking out ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire for an ad blasting Perry for his staunch support of Al Gore in 1988, and comparing this to Ron Paul's early support for Ronald Reagan in 1976.

This is a significant moment in the campaign, because Ron Paul has philosophical credibility to drive home the point that Rick Perry is not a true conservative or a legitimate libertarian. I have been predicting that a debate blowup is coming between Paul and Perry, and Paul's attack ad sets the stage.

Personally I think it's wonderful that Rick Perry was a strong supporter of Al Gore. But praise from me, for Perry's praise for Gore, is not the stuff that Republican nominations are made of!

Of course, the latest Perry opposes Gore, while the earlier Perry championed Gore, and the newest Perry claims to be a fiscal conservative, while the real Perry gobbled up Obama stimulus money, which the new Perry said he opposed, before the current Perry took the money!

The biggest story, in my view, is the pay-for-play Perry, who acts in the tradition of the biggest big-government believers by taking the Obama money and using it as leverage to auction off government programs and government posts to big donors.

Now Ron Paul is on the attack, and he has the credibility to pull it off. Remember Donald Trump was the polling flavor of the month once, as Rick Perry is today. Juicy media reports will be coming soon, as Perry is vetted. If Ron Paul ups the ante with more television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire comparing himself to Perry, and launches this offensive in the televised debates, the fur will fly and the polls just might change dramatically.

Remember where you heard it: Perry will self-destruct. The only question is how quickly — and the Ron Paul offensive is a major moment in the campaign.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/179657-ron-paul-blasts-rick-perry

patteeu
09-07-2011, 06:36 AM
Reporter Brett Arends looked at statistics from January 2003, when Romney took office, to January 2007, when he left, and reported:

During that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.

The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.

The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9 percent, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7 percent), California (4.7 percent) and North Carolina (7.6 percent).

The national average: More than 5 percent.

What was the unemployment picture (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr.htm#SRGUNE) during that time period? Let me help you:

Year MA US
---- ---- ----
2003 5.8 6.0
2004 5.2 5.5
2005 4.8 5.1
2006 4.8 4.6
2007 4.5 4.6

That declining unemployment rate looks pretty good to me. It's hard to improve the employment picture when you're already beating the national average and the national average is at what's considered full employment.

Dave Lane
09-07-2011, 06:46 AM
I give him credit on his good stuff. Its his kookie stuff that sends me to take cover. That and his crazy zealot supporters. If people who like RP would occasionally say hey, some his ideas are kookie, Id like that.

But Im a neocon Hamiltonian closet lib. Or so i'm told.

You a lib. Holy shit.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 07:07 AM
What was the unemployment picture (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr.htm#SRGUNE) during that time period? Let me help you:

Year MA US
---- ---- ----
2003 5.8 6.0
2004 5.2 5.5
2005 4.8 5.1
2006 4.8 4.6
2007 4.5 4.6

That declining unemployment rate looks pretty good to me. It's hard to improve the employment picture when you're already beating the national average and the national average is at what's considered full employment.

That dirty SOB took unemployment from 5.8% to 4.5% while he was in office? Grab the pitchforks!

The majority of RP fans are just bomb-throwers of the worst order. I like Ron Paul, but I will NEVER associate myself with his fans.

If they ever wonder why he can't gain traction (and they always do), they should look in the mirror (they never will). It's the Howard Dean syndrome all over again.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 08:07 AM
That dirty SOB took unemployment from 5.8% to 4.5% while he was in office? Grab the pitchforks!

The majority of RP fans are just bomb-throwers of the worst order. I like Ron Paul, but I will NEVER associate myself with his fans.

If they ever wonder why he can't gain traction (and they always do), they should look in the mirror (they never will). It's the Howard Dean syndrome all over again.

Couldn't agree more.

Donger
09-07-2011, 08:13 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-drops-perry-surges-poll-155241606.html;_ylt=AtFjL5jkoNvORQAws9hJm56s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTRlbXY2Yzh2BGNjb2RlA3dlaWdodGVkY3QuYwRtaX QDTW9zdFBvcHVsYXIgRlAEcGtnA2JjNjhhMGQ3LTExYzEtMzYxZC04NzExLWM3NTE0ZjFjNWU1NQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDbW9zdF9wb3 B1bGFyBHZlcgMxY2I3ZjY1MC1kOGM1LTExZTAtYWNmOS04NWVkYzMwYzJlNWI-;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3

Meanwhile, the race for the Republican nomination increasingly appears to be a race between Perry and Mitt Romney. According to the poll, the Texas governor, who entered the race last month, now leads Romney, 38 percent to 23 percent in the GOP race. No other nominee moves beyond single digits, including Ron Paul (9 percent), Michele Bachmann (8 percent) and Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain (5 percent).

patteeu
09-07-2011, 08:24 AM
At the moment, I think Rick Perry combines the blank slate of candidate Obama with the slick political style of Bill Clinton. The former will go away because he has a record that will increasingly be exposed (for better or for worse). The latter may mask something conservatives wouldn't want or it may just be an effective political toolbox.

I'm not ready to fall for Perry yet, but I'm keeping my mind open about him despite disturbing similarities of style to Bill Clinton.

Dave Lane
09-07-2011, 08:27 AM
I pray for Perrys nomination (tic)

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 08:37 AM
That dirty SOB took unemployment from 5.8% to 4.5% while he was in office? Grab the pitchforks!

I thought govt didn't create jobs to those on the right? So you're all central planners now? You're gonna need those pitchforks afterall.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 08:43 AM
Yeah, Heaven forbid, people being enthusiastic about a candidate that actually adheres to the Constitution. Damn kooks.

Let's line up and support slime-balls that fuck us over-that's the ticket. Hip-hip-hooray.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 08:47 AM
Yeah, Heaven forbid, people being enthusiastic about a candidate that actually adheres to the Constitution. Damn kooks.

Logic dictates Donger woulda said that same about the original American Revolutionaries. The mainstream Republican promoters are the Tories of today.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 08:52 AM
Logic dictates Donger woulda said that same about the original American Revolutionaries. The mainstream Republican promoters are the Tories of today.

He's a limey. He wouldn't know true freedom if it bit him in the ass.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 08:53 AM
Yeah, Heaven forbid, people being enthusiastic about a candidate that actually adheres to the Constitution. Damn kooks.

Let's line up and support slime-balls that **** us over-that's the ticket. Hip-hip-hooray.

Be enthusiastic. That's great. That you can't seem to praise your own candidate without sliming everyone else and insulting the intelligence of everyone who is exploring their options is telling.

You can't seem to catch any flies no matter how much vinegar you poor, and it doesn't make sense to you. Ron Paulites, maybe we're just not that into you.

HonestChieffan
09-07-2011, 08:54 AM
Seems like a lot of stress is around......

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 08:56 AM
I thought govt didn't create jobs to those on the right? So you're all central planners now? You're gonna need those pitchforks afterall.

You can't blame politicians for destroying jobs and overseeing spiraling unemployment without acknowledging those who oversee remarkable prosperity.

