PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul fans attack Rand for endorsing Romney



Dolphins9954
06-09-2012, 08:36 PM
Fans of the "Ron Paul Revolution" were not happy with his son Sen. Rand Paul after he endorsed Mitt Romney last night on Sean Hannity's Fox News Show.

Paul explained that although his "first choice was always my father," he insisted that he had a lot in common with Romney, who signaled to him that he was serious about a number of government reforms.

But the backlash on Sen. Paul's Facebook page was fierce as the vocal supporters of the Ron Paul Revolution, took to the comments section to denounce his son. As of this morning, over 2,000 comments were posted, a majority of them negative. Supporters blasted Rand Paul for "selling out" the legacy of his father to the "Republican establishment."
A few fans approved of Rand Paul's decision, but only 270 people "liked" his endorsement message.

Others even speculated that Rand Paul was threatened or bribed into supporting Romney, by the Bilderberg group, suggesting that it wasn't a coincidence that his endorsement came after their conference.
Other angry fans even started a "Ron Paul Supporters Who Don't Give A Sh*t Who Rand Endorses" (https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulSupportersWhoDontGiveAShtWhoRandEndorses)Facebook page that now has 210 members.

Here is some examples of the backlash from Rand Paul's Facebook page: (http://www.facebook.com/RandPaul2010)

Eric Elledge: DISGUSTING. Right before Father's Day too. What a piece of garbage Rand turned out to be. One & Done Senator!

Jason Sauer: you have lost my support for being a TRATOR to your father

Mario Jimenez: Something is definitely not right. I have a feeling Rand was strong-armed by someone pulling the strings. But this just ain't right.

Mikey Indigo: Someone better have put a gun to your head, otherwise your father should disown you. Good luck sleeping at night knowing what you did to this country. I hope the price was worth it.

Richie Proffitt: I guess the 30 minute meeting with Mittens was actually a 12 hour lobotomy. Maybe the whole zombies thing is to get us to fall in line and vote status quo. Meh.

Matt Reibel: Notice that he made this announcement just a few days after the Bilderberg conference. The elite will stop at nothing to prevent liberty from reclaiming the White House and our government so I highly suspect the Bilderberg attendees did one of the following: 1) came up with an offer that Rand Paul could not refuse 2) they have some very serious dirt on Rand or someone close to him and threatened to release it if he didn't endorse Romney and sell out

Mark Elmo Ellis: Matt!!! Excellent point!!! Comes right on the heels of that meeting, doesn't it???

Sandi Begic: The Bilderberg group threatened Ron Pauls life, i think Rand did this to protect his father.

Richard Rogers: Romney stands for everything that Ron Paul fights to destroy. Rand"Benedict" Paul I guess this means you will be heading to the Bilderberg next year. Rand when you dance with the Devil you will get burned.


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ron-paul-fans-attack-rand-endorsing-romney/588321


Principles before party Rand. Too bad you're nothing like your father.

LouPhinFan
06-09-2012, 11:39 PM
Maybe Rand hit the aqua budda before making his endorsement.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 12:44 AM
It is why he is already a more successful politician than his father ever was.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 10:36 AM
It is why he is already a more successful politician than his father ever was.

Ron Paul has been elected to the House 12 times. That's pretty successful. Not to mention kick-starting a movement that keeps growing and played a HUGE part in Rand getting elected. We'll see what happens to Rand now that he lost a big portion of his supporters. People voted for Rand hoping that he would be a principled man like his father. All that just got thrown out the window.

LANGER72
06-10-2012, 11:31 AM
Ron Paul has been elected to the House 12 times. That's pretty successful. Not to mention kick-starting a movement that keeps growing and played a HUGE part in Rand getting elected. We'll see what happens to Rand now that he lost a big portion of his supporters. People voted for Rand hoping that he would be a principled man like his father. All that just got thrown out the window.
'
Ron Paul..Principled yes, electable as president...no.
In order to bring change, you have to win. Eventually, down the road, once Rand Paul is in office, he can reincarnate his fathers steely positions.
A wolf in liberal clothing.
At first glace, it is disappointing for independents, but if you really think about it..he is playing smart.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 12:18 PM
'
Ron Paul..Principled yes, electable as president...no.
In order to bring change, you have to win. Eventually, down the road, once Rand Paul is in office, he can reincarnate his fathers steely positions.
A wolf in liberal clothing.
At first glace, it is disappointing for independents, but if you really think about it..he is playing smart.

