Obama this past couple of weeks. It's a CAMPAIGN and he thinks they
should all be positive about their opponents - that's just infantile.
And I hate to say it, but I absolutely couldn't stand to look at his
wife as much as we've seen of Michelle Obama for 3 years. Seriously -
she is one plastic and scary-looking woman!
On Dec 31 2011, 12:23 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't agree with Newt on a number of issues, and I would like for him to
> adopt a more "Limited Government" attitude; by his actions and not
> just words....(Newt talks a good game of limited government now)
>
> I do think that Gingrich looks for solutions to a number of problems that
> this Nation faces, from a conservative viewpoint, and that he could be an
> inspiration to this Nation, just as Reagan was after Carter. I cannot
> think of any major issue where Gingrich does not have a conservative point
> of view or policy. Example?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "*Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow conservatives*".
>
> > I think of Romney as a liberal and Newt as a fence sitter or moderate at
> > best. Newt is too fast to compromise. It is truly time for a true
> > conservative hard liner based on the bill of rights.....especially the
> > tenth amendment.
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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