Well I can't, anyway. Your cognitive dissonance seemingly knows no bounds.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 09:00 AM
Be enthusiastic. That's great. That you can't seem to praise your own candidate without sliming everyone else and insulting the intelligence of everyone who is exploring their options is telling.

You can't seem to catch any flies no matter how much vinegar you poor, and it doesn't make sense to you. Ron Paulites, maybe we're just not that into you.

NO, it's more like I'm sick of the establishment and those that continue to support them. Typically, I try to conduct myself in a manner that I would like to be treated, but after decades of the same 'ol rhetoric I can no longer accept the status-quo and the butt-fucking the nations taking, at the hands of these fools. Both parties don't seem to have a problem slinging mud, so it's time to fight fire with fire. Enough of the cordialness-the parties no longer deserve it.

Donger
09-07-2011, 09:00 AM
Yeah, Heaven forbid, people being enthusiastic about a candidate that actually adheres to the Constitution. Damn kooks.

Let's line up and support slime-balls that **** us over-that's the ticket. Hip-hip-hooray.

I don't mind if you people are enthusiastic about a nut.

Donger
09-07-2011, 09:01 AM
He's a limey. He wouldn't know true freedom if it bit him in the ass.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 09:03 AM
Be enthusiastic. That's great. That you can't seem to praise your own candidate without sliming everyone else and insulting the intelligence of everyone who is exploring their options is telling.

You can't seem to catch any flies no matter how much vinegar you poor, and it doesn't make sense to you. Ron Paulites, maybe we're just not that into you.

As I recall, I think you have engaged in some of this yourself as do many who condemn Paul using false terms and smear as "isolationist" or "kook" and "nut" even referring to his supporters as "kooks" in general and individually here in this forum. Repetitively even. In fact one just entered the thread while I was posting. I don't see you calling ANY of them out. Selective outrage.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 09:03 AM
I don't mind if you people are enthusiastic about a nut.Gee, we're all seeking your approval.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 09:05 AM
LMAO

The glee of insanity emerges. This happens when a person has difficulty confronting a situation or issue.

Donger
09-07-2011, 09:06 AM
Gee, we're all seeking your approval.

I was just responding to your rant about you people being enthusiastic.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 09:14 AM
I was just responding to your rant about you people being enthusiastic.

I know and we can't live without your approval.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 09:16 AM
You can't blame politicians for destroying jobs and overseeing spiraling unemployment without acknowledging those who oversee remarkable prosperity.

Well I can't, anyway. Your cognitive dissonance seemingly knows no bounds.

No, I think your accusation reveals it's you who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely, since you're the one who said he "took" jobs from... That means he did it, not the private sector.
Thank you for acknowledging the true level of govt love and statism by the right. We need a new party.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 09:19 AM
I'm absolutely thrilled that donger doesn't mind if I'm enthusiastic about a candidate. Glory be thy name. All is right in the world now. Oh, thank you so very, very much. All hail donger.

You're a legend in your own mind.

Donger
09-07-2011, 09:28 AM
I know and we can't live without your approval.

Sounds like a massive inferiority complex to me, honestly. I don't think that you want or need my support of your decision to back a kook.

Brainiac
09-07-2011, 10:02 AM
I thought govt didn't create jobs to those on the right? So you're all central planners now? You're gonna need those pitchforks afterall.
Creating a climate that is pro-business isn't central planning or job creation by the government.

But that was a nice strawman argument you threw out there.

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2011, 10:12 AM
What was the unemployment picture (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr.htm#SRGUNE) during that time period? Let me help you:

Year MA US
---- ---- ----
2003 5.8 6.0
2004 5.2 5.5
2005 4.8 5.1
2006 4.8 4.6
2007 4.5 4.6

That declining unemployment rate looks pretty good to me. It's hard to improve the employment picture when you're already beating the national average and the national average is at what's considered full employment.

Impressive spin. The only states ranked below Massachusetts were raided by China and the other was wiped out by a hurricane.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 10:13 AM
Creating a climate that is pro-business isn't central planning or job creation by the government.

But that was a nice strawman argument you threw out there.

Actually, no it wasn't a strawman...as I posted soon after it was his "choice of words " which showed the politician "took" jobs from there to there. That shows activist govt. Govt just needs to get out of the way—generally speaking. Never mind creating a "pro-business" environment for that could be the big govt mercantilist model of activist BIG govt, which is very much a part of un-free America. If it's a just Freudian slip it would still show a statist deep down.

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2011, 10:16 AM
For Romney, whose term began in 2003, those years would be 2002 and 2006. Federal data show that during that time Massachusetts added a scant 13,800 jobs—a 0.4 percent increase.


ROFL

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 10:19 AM
For Romney, whose term began in 2003, those years would be 2002 and 2006. Federal data show that during that time Massachusetts added a scant 13,800 jobs—a 0.4 percent increase.


ROFL

...and again, people are leaving the state for a reason.

Amnorix
09-07-2011, 10:22 AM
He's not today. When the going got tough and governing was required, Reagan looked around and Paul wasn't there. It appears that Paul is only good at criticism and opposition. In that way, he seems similar to our current President.


I actually view Paul as a modern day Patrick Henry, though without the great oratory skills (to say the least). Henry was a great force for political change and the Revolution, but he then staunchly opposed the adoption of the Constitution, preferred instead to keep the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation.

He argued for his position at the Virginia Constitutional Convention, but lost. Paul, if he could, would try to reposition the country to be operating as closely as possible under the Articles rather than the Constitution.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 10:51 AM
I actually view Paul as a modern day Patrick Henry, though without the great oratory skills (to say the least). Henry was a great force for political change and the Revolution, but he then staunchly opposed the adoption of the Constitution, preferred instead to keep the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation.
YET, ultimately he turned out to be 100% right—that the Constitution would usurp the states in their area and get too big for its britches threatening liberty and our rights. So much for dysfuntionality.

He argued for his position at the Virginia Constitutional Convention, but lost. Paul, if he could, would try to reposition the country to be operating as closely as possible under the Articles rather than the Constitution.
No Paul would NOT! This is nothing but your own pure opinion which simply reveals how much govt YOU prefer.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 10:58 AM
For Romney, whose term began in 2003, those years would be 2002 and 2006. Federal data show that during that time Massachusetts added a scant 13,800 jobs—a 0.4 percent increase.


ROFL

The state was at full employment. Hell, it was beyond full employment. If a GM takes over a team that has sold 98% of the seats of every game for the past 10 seasons and sells out every game his first season, you don't criticize him for not increasing ticket sales enough.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 10:59 AM
The state was at full employment. Hell, it was beyond full employment. If a GM takes over a team that has sold 98% of the seats of every game for the past 10 seasons and sells out every game his first season, you don't criticize him for not increasing ticket sales enough.

Yeah, but a GM is not the govt either.

BigChiefFan
09-07-2011, 11:09 AM
Sounds like a massive inferiority complex to me, honestly. I don't think that you want or need my support of your decision to back a kook.

No, it was stated to show you how obnoxious you sound. If the shoe fits...wear it.
Kook? Yep, it's kooky to adhere to the constitution. Sure thing, red-coat.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 11:12 AM
Impressive spin. The only states ranked below Massachusetts were raided by China and the other was wiped out by a hurricane.

A natural result of having a fully employed population is a low rate of job growth. You didn't think this one through, I guess.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 11:18 AM
Yeah, but a GM is not the govt either.

:facepalm:

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Sure thing, red-coat.

I LOVE it! :clap:

Tory, Tory, Hallejuiah!
Tory, Tory, Hallejuiah!
Tory, Tory, Hallejuiah!
Paul's truth is marching on.

Donger
09-07-2011, 11:43 AM
I LOVE it! :clap:

Tory, Tory, Hallejuiah!
Tory, Tory, Hallejuiah!
Tory, Tory, Hallejuiah!
Paul's truth is marching on.

I know you do, but you can't have it. I'm very much taken.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 11:45 AM
I know you do, but you can't have it. I'm very much taken.

Careful, I can see the "whites of y'er eyes!" :p

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 11:58 AM
An open letter from Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton

Dear Governor Perry,

After our campaign's first ad highlighting your Big Government record and support for liberal Al Gore, your campaign is attacking Dr. Paul - missing the point of why your past is important.

We don't think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here. The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one. Even you yourself, Governor Perry, said of your party switch, "I will still vote the same principles, only with an R after my name."

That's the kind of thinking that has our country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We cannot afford to nominate someone who thinks the letter next to their name is more important than what they believe.

Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.

It is that you supported Hillary Clinton's health care plan.

You pushed for a federal bailout and stimulus funds.

You support welfare for illegal immigrants.

You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.

You raised taxes twice.

And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.

It's that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.

Governor Perry, with all due respect, you have used great rhetoric. But you will have to answer to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country as to why that rhetoric does not match your record.

Truth indeed. By the way, here's the ad again.


For Liberty,


Jesse Benton
Campaign Chairman

go bowe
09-07-2011, 01:04 PM
No, I think your accusation reveals it's you who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely, since you're the one who said he "took" jobs from... That means he did it, not the private sector.
Thank you for acknowledging the true level of govt love and statism by the right. We need a new party.

oh hell yes...

you bring the booze and i'll bring the dog collar...

Taco John
09-07-2011, 01:37 PM
An open letter from Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton

Dear Governor Perry,

After our campaign's first ad highlighting your Big Government record and support for liberal Al Gore, your campaign is attacking Dr. Paul - missing the point of why your past is important.

We don't think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here. The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one. Even you yourself, Governor Perry, said of your party switch, "I will still vote the same principles, only with an R after my name."

That's the kind of thinking that has our country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We cannot afford to nominate someone who thinks the letter next to their name is more important than what they believe.

Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.

It is that you supported Hillary Clinton's health care plan.

You pushed for a federal bailout and stimulus funds.

You support welfare for illegal immigrants.

You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.

You raised taxes twice.

And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.

It's that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.

Governor Perry, with all due respect, you have used great rhetoric. But you will have to answer to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country as to why that rhetoric does not match your record.

Truth indeed. By the way, here's the ad again.


For Liberty,


Jesse Benton
Campaign Chairman



LMAO:LOL:LMAO:LOL::thumb:

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2011, 01:57 PM
There ya go thats how they should hit him.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 02:27 PM
An open letter from Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton

Dear Governor Perry,

After our campaign's first ad highlighting your Big Government record and support for liberal Al Gore, your campaign is attacking Dr. Paul - missing the point of why your past is important.

We don't think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here. The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one. Even you yourself, Governor Perry, said of your party switch, "I will still vote the same principles, only with an R after my name."

That's the kind of thinking that has our country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We cannot afford to nominate someone who thinks the letter next to their name is more important than what they believe.

Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.

It is that you supported Hillary Clinton's health care plan.

You pushed for a federal bailout and stimulus funds.

You support welfare for illegal immigrants.

You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.

You raised taxes twice.

And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.

It's that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.

Governor Perry, with all due respect, you have used great rhetoric. But you will have to answer to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country as to why that rhetoric does not match your record.

Truth indeed. By the way, here's the ad again.


For Liberty,


Jesse Benton
Campaign Chairman

If it's not important, why did they focus exclusively on Perry's support for Al Gore instead of focusing on these other criticisms that they say are so much more important? They didn't even mention them in the ad. Backtracking like that is too transparent to be effective.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 02:33 PM
If it's not important, why did they focus exclusively on Perry's support for Al Gore instead of focusing on these other criticisms that they say are so much more important? They didn't even mention them in the ad. Backtracking like that is too transparent to be effective.

If a candidate writes an open letter in a forest and nobody reads it, does it really make a difference?

Taco John
09-07-2011, 03:08 PM
If it's not important, why did they focus exclusively on Perry's support for Al Gore instead of focusing on these other criticisms that they say are so much more important? They didn't even mention them in the ad. Backtracking like that is too transparent to be effective.

LOL

I think you're taking this attack letter too literally. The purpose of it is to frame Perry as a guy who will change his principles in order to advance himself according to the politics of the day and question his credentials as a tea party candidate. Whether it's effective or not will be seen in the weeks ahead. I suspect that it will be. Tea Party groups aren't going to be too pleased to learn that Perry was campaigning for Gore as early as a decade ago.

Taco John
09-07-2011, 03:09 PM
Rick Perry and his supporters this week are firing back at Paul's Reagan-repudiating record, quoting from his 1987 resignation letter from the Republican Party and other comments from Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party run for president. These gotcha attempts actually bolster Paul's credentials as a limited-government conservative, and highlight an important libertarian critique of Reagan (and by extension, the modern GOP) that has mostly been washed away by decades of Republican nostalgia for The Gipper.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/07/ron-pauls-reagan

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 03:11 PM
LOL

I think you're taking this attack letter too literally. The purpose of it is to frame Perry as a guy who will change his principles in order to advance himself according to the politics of the day and question his credentials as a tea party candidate. Whether it's effective or not will be seen in the weeks ahead. I suspect that it will be. Tea Party groups aren't going to be too pleased to learn that Perry was campaigning for Gore as early as a decade ago.

That seems like a silly strategy. Is RP trying to convince us to be worried that, if elected POTUS, Perry will compromise his principles in order to advance himself politically? I'm no expert, but it seems unlikely that he plans to use POTUS as a stepping-stone to a higher office.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 03:12 PM
Rick Perry and his supporters this week are firing back at Paul's Reagan-repudiating record, quoting from his 1987 resignation letter from the Republican Party and other comments from Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party run for president. These gotcha attempts actually bolster Paul's credentials as a limited-government conservative, and highlight an important libertarian critique of Reagan (and by extension, the modern GOP) that has mostly been washed away by decades of Republican nostalgia for The Gipper.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/07/ron-pauls-reagan

That's one way of looking at it. The other 91% of Republicans who aren't behind Paul are likely to see that as evidence that Paul isn't exactly the spokesman for Reagan Republicans.