Rand is now officially the typical Washington politician. That's not what he was elected for. He basically turned his back on those that got him elected. "Playing it smart" will get him points in the corrupted world of Washington. But he lost a tremendous amount of respect from those that got him elected. Rand endorsing Romney goes against all the small government and more freedom principles he proclaimed to have. In short he sold-out. Pretty sad to see coming from a Paul.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 12:26 PM
I will add that if Ron Paul does the same thing I would totally disavow myself from him.

SnakeoilSeller
06-10-2012, 01:10 PM
One can make the argument that Ron Paul played politics by not attacking Mitt during the primary, opening the door for his kid to be VP. Don't know.

So what happens if Mitt selects Rand as his VP and Ron Paul campaigns for him? How do all the Paul carzy's act?

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 01:35 PM
Ron Paul has been elected to the House 12 times. That's pretty successful. Not to mention kick-starting a movement that keeps growing and played a HUGE part in Rand getting elected. We'll see what happens to Rand now that he lost a big portion of his supporters. People voted for Rand hoping that he would be a principled man like his father. All that just got thrown out the window.

No one cares about a representative unless they are the Speaker. Senators have considerably more sway and power.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 01:43 PM
One can make the argument that Ron Paul played politics by not attacking Mitt during the primary, opening the door for his kid to be VP. Don't know.

So what happens if Mitt selects Rand as his VP and Ron Paul campaigns for him? How do all the Paul carzy's act?

If Ron Paul campaigns for Romney then pretty much all his supporters will disavow him. We're a principled bunch. You can't preach about small government, the constitution and liberty while supporting Romney who is the opposite of all those principles.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 01:45 PM
No one cares about a representative unless they are the Speaker. Senators have considerably more sway and power.

Senators have more sway for sure, there's a lot less of them. But keep in mind that Ron Paul's success is what lead to Rand getting elected.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 01:55 PM
Senators have more sway for sure, there's a lot less of them. But keep in mind that Ron Paul's success is what lead to Rand getting elected.

Well yes, but now he is betraying the principles everyone says Ron Paul stands for. He is young enough that he will be Governor or maybe even a Vice Presidential nominee soon.

rob19
06-10-2012, 03:32 PM
It is why he is already a more successful politician than his father ever was.

He's compromised. He sold his soul to play the game better. Color me unimpressed.

This is the exact reason so many of us respect Ron Paul is because he'd never do that. I don't care if he'll never get elected, just because a majority of the people are too dimwitted to see that, doesn't mean he should acquiesce to the masses. Ron Paul isn't a panderer, he won't say whatever people want to hear to get elected like Romney. He was one of the few candidates that I felt was incorruptible.

@Snakeoilseller, I appreciate a good conspiracy as much as anybody, but if he ever endorses Romney, which is a moot point because I guarantee he'll never do, than he obviously wasn't the man I thought he was.

Tetragrammaton
06-10-2012, 03:38 PM
He's compromised. He sold his soul to play the game better. Color me unimpressed.

This is the exact reason so many of us respect Ron Paul is because he'd never do that. I don't care if he'll never get elected, just because a majority of the people are too dimwitted to see that, doesn't mean he should acquiesce to the masses. Ron Paul isn't a panderer, he won't say whatever people want to hear to get elected like Romney. He was one of the few candidates that I felt was incorruptible.

@Snakeoilseller, I appreciate a good conspiracy as much as anybody, but if he ever endorses Romney, which is a moot point because I guarantee he'll never do, than he obviously wasn't the man I thought he was.

Ron Paul was solved by Tim Russert years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY

rob19
06-10-2012, 03:58 PM
Ron Paul was solved by Tim Russert years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY

:lol2:

Clipse
06-10-2012, 05:36 PM
Good luck to him ever getting far with all the people who vote for him now against him.

phinfan3411
06-10-2012, 05:53 PM
Ron Paul was solved by Tim Russert years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY

Do you really believe this?

