that were written in the "first person" and attributed to Paul are
horrendous...but then are they really untrue or just said in a bad
way??
These are not, at least to me, disqualifying statements even if they
are
his actual feelings.
----------------------
No, they're not disqualifying for me either. To be honest, the
biggest problem I have with Ron Paul is his age; sorry but he is
simply too old to be elected IMO.
And he rambles on and on about doing stuff he surely knows he will
have no power or support for doing - like eliminating all foreign
aid. And denying that Iran getting nukes would be a problem - also
nuts.
But he does have his supporters, and they do need to be respected by
the GOP a heckuva lot more than they have been.
On Dec 31 2011, 12:10 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The big difference that I can see between the candidates is
> that Paul's positions and "transgressions" are indeed and actually
> factually defensible.... It is kind of like you and I being held
> responsible for what is posted here. Yes, I know that those three sentences
> that were written in the "first person" and attributed to Paul are
> horrendous...but then are they really untrue or just said in a bad way??
>
> These are not, at least to me, disqualifying statements even if they are
> his actual feelings.
>
> His stance on a return to constitutionality is extremely important to me
> and the longer he stays in this the better chance that SOME of his points
> will stick and become part of the platform.
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Good Morning Perp and Mark!
>
> > I agree with both of you......Sorta.......
>
> > I am one that believes the Republican candidates should adhere to the
> > Republican 11th Commandment: "*Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow
> > conservatives*". Ron Paul broke this rule in Iowa, as he blasted both
> > Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in Iowa with false, misleading and
> > prevaricate commercials. We've seen Paul's legions here in PF inundate
> > the board with many of these false assertions. (*See* MJ and PlainOl).
>
> > Just as important, for months, the Paul supporters all had their panties
> > in a wad, claiming that the media was ignoring Paul; that Paul wasn't
> > getting his fair share of press coverage. Well, once Paul's numbers went
> > up in Iowa, the press did in fact start covering Paul, and the light got a
> > little brighter on Paul's past record. Just as it did on Gingrich and
> > other candidates who have been raked over the coals by pundits; (*See*John Sununu, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and a number of pseudo RINO
> > assholes who are in Romney's camp and who have attacked Gingrich
> > unmercifully and unfairly). You don't see Gingrich supporters crying like
> > women, the way that Paul supporters are crying! I was listening to Rush
> > Limbaugh and several other talk show hosts yesterday, and the barrage of
> > Paul supporters crying foul was unbelievable!
>
> > The truth is Paul has a number of skeletons in his closet and his legions
> > of crackpot supporters are now pissed that the truth is coming out about
> > Crazy Uncle Ron.
>
> > Paul is not electable on a national scale, but as both of you pointed
> > out, *IF* Paul chooses to break away and run as a third party
> > candidate, it will no doubt cost the Republicans the election, and we will
> > see another four years of socialist/communist presidential directives and
> > executive orders, of which our Nation may not be able to recover.
>
> > I trust that Paul has enough sense and wisdom to know that his running as
> > a third party candidate will do serious damage to our Nation and that his
> > candidacy would be an open ticket to a second Obama Administration.
>
> > I'm all for throwing Paul a bone.....Give him a prominent night for a
> > speech at the Convention here in Tampa in August, and I would whole
> > heartedly support "Secretary Of The Treasury Paul".
>
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:39 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Perplexed has it right... if he cuts and runs as an independent Obama
> >> will win... he has 15% of the vote in his pocket.
>
> >> On Dec 31, 7:35 am, Perplexed <openlyincogn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Keith, I agree with you that a lot of his views are those of a
> >> > crackpot. But I noticed yesterday watching some discussion on one of
> >> > the Fox News shows that the pundits are being downright stupid in how
> >> > they are stepping up the talking points of "he's not electable". To
> >> > say he couldn't win in a general election is likely very true, but
> >> > that's not what they were doing. The person actually referred to his
> >> > candidacy as a "joke".
>
> >> > Personally I think that kind of nonsense will backfire and encourage
> >> > Paul to run as an independent and republicans can kiss any chance of
> >> > defeating Obama good-bye. These ignorant assholes who make up the
> >> > "GOP establishment" and their mouthpieces in the media are apparently
> >> > too stupid to realize they should be respectful and leave room to
> >> > encourage Paul to join whoever the eventual nominee is - because
> >> > without him AND his supporters voting for whoever that is, republicans
> >> > stand no chance of winning, and that's just a fact.
>
> >> > On Dec 31, 12:49 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Posted on Thu, Dec. 29, 2011
> >> > > > *GOP Establishment wrong to 'disenfranchise' Ron Paul supporters
> >> > > > *BY COLIN MCINTOSH
>
> >> > > > Don't tread on me.