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2011, 03:23 PM
Paul should have compared himself to Goldwater it's much closer and thats the direction the party should go.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 03:26 PM
LOL

I think you're taking this attack letter too literally. The purpose of it is to frame Perry as a guy who will change his principles in order to advance himself according to the politics of the day and question his credentials as a tea party candidate. Whether it's effective or not will be seen in the weeks ahead. I suspect that it will be. Tea Party groups aren't going to be too pleased to learn that Perry was campaigning for Gore as early as a decade ago.

They probably wouldn't be too pleased to hear that, but since it's not true, they probably won't be hearing it. On the other hand, since we're talking about the same Ron Paul that tried to deceive us about Ronald Reagan on at least two occasions now, maybe they will.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 03:28 PM
Rick Perry and his supporters this week are firing back at Paul's Reagan-repudiating record, quoting from his 1987 resignation letter from the Republican Party and other comments from Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party run for president. These gotcha attempts actually bolster Paul's credentials as a limited-government conservative, and highlight an important libertarian critique of Reagan (and by extension, the modern GOP) that has mostly been washed away by decades of Republican nostalgia for The Gipper.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/07/ron-pauls-reagan

Good plan. Run on the "As it turned out, Reagan sucked. Elect me, the guy who just ran a commercial telling you how much like Reagan I am." plan.

evenfall
09-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Can someone tell me why his political beliefs in 1988 should matter to me? (Either of them)

I guess it matters on some esoteric political junkie level, but really, who really cares? I am a lot different than I was 23 years ago too.

I think its borderline dishonest for them to trot out that he "supported Al Gore for president" without saying it was 1988. I think they intentionally phrase it that way to let people think they mean 2000.

evenfall
09-07-2011, 04:25 PM
That seems like a silly strategy. Is RP trying to convince us to be worried that, if elected POTUS, Perry will compromise his principles in order to advance himself politically? I'm no expert, but it seems unlikely that he plans to use POTUS as a stepping-stone to a higher office.

It's just negative campaigning. Nothing new under the sun.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 04:28 PM
I think its borderline dishonest for them to trot out that he "supported Al Gore for president" without saying it was 1988. I think they intentionally phrase it that way to let people think they mean 2000.

I think you're too generous.

Taco John
09-07-2011, 04:38 PM
I love it. Ron Paul's campaign clearly struck a nerve. I hope they keep pushing this theme. There's plenty of read meat to go after on Mitt as well.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 05:36 PM
I love it. Ron Paul's campaign clearly struck a nerve. I hope they keep pushing this theme. There's plenty of read meat to go after on Mitt as well.

Yep. The political world is abuzz. (Well, 9% of the 32% of people who are self-identified Republicans, anyway or roughly 3% of voters.)

tmh
09-07-2011, 07:06 PM
Ill say it again, people i.e. Ron Paul, who tell the truth to power, oppose a huge federal goverment, and adhere to first principals will never get elected in todays america, simply because the establishment both Republicans and Democrats, have created a system of dependance that the majority of Americans think they cant live without, and that system serves and protects only the political elite class.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 07:56 PM
It's just negative campaigning. Nothing new under the sun.

And in the PR world we live in, the public follows the line of attack.
But speaking the truth about a man's record isn't an attack in politics it's fair game.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 07:56 PM
Paul should have compared himself to Goldwater it's much closer and thats the direction the party should go.

Good point!

patteeu
09-07-2011, 10:24 PM
Ill say it again, people i.e. Ron Paul, who tell the truth to power, oppose a huge federal goverment, and adhere to first principals will never get elected in todays america, simply because the establishment both Republicans and Democrats, have created a system of dependance that the majority of Americans think they cant live without, and that system serves and protects only the political elite class.

Is that the second time you've said it or have you said it lots and lots of times?

tmh
09-07-2011, 10:29 PM
more than once

patteeu
09-07-2011, 10:49 PM
more than once

That doesn't even narrow it down. Are we talking a handful of times or too many times to count?

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 10:54 PM
I often wonder why someone would talk to someone regularly—who's ignoring them.

patteeu
09-07-2011, 10:58 PM
I often wonder why someone would talk to someone regularly—who's ignoring them.

Probably not as often as I wonder WTF you're talking about.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 11:28 PM
huh?

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 02:44 AM
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/OKFmp_EXHMm0KV8eTtB0Ow--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzc7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-09-08T022735Z_01_LOA29_RTRIDSP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN-DEBATE.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/2vxh8qb.jpg

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 01:39 PM
Bump

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 01:47 PM
http://mcenter.slideshowpro.com/albums/027/935/album-261681/cache/090711_daypix18.sJPG_900_540_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1315452677

BucEyedPea
09-08-2011, 02:23 PM
http://mcenter.slideshowpro.com/albums/027/935/album-261681/cache/090711_daypix18.sJPG_900_540_0_95_1_50_50.sJPG?1315452677

Farking cripes what a bully! You can always detect a NeoCon as they go get belligerent or nutty around Paul. On the other hand, scratch a Progressive, and you'll find a NeoCon underneath. Just watch them defend Libya.

BigChiefFan
09-08-2011, 03:14 PM
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/OKFmp_EXHMm0KV8eTtB0Ow--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzc7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-09-08T022735Z_01_LOA29_RTRIDSP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN-DEBATE.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/2vxh8qb.jpg
To be a fly on the wall in that picture. I really would like to know what Perry said to Paul.

BucEyedPea
09-08-2011, 03:22 PM
To be a fly on the wall in that picture. I really would like to know what Perry said to Paul.

Well, he looks like a KOOK!

go bowe
09-08-2011, 03:49 PM
Well, he looks like a KOOK!

amen, sister, amen...

Saul Good
09-08-2011, 04:21 PM
Does throwing bombs cut into your busy poll-spamming schedule? Playing the victim rarely works in politics. Not on the Republican side, anyway.

BucEyedPea
09-08-2011, 05:06 PM
Does throwing bombs cut into your busy poll-spamming schedule? Playing the victim rarely works in politics. Not on the Republican side, anyway.

Hey bombs are what you guys do. Anyway, I remember when Bush was being victimized by the left and how the right acted victimized after 9/11 justifying a mad rampage through the ME whether or not those countries were involved in it.

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 05:11 PM
So we're gonna ignore Perry's temper? If Ron Paul gets to him Obama will smash him. Rick Perry is not electable.

BucEyedPea
09-08-2011, 05:17 PM
So we're gonna ignore Perry's temper? If Ron Paul gets to him Obama will smash him. Rick Perry is not electable.

The Paul campaign is viewing this as rattling Perry's cage. Heh! Heh!
Look at him in those pics, impermissable touching is battery. He does this on a man in his seventies, a man who is generally considered respectful and gentlemanly. This ought to be something that'll inspire a money bomb. Even if it doesn't, Perry is a BULLY!

patteeu
09-08-2011, 06:28 PM
The Paul campaign is viewing this as rattling Perry's cage. Heh! Heh!
Look at him in those pics, impermissable touching is battery. He does this on a man in his seventies, a man who is generally considered respectful and gentlemanly. This ought to be something that'll inspire a money bomb. Even if it doesn't, Perry is a BULLY!

Seventies! Good Lord, he's old.

go bowe
09-08-2011, 08:15 PM
i didn't know that old people weren't allowed to run for president...

besides, ron paul will live to be 100...

ROYC75
09-08-2011, 08:27 PM
i didn't know that old people weren't allowed to run for president...

besides, ron paul will live to be 100...

Sure they are, Reagan did, so did McCain.

Paul's problem isn't that he he is old, he has probably the most wisdom and knowledge any candidate in the field. Problem is some of his views are too far off from the norm of most Americans.

The only way I vote for Paul is if he is the only candidate running against Obama. I just don't see him getting the nod, too many things says Nuts about him. He just doesn't come across as electable to many Americans.

BucEyedPea
09-08-2011, 08:37 PM
Doug Feith* of let's-invade-Iraq is coaching Perry on how to be a warmonger. No doubt this includes some scheme to bomb Iran.
Major military contractor Northrop Grumman is a client of Feith's law firm. Feith's business activities have raised eyebrows in DC even. Such as
an alliance with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co. for building and infrastructure reconstruction in Iraq.


Original Link @ :
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/15/270999/doug-feith-advising-rick-perry-on-foreign-policy/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272021/perrys-briefing-katrina-trinko

via Lew Rockwell's The Dark Heart of Rick Perry (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/09/the-dark-heart-of-perry/)


* Described by Gen Tommy Franks as "the dumbest ****ing guy on the planet" (according to Franks' autobiography) or "the ****ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth" (according to Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack)

http://www.nndb.com/people/100/000047956/

Brock
09-08-2011, 09:45 PM
Sure they are, Reagan did, so did McCain.

Paul's problem isn't that he he is old, he has probably the most wisdom and knowledge any candidate in the field. Problem is some of his views are too far off from the norm of most Americans.

The only way I vote for Paul is if he is the only candidate running against Obama. I just don't see him getting the nod, too many things says Nuts about him. He just doesn't come across as electable to many Americans.

But Perry isn't a nut? LMAO

ROYC75
09-08-2011, 09:49 PM
But Perry isn't a nut? LMAO

I'm not a Perry supporter at this time, too much campaigning left to do. BTA, I do not know who I am voting for.

But I do know who I am not going to vote for.

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 09:51 PM
Sure they are, Reagan did, so did McCain.

Paul's problem isn't that he he is old, he has probably the most wisdom and knowledge any candidate in the field. Problem is some of his views are too far off from the norm of most Americans.

The only way I vote for Paul is if he is the only candidate running against Obama. I just don't see him getting the nod, too many things says Nuts about him. He just doesn't come across as electable to many Americans.

You had no problem voting for his son though?

BWillie
09-08-2011, 11:03 PM
Ron Paul needs to work on his debate skills. He seems to do much better when he's not put on a time limit. If a random person or journalist asks him a question giving him enough time to explain and expand upon his so called "radical" stances. After you hear his reasoning, it doesn't sound too radical anymore.

But the debate panel really didn't do him any favors, they really wouldn't let him talk, they kept going to Bachman, Romney, and Perry...even giving the contenders who have less of a shot him more time.

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 11:38 PM
He should have said Reagan tore down walls not put up barbed wire ones.

ROYC75
09-09-2011, 05:52 AM
You had no problem voting for his son though?


FTR, Rand does comes off as being more under control in his speeches and comments.

BucEyedPea
09-09-2011, 09:41 AM
Ron Paul needs to work on his debate skills.

I love the man, but this is true. He can come off not looking presidential as a result. He's more of an intellectual. He needs to work on his composure for certain situations as well. It would help him look more presidential.

BigChiefFan
09-09-2011, 11:40 AM
FTR, Rand does comes off as being more under control in his speeches and comments.Yeah, who cares about policy and moral fiber, let's vote for the banker cartel again-they have nice hair and give a Hell of a speech.

Jaric
09-09-2011, 11:42 AM
Yeah, who cares about policy and moral fiber, let's vote for the banker cartel again-they have nice hair and give a Hell of a speech.

Now, you understand the mob.

Chocolate Hog
09-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Interesting.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0911/How_Ron_Paul_won_the_debate.html?showall

Brainiac
09-09-2011, 02:16 PM
I love the man, but this is true. He can come off not looking presidential as a result. He's more of an intellectual. He needs to work on his composure for certain situations as well. It would help him look more presidential.
If his lack of composure hurts his chances to win an election, I've got to think that same lack of composure would not serve him well if he were President.

Brainiac
09-09-2011, 02:20 PM
Interesting.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0911/How_Ron_Paul_won_the_debate.html?showall
Anybody who (1) was not a Ron Paul supporter prior to the debate and (2) actually watched the debate knows that Ron Paul did not win this debate, and it wasn't even close.

I know the overzealous Ron Paul supporters love to stuff the ballot boxes in online polls, but it doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul didn't win this debate or any other debate.

Chocolate Hog
09-09-2011, 02:22 PM
I didn't read the link


I know.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-09-2011, 02:28 PM
Anybody who (1) was not a Ron Paul supporter prior to the debate and (2) actually watched the debate knows that Ron Paul did not win this debate, and it wasn't even close.

I know the overzealous Ron Paul supporters love to stuff the ballot boxes in online polls, but it doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul didn't win this debate or any other debate.

As far as you're concerned right? It's a good thing your voice is so small it hardly shows up in polls.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-09-2011, 02:29 PM
I know.

LMAO

Clearly he was looking for the opinion piece that backed his awkward opinion.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 03:20 PM
Interesting.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0911/How_Ron_Paul_won_the_debate.html?showall

Poor analysis. The conclusion, i.e. that you wouldn't punch down at someone unless you take them seriously, is wrong. Perry was responding to an attack that could have been damaging to him regardless of how serious the attacker was. He couldn't just let Ron Paul tar him with the radioactive aura of Gore or it would hurt him relative to the opponents who really do matter, like Mitt Romney.

go bowe
09-09-2011, 03:28 PM
Poor analysis. The conclusion, i.e. that you wouldn't punch down at someone unless you take them seriously, is wrong. Perry was responding to an attack that could have been damaging to him regardless of how serious the attacker was. He couldn't just let Ron Paul tar him with the radioactive aura of Gore or it would hurt him relative to the opponents who really do matter, like Mitt Romney.

but wasn't perry already tarred with the radioactive aura of gore?

Chocolate Hog
09-09-2011, 03:45 PM
Poor analysis. The conclusion, i.e. that you wouldn't punch down at someone unless you take them seriously, is wrong. Perry was responding to an attack that could have been damaging to him regardless of how serious the attacker was. He couldn't just let Ron Paul tar him with the radioactive aura of Gore or it would hurt him relative to the opponents who really do matter, like Mitt Romney.

Perry continuing to respond to Paul is a great thing for Paul. Nobody his talking about his dumbass boarder comment they're all talking about his exchange with Perry.

Fishpicker
09-09-2011, 03:51 PM
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/OKFmp_EXHMm0KV8eTtB0Ow--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzc7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-09-08T022735Z_01_LOA29_RTRIDSP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN-DEBATE.jpg


<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lj8rrHN27ic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rand Paul - They (Perry & Paul) had a friendly exchange.

I would hope so.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 03:52 PM
If the title of this thread is Ron Paul VS Rick Perry, here's all you need.

Ron Paul: 8.3%
Rick Perry: 29%

Donger
09-09-2011, 04:32 PM
If the title of this thread is Ron Paul VS Rick Perry, here's all you need.

Ron Paul: 8.3%
Rick Perry: 29%

So, you're saying there's a chance.

vailpass
09-09-2011, 04:36 PM
Paulites, always sure the Great Pumpkin will appear.

Chocolate Hog
09-09-2011, 05:14 PM
Saul is the election soon? Better make sure your father in law can drive you to go vote.

BucEyedPea
09-09-2011, 05:39 PM
If his lack of composure hurts his chances to win an election, I've got to think that same lack of composure would not serve him well if he were President.

Yeah, I know people have come to prefer superficiality or demagogues. Anyhow, when Paul talks on the stump to the people or a crowd he does much better.
That's why I think his campaign needs to try a different medium like buy 15 minutes of time or an infomercial.

BucEyedPea
09-09-2011, 05:43 PM
Anybody who (1) was not a Ron Paul supporter prior to the debate and (2) actually watched the debate knows that Ron Paul did not win this debate, and it wasn't even close.

I know the overzealous Ron Paul supporters love to stuff the ballot boxes in online polls, but it doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul didn't win this debate or any other debate.

You got proof of fraud? I doubt it. Online polls have things in them to detect double and triple voting. It's more that there is active support for Paul particularly online.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 06:12 PM
Saul is the election soon? Better make sure your father in law can drive you to go vote.

I have no idea what that means. Care to elaborate?

Chocolate Hog
09-09-2011, 06:48 PM
Heres where the candidates were polling this time 4 years ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_2008_gop_presidential_race_4_years_ago.html

patteeu
09-10-2011, 08:25 AM
but wasn't perry already tarred with the radioactive aura of gore?

I don't think so. I don't think it will stick without plenty of misleading repetition.

patteeu
09-10-2011, 08:25 AM
Perry continuing to respond to Paul is a great thing for Paul. Nobody his talking about his dumbass boarder comment they're all talking about his exchange with Perry.

Paul is going to need all the great things he can get so good luck with that.

Brainiac
09-10-2011, 08:45 AM
Yeah, I know people have come to prefer superficiality or demagogues. Anyhow, when Paul talks on the stump to the people or a crowd he does much better.
That's why I think his campaign needs to try a different medium like buy 15 minutes of time or an infomercial.
Not quite sure how you got from A to B there. Just because I think somebody who can't handle the pressure of a debate would make a bad President, it doesn't logically follow that I prefer superficial demagogues.

I just prefer non-kooks. :p

KILLER_CLOWN
09-10-2011, 09:43 AM
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aso8d6vuqwk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dave Lane
09-10-2011, 09:49 AM
Well, he IS a KOOK!

FYP

Dave Lane
09-10-2011, 09:51 AM
And in all fairness actually Paul is certifiably insane.

BucEyedPea
09-10-2011, 10:11 AM
And in all fairness actually Paul is certifiably insane.

This type of statement is more often a sign of the person saying it being insane.
As well as being unable to refute any of the man's positions with rationality or intellect.
This has been common in history when an individual bucks that status-quo—especially when they're gathering a following. A sign of a threat to their status-quo. You'll get over it.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-10-2011, 10:15 AM
This type of statement is more often a sign of the person saying it being insane.

Definitely noticed this, but you know Obama brought us Rainbows and Unicorns.

kcfanXIII
09-10-2011, 10:27 AM
wow... can't believe the kooks in this thread. you know, the ones that claim to be conservative but the second worst scenario next to obummer being reelected, would be the races only true conservative winning because he's a kook or his supporters are kooks. as for dave calling Ron Paul insane... the definition of insane: repeating the same actions while expecting different results... so go ahead and continue to vote for neo conservative candidates. its been so fucking successful so far hasn't it?

go bowe
09-10-2011, 06:14 PM
I don't think so. I don't think it will stick without plenty of misleading repetition.

if the guy was involved with gore's campaign, isn't that enough to paint him with a radioactive aura all by itself?

and you can count on lots and lots of misleading repetition, this is american-style politics and the other candidates won't hesitate to bring it up, especially after the primaries get started...

go bowe
09-10-2011, 06:21 PM
wow... can't believe the kooks in this thread. you know, the ones that claim to be conservative but the second worst scenario next to obummer being reelected, would be the races only true conservative winning because he's a kook or his supporters are kooks. as for dave calling Ron Paul insane... the definition of insane: repeating the same actions while expecting different results... so go ahead and continue to vote for neo conservative candidates. its been so fucking successful so far hasn't it?

what i like about paul supporters is that you can always count on them to come to any discussion of ron paul armed with facts and making logical well-reasoned arguments...

and to be tolerant and not at all condescending...

they're very persuasive and so polite, just like dr. ron himself...

patteeu
09-10-2011, 07:13 PM
if the guy was involved with gore's campaign, isn't that enough to paint him with a radioactive aura all by itself?

and you can count on lots and lots of misleading repetition, this is american-style politics and the other candidates won't hesitate to bring it up, especially after the primaries get started...

I think that a 24 year old political position followed by a much more recent history consistent with a change of philosophy can be explained away pretty easily as long as it's not allowed to be endlessly repeated without challenge. My point was that Perry has a reason to challenge such an allegation that is completely unrelated to Paul's stature as a candidate. His challenge doesn't indicate that Paul has become a player as some of Paul's supporters would like to believe.

SNR
09-10-2011, 07:41 PM
what i like about paul supporters is that you can always count on them to come to any discussion of ron paul armed with facts and making logical well-reasoned arguments...

and to be tolerant and not at all condescending...

they're very persuasive and so polite, just like dr. ron himself...There's a reason for that.

Paulite: There will never be an end to the drug war. All we have to look forward to is more wasted money, more pain and suffering, and more violence

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL WANTS TO LEGALIZE METH? HAH! KOOK!

Paulite: We've got to scale back on all these wars and military bases around the world. Our presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan simply isn't getting any positive results, and will never fully wipe out the threat of terrorism.

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL WANTS TO CUT AND RUN LIKE A COWARD? HAH! KOOK!

Paulite: The tax system creates the incentive to cheat the system, which creates big businesses propping up elected representatives and in turn receiving all kinds of corporate benefits that enable them to grow massively and crush smaller companies.