Do I have to go point by point to explain all the ways he was trying to make Paul look bad?

Well, let's start with the earmarks, he does not agree with the traditional earmark, he does earmark the spending in his district so everyone knows exactly what every cent is for. You know so some money doesn't end up, oh I don't know, arming a Mexican drug cartel...

Do I have to go though all the rest?

By the way, this is a typical hit piece on him, although some guys on a different forum did much better than Russert.

phinfan3411
06-10-2012, 06:36 PM
You know, lets just answer the other question, just so we can get an good view of exactly where this windbag (Russert) was coming from, and how he made all of his lemmings tingle in their dirty places.

Lets just put ourselves in Paul's shoes, and lets ASSUME he is on the level, he cannot, at this point, stop the collection of taxes, especially from his district, that he considers (and is) theft.

So all the people that take Russert seriously, what can Paul do?

It is not like he has not broached this question a thousand times...

Well, until he can do something about it, he does his best to get his district of taxpayers, their money back, and he gets it back, and distributes it as earmarks, for the reason i have explained above.

It seems reasonable to me, but maybe i am just a wack job.

This action by him gets the liberal losers, and the neocon losers coming out of the woodwork, and you can see posts like this appear in forums like this so often, you can set your watch to it.

Dolphins9954
06-10-2012, 07:42 PM
You know, lets just answer the other question, just so we can get an good view of exactly where this windbag (Russert) was coming from, and how he made all of his lemmings tingle in their dirty places.

Lets just put ourselves in Paul's shoes, and lets ASSUME he is on the level, he cannot, at this point, stop the collection of taxes, especially from his district, that he considers (and is) theft.

So all the people that take Russert seriously, what can Paul do?

It is not like he has not broached this question a thousand times...

Well, until he can do something about it, he does his best to get his district of taxpayers, their money back, and he gets it back, and distributes it as earmarks, for the reason i have explained above.

It seems reasonable to me, but maybe i am just a wack job.

This action by him gets the liberal losers, and the neocon losers coming out of the woodwork, and you can see posts like this appear in forums like this so often, you can set your watch to it.

Exactly. Paul is only doing what any representative should do. GET YOUR MONEY BACK TO YOUR DISTRICT!!!!! Meanwhile Obama and Romney take huge amounts of money from Goldman Sachs and many banks while supporting bailouts to those banks that hooked them up. Is there a connection???? Does a bear sh!t in the woods???? Obama and Romney both take huge amounts of money from drug and insurance companies. Both support mandated health insurance. Is there a connection???? Is the sky blue????

Clipse
06-10-2012, 08:41 PM
Do you really believe this?

Do I have to go point by point to explain all the ways he was trying to make Paul look bad?

Well, let's start with the earmarks, he does not agree with the traditional earmark, he does earmark the spending in his district so everyone knows exactly what every cent is for. You know so some money doesn't end up, oh I don't know, arming a Mexican drug cartel...

Do I have to go though all the rest?

By the way, this is a typical hit piece on him, although some guys on a different forum did much better than Russert.

I especially love how he refused to let Paul defend himself from that nonsense. That's not solving, that's being a coward.

Clipse
06-10-2012, 08:48 PM
You know, lets just answer the other question, just so we can get an good view of exactly where this windbag (Russert) was coming from, and how he made all of his lemmings tingle in their dirty places.

Lets just put ourselves in Paul's shoes, and lets ASSUME he is on the level, he cannot, at this point, stop the collection of taxes, especially from his district, that he considers (and is) theft.

So all the people that take Russert seriously, what can Paul do?

It is not like he has not broached this question a thousand times...

Well, until he can do something about it, he does his best to get his district of taxpayers, their money back, and he gets it back, and distributes it as earmarks, for the reason i have explained above.

It seems reasonable to me, but maybe i am just a wack job.

This action by him gets the liberal losers, and the neocon losers coming out of the woodwork, and you can see posts like this appear in forums like this so often, you can set your watch to it.

Pretty much this. He gets money back to his district. That's his job, and why his district votes for him every single election, 12 times.