>
> >> > > > Recently, something's been amiss in the mainstream media when
> >> discussing
> >> > > > Ron Paul's candidacy. As the Texas congressman's support has surged
> >> to 15
> >> > > > percent nationally in the latest Washington Post poll, the "Very
> >> Serious
> >> > > > Republicans" who write columns and give their opinions on TV and
> >> radio
> >> > > > shows have changed their tune. They aren't as confident, as cocky
> >> or as
> >> > > > arrogant as they used to be when predicting the 2012 presidential
> >> election.
>
> >> > > > Now, they sound scared; they sound nervous; they sound shaken. But
> >> most
> >> > > > important, they sound resolute that they, and not their audience,
> >> represent
> >> > > > the opinions of mainstream America. They are wrong, and their
> >> gamble will
> >> > > > be costly.
>
> >> > > > In the absence of facts to support the Establishment candidates,
> >> the media
> >> > > > have turned to personal insults, childish mockery, and deliberate
> >> > > > misinterpretation of Dr. Paul's lessons. Their goal, quite
> >> shamefully, is
> >> > > > to convince Ron Paul supporters that the candidate that they
> >> believe in has
> >> > > > no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general
> >> election. Here
> >> > > > are some recent headlines from around the web: "Huckabee slams Ron
> >> Paul,
> >> > > > says he has 'no chance' to win Republican nomination" The Hill
> >> "Ron Paul
> >> > > > can't be allowed to win Iowa" Daily Caller "Why Ron Paul Can't
> >> Win"
> >> > > > Wall Street Journal "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, does that make the state
> >> > > > irrelevant?" Christian Science Monitor
>
> >> > > > This type of overt pressure from our media to change your vote
> >> because
> >> > > > "your candidate can't win" constitutes a form of disenfranchisement.
> >> > > > Despite Paul's rise to the front of the pack in Iowa, the media
> >> still
> >> > > > ignore that his national support from Republicans has risen from 9
> >> percent
> >> > > > to 15 percent in a month (Washington Post/ABC poll, Dec. 18). They
> >> refuse
> >> > > > to report the fact that he would lose only by 49-44 in a
> >> hypothetical race
> >> > > > against Obama, down from 52-42 just one month ago.
>
> >> > > > They will never tell us that 21 percent of Americans polled chose
> >> to vote
> >> > > > for Ron Paul as a third party candidate over the hypothetical
> >> choices of
> >> > > > President Obama or Romney/Gingrich.
>
> >> > > > This last statistic leads me to my main point: if the GOP nominates
> >> anyone
> >> > > > besides Ron Paul, Barack Obama will win the 2012 election.
>
> >> > > > Why?
>
> >> > > > Currently, Establishment Republicans are issuing an obvious warning
> >> to
> >> > > > Paul's base: vote for Romney, or the Democrats will win in November.
> >> > > > Clearly, they hope this ominous bit of advice also reaches the
> >> millions of
> >> > > > Americans who are still learning about Ron Paul's views. Well, Dr.
> >> Paul's
> >> > > > supporters have a retort: we don't give a damn.
>
> >> > > > There are worse things than having a Democrat in the White House,
> >> and
> >> > > > disenfranchisement is among them. We will not vote for whom we are
> >> told. We
> >> > > > will not vote for a candidate who espouses a policy of preemptive
> >> war. We
> >> > > > will not vote for the continuation of a flawed, costly,
> >> discriminatory drug
> >> > > > war. We will not vote for the circumnavigation of the U.S.
> >> Constitution. We
> >> > > > will not vote for a candidate (Romney) who has received just 10
> >> percent of
> >> > > > his campaign donations from actual people (from opensecrets.org).
> >> And we
> >> > > > will not feel remorse for a Republican Party that has abandoned us.
>
> >> > > > I am a registered Republican, but when I listen to my so-called
> >> party
> >> > > > leaders, I become infuriated and despondent. When did preemptive
> >> war become
> >> > > > our national defense? When did the desire to police the world
> >> become so
> >> > > > mainstream that we forgot that our nation was birthed from a
> >> repugnance to
> >> > > > imperialism? When did we concede that the federal government has
> >> the right
> >> > > > to regulate our lives to the point of quiet despotism?
>
> >> > > > And most important, when did we become convinced that our votes and
> >> voices
> >> > > > only matter if we support the perceived frontrunner?
>
> >> > > > As an advocate of liberty, I will vote on principle over party,
> >> every
> >> > > > time. If the Republican Party took the time to educate its members
> >> on the
> >> > > > issues, rather than simply bullying them into submission, their
> >> party
> >> > > > wouldn't be so splintered right now, and perhaps Dr. Paul would
> >> have a
> >> > > > unified force behind him heading into November. Instead, GOP
> >> leaders seem
> >> > > > committed to promoting the status quo, to increasing their own
> >> power and
> >> > > > influence, and to keeping the support of moneyed interests.
>
> >> > > > If the GOP Establishment is successful in convincing Republicans to
> >> > > > nominate Romney instead of Paul, and Paul does indeed run as an
> >> > > > independent, Obama will win with 45 percent of the vote, and the
> >> GOP will
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment