1 + 1 + 1 = 3 | Who will win the Republican nomination???

Jager, i have to applaud you on yet another awesome addition to this topic/forum with you last post!!
I do agree on the fact that primarys gives the candidates the ability to assess how voters react to other candidates policies and equally as important, their own when going through this process. I also agree that come time to go head up the with current President, the nominee is going to have serious competitive disadvantage with the amount of funds the Obama camp has raised and will continue to raise but more importantly, as you mentioned, the media bias he will face. Did you hear the intro that that the AP Chairman Dean Singleton gave for Obama at a luncheon a day or so ago?

"As President, he inherited the headwinds of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression," Singleton said. "He pushed through congress the biggest economic recovery plan in history and led a government reorganization of two of the big three auto manufacturers to save them from oblivion. He pursued domestic and foreign-policy agendas that were controversial to many, highlighted by his signature into law of the most comprehensive health care legislation in history. And the budget plans proposed by the President on the one hand, and Republicans on the other hand, aren't even on the same planet." - Dean Singleton

..... puke

For these two reasons and the type of campaign the current President will run because he obviously cant run on his record, I think the only chance the GOP has is to get a candidate and have the focus turned against Obama and his failed policies - not on each other. Romney has seem to have started to do this in his recent primary win speech and the "reset button" as they called it I am optimistically hopeful that it has been flipped. I will not hold my breath however.

What really gets me is that he IS - not arguably - IS the worst president this country has ever seen and I still unfortunately think this is going to be a very close race and that scares the SHIT out of me.

The saddest thing is hearing reps calling Obama the worst president ever...pretty much started the day he was elected and continues now. It doesnt take much memory to compare him to his predecessor at least.
I can only imagine the list of people that reps hate...kinda says alot about them, you'ld think.
Imagine their idea of the best president for the future...kinda scary. Hope for a few and vengence on the rest it seems.

Moderator

Swagger wrote:: What really gets me is that he IS - not arguably - IS the worst president this country has ever seen

Putting purely personal believes aside, especially ones that are in fact arguable, suppose that statement is factually supportable and basically true.

How pathetic must the current crop of competitors be if they can't manage to beat Obama in a straight forward vote?

While many people many not be happy with the idea of 4 more years of Obama, they will tell you that the idea of the next 4 years with Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Paul scares the living shit out of them.

They might not be voting for Obama, but they're surely voting against the other choices available.

So what's that say about the "other choices"?

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

It says i'll be doing a lot of this come election time: Pray

Admin

motokid wrote:: Republicans need to step away from the social issues they cling to, and and down-play the righteous-religious side of their platform.

Republicans are never going to win over the narrow minded religious bigots who make atheism their own religion, who drop their guts at every politician who doesn't hide their religious beliefs, no matter what they do. So there is little point in kowtowing to those individuals.

Furthermore, it is almost amusing to hear the commentary about Republicans and "social issues". The people dropping their guts about Republicans and "social issues" are markedly absent in making comments about Obama, and his social/class warrior presidency. In truth, they don't have a problem with politicians clinging to "social issues" - what really matters is what those social issues are.

What we have here is simple hypocrisy. They're really no different than Obama and his pathetic acolytes talking about how he had to take issue with Limbaugh calling a Democrat activist a prostitute, because he was thinking about his daughters and other women. And yet... and yet... where were these people when conservative women were called names so vulgar I wouldn't allow them to be posted here? It isn't about "social issues" or "misogyny" with these hypocrites - what matters is who is saying it, and whether it is something they agree with or not.

Quote :: Unfortunately the push has been to go deeper into religio-politcal issues and social fronts that drive many people away in fear. Those kinds of issues are the e.xact opposite of freedom. They are restrictions.

So let's see if we can understand this: people are driven away in fear when a politician is openly religious. Because holding and finding guidance in your religious beliefs, and being open about your religion, folks, is the exact opposite of freedom. You shouldn't do that. So just shut the fuck up about your religious beliefs, okay? Better yet, don't shut up - that way the bigoted, prejudiced atheists among us know who you are so they can make every attempt to smear you and exclude you from consideration from public office. That's all good.

HOWEVER, people should not be driven away in fear by a president who has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the separation of powers. A president who declares Congress to be in recess when it is not so he can appoint some more unelected bureaucrats without Congressional review. A president who tells the Supreme Court how they should hold. A president who is spending the country into penury, on things like "shovel ready jobs", and then admits later there never were any shovel ready jobs. A president who is currently talking with the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House - a bunch of REAL religious fanatics who have among their aims the destruction of free Israel, Jews, and ultimately, victory over the West.

Nah... nothing to fear there and run away from there. Just need to worry about them crazy, openly religious Republicans.

What's particularly interesting is the "religio-political issues and social fronts" are not part of any Republican candidate's platform. What has been happening since the beginning of the primary is journalists asking questions about those issues to bring them into the contest. Are those questions fair game? Well sure - but during the last election Obama ran in, his long time association with an unrepentent, convicted terrorst was given a pass. The fact he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, listening to racist and anti-Semitic sermons, was given a pass. We should all be terrified of these nonexistent "religio-political" issues, but a president who hangs out with convicted terrorists and has a racist, anti-Semite as his spiritual advisor? Nah, nothing to see here folks; move along.

Quote :: Republicans have made huge mistakes this year.

They have indeed.

They haven't rejected Romney for turning what should have been a positive primary focusing on Obama's Marxism and unconstitutional government and their alternatives, into a negative campaign where Romney not only outspends his opponents 5 - 1, but over 90% of the 40 million dollars he has spent to date has been on negative ads personally attacking other Republicans in the race.

They've done nothing about Boehner operating as an ineffectual Democrat lapdog, rather than pushing hard with the huge wins they took in the mid-terms.

They've sat largely silent - other than to continue tearing each other up - while Obama flat out lies to the American people i.e. "look at all the drilling my administration is doing".

With rare exceptions - Santorum recently - they've sat silent rather than get in the face of the mainstream media while they do everything they can to support Obama and skew the news.

As I said, they started this year with the election theirs to lose, and since then, they've done just about everything possible to do just that.

Quote :: The whole party is in a back-flush situation, and very little in terms of a "true leader" is even remotely recognizable through the slop.

That depends on your point of view. When you're a Marxist/statist, it's pretty obvious that nobody in the Republican primary would be acceptable. Just as for conservatives and constitutionalists, a man like Obama is essentially what you shovel out of the bottom of a pig stye. Not a leader... an American version of Hugo Chavez, perhaps, but not a leader.

After all, what "leader" would work so hard at setting Americans against each other as Obama has done his entire presidency? Aren't leaders supposed to unite?

Quote :: The tea party really fucked themselves by latching on to the nuttiest of the nuts and swallowed up people like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Michelle Bachmann, and now to a lesser extent Santorum. Throw in the Glenn Becks and you've got a recipe for embarrassed laughter and snickering behind their backs.

That's certainly the way that the Marxists and statists will see it. They don't think a president who hangs out with unapologetic convicted terrorists is a nut. They don't think a president who has a racist and anti-Semite as his spiritual leader is a nut. But conservative women? Yeah... they're nuts.

Of course, if a conservative named a bunch of liberal/statist/Marxist women as "the nuttiest of the nuts"... well hell, these same Marxists and statists would be screaming blue murder about how this was clear evidence of misogyny within the ranks of those evil right wingers. But hey... when that comes from the Marxists and statists... well then it's just fair political commentary.

Quote :

When one of your main two candidates states this:

Quote :: WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

and this:

Quote :: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."

you've got serious problems in your party.

Let's first deal with the usual Leftist/statist attempts to take statements out of context to try and make their case. In the first example given, let's provide what he stated in his entirety - in other words, what should have been provided as the entire quote. Lets have a look at the entire quote, rather than the massaged and edited version from the news story that was presented here:
"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

Now why would somebody carefully edit out parts of that Santorum said when they did their copy/paste out of that news story - Santorum saying that it is those whose attitude is that people of faith have no role in the public square is what makes him want to throw up? Hmmmm... I guess you would leave that part out if you were one of those who believes that people of faith should be rejected as candidates for high public office. But then, that's not exactly honest, is it?

The attempts to twist something into what it is not now aside, what we have here is an example of the percentage of Americans who are pathetically ignorant of their Constitution and the lengthy deliberations and debate among the Founders that ultimately produced it.. Aside from the problem that many of these people lose any sense of reason whenever religion is mentioned, they're obviously abysmally ignorant of the Constitution and its foundations.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about "separation of church and state" - never mind an "absolute" separation of church and state. What the Constitution does say is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
and:
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

And that's it, in its entirety, what our Constitutional documents have to say concerning religion and governance.

When one looks at the one's who are yukking it up because of what Santorum said, it needs to be asked where they find "separation of church and state" in the Constitution? Never mind defining what that means - where do they even find it in the Constitution to begin with?

How is it they take a prohibition on government establishing a religion - like the Church of England the Founders were looking at back in England who they had just defeated - or interfering with the practice of religion, as a prohibition on religion in governance?

Surely these constitutional heavyweights so frightened by Santorum's comments - feeling the need to warn us about people like him - read what the draftsman of the Constitution, Madison said about this? They didn't? Hmmmm... no surprises there; fair enough then, here is what Madison said concerning that: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....”

Okay... in view of that, where did Madison envision anything like expunging religion and anyone who feels guided from religion from governance? Why the hell is "In God We Trust" all over our money, public buildings, etc?

We also can't help but observe that it is truly pathetic that the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be required as qualification for office - but our narrow minded bigoted atheists use a candidate's open religious beliefs as a "religious test" as to whether a candidate is suitable for public office.

Finally, while the Marxists and statists among us are telling us what a crazy whackjob, utterly unsuited for the presidency, somebody like Santorum is who makes statements like that, let's consider a few OTHER quotes from another whackjob political religious nut:

Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my Administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance on God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right.

While we are grateful to all the brave men and officers for the events of the past few days, we should, above all, be very grateful to Almighty God, who gives us victory.

The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly applicable to human affairs, and in this as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is against us; he would gathereth not with us scattereth.

Let us strive to deserve, as far as mortals may, the continued care of Divine Providence, trusting that, in future national emergencies, He will not fail to provide us the instruments of safety and security.

Now if Santorum's comments make you think he is unsuitable for president, the religious whackjob who said the above must be terrifying indeed. So... anybody guess what politician those quotes were from?

A guy we refer to as President Abraham Lincoln. Insert "the recipe for embarrassed laughter and snickering behind their backs" here. Or, snicker openly at them if you wish - I do.

Similar quotes can be found coming from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc - even Kennedy. What a bunch of unsuitable, scary, nuttiest of the nutbars! At least, if you're a Marxist, statist, or Obama acolyte.

As I've said before, if Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, et al were running for the presidency today, our resident Marxists and statists would be pointing at quotes like those and declaring them to be the "nuttiest of the nuts". Their religious prejudice and bigotry runs that deep, Marxism has no place for God, and when your a statist, your god is the supremacy of government.

Quote :: Funny though, if Obama is such a shitty president, and so detrimental to the country and world at large, finding an electable candidate should be pretty damn easy.

Well, no matter how good your candidates are, first of all you need to deal with candidates and party members who would drag the election into an almost wholly negative campaign. It might win you the candidacy, but it will cut your throat for the actual election.

Then you have to recognize that Marxists and statists are opposed to their core of the constitutional concept of limited government with specific enumerated powers. They are equally opposed to anyone who openly acknowledges their religious beliefs.

After that, you have to recognize that you aren't just fighting Obama, but the biggest asset he has in an election - the mainstream media. You know, the guys who say "I feel a thrill go up my leg when he speaks".

But even as unhappy as Americans are with this failed, spendthrift, unconstitutional Marxist president - yes, you can indeed screw up so badly that you lose an election. The media will enthusiastically help to see that happen, of course, but you can't blame them for your own political stupidity and cowardice.

Admin

motokid wrote:: While many people many not be happy with the idea of 4 more years of Obama, they will tell you that the idea of the next 4 years with Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Paul scares the living shit out of them.

They might not be voting for Obama, but they're surely voting against the other choices available.

So what's that say about the "other choices"?

I seem to remember a similar analysis put forward that posited that Americans would never choose George Bush over Obama. And that the "Tea Party nuts" were going to get their asses kicked in the midterm elections.

Then we had a little straw poll here on the preference for Obama versus Bush, and the mid term elections. And we all remember how that turned out: the poll showed a strong preference for Bush over Obama, and the Tea Party insurrection kicked the Democrat's asses in the midterm. Or to use Obama's words, they "got a shellacking".

So what's that say about the "other choices"? When the other choice is Obama?

It says a lot of what ordinary Americans think of "the other choice", when that choice's name is Obama. There's a reason the left wing, the regressives, the statists and the Marxists have to constantly go to the courts to get what they want, instead of getting it through elections at the polls - it's because the leaders they support "scare the living shit" out of the majority of Americans, and they can't get what they want through the normal electoral process.

What we've essentially got here is a view into the mindset of your basic American statists and Marxists. They have ample time to try and present the Republican candidates as scary. They have ample time to try and find quotes. We're supposed to believe they are pure of heart, merely languishing for the best Republican available to contest the election against Obama.

But it is impossible to not notice that, while they have ample time to demonize Republicans, complete with quotes taken from the web and edited to change the context of what was said, their posts expressing any dissatisfaction, concern, mistrust, fear, etc of Obama are completely lacking. No, these pure of heart folks telling us Republicans have to find better candidates have yet to post one bad word about The Anointed One. Too concerned with trying to improve the Republican crop to concern themselves with Obama and any of his track record, apparently.

Oh yes, they're on the side of those of us who believe in the constitution, limited government with narrow, enumerated powers, and conservative values - particularly fiscal and governmental conservative values. They're with us, they just haven't had time to get around to posting anything negative about Obama yet.

What we really have here, of course, is our native Marxist/statist base. They don't want to see a true conservative Republican run against the Marxist wrecking ball currently in the White House. What they want is a choice between the current Marxist and a moderate Democrat - in other words, what they want from the Republican party as the alternate choice in the election is not a conservative, but another RINO like McCain - or for that matter, George Bush, who wasn't exactly a conservative either. I suspect they are also somewhat aware of just how well RINOs like McCain do when they run against Obama...