X-Pacolypse
06-11-2012, 12:43 AM
Ron Paul was solved by Tim Russert years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY

Tim Russert sucks.

Valandui
06-11-2012, 01:49 AM
Exactly. Paul is only doing what any representative should do. GET YOUR MONEY BACK TO YOUR DISTRICT!!!!! Meanwhile Obama and Romney take huge amounts of money from Goldman Sachs and many banks while supporting bailouts to those banks that hooked them up. Is there a connection???? Does a bear sh!t in the woods???? Obama and Romney both take huge amounts of money from drug and insurance companies. Both support mandated health insurance. Is there a connection???? Is the sky blue????

Yet they are electable and good leaders. There's a reason this country is as ****ed up as it is.

Dolphins9954
06-11-2012, 07:35 AM
Libertarian Party says Rand Paul betrayed father with Romney endorsement


Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney has drawn the ire of the Libertarian Party, which accused him of betraying the principles of his father, former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Rand Paul has wedded himself closely to his congressman father's libertarian views since his successful campaign for Senate in 2010.

In its statement, the Libertarian Party said "no true libertarian, no true friend of liberty, and no true blue Tea Partier could possibly even consider, much less actually endorse or approve of, the Father of Obamacare, Big Government tax and spender, Republican Mitt Romney."

"Especially the son of Ron Paul, who has no excuse," it added.

The junior Kentucky senator announced his backing for Romney on FOX News Channel's "Hannity" on Thursday, the day after his father acknowledged to his supporters that he will not win enough delegates to clinch the Republican nomination and nearly a month after he stopped actively campaigning for the presidency.

"Well, you know, my first choice had always been my father," Rand told Sean Hannity. "I campaigned for him when I was 11 years old. He's still my first pick. But you know, now that the nominating process is over, tonight, I'm happy to announce that I'm going to be supporting Governor Romney."

The endorsement may help bolster Rand Paul's standing within the Republican Party. The senator is widely expected to follow in his father's footsteps by launching his own White House bid in 2016 or 2020.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/18746579/libertarian-party-says-rand-paul-betrayed-father-with-romney-endorsement


^^^^The perfect words to say. Not only was this endorsement a disgrace to Rand's so-called "principles". But he freaking did it on the Sean Hannity show!?!?! WTF??? I hope every reporter nails him on this. (Which they won't). If I was a reporter I would challenge him on his opposition to NDAA, Patriot Act, Mandated Health Insurance, War with Iran, Military Spending, Bailouts, Stimulus, 4th amendment abuse and so on. And how he compromised those principles by supporting a douchebag candidate that supports all those things Rand proclaimed to be against.

LANGER72
06-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Do you really believe this?

Do I have to go point by point to explain all the ways he was trying to make Paul look bad?

Well, let's start with the earmarks, he does not agree with the traditional earmark, he does earmark the spending in his district so everyone knows exactly what every cent is for. You know so some money doesn't end up, oh I don't know, arming a Mexican drug cartel...

Do I have to go though all the rest?

By the way, this is a typical hit piece on him, although some guys on a different forum did much better than Russert.

Russert is entertaining, but hardly objective.
Rand Paul, may have compromised himself to some, and that is not unusual. All politicians(except for Ron P) evolve their positions and get IV's of chameleon blood to make themselves more attractive to the masses. My hope is that Rand is just like his father deep down. But, to be more popular he is just putting on the sheepskin costume for the sake of getting into office. Like it or not, if he takes the same positions as his father, he has zero chance in a presidential election down the road.
I am ok with his "evolution".

Dogbone34
06-11-2012, 03:56 PM
Russert did not suck

The Paul crisis can be better understood by the movie, Paul. You know the alien.

It's like when Paul saved the dead bird at the side of the road only to woof it down a second later.
As he explains," what? did you want me to eat a dead bird. "

Tetragrammaton
06-11-2012, 10:18 PM
The Ron Paul defenders are more rabid than I thought. For all the talk that is about ideology and not the person when attacking Rand Paul, Ron seems to be seated next to Jesus around here.

Dolphins9954
06-11-2012, 10:23 PM
The Ron Paul defenders are more rabid than I thought. For all the talk that is about ideology and not the person when attacking Rand Paul, Ron seems to be seated next to Jesus around here.

Wait a minute......Let's not forget how Obama supporters acted about Obama. It was pure insanity. Sorry but I have to call BS on this.

Valandui
06-12-2012, 07:03 AM
From a political science point of view, what Rand Paul is doing makes a lot of sense, especially since he doesn't have his dad's tenure in Congress to stand on. It definitely wasn't the right thing to do, though. Not only did he piss off his supporters, but making a stand like that would have shown that he was someone not to be messed with. Backing Romney just makes him appear as someone who will cater to public opinion.

phinfan3411
06-12-2012, 12:27 PM
The Ron Paul defenders are more rabid than I thought. For all the talk that is about ideology and not the person when attacking Rand Paul, Ron seems to be seated next to Jesus around here.

That is a terrific response, how about you backing up some of this rhetoric with some actual substance.


Russert made a few accusations many liberals would, and as far as I know, I showed why they were worthless, tag, you're it.

Last time I checked, it wasn't one of the independents on the board that was trying to explain Obama's misgivings with healthcare reform on him being forced to compromise with the pubs, while completely ignoring all the money he takes from them.


You used to be one of the best posters on this board.

Tetragrammaton
06-12-2012, 02:53 PM
That is a terrific response, how about you backing up some of this rhetoric with some actual substance.


Russert made a few accusations many liberals would, and as far as I know, I showed why they were worthless, tag, you're it.

Last time I checked, it wasn't one of the independents on the board that was trying to explain Obama's misgivings with healthcare reform on him being forced to compromise with the pubs, while completely ignoring all the money he takes from them.


You used to be one of the best posters on this board.

The "rhetoric" is backed up by the poster immediately preceding mine. There isn't really much more to add than that.

phinfan3411
06-12-2012, 03:11 PM
The "rhetoric" is backed up by the poster immediately preceding mine. There isn't really much more to add than that.
This is going to go no where fast, and also a good reason to dislike politics.

Ahem, would either of you then, like to either explain a better action by Paul, because I believe him to be on the level, as soon as I see otherwise, I'm done.

Secondly, explain how you can look at us Paul supporters with such spite, yet fail to be able to connect the dots on why Obomber pulled the plug on single payer, has continued on Bush's foreign policy failures, while adding to them etc.

You see, you do not have to have the same opinion as I do, for me to respect you( not that i think that is important to you).The hypocrisy you are laying down though, is quite spectacular.

Tetragrammaton
06-12-2012, 03:19 PM
This is going to go no where fast, and also a good reason to dislike politics.

Ahem, would either of you then, like to either explain a better action by Paul, because I believe him to be on the level, as soon as I see otherwise, I'm done.

Secondly, explain how you can look at us Paul supporters with such spite, yet fail to be able to connect the dots on why Obomber pulled the plug on single payer, has continued on Bush's foreign policy failures, while adding to them etc.

You see, you do not have to have the same opinion as I do, for me to respect you( not that i think that is important to you).The hypocrisy you are laying down though, is quite spectacular.

I don't understand why you keep bringing Obama into this, nor do I understand what the health care bill has to do with this. How can I be hypocritical if I have never been allowed to vote on bills myself and have a record?

If you like Ron Paul putting appropriations into bills to help his district, and then voting against the bills he knows is going to pass so he can take credit for being so fiscally responsible, go for it. I would never trust someone like that, if I could get past the racist newsletters or the extremist anti-abortion anti-science stances he takes

rob19
06-12-2012, 03:39 PM
anti-science stances he takes

You're aware he was a practicing Medical Doctor right? I don't know how you can have a degree in Medical Science and be anti-science.