Paul skeptic: YOU WANT TO REDUCE REGULATION? YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF MONOPOLIES! HAH! KOOK!

Etc. etc.

It's a tiresome uphill battle to have civil conversations with people about this stuff. Many Paul supporters have simply gone off the deep end and pick as many political fights as they can, viewing them as doing good for the candidate and his message.

This is my long and drawn out way of saying uncivil political conversations about Ron Paul are a two-way street, honey.

BucEyedPea
09-10-2011, 07:48 PM
There's a reason for that.



Paulite: We've got to scale back on all these wars and military bases around the world. Our presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan simply isn't getting any positive results, and will never fully wipe out the threat of terrorism.

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL IS AN ISOLATIONIST ! HAH! KOOK!

FYP

It's a tiresome uphill battle to have civil conversations with people about this stuff. Many Paul supporters have simply gone off the deep end and pick as many political fights as they can, viewing them as doing good for the candidate and his message.

This is my long and drawn out way of saying uncivil political conversations about Ron Paul are a two-way street, honey.

Were you talking to me? :hmmm: :D

SNR
09-10-2011, 08:04 PM
Were you talking to me? :hmmm: :DHeh. I actually didn't realize this. I was just being cutesy and coy with gobowe, hoping it would result in some angry political sex tonight. We'll see how far that takes us, though.

HonestChieffan
09-10-2011, 08:06 PM
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww96/joebiden4sale/ron-paul-cross-dressing.jpg

Gotta admit, it is funny

go bowe
09-10-2011, 08:07 PM
I think that a 24 year old political position followed by a much more recent history consistent with a change of philosophy can be explained away pretty easily as long as it's not allowed to be endlessly repeated without challenge. My point was that Perry has a reason to challenge such an allegation that is completely unrelated to Paul's stature as a candidate. His challenge doesn't indicate that Paul has become a player as some of Paul's supporters would like to believe.

i'm not as confident the gore thing won't be a major problem for him...

totally agree that not this nor any other issue is going to make ron paul a player in the primaries, although a third party ticket could cause problems for the pubs...

go bowe
09-10-2011, 08:14 PM
There's a reason for that.

Paulite: There will never be an end to the drug war. All we have to look forward to is more wasted money, more pain and suffering, and more violence

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL WANTS TO LEGALIZE METH? HAH! KOOK!

Paulite: We've got to scale back on all these wars and military bases around the world. Our presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan simply isn't getting any positive results, and will never fully wipe out the threat of terrorism.

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL WANTS TO CUT AND RUN LIKE A COWARD? HAH! KOOK!

Paulite: The tax system creates the incentive to cheat the system, which creates big businesses propping up elected representatives and in turn receiving all kinds of corporate benefits that enable them to grow massively and crush smaller companies.

Paul skeptic: YOU WANT TO REDUCE REGULATION? YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF MONOPOLIES! HAH! KOOK!

Etc. etc.

It's a tiresome uphill battle to have civil conversations with people about this stuff. Many Paul supporters have simply gone off the deep end and pick as many political fights as they can, viewing them as doing good for the candidate and his message.

This is my long and drawn out way of saying uncivil political conversations about Ron Paul are a two-way street, honey.

honey?

well, ok then sweetie...

indeed, two way street but the paul drivers seem to be going the wrong way sometimes...

and unnecessarily antagonistic when speaking to people who don't call ron paul a kook but don't go as far as supporting his bid for the presidency...

fwiw part of the "kookiness" ascribed to ron paul comes from the words and actions of some of his supporters, some of whom really are kooks...

go bowe
09-10-2011, 08:15 PM
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww96/joebiden4sale/ron-paul-cross-dressing.jpg

Gotta admit, it is funny

freakin hilarious... LMAO

kcfanXIII
09-11-2011, 08:35 AM
i've given up being civil with most people politically. i'm not going to sugar coat anything. the thing most republicans won't admit, or don't see, is their whole party has been hijacked by neo conservatives. (which are just liberals that say they are conservative, even though they'll spend trillions of dollars attacking a non threatening country.) i'm not going to sit back and let the same people that elected bush call me crazy for supporting a real conservative. by voting for neo cons you may as well be voting for liberals because they are going to spend tax payer money just as recklessly. they will choose the same path towards globalization of currency and government. they will surrender our sovereignty to the world bank the same way. still you people will still vote for the party because, well, you are ignorant enough to believe a republican is better then a democrat, just because he has that little r next to his name. call me crazy? ok, but at least i won't be responsible for electing shitty leadership, and eventually the fall of the american government. thats on you.

patteeu
09-11-2011, 08:59 AM
LOL @ the self-righteousness of immaturity

KILLER_CLOWN
09-11-2011, 09:10 AM
i've given up being civil with most people politically. i'm not going to sugar coat anything. the thing most republicans won't admit, or don't see, is their whole party has been hijacked by neo conservatives. (which are just liberals that say they are conservative, even though they'll spend trillions of dollars attacking a non threatening country.) i'm not going to sit back and let the same people that elected bush call me crazy for supporting a real conservative. by voting for neo cons you may as well be voting for liberals because they are going to spend tax payer money just as recklessly. they will choose the same path towards globalization of currency and government. they will surrender our sovereignty to the world bank the same way. still you people will still vote for the party because, well, you are ignorant enough to believe a republican is better then a democrat, just because he has that little r next to his name. call me crazy? ok, but at least i won't be responsible for electing shitty leadership, and eventually the fall of the american government. thats on you.

Amen!

BigChiefFan
09-12-2011, 10:01 AM
i've given up being civil with most people politically. i'm not going to sugar coat anything. the thing most republicans won't admit, or don't see, is their whole party has been hijacked by neo conservatives. (which are just liberals that say they are conservative, even though they'll spend trillions of dollars attacking a non threatening country.) i'm not going to sit back and let the same people that elected bush call me crazy for supporting a real conservative. by voting for neo cons you may as well be voting for liberals because they are going to spend tax payer money just as recklessly. they will choose the same path towards globalization of currency and government. they will surrender our sovereignty to the world bank the same way. still you people will still vote for the party because, well, you are ignorant enough to believe a republican is better then a democrat, just because he has that little r next to his name. call me crazy? ok, but at least i won't be responsible for electing shitty leadership, and eventually the fall of the american government. thats on you.Great post!

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 10:24 AM
Paul moves ahead of Bachmann in new CNN poll. At least Mitt is falling behind.

Perry 32%
Romney 21%
Paul 13%
Bachmann 7%
Gingrich 7%
Cain 6%
Huntsman 2%
Santorum 2%

Debate tonight in Tampa...but I've got a game to watch and food to make for company.
Gonna have to keep on two televisions.

patteeu
09-12-2011, 10:28 AM
Paul moves ahead of Bachmann in new CNN poll. At least Mitt is falling behind.