If Reagan were running against Obama in this election, he would mop the floor with him. It wouldn't even be close. But that isn't what this collective mob of Marxists, statists, regressives, and their associated hangers-on want. They want a choice between Obama, and a RINO Republican candidate who is Obama Lite. They don't really have a problem with a Marxist in the White House who is turning the Executive Branch into a state of being an Imperial Presidency, ignoring the separation of powers and taking powers for himself that the Constitution does not grant. You won't find a post here from any of them, expressing even one concern about Obama's presidency.

But Republican hopefuls with conservative values?

They're all over that like a fat kid on a chocolate bar!

Good posts, Jager. very insightful, & of course, pointed!

It does seem to me that the only strategy the pro obama forces have is to demonize & discredit the opposition.. they certainly can't run on his record. His 2 main accomplishments? The nearly $1Trillion stimulus, that still has us with 8%+ unemployment & a stagnant economy, & universal health care, which the supreme court will likely find unconstitutional. Oh sure, lots of his cronies have gotten sweet deals at the taxpayer's expense.. solyndra, unions, academic grants, etc, but the left does not see the govt as a partner with economic growth & business, but as competition. Free markets offend the leftists, who want govt to rule & micromanage everything.

I think the choice in the upcoming election is becoming more clear:

1. More statism, big govt, taxes, & control.

or

2. More individualism, limited govt, & personal responsibility.

Or more simply,

1. Free-stuff

2. Free-dom

The problem as i see it, is too many americans are dazzled by the promise of free-stuff. They think we can just print money & have it all! If we're going to do that, why not print everyone $1 million & let them have it? It will only add a few more T's to the deficit, so why not?

The boom of the welfare state & the entitlement mentality may spell the end of classical america. It seems we will sell our freedoms for some retirement percs or an illusion of prosperity. But surely we know the gravy train cannot go on forever? All ponzi scams come to a bitter end, & the leftist run financial scheme we are in will too. The dollar will either collapse, or severe austerity will have to become the rule to offset the irresponsible fiscal policies the left has burdened the taxpayers with.

There is no 'something for nothing'.

We can postpone disaster for a while, but unless we deal with the financial madness in the govt they will bankrupt us.

The left will distract, divide, deflect, distort, & discredit to keep our attention off of their fiscal madness.

'Look, birth control!'

'OMG, Nazis!'

'Run!! Religious zealots, and racist, nazi, women haters!!!'

They will do anything to keep our attention off of the finances. They will conjure up racism to distract us. They demonize business or the rich or the middle class, or anyone they can to deflect. They will portray their opponents as women haters & racist nazis.. anything to move the discussion from economics.

If they are successful, i don't know if the nation can survive. 4 more years of socialist policies will bring us closer to financial ruin. Just because we cannot imagine financial collapse does not mean it cannot happen. It has happened to other nations throughout history, & we are dancing to the same tune.

"Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State." ~Winston Churchill

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero

What IS Leftism? ..The first thing to say is that Leftism is emotional. The second is to say that the emotion is negative and the third thing to say is that the negative emotion (anger/hate/rage) is directed at the world about the Leftist, at the status quo if you like. The Leftist is nothing if he is not a critic, though usually a very poorly-informed critic. And the criticisms are both pervasive and deeply felt. ~John J. Ray

Moderator

Santorum Quits <-- clicky

Quote :: After calling Mitt Romney to concede the race for the Republican nomination, Rick Santorum suspended his campaign Tuesday during a press conference in Pennsylvania, his home state.

"We will suspend our campaign effective today," Santorum said surrounded by members of his family in Gettysburg.
Santorum spent the weekend off the campaign trail with his 3-year-old daughter, Bella, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder, after she was rushed to the hospital Friday.

"We made a decision over the weekend that, while this presidential race for us is over, for me, and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting," he said.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Admin

motokid wrote:: Santorum Quits <-- clicky

What a creepy, weird religious bastard - being more concerned about his child's health than trying to be president.

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:: Santorum Quits <-- clicky

What a creepy, weird religious bastard - being more concerned about his child's health than trying to be president.

You honestly think that had anything at all to do with his quitting...he could never win, is the one and only reason...talk about the tail trying to wag the dog. It is what it is.

Moderator

Jäger wrote:: What a creepy, weird religious bastard - being more concerned about his child's health than trying to be president.

This statement is precisely why I have stopped reading anything Jager posts in political threads. I only read this one because is was so astonishingly short and concise.

Still, even in its brevity, it totally captures the lack of logic and insight that I've come to expect from a Jager post.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Admin

mucker wrote:: You honestly think that had anything at all to do with his quitting...he could never win, is the one and only reason...talk about the tail trying to wag the dog. It is what it is.

I am looking at what it is.

What it is, is a bunch of Marxists/statists who simply can't imagine that a conservative politician would actually put their young child - one who has been given a very, very short life expectancy - ahead of their political aspirations. Whether the hope was to become the actual candidate, or winning an offer to run as the vice- presidential running mate.

I mean... between just the two of us, you really do believe them evil right wingers are far too inhuman to have any kind of parental emotional attachments like that, right? After all, you're convinced George Bush was the one responsible for everything up to and including every flat tire in the USA during his presidency... and he was just a RINO, not a conservative.

Admin

motokid wrote:: This statement is precisely why I have stopped reading anything Jager posts in political threads.

Mostly, I think you've just finally decided it's wiser not to - yet again - get your ass kicked, reamed, and generally exposed in public for all to see.

Like your disbelief that Americans would prefer Bush to Obama - and then you started a poll which proved you wrong and showed EVERYBODY just how badly mistaken you were.

Like your starting a thread on all the extremists here in Montana - which resulted in it being pointed out to you that your crazy state has far and away more hate crimes than Montana has.

Or, of course, your rants about those "nuttiest of nuts" candidates with religious beliefs - which looks pathetically lame when one reviews what past presidents like Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Washington said concerning public office and their religious beliefs. Leaving us with the question... do you hold those past presidents in as much contempt as well? After all, what they said about their religious beliefs went far beyond what somebody like Santorum has ever said.

Quote :: Still, even in its brevity, it totally captures the lack of logic and insight that I've come to expect from a Jager post.

Well, I've never picked special moments to publicly humiliate myself like you did with your Obama versus Bush poll. That kind of lack of insight?

Or the "look at all the extremists in Jäger's state" fiasco where you shot yourself in the foot - yet again - when it turns out your state has... what... four times as many... hate crimes? That kind of logic?

Nor have I ever edited a quote to have it taken out of context as you do... but then, that's not a lack of logic and insight - that's just plain dishonest.

I claim no special powers or insight... you Marxist/statists are just so damned narrow minded and hysterically irrational that it's too damned easy. As they say, it's kind of like clubbing baby seals.

Unfortunately, it also makes you and your fellow travellers easy pickings for people like Obama to utilize as their generation's useful idiots. And to saddle your kids with the bills for your dreams of socialist utopia. Here kids - here's what I'm leaving you!

But whatever... you keep posting your socialist drivel, and I'll keep pointing out why it isn't even worthy of a grade school student.

And frankly, I really don't care whether you read it or not. You're bent so far to the left you're beyond retrieval; it's the rest of the audience the reply is for.

Now run along and pretend you didn't read this...

Ron Paul still has a decent chance at winning. He currently has 190~ delegates compared to Romneys 620~, but there are RP stealth delegates declared as others for the time being (until Tampa.) Those delegates apply pressure and are working at multiplying their numbers inside the existing/future delegates.

Admin

slapcorn wrote:: Ron Paul still has a decent chance at winning. He currently has 190~ delegates compared to Romneys 620~, but there are RP stealth delegates declared as others for the time being (until Tampa.) Those delegates apply pressure and are working at multiplying their numbers inside the existing/future delegates.

Ron Paul - fortunately - has zero chance of winning. The idea of a stealth takeover of the nomination might be the basis for an entertaining novel, but that's about it. This is a good thing because while Romney makes what should have been an easy win into a 50/50 at best, Ron Paul as either the Republican candidate or a third party candidate is a guaranteed win for Obama and what I believe will be the final destruction of America as a republic. Of course, for those who hate the idea of America as a republic with a federal government with limited and narrow powers as the Founders declared it should be and implemented, this would be a good thing - but that's another topic.

Ron Paul is playing for position and input at the convention, nothing more. I don't suppose anyone else noticed that while Ron Paul and Romney spent tens of millions attacking all the other candidates instead of promoting their ideas and policies, neither one laid barely a critical glove on the other? If Paul gets input on domestic/economic issues, that is not so bad. But on military and foreign policy - the man is an illiterate on those issues, verging on being incomprehensible.

We are stuck with Romney, meaning the presidential choice this year will be between Obama the Marxist and Obama-Lite with Romney the RINO. Romney is still the far better choice between the two, but we're looking at a man whose transition team leader, Michael Leavitt, is a person who enthusiastically endorses Obamacare. His economic advisor, Glenn Hubbard, is a former GWB (the previous RINO) official who supports "adjustments" (called " increased taxation" by ordinary people) being borne by "the wealthy". More class warfare and blaming it on some other guy.

This is not what the Founders intended and this is not how America governed itself for the first 200 years. This is not conservatism. This is not "everybody pays their fair share". The concept of "The wealthy can afford the adjustments" is another way of stating Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability to each according to their needs".

It has become a question of whether enough people see Obama as bad enough to make Romney seem good enough. Romney's attitude about "we'll just hit the reset button" after primaries spent attacking others instead of promoting himself have turned a lot of people off. In the media war where Obama already has the mainstream media prostituting themselves for him and his mindset without spending a nickel, Romney just getting peoples' votes is not enough - he needs money to fight the communications battle, and a lot of pissed off Republicans/conservatives are not going to give him anything other than their vote. He needs every dime he can get when Obama has about a billion in funds already and is using Airforce One and his taxpayer-funded presidential budget to hit fundraisers all over the country while on the pretext of presidential duties.

This year started out with the election being the Republican's to lose (Obama promised his porkulus package would have unemployment at 5.7% by now - under the previous method of calculating unemployment - if anyone else remembers). So far, Romney and the GOP RINO backroom establishment supporting him like the Bush's, the Roves, etc have done everything imaginable to set themselves up to lose. The Tea Party values of limited federal government and power, cutting wildly increasing federal regulation, taxation and spending, etc which brought about the last election results that overwhelmingly handed them the House and reduced the Senate to a narrower Democrat majority are so clearly lost on them.

Rather than a Republican candidate with a vision, holding traditional American values, we are going to have at best a caretaker president who will do minimal damage while toying with "fixing progressive ideas" rather than eliminating them altogether. At best. The anniversary of D-Day was yesterday, that generation in the US, Canada, etc at its finest. The bulk of those men would be appalled at the mental rot we find ourselves in today as we increasingly surrender our liberty and individualism to "progressive" governments, statism, and socialism.

Moderator

motokid wrote:: Santorum wins Iowa
Romney wins New Hampshire
Gingrich wins South Carolina

So - predict who wins the overall nomination. Who goes head to head with Obama?

Not necessarily who you WANT to win - but who do you think will win?

I'm thinking the Romney train will be hard to beat. I say he eventually gets the win.

From my very first post of the thread.

Quote :: I'm thinking the Romney train will be hard to beat. I say he eventually gets the win.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Jäger wrote:: Ron Paul - fortunately - has zero chance of winning. The idea of a stealth takeover of the nomination might be the basis for an entertaining novel, but that's about it.

Unfortunately*

Not zero. Incredibly improbable though. The chances have dropped dramatically recently.

Jäger wrote:: This is a good thing because while Romney makes what should have been an easy win into a 50/50 at best,

It is a bad thing because Ron Paul as President would be better than Obama/Romney. Romney never had an easy win - even to the establishment GOP he sucks.

Jäger wrote:: Ron Paul as either the Republican candidate or a third party candidate is a guaranteed win for Obama and what I believe will be the final destruction of America as a republic.

This is just uneducated parroting of establishment talking points. More support came from the independents and democrats than traditional GOP. It bolsters Romney actually. Also - the "final destruction of America as a republic" happened a long time ago.

Jäger wrote:: Ron Paul is playing for position and input at the convention, nothing more.

Possibly, and his supporters don't appreciate it if that was his intention.

Jäger wrote:: But on military and foreign policy - the man is an illiterate on those issues, verging on being incomprehensible.

He is very comprehensible on that issue in particular. It was actually his most comprehensible crux of his campaign where he got most of his support. You just have that perspective because you most probably believe in widespread military intervention - although I'm not sure- you'll have to tell us why you love having your empire so much.

Jäger wrote:: Obama the Marxist and Obama-Lite with Romney the RINO.

Obama is not a Marxist. He does not attempt to raise the standard of living of the poor or believe in some sort of collectivism (which would be bad enough.) Nor is Romney a RINO. They are simply empty vessels for the powers that be. They are more like pirates on the 7 seas. Just a more sophisticated type of thievery.

Jäger wrote:: Romney is still the far better choice between the two

Incorrect. The changing of the horses only mean that there is a buffer year or so where the populace goes back to sleep waiting to hear about how he runs us into the ground the same as Obama. Policy does not change, and will not change. At least keeping Obama in will keep the pressure on.

Everything after that statement was just irrelevant to the current state of affairs and shows that you are caught up in the left/right false paradigm.

Admin

slapcorn wrote:: It is a bad thing because Ron Paul as President would be better than Obama/Romney.

We'll have to disagree on that. He is a foreign policy illiterate - unless, of course, you somehow or other believe the US can actually operate in a vacuum. His statements on US troop deployments abroad, alone, mark him as an idiot. I think I expanded on that earlier, on this thread or another one.

Quote :: This is just uneducated parroting of establishment talking points.

Is this where I retort "And here we have the mindless ravings of another bug eyed anarchist"? Try and do a little better than that. If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm not exactly "establishment" anything, but most particularly RINO Republican nor socialist/progressive Democrat.

Quote :: More support came from the independents and democrats than traditional GOP. It bolsters Romney actually.

So... if a two way presidential race becomes a three way race with Ron Paul, the votes he gets will mostly come from Democrats instead of Republicans, thus ensuring Obama loses? Don't think so.

And with all the racist stuff in his background, in his newsletters - which he of course claims he had nothing to do with and his followers echo their belief on that - he's going to just haul in the black vote as they desert Obama to vote for Paul? I don't care whether you believe he knew about those writings or not, that's out there, and I don't think he has a chance in hell with the black voters because of it.

Quote :: Also - the "final destruction of America as a republic" happened a long time ago.

If you believe the republic has already been finally destroyed, I'm not sure why you care anymore anyways.

I happen to believe the republic was coming along quite nicely with Reagan, until we regressed back to RINO Bush Mk1 and Mk2, with an impeached pervert Democrat filling in the space between them.

Quote :: He is very comprehensible on that issue in particular. It was actually his most comprehensible crux of his campaign where he got most of his support. You just have that perspective because you most probably believe in widespread military intervention - although I'm not sure- you'll have to tell us why you love having your empire so much.

Let's help you with Ron Paul's vast military comprehension a little bit.

Your Ron Paul defines having a military base outside of the US as "occupying" that country. We're the occupier of Italy? Of Canada? Of Belize? Seriously, Ron? Let's see... nine troops in Mali, eight in Barbados, seven in Laos, six in Lithuania, five in Lebanon, four in Moldova, three in Mongolia, two in Suriname and one in Gabon. And those tiny numbers of troops are occupying the countries they're in. Damn we're good!

And in his advanced state of comprehension, he claimed last February we had 900 foreign bases in 130 foreign countries. DoD helpfully publishes a list of military bases each year, and it's more like 600 bases - and about 550 of those "bases" have just a handful of troops. And the list shows about 40 countries, not 130 - but it can get up around 153 countries... if you count Marine guards at embassies and military attaches as bases/occupiers. And that one troop in Gabon? That's a base, by God!

I'm sure I haven't shaken your faith any, but when he is that out to lunch on what US troop deployments are, and what constitutes a "base"... he ain't the brightest light in the heavens when it comes to the military.

I also don't buy his fairy tale that Iran doesn't threaten our security. It is perfectly normal for a country awash in oil but short on water to want to develop nuclear power plants instead of oil/gas fired power plants. And if they actually are lying to Ron and ending up launching nukes in the Middle East, that will never harm the US - we'll be nice and safe and isolated back home.

Do I believe in military intervention? In some instances, absolutely. In maintaining military allies? Absolutely. Calling it "empire" is sure impressive, though. Cut from the same cloth as Ron Paul's "occupy" statements, I guess.

Quote :: Obama is not a Marxist. He does not attempt to raise the standard of living of the poor or believe in some sort of collectivism (which would be bad enough.)

I'm trying to think of all the Marxists of the past who have actually attempted to improve the standard of living of the people they became the masters of - instead of simply just securing their power and their control over those people. Could you help us with some names - those are the ones we use as the yardstick for Obama, right? As far as I can tell Marxism has never been anything other than a fairy tale in it's claim to be for the poor worker bee. In reality, it's about power and the forceable control of the populace.

No, collectivism bears no resemblance to Obama's "redistribute the wealth" and all the rest of that schtick. "Redistribute the wealth" sounds nothing like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", does it?

And nationalizing industries... nothing Marxist in that, is there? Straight capitalism at work, right?

Quote :: Nor is Romney a RINO.

Of course not. Romneycare is an excellent example of his strong conservative credentials. That's been one hell of an economic gift for Massachusetts! Then of course there's his pride on the gun laws of that state, his support for cap and trade, TARP, etc. Ain't exactly fearsome on illegal immigration. And he certainly doesn't see a problem with big government, he'd just do big government differently.

Does Romney hold ANY conservative values that you're aware of?

Quote :: Incorrect. The changing of the horses only mean that there is a buffer year or so where the populace goes back to sleep waiting to hear about how he runs us into the ground the same as Obama. Policy does not change, and will not change. At least keeping Obama in will keep the pressure on.

Right. Four more years of Obama is a GOOD thing if we can't have our savior Ron Paul. Because the republic has already been destroyed anyways, so Ron will lead us to the new promised land. Reagan managed to beat back the RINO GOP establishment, and win successive landslide victories that crossed party lines, but we should never dare to think that can be done again. We need either Paul, or Obama and all he will do in the next four years when he no longer has to concern himself with reelection, to drive us all into Paul's arms (let's pretend we don't have to consider that people might just turn around and run right back to the next RINO instead of Paul...).

Riigggghhhhtttttt.

Quote :: Everything after that statement was just irrelevant to the current state of affairs and shows that you are caught up in the left/right false paradigm.

The current state of affairs with the 900 bases in 130 countries you mean.

The current state of affairs where Iran developing nukes, led by a man who thinks it is possible for a good Muslim (as he sees Islam) to bring about Armageddon so the 12th Mahdi can crawl up out of the well.... is not a security threat to America?

I think I'll just stick with my "false paradigm" that sees things a little differently than the Paul bots, thanks.

Would I vote for Paul instead of Obama if that were the choice? Absolutely. I simply don't believe there's anyone on the horizon who is as destructive to America as Obama. He makes even Paul look good, and many of Paul's domestic policies are good, while everything Obama comes up with is a shit show.

Jäger wrote:: I'm not exactly "establishment" anything...

I think you are.

Jäger wrote:: So... if a two way presidential race becomes a three way race with Ron Paul, the votes he gets will mostly come from Democrats instead of Republicans, thus ensuring Obama loses? Don't think so.

Yes, RP would consistently win in polls vrs Obama, more-so than Romney. It was harder to get the repub establishment to listen. Not to mention, by far the majority of RP support came from 18-32 year olds, which was Obama's gold the first time around. Many other points that would back up my claim as well as just my educated opinion from being on the ground, but I don't have all day.

Quote :: I don't think he has a chance in hell with the black voters because of it.

You'll have to go look at the numbers then. A politically informed black voter is usually a grade above a typically informed white voter, meaning they can see through the "newsletter" propaganda. Look at the race statistics in RP polls, as well as the race distribution of both his delegates and constituents. There's no other republican that can get the black vote like him.

Quote :: If you believe the republic has already been finally destroyed, I'm not sure why you care anymore anyways.

I want to get it back, or create a new one.

Quote :: I happen to believe the republic was coming along quite nicely with Reagan, until we regressed back to RINO Bush Mk1 and Mk2, with an impeached pervert Democrat filling in the space between them.

You like big government, I don't. The U.S. got shot dead in the head at Dealey Plaza, that was the last free president (not that I think JFK was the best or anything, he was just the last real president.) That's basically the final straw that completed the takeover of the U.S. Government.

Quote :: Your Ron Paul defines having a military base outside of the US as "occupying" that country. We're the occupier of Italy? Of Canada? Of Belize? Seriously, Ron? Let's see... nine troops in Mali ...

Yes, we are occupying with military bases and/or military personnel.

Quote :: And in his advanced state of comprehension, he claimed last February we had 900 foreign bases in 130 foreign countries. DoD helpfully publishes a list of military bases each year, and it's more like 600 bases - and about 550 of those "bases" have just a handful of troops. And the list shows about 40 countries, not 130 - but it can get up around 153 countries... if you count Marine guards at embassies and military attaches as bases/occupiers. And that one troop in Gabon? That's a base, by God!

#1 RP could of said the same thing with 12 bases and 5 countries, the point still stands on a galactic level.
#2 That's just the DOD
#3 Those are all US military in other countries. It all counts.
#4 You're basing your facts on a report from POLITICO. I know what you read.

Quote :: I'm sure I haven't shaken your faith any

No, you haven't shaken faith - I don't have any. RP has disappointed me as to dampening the Tampa delegates for political expediency - not that I think they are going to put him on top, but because of the principle.

Quote :: he ain't the brightest light in the heavens when it comes to the military

Ah, but he got the most campaign donations in both the 08 and 2012 presidential runs from the military. Most quarters he got more than all of the other candidates combined. He was also getting more support and money than the "Commander in Theif." I guess the military doesn't know about the military.

Quote :: I also don't buy his fairy tale that Iran doesn't threaten our security. It is perfectly normal for a country awash in oil but short on water to want to develop nuclear power plants instead of oil/gas fired power plants. And if they actually are lying to Ron and ending up launching nukes in the Middle East, that will never harm the US - we'll be nice and safe and isolated back home.

#1 It's normal for any country to want nuclear power plants, but that's beside the point - because yes they would like to have a nuclear weapon.
#2 Do you have a clue as to what countries have nukes? How about the nukes that the U.S. sold to Pakistan? Good play.
#3 Afraid for the criminal government of Israel? They have 300+ nukes, why would a country that makes one want to nuke one that has 300?
#4 Do you know any history of Iran? Like how we (CIA/MI6) overthrew their democratically elected government in the 50's and put in a dictatorship to oppress their people and drain their oil?
#5 Why would they launch a nuke if they are surrounded by their enemies, and completely out gunned and numbered?
#6 Even if this ridiculous bed time story generated by the occupying government of the U.S. played itself out, it does not affect us directly.
#7 It's not our business
#8 To make it our business is to violate many moral and global rules including the premises of our own government. (which we already have.)
#9 Sanctions and subterfuge/assasinations are already underway, which are acts of war - so it's all started anyway - enjoy it.
#10 If I was Iran I would want a nuke. With the way they are being treated, they deserve to have one for psychological self-defense in theory.

Quote :: Do I believe in military intervention? In some instances, absolutely. In maintaining military allies? Absolutely. Calling it "empire" is sure impressive, though. Cut from the same cloth as Ron Paul's "occupy" statements, I guess.

Then you're an interventionist and one who believes in entangling alliances - both anti-American ideas. And yes, it's the largest empire the world has ever known.

Quote :: Marxism... In reality, it's about power and the forceable control of the populace.

I agree, Marx was a British de-facto agent that gave Russia a counter-revolution that got a bit out of control. I don't really know any Marxist who had good intentions or who raised the standard of living, it wasn't really for that... I agree with you - but Obama isn't one regardless. Just a criminal.

"And nationalizing industries..." semi-Marxist - more like Mussolini Fascism.

Quote :: Does Romney hold ANY conservative values that you're aware of?

No, none that I'm aware of. He's just a corporate tool to shine to the masses so their eyes gloss over and send him to the White House for the interests that put him there to suck this country dry. Putting any political label on such a tool is mis-labeling.

Quote :: Right. Four more years of Obama is a GOOD thing if we can't have our savior Ron Paul. Because the republic has already been destroyed anyways, so Ron will lead us to the new promised land.

No, it really has nothing to do with Ron Paul, it's more about the Obama/Romney dichotomy. Like I said, people will just go to sleep if Romney gets in.

Quote :: Reagan managed to beat back the RINO GOP establishment, and win successive landslide victories that crossed party lines, but we should never dare to think that can be done again.

Sure he did that, and he ran on a decent platform (Ron Paul was one of only 3 at the federal government who voted for him before his win-run,) and sure it could happen again. But then he ruined everything he ran for when he got to office.

Paul's done after this bid, I don't really understand your running to RP's arms/Obama comment.

Quote :: ...Armageddon so the 12th Mahdi can crawl up out of the well.... is not a security threat to America?

Yea that state of affairs. The one where we hide under the covers because of the brown men boogeymen. Sad to see the media's convinced you that Iran wants to start "Armageddon blah blah blah." No they are not a security threat to America. You afraid of the goat herders hiding in Afghan caves too? Maybe instead of being the guardsmen of the opium plantations we could bring our troops home. I can talk about a whole host of issues that are more pertinent and dangerous to all of us than the idiotic antics taking place in the oil pits.

Quote :: Would I vote for Paul instead of Obama if that were the choice? Absolutely. I simply don't believe there's anyone on the horizon who is as destructive to America as Obama. He makes even Paul look good, and many of Paul's domestic policies are good, while everything Obama comes up with is a shit show.

That's good - I agree with most of that except believing that Romney will be just as bad as Obama, with the added complacency of the American public for a few years.

Admin

slapcorn wrote:

Jäger wrote:: I'm not exactly "establishment" anything...

I think you are.

And I think you're a Ron Paul libertarian/anarchist/dreamer who somehow or other thinks we can go back and live in the 18th century. While the leftists and statists out there see everyone who doesn't share their vision as "right wing extremists", everyone who doesn't see the world as you do is "establishment".

Now that we each know where the other stands...

Jäger wrote:: Yes, RP would consistently win in polls vrs Obama, more-so than Romney.

Oh, like this ongoing, blended poll you mean? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Or do you prefer the polls from the dailypaul.com and other similar websites?

It appears the real problem here is that either Americans as a people are just not smart enough to recognize the genius of Ron Paul and his supporters - or they're smart enough to realize that Ron Paul and his supporters are out of touch with reality and that's why the Republican choice was ultimately Romney over Paul.

Quote :: Not to mention, by far the majority of RP support came from 18-32 year olds, which was Obama's gold the first time around.

That would be the ones that it now looks like are falling back into their apathy of not even bothering to vote. Let's see... "Only 46% plan to vote in November; only 40% are even registered to vote". Looks like Ron Paul has it all wrapped up when the majority of his support comes from a group of which only 40% have even registered to vote

Quote :: Many other points that would back up my claim as well as just my educated opinion from being on the ground, but I don't have all day.

Yeah, that educated opinion on how RP will get the majority of his support from a group of which only 40% so far have registered to vote really has me in a corner. But I too don't have all day.

Quote :: You'll have to go look at the numbers then. A politically informed black voter is usually a grade above a typically informed white voter, meaning they can see through the "newsletter" propaganda.

You can call it "propaganda" all you want. You have probably even convinced yourself that it's propaganda. But if you want to believe that blacks will look at stuff Paul can't claim somebody else wrote that he didn't know about in his newsletters like "“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.", and then vote for the man who wrote that, you're dreaming.

There's also the question of how Ron Paul can be so gifted and smart, and yet have all that racist crap in his Ron Paul Political Report over decades - stuff that drew lots of attention and flack at the time - and yet claim he had no knowledge/input/control over it. The gifted, smart guy missed all of that; never noticed the criticism it created. Really Ron? Seriously Ron? Are we actually supposed to believe that this is just "propaganda"????

Quote :

Quote :: I happen to believe the republic was coming along quite nicely with Reagan, until we regressed back to RINO Bush Mk1 and Mk2, with an impeached pervert Democrat filling in the space between them.

You like big government, I don't.

I don't like big government. The essential difference is anarchists/libertarians like you don't like any government, period. For you, the word "government" is synonymous with "conspiracy" and "occupation" and that pretty much makes up not just you but a large percentage of Ron Paul's supporters. Reagan scaling back government and government spending was never enough for that group - he should have got us back to what the Founders envisioned in the whole eight years he had (with a hostile Tip O'Neil Congress to deal with for much of the same time). But what he couldn't do, Ron Paul will... Harry Reid et al be damned.

Quote :: The U.S. got shot dead in the head at Dealey Plaza, that was the last free president (not that I think JFK was the best or anything, he was just the last real president.) That's basically the final straw that completed the takeover of the U.S. Government.

Ah yes, the conspiracy theories on who actually pulls the strings of US presidents (and every voter who walks into a polling booth, apparently, when they select those presidents).

Let's at least include the election fraud in Kennedy's election if we're going to talk about "the last free president".
Kennedy's election in 1960 over Nixon involved heavy fraud in Illinois and Texas - if Nixon had won those two states, he would have won the presidency. As examples of ballot box stuffing: In Texas's Angelina County, in one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon; in Fannin County the 4895 registered voters cast 6138 votes (75% for Kennedy).

Of course, following Kennedy's election, he appointed his brother Bobby (who would seem to be somewhat underqualified, e.g. he'd never argued a case in a courtroom) US attorney general, and Bobby Kennedy's first act was to shut down all federal investigations into voting fraud. That took care of that, and thus America was blessed with "the last free president". Didn't owe the Daley political machine or anyone else a dime for handing him the presidency.

And the Mafia connections of both JFK and his dad, which also figured into the election fraud. But the Mafia all did it for free, not asking for anything in return, I'm sure.

But that's just my uneducated view on what you see as the last free president and how he got into office.

Quote :

Quote :: Your Ron Paul defines having a military base outside of the US as "occupying" that country. We're the occupier of Italy? Of Canada? Of Belize? Seriously, Ron? Let's see... nine troops in Mali ...

Yes, we are occupying with military bases and/or military personnel.

You and Ron think alike on that - no surprise there. That one American military person in Gabon means America is occupying Gabon. But you realize this means America is also an occupied country as well, right?

After all, if American military embassy guards and attache's mean America occupies all the countries their located in, then... well hell, that means America is an occupied country as well, because other countries have military embassy guards and attache's here in America.

It gets so confusing beyond that point. If a couple of dozen countries all have military embassy guards and/or attache's in America, which one is designated as the Official Occupier?

Is Ron Paul planning on ending the confusion by expelling all foreign military embassy guards and attache's in America? Along with withdrawing all military attache's and embassy guards from foreign countries so he can get the number of foreign bases down along with ending the occupation? Does that mean our embassies go without guards - or will he simplify matters even further by simply closing embassies? Somewhat logical, I suppose - when you're an isolationist, you don't have much use for embassies either abroad or in your own country.

Quote :

Quote :: And in his advanced state of comprehension, he claimed last February we had 900 foreign bases in 130 foreign countries. DoD helpfully publishes a list of military bases each year, and it's more like 600 bases - and about 550 of those "bases" have just a handful of troops. And the list shows about 40 countries, not 130 - but it can get up around 153 countries... if you count Marine guards at embassies and military attaches as bases/occupiers. And that one troop in Gabon? That's a base, by God!

#1 RP could of said the same thing with 12 bases and 5 countries, the point still stands on a galactic level.
#2 That's just the DOD
#3 Those are all US military in other countries. It all counts.
#4 You're basing your facts on a report from POLITICO. I know what you read.

I read a lot of stuff - not just Ron Paul websites complaining about how Ron Paul could save the country and don't get no respect. And Paul has been hammered on numbers like those by a lot of people, not just the progressive leftists at Politico.

Of course, the numbers and where they came from really don't matter when, for people like you, even 12 bases in 5 countries is too much, and even one embassy guard or military attache becomes a US occupation of the country they're located in. I'm sure you find that line of thought perfectly logical and rational - I don't. I think Holland, Belgium, etc could have dealt with their occupiers quite nicely if it had been nothing more than a handful of embassy guards/military attache's. In my world, including the military world I served in, military personnel merely being in another country, whether at a training base, as embassy guards, as attache's, does not constitute an occupation.

Quote :: Ah, but he got the most campaign donations in both the 08 and 2012 presidential runs from the military. Most quarters he got more than all of the other candidates combined. He was also getting more support and money than the "Commander in Theif." I guess the military doesn't know about the military.

It never occurred to you that the bulk of the military is administrative, not combat arms? So let's see... here I have a candidate promising I'll never have to work outside the US again. And if I'm overseas, he's bringing me home. Let's see... what to do, what to do... Of course, did Ron say what we will do with all those tens of thousands of military personnel once we get them home? Do we have a use for them in his isolationist world, or do we tell a bunch of them "thanks for your service, we don't need you anymore"?

After all, maintaining the same numbers of military servicemen once we no longer have a foreign presence that required those numbers would just be big government. And Ron Paul and his supporters are dead set against anything faintly resembling that.

I wonder if the military personnel who threw donations Ron Paul's way thought his promises through to their logical conclusion. People don't like hearing it, but a large chunk of the US military support services is an attractive make work project for people who couldn't do nearly that good for themselves in the private sector. In other countries as well, but certainly in the US. Where in the private sector can you make your living driving a delivery truck and get that kind of benefits and pension?

Unintended consequences... more properly, unconsidered consequences.

Quote :: #1 It's normal for any country to want nuclear power plants, but that's beside the point - because yes they would like to have a nuclear weapon.

Right. No problem anyways, right?

Quote :: #2 Do you have a clue as to what countries have nukes? How about the nukes that the U.S. sold to Pakistan? Good play.

The US sold nukes to Pakistan? Really... do you have a scanned copy of the receipt, or do I have to go to a conspiracy theory website to read all about it? But regardless of that, the fact is they have them. So, what is Ron Paul gonna do? Buy 'em back???

Quote :: #3 Afraid for the criminal government of Israel? They have 300+ nukes, why would a country that makes one want to nuke one that has 300?

Ah yes, the criminal government of Israel. Thanks for that.

Now why would Ahmadinejad want to attempt to bring about Armageddon, and out of that the return of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi? Or do you think the Iranian president ain't big on that?

Quote :: #4 Do you know any history of Iran? Like how we (CIA/MI6) overthrew their democratically elected government in the 50's and put in a dictatorship to oppress their people and drain their oil?

Yes I do. You figure electing Ron Paul is going to make that disappear? Their prez will start being a nice guy when Obama playing kissy face with him didn't help one bit? You figure it will change his religious views on the Mahdi and ordinary men having the ability, perhaps even the duty, to bring about the Armageddon that will suck that Mahdi right up out of that well he's in?

Quote :: #5 Why would they launch a nuke if they are surrounded by their enemies, and completely out gunned and numbered?

Oh, I don't know. The return of the Mahdi is probably a good start.

Quote :: #6 Even if this ridiculous bed time story generated by the occupying government of the U.S. played itself out, it does not affect us directly.

The "occupying government of the US" - elections never really happened, for better or worse. Got it.

It's a good thing to know that 300 plus whatever nukes going off in the Middle East could never affect us directly. And that Iran with nukes would never, not for one instant, ever consider giving one to some terrorists bent on attacking the US. Because of course, once we've withdrawn our military inside our borders and shut down or severely curtailed our military intelligence operations outside of our borders (because it's none of our business), our chances of seeing it coming are about zero.

Quote :: #7 It's not our business

Right. Couldn't possibly be a threat to us. Ron and his followers say so. Got it.

Quote :: #8 To make it our business is to violate many moral and global rules including the premises of our own government. (which we already have.)

Right. Doesn't become our business until a nuke from Iran goes off in America. If we sit on our asses while a foreign government prepares nukes for a preemptive strike that would kill millions, that's moral. If they nuke us, and we then turn their citizens and children into glowing embers (people who had no say in their president's ideology)... now THAT'S moral.

Quote :

Quote :: Do I believe in military intervention? In some instances, absolutely. In maintaining military allies? Absolutely. Calling it "empire" is sure impressive, though. Cut from the same cloth as Ron Paul's "occupy" statements, I guess.

Then you're an interventionist and one who believes in entangling alliances - both anti-American ideas.

Yes, and you're the kind of guy who could have watched Nazi death camps burning Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc for years on end, shrugging your shoulders and going "none of my business". That's supposed to be an American ideal. You'd have thrown the French out as "interventionists", refusing their help when they came to America's aid during the Revolution, because they would have been an entangling alliance and contrary to what our beliefs should be.

I'll take intervention over that, thanks. Of course, I've been part of military deployments where we actually saw concentration camps and helped excavate mass graves full of men, women and children, killed for no reason other than their ethnicity. So maybe my views on intervention are a little different than yours, skewed a bit by what head in the sand "not my problem" leads to.

Quote :: No, none that I'm aware of. He's just a corporate tool to shine to the masses so their eyes gloss over and send him to the White House for the interests that put him there to suck this country dry. Putting any political label on such a tool is mis-labeling.

It's sad that so very few Americans have ever heard of the corporate takeover of America through people like Romney. How else could they possibly vote for them in primaries, in elections, etc.? It couldn't be that they've heard all that a hundred different times, heard about the occupation of the US government a hundred times... and just didn't buy into what they see as conspiracy schtick.

Quote :: Sure he did that, and he ran on a decent platform (Ron Paul was one of only 3 at the federal government who voted for him before his win-run,) and sure it could happen again. But then he ruined everything he ran for when he got to office.

Ron Paul spent far more time attacking Reagan than he ever did supporting him. That was while he was flip-flopping around between Libertarianism and Republicanism. And Paul - like you - can't seem to grasp the concept that a president playing by the Constitution still has to recognize the separation of powers and the fact Congress has a lot to do with spending if nothing else. Of course none of that would have mattered because Paul - like you - simply believes that US troops should not be anywhere outside our borders.

Quote :: Paul's done after this bid, I don't really understand your running to RP's arms/Obama comment.

He's done already. Just thought I'd fill you in on that.

As for the comment, you said four more years of Obama would help focus the public. If the last three haven't convinced even Republicans of any stripe to run to Paul instead of Romney, I'm not sure what four more years of fiscal destruction and usurpation of power are supposed to accomplish.

Either way, the anarchists and libertarians out there masquerading as Republicans like Paul does in his most recent incarnation are going to have to find themselves another Messiah.

Quote :

Quote :: ...Armageddon so the 12th Mahdi can crawl up out of the well.... is not a security threat to America?

Yea that state of affairs. The one where we hide under the covers because of the brown men boogeymen. Sad to see the media's convinced you that Iran wants to start "Armageddon blah blah blah."

Yeah, their Prez never really said all of those things. The media all just made that up. A good portion of Muslim nations are scared out of their wits by him as well - the media made that up too. It's all part of the (Zionist?) conspiracy. There aren't extremist Muslims out there happily prepared to die and kill others to achieve their religious beliefs. It's all a media conspiracy about brown men boogeymen.

Quote :: No they are not a security threat to America.

So you and Ron keep trying to assure us.

Quote :: You afraid of the goat herders hiding in Afghan caves too?

Yeah, all we need for something that simple is a few attack helicopters, a tank and a Bradley or two, some artillery and drones, and a couple of thousand troops. Easy-peasy! Oh wait...

Those "goat herders" were advancing the sciences and medicine while your ancestors were still dipping the same hand they'd just wiped the shit off their ass with into the communal dinner pot. I never met a soldier who could say they beat one of those goat herders in a game of chess during their tour, and you blow them off as simpletons living in caves. Having contempt for an enemy because of their appearance, because they don't look and think like you, is a dangerous thing. You and most other Americans couldn't live a month under the living conditions most Afghans have to survive under, yet while they can survive, you dismiss them as "goat herders hiding in caves".

The terrorists who committed the mass murders of 9/11 didn't take their taxis to the airport that morning from Afghan caves.

The terrorists developing IEDs today that can defeat even our most comprehensive defensive shields and electronic countermeasures... just a bunch of ignorant, unwashed goat herders hiding in Afghan caves.

Yeah, I respect their capabilities enough and what they've proven they're capable of to not just sneer at them as goat herders hiding in Afghan caves. And when we find that only about 20% of those fighting us are Afghans, and what we're facing is a multinational force coming from some 49 nations at last count... not a few with graduate degrees from Western universities... I think we're talking about a little more than Afghan goat herders.

But that's just me and personal experience, leading and training the men who are in the field fighting these "goat herders". What the hell would we know when compared with the intelligence arm of the Ron Paul conspiracy theorists?

Quote :: Maybe instead of being the guardsmen of the opium plantations we could bring our troops home. I can talk about a whole host of issues that are more pertinent and dangerous to all of us than the idiotic antics taking place in the oil pits.

Oh right. I forgot about all those oil wells in Afghanistan. Just like I never noticed that we aren't spending our troops and time in Afghanistan guarding opium plantations - especially in the provinces and at the altitudes where you can't grow opium to begin with.

Oddly enough, I don't know of any oil pits and/or oil wells in Afghanistan and I don't work with or know a single soldier who has seen one either. Are they concealed under some digital image diffraction thingy that the military has deployed to conceal them from view but not told the troops about? Another component of the vast conspiracy?

I do have a question. We have about 300,000 US military personnel stationed outside the US. When Ron and you manage to win the presidency, and you bring those 300,000 troops home, what are you going to put them to work doing here in the US? Keep them employed, keep the current numbers up there? Put them to work standing shoulder to shoulder across the US/Mexico border on guard (and if so, what do we do with the great majority who aren't combat arms)? After all, we can't put them to work doing things that it isn't constitutional for the federal government to be using an armed forces for.

Seems to me that when your promise is constitutional, minimal government as the Founders viewed it, it means we give a whole bunch of the military their release once we get them home, particularly the support ones who aren't trained as warfighters. Out in the real world they go to try their luck in the private sector.

Ron Paul and you might want to explain to the military the end result for the military once you get them all back home. Particularly when you're appealing so hard for their votes.

Of course, this is all merely abstract conjecture, because Ron Paul is not going to take the Republican nomination from Romney. Simply isn't going to happen.