If you're referring to the evolution thing, I could really give a damn about that. If he wants to believe in God that's fine with me, no one's perfect. He's not teaching evolutionary science at Berkeley or something, it doesn't affect how he operates as a politician. In his defense, he said no one could either prove or disprove evolution in the same way no one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. At least he treats both of them objectively as theories.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6JyvkjSKMLw

rob19
06-12-2012, 03:51 PM
As for the anti-abortion stance, again I think that's largely inconsequential what his personal belief on the matter is. He's for state's rights, and it's a state issue. It's never something he'd make illegal on a national scale; He'd leave that up to the individual state.

rob19
06-12-2012, 03:55 PM
The Military seems to dig the guy as well.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/03/militarydonationsbranch500px-1.png
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/militarydonationscandidate500px-1.png
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/militarydonations2011q31-1.jpg
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/262lac5-1.jpg
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/RepFieldpiechart1sm-1.gif

Tetragrammaton
06-12-2012, 04:05 PM
You're aware he was a practicing Medical Doctor right? I don't know how you can have a degree in Medical Science and be anti-science.

If you're referring to the evolution thing, I could really give a damn about that. If he wants to believe in God that's fine with me, no one's perfect. He's not teaching evolutionary science at Berkeley or something, it doesn't affect how he operates as a politician. In his defense, he said no one could either prove or disprove evolution in the same way no one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. At least he treats both of them objectively as theories.

God isn't a scientific theory like evolution. Someone who can't accept something taught as far back as middle school is dangerous.


As for the anti-abortion stance, again I think that's largely inconsequential what his personal belief on the matter is. He's for state's rights, and it's a state issue. It's never something he'd make illegal on a national scale; He'd leave that up to the individual state.





Leaving it up to the states is what everyone says. Its goal is to ban abortion in as many places as possible. I don't believe in states' rights; it is code for so many unsavory qualities throughout American history.

Tetragrammaton
06-12-2012, 04:08 PM
I should make it clear, however, that none of these are reasons I am primarily opposed to Ron Paul. I find him to be far too liberal to preside over the United States. His economic theories are frightening.

rob19
06-12-2012, 04:08 PM
As for the anti-abortion stance, again I think that's largely inconsequential what his personal belief on the matter is. He's for state's rights, and it's a state issue. It's never something he'd make illegal on a national scale; He'd leave that up to the individual state.

California is up in arms right now because Obama keeps going in and closing down pot shops and using the federal government to override the state's rights & laws. Paul would never use the federal government to override state's rights on any issue.



Feds escalate efforts to close California pot shops
The moves come as a surprise to owners of medical marijuana dispensaries. 'It's a complete about-face' of Obama's promise not to target users of medical pot in states that allow it

rob19
06-12-2012, 04:29 PM
God isn't a scientific theory like evolution. Someone who can't accept something taught as far back as middle school is dangerous.



Leaving it up to the states is what everyone says. Its goal is to ban abortion in as many places as possible. I don't believe in states' rights; it is code for so many unsavory qualities throughout American history.

I don't know that you have any tangible points as much as just paranoia.

Yes, God might not be a scientific theory but it's a theory made by man just the same. Anyone with a medical degree is an intelligent individual. If he was presented with absolute proof of evolution I'm sure he'd accept it. As it stands now though it's a theory in the same way the big bang is a theory, or how the Earth being the center of the universe used to be a scientific theory. Furthermore I'm as big a fan of scientific research as much as anyone, but let's not act like science has it all figured out, if you listen to the leaders in the Quantum Physics field they'll readily admit to you that they're on the verge of having to redefine entirely the Newtonian laws of physics and the fundamental basics of how we think the universe works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY

& if you believe Ron Paul is lying in his stated support for states rights and this is all a conspiracy to outlaw abortion than I guess you're entitled to you're opinion. If you watch the following video Paul talks a little about the Federal government coming in and overriding State law. I personally believe he would never use the federal government to over-ride a state's rights on any issue.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vPK6q-PSSE

But please, I would like to hear his economic policies that frighten you, I love to learn.

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 04:37 PM
P36x8rTb3jI

Yeah those Paul supporters look at him as Jesus.

ROADRUNNER
06-12-2012, 04:38 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 04:40 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/ObamaVotiveCandleStirsCollectorsCritics0-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif



Yeah that will make a difference.

rob19
06-12-2012, 04:52 PM
As Terence McKenna has observed, "Modern Science is based on the principle: Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest'. The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing".


Science basically said, “Give us one free miracle and we will roll from there.” God could of well have stopped by and said, “Let there be light…” Same result in the end, more or less…


The psychedelic guru and philosopher Terrence McKenna once remarked that the scientists of today are insisting that if we grant them one small miracle, they can explain all the rest. He was referring, of course, to the current Big Bang Theory of creation.

I'm getting a little off topic here but in the interest of thoroughness....

phinfan3411
06-12-2012, 06:07 PM
I don't understand why you keep bringing Obama into this, nor do I understand what the health care bill has to do with this. How can I be hypocritical if I have never been allowed to vote on bills myself and have a record?

If you like Ron Paul putting appropriations into bills to help his district, and then voting against the bills he knows is going to pass so he can take credit for being so fiscally responsible, go for it. I would never trust someone like that, if I could get past the racist newsletters or the extremist anti-abortion anti-science stances he takes

I cannot believe i have to explain this again, i believe you are calling Ron Paul a hypocrite, and his followers of the same as far as his actions with earmarks and appropriations, is that not correct?

I can understand that on one level, but i see what he has to do to get to his ultimate goal, and am fine with this.

So i do not have to find the thread, why don't you explain to us how you do not think Obama is to blame with the absence of single payer and other issues with the healthcare reform.

That was you answering right? I am pretty sure it was, so explain to me how that is not exactly what you are accusing us of.

Tetragrammaton
06-12-2012, 09:13 PM
I don't know that you have any tangible points as much as just paranoia.

Yes, God might not be a scientific theory but it's a theory made by man just the same. Anyone with a medical degree is an intelligent individual. If he was presented with absolute proof of evolution I'm sure he'd accept it. As it stands now though it's a theory in the same way the big bang is a theory, or how the Earth being the center of the universe used to be a scientific theory. Furthermore I'm as big a fan of scientific research as much as anyone, but let's not act like science has it all figured out, if you listen to the leaders in the Quantum Physics field they'll readily admit to you that they're on the verge of having to redefine entirely the Newtonian laws of physics and the fundamental basics of how we think the universe works.

& if you believe Ron Paul is lying in his stated support for states rights and this is all a conspiracy to outlaw abortion than I guess you're entitled to you're opinion. If you watch the following video Paul talks a little about the Federal government coming in and overriding State law. I personally believe he would never use the federal government to over-ride a state's rights on any issue.

But please, I would like to hear his economic policies that frighten you, I love to learn.

It isn't that I think Ron Paul would use the federal government to enforce his will on the states. My worry is that states' rights have historically been an indication toward prejudice and the tyranny of the majority.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------


I cannot believe i have to explain this again, i believe you are calling Ron Paul a hypocrite, and his followers of the same as far as his actions with earmarks and appropriations, is that not correct?

I can understand that on one level, but i see what he has to do to get to his ultimate goal, and am fine with this.

So i do not have to find the thread, why don't you explain to us how you do not think Obama is to blame with the absence of single payer and other issues with the healthcare reform.

That was you answering right? I am pretty sure it was, so explain to me how that is not exactly what you are accusing us of.

I doubt single-payer was ever in the mind of Obama or any of his top advisors; however, the death of the public option came from opposition by the Republicans and hard-right Democrats. That has all been settled for a few years, though.

rob19
06-12-2012, 09:29 PM
It isn't that I think Ron Paul would use the federal government to enforce his will on the states. My worry is that states' rights have historically been an indication toward prejudice and the tyranny of the majority.


Who you voting for Tetra? If I'm not mistaken I think I saw you in another thread say you were voting 3rd party, so I'm a little confused as to why you seem to scoff at some of us who'd support a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson due to their perceived lack of a chance at getting a majority vote.

Tetragrammaton
06-12-2012, 09:44 PM
Who you voting for Tetra? If I'm not mistaken I think I saw you in another thread say you were voting 3rd party, so I'm a little confused as to why you seem to scoff at some of us who'd support a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson due to their perceived lack of a chance at getting a majority vote.

I don't scoff at you voting for Paul or Johnson because of their chance of winning; it wasn't too long ago that I argued with that Langer guy who said he will vote for Romney because he doesn't want to waste a vote on a third party candidate like Ron Paul, while I said that, in the end, one vote either way doesn't ultimately "matter". I do scoff, however, when Carlos reveals his love of substances by thinking that a Ron Paul-Gary Johnson alliance could garner twenty percent of the popular vote.