Perry 32%
Romney 21%
Paul 13%
Bachmann 7%
Gingrich 7%
Cain 6%
Huntsman 2%
Santorum 2%

Debate tonight in Tampa...but I've got a game to watch and food to make for company.
Gonna have to keep on two televisions.

I'd say that's more a case of Bachmann sinking into obscurity.

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 10:31 AM
Still Paul's gain.

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 10:53 AM
Latest commercial: They need to get this advertised in the early states. And buy 15 mins of national tv time for an infomercial.


<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VlYG6vh2T-M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BigChiefFan
09-12-2011, 11:25 AM
There's a reason for that.

Paulite: There will never be an end to the drug war. All we have to look forward to is more wasted money, more pain and suffering, and more violence

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL WANTS TO LEGALIZE METH? HAH! KOOK!

Paulite: We've got to scale back on all these wars and military bases around the world. Our presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan simply isn't getting any positive results, and will never fully wipe out the threat of terrorism.

Paul skeptic: RON PAUL WANTS TO CUT AND RUN LIKE A COWARD? HAH! KOOK!

Paulite: The tax system creates the incentive to cheat the system, which creates big businesses propping up elected representatives and in turn receiving all kinds of corporate benefits that enable them to grow massively and crush smaller companies.

Paul skeptic: YOU WANT TO REDUCE REGULATION? YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF MONOPOLIES! HAH! KOOK!

Etc. etc.

It's a tiresome uphill battle to have civil conversations with people about this stuff. Many Paul supporters have simply gone off the deep end and pick as many political fights as they can, viewing them as doing good for the candidate and his message.

This is my long and drawn out way of saying uncivil political conversations about Ron Paul are a two-way street, honey.
Nice post! Many would rather throw stones, than actually look at the issues on where the politicans stand.

vailpass
09-12-2011, 12:15 PM
Nice post! Many would rather throw stones, than actually look at the issues on where the politicans stand.


Whatever positives Ron Paul has going for him the fact is he is unelectable. Therefore I don't waste my time examining his platform in as much depth as I would a serious candidate.
Don't know why it is so hard for Paulite's to understand this instead of taking offense because your guy isn't being taken seriously.

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 12:20 PM
Whatever positives Ron Paul has going for him the fact is he is unelectable.

Establishment Talking Points

Therefore I don't waste my time examining his platform in as much depth as I would a serious candidate.
Don't know why it is so hard for Paulite's to understand this instead of taking offense because your guy isn't being taken seriously.

You seem to take him seriously enough to comment regularly that he's unelectable.;) Others take him seriously enough to keep commenting on him to mock him.

go bowe
09-12-2011, 12:23 PM
Establishment Talking Points



You seem to take him seriously enough to comment regularly that he's unelectable.;) Others take him seriously enough to keep commenting on him to mock him.
oh honey...

when you mock someone it means that you don't take them seriously...

bring back the articles of confederation!!!

go bowe
09-12-2011, 12:24 PM
oh honey...

when you mock someone it means that you don't take them seriously...

bring back the articles of confederation!!!

see?

i mocked you and i certainly do not take you seriously... :p

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 01:21 PM
I might add, if it's being said there was a poll indicating a generic Republican can beat Obama then that would have to include Paul who is in third place.

Ron Paul has a much more difficult battle in the GOP primary due to it's make-up. Afterall, the profile of most of those Rs saying Paul is unelectable, is that they want to bomb Iran and keep the WoT going because they want to kill as many Muslims as possible.

In a national election Paul has been shown, being two polls now to carry more Independents.

Donger
09-12-2011, 01:54 PM
I might add, if it's being said there was a poll indicating a generic Republican can beat Obama then that would have to include Paul who is in third place.

Ron Paul has a much more difficult battle in the GOP primary due to it's make-up. Afterall, the profile of most of those Rs saying Paul is unelectable, is that they want to bomb Iran and keep the WoT going because they want to kill as many Muslims as possible.

In a national election Paul has been shown, being two polls now to carry more Independents.

I don't know anyone who wants to bomb Iran.

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 02:28 PM
I don't know anyone who wants to bomb Iran.

You must live in a bubble.

Donger
09-12-2011, 02:46 PM
You must live in a bubble.

Okay, show me someone who does.

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 02:52 PM
Israel's Likud party, Podhoretz here.

Donger
09-12-2011, 02:54 PM
Israel

That's odd. I haven't heard that at all. Do you have a specific instance, speech or statement to that effect?

BucEyedPea
09-12-2011, 03:08 PM
It's not exactly uncommon knowledge Israel wants us to strike or they may do it. I'm not going to educate you on this, when you're going to play dumb, except for one link. Even patteeu defends the idea. Besides, why do you keep alarming us about Iran getting a nuke if you're not going to do something about it?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/military-strike-on-iran-is-what-unites-netanyahu-and-barak-1.337686

patteeu
09-12-2011, 03:22 PM
It's not exactly uncommon knowledge Israel wants us to strike or they may do it. I'm not going to educate you on this, when you're going to play dumb, except for one link. Even patteeu defends the idea. Besides, why do you keep alarming us about Iran getting a nuke if you're not going to do something about it?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/military-strike-on-iran-is-what-unites-netanyahu-and-barak-1.337686

What idea do I defend? Link?

Donger
09-12-2011, 03:28 PM
It's not exactly uncommon knowledge Israel wants us to strike or they may do it. I'm not going to educate you on this, when you're going to play dumb, except for one link. Even patteeu defends the idea. Besides, why do you keep alarming us about Iran getting a nuke if you're not going to do something about it?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/military-strike-on-iran-is-what-unites-netanyahu-and-barak-1.337686

Oh, so you don't have any examples of anyone wanting to attack Iran?

Amnorix
09-12-2011, 03:36 PM
Oh, so you don't have any examples of anyone wanting to attack Iran?



Look, it's simple you Limey dumbass. Lincoln raped slaves and every RINO in the world wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age, then have a go at North Korea. It's all part of the Master Plan for Universal Domination, which is the script all you Statist Mouth-breathing Knuckle-dragging NeoCon Neanderthals are reading and following. I don't need links and shit cuz that's the way I roll, and if you disagree you're either Projecting or setting up a Strawman.

Donger
09-12-2011, 03:37 PM
Look, it's simple you Limey dumbass. Lincoln raped slaves and every RINO in the world wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age, then have a go at North Korea. It's all part of the Master Plan for Universal Domination, which is the script all you Statist Mouth-breathing Knuckle-dragging NeoCon Neanderthals are reading and following. I don't need links and shit cuz that's the way I roll, and if you disagree you're either Projecting or setting up a Strawman.

LMAO

go bowe
09-12-2011, 04:18 PM
Look, it's simple you Limey dumbass. Lincoln raped slaves and every RINO in the world wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age, then have a go at North Korea. It's all part of the Master Plan for Universal Domination, which is the script all you Statist Mouth-breathing Knuckle-dragging NeoCon Neanderthals are reading and following. I don't need links and shit cuz that's the way I roll, and if you disagree you're either Projecting or setting up a Strawman.

yea honey!

way to go!!!