I don't know who I am voting for yet. I can't vote for Mitt Romney because he was born rich and I can't vote for Obama because he has killed too many people. I need to see who makes the ballot in Florida first.

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 10:23 PM
I don't scoff at you voting for Paul or Johnson because of their chance of winning; it wasn't too long ago that I argued with that Langer guy who said he will vote for Romney because he doesn't want to waste a vote on a third party candidate like Ron Paul, while I said that, in the end, one vote either way doesn't ultimately "matter". I do scoff, however, when Carlos reveals his love of substances by thinking that a Ron Paul-Gary Johnson alliance could garner twenty percent of the popular vote.

I don't know who I am voting for yet. I can't vote for Mitt Romney because he was born rich and I can't vote for Obama because he has killed too many people. I need to see who makes the ballot in Florida first.

Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13


New poll shows Libertarian Johnson at 7 percent

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-poll-shows-libertarian-johnson-at-7-percent


It's not crazy to think that Johnson with the help of Paul and his supporters could garner enough support to get on the debates. I believe it's at least 15%. It's definitely possible. Your comment of not getting more than 3% was on the hater side of things.

rob19
06-12-2012, 10:36 PM
If Gary Johnson gets 10% of the population I'll be elated. If he gets 15% or more I'll do a back-flip.

It'll mean at least 10% of the population isn't completely asleep. The Russian Revolution only required 17% of the population.

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 10:52 PM
If Gary Johnson gets 10% of the population I'll be elated. If he gets 15% or more I'll do a back-flip.

It'll mean at least 10% of the population isn't completely asleep. The Russian Revolution only required 17% of the population.


Someone has to be the darkhorse in this election because right now this election is a disgrace to representation. Polls showed that only 19% of the country is happy with the 2 candidates which means the majority of us can't stand both these guys. The time is very ripe for a 3rd party candidate to make some waves. Johnson is the only logical choice.

LouPhinFan
06-13-2012, 03:53 PM
What are the hyperlinks for Johnson's platform and campaign? I'll have to check him out.


I can't believe I just typed that...

greenrules008
06-13-2012, 10:45 PM
RP is feckless and reckless. HA! HA! HA!

Valandui
06-14-2012, 01:59 PM
Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13


New poll shows Libertarian Johnson at 7 percent

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-poll-shows-libertarian-johnson-at-7-percent


It's not crazy to think that Johnson with the help of Paul and his supporters could garner enough support to get on the debates. I believe it's at least 15%. It's definitely possible. Your comment of not getting more than 3% was on the hater side of things.

The problem is that all of the Ron Paul support won't necessarily translate to Johnson or even various third parties. A large chunk will either not vote or fall in line with the "lesser evil" out of Romney or Obama. Herd mentality will inevitably kick in.

CedarPhin
06-19-2012, 12:22 AM
If we end up electing Romney and he ends up slashing taxes/spending like he's suggesting to satisfy the Norquist crowd, well, that's likely going to plunge us into being more Greece-like, despite what the GOP batkids have suggested in many of their platforms/campaigns.

rob19
06-19-2012, 03:57 AM
If we end up electing Romney and he ends up slashing taxes/spending like he's suggesting to satisfy the Norquist crowd, well, that's likely going to plunge us into being more Greece-like, despite what the GOP batkids have suggested in many of their platforms/campaigns.

What you hippy dippy liberals don't understand is that the firemen, policemen, and teachers of this country are sucking us dry!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoSmWK_-x4g&feature=related

These are exactly the type of Governmental cuts us God fearing conservatives had been hoping for. I say to hell with dem damn der teachers tryna' tell mah babies we 'volved from monkys 'n such.






Wonder how long an anti-Romney post will take for me to get accused of being Pro-Obama? :ponder:

Dogbone34
06-19-2012, 03:31 PM
What you hippy dippy liberals don't understand is that the firemen, policemen, and teachers of this country are sucking us dry!! [/spoiler]

No, it's their public sector unions that have funded democrat politicians who promised unfunded unsustainable benefits.

In other words, they ran out of other peoples money.