If you support Brown, why did you vote for Ron Paul?

[rp08orbust]

So let's assume Brown will stop Obamacare and put a "check" on the Democrats if he wins.

Well then, John McCain would have stopped Obamacare and put at least as much of a "check" on Democrats if he had won. Since "checking" Democrats is what the R3volution is all about now, why didn't you therefore vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in 2008, which polling showed was clearly not Ron Paul? By voting for a quixotic dark horse in the primaries, keeping your Ron Paul signs after he lost and attending Rally for the Republic after the people had spoken and chosen John McCain to lead the anti-Obama movement, you fractured it and caused Obama to win. 2008 was our chance to stop Obamacare and you blew it.

[Kludge]

(Personality cult! Personality cult!!!)

[sarahgop]

mccain was not going to win. brown can. plus, ron paul did not run on the libertarian ticket. bob barr did.

[rp08orbust]

mccain was not going to win.

Bullshit--no one knew that in summer 2008. In fact, McCain lead in a few polls after his brief Palin boost in August.

[sarahgop]

Bullshit--no one knew that in summer 2008. In fact, McCain lead in a few polls after his brief Palin boost in August.

dont agree. everything was saying a big obama win. the economy trumped everything, even a few polls.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Excepting a few states, Paul was not on the Presidential ticket after the primaries.

This is a braindead question.

-t

[rp08orbust]

Excepting a few states, Paul was not on the Presidential ticket after the primaries.

Why did you vote for him in the primaries when polling showed that other candidates were much stronger against Obama?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Excepting a few states, Paul was not on the Presidential ticket after the primaries.

This is a braindead question.

-t

The only people who are brain dead are the people who are supporting Brown. At least the good people over at Daily Paul have some common sense and principles, which are sorely lacking in this place. Next thing I know you guys will be supporting a Military Junta, you practicaly are, by supporting the Neo's.

[MelissaWV]

So let's assume Brown will stop Obamacare and put a "check" on the Democrats if he wins.

Well then, John McCain would have stopped Obamacare and put at least as much of a "check" on Democrats if he had won. Since "checking" Democrats is what the R3volution is all about now, why didn't you therefore vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in 2008, which polling showed was clearly not Ron Paul? By voting for a quixotic dark horse in the primaries, keeping your Ron Paul signs after he lost and attending Rally for the Republic after the people had spoken and chosen John McCain to lead the anti-Obama movement, you fractured it and caused Obama to win. 2008 was our chance to stop Obamacare and you blew it.


Let's file this under "in theory" since I'm not a Brown supporter.

"In theory," now that you know that there's such a close call on votes in Congress, you would want to tip the balance of power closer to a deadlock. If Obama weren't elected, we'd have some other monster on the table, so don't give me "why didn't you vote for McCain?" as the opposite. In theory the point would be to block votes and let them argue ad nauseum until pretty much nothing gets done.

Having said that, I'm wary of that argument. A lot of people are fed up with their local Democrat. Supporting GOP candidates for the sake of tipping the balance of power is just going to help the OTHER side gain a strong foothold again, and if Obama were to lose his re-election bid... well... we'd be in the same boat, with Obamacare (or some version) passed, and a new Neo-Con agenda on the table with a majority to vote THAT in. The ship rocks back and forth, and it takes in water on both sides.

[rp08orbust]

dont agree. everything was saying a big obama win. the economy trumped everything, even a few polls.

Polls were indicating a Coakley win not too long ago--why did your support Brown then over Kennedy?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let's file this under "in theory" since I'm not a Brown supporter.

"In theory," now that you know that there's such a close call on votes in Congress, you would want to tip the balance of power closer to a deadlock. If Obama weren't elected, we'd have some other monster on the table, so don't give me "why didn't you vote for McCain?" as the opposite. In theory the point would be to block votes and let them argue ad nauseum until pretty much nothing gets done.

Having said that, I'm wary of that argument. A lot of people are fed up with their local Democrat. Supporting GOP candidates for the sake of tipping the balance of power is just going to help the OTHER side gain a strong foothold again, and if Obama were to lose his re-election bid... well... we'd be in the same boat, with Obamacare (or some version) passed, and a new Neo-Con agenda on the table with a majority to vote THAT in. The ship rocks back and forth, and it takes in water on both sides.


In other words, you are voting for the shackles placed around your feet. Wake up people.

[jmdrake]

dont agree. everything was saying a big obama win. the economy trumped everything, even a few polls.

It shouldn't have mattered. Had McCain come out against the bailout he would have won. Instead he backed it and in doing so showed how he was no different from Obama on that crucial issue. A lot of people who voted for Bush simply stayed home and didn't vote. Still, are you saying that if you thought McCain stood a chance you would have been "rah rah rahing" for him too?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why did you vote for him in the primaries when polling showed that other candidates were much stronger against Obama?

So was Obama running as a Repub or was McCain running as a Dem? - guess I didn't geth the memo... :rolleyes:

In the primaries you vote for who you like. In ghe genral election you, unfortunatly, generally vote for the lesser of two evils.

-t

[rp08orbust]

So was Obama running as a Repub or was McCain running as a Dem? - guess I didn't geth the memo... :rolleyes:

In the primaries you vote for who you like. In ghe genral election you, unfortunatly, generally vote for the lesser of two evils.

Why the arbitrary distinction between primary voting and general election voting? It all has an effect on the final outcome. By voting for who you "liked" instead of the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama, you helped bring on Obamacare.

[rp08orbust]

2008 Ron Paul supporters who are now Brown nosers are the biggest hypocrites of all. They wanted their friends, family and neighbors to set aside pragmatism and vote for a Republican primary candidate in 2008 with a relatively poor chance of beating Obama, thereby helping to usher in Obamacare, but now they want everyone to vote to stop Obamacare at all costs?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

2008 Ron Paul supporters who are now pushing Brown are the biggest hypocrites of all. They wanted their friends, family and neighbors to set aside pragmatism and vote for a Republican primary candidate in 2008 with a relatively poor chance of beating Obama, thereby helping to usher in Obamacare, but now they want everyone to vote to stop Obamacare at all costs?

Amen.

YouTube - Give me liberty or give me DEATH! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D680st4cRIM)

<3 Patrick Henry. We must all remember this speech at all times. (The first minute or so)

[rp08orbust]

"In theory," now that you know that there's such a close call on votes in Congress, you would want to tip the balance of power closer to a deadlock. If Obama weren't elected, we'd have some other monster on the table, so don't give me "why didn't you vote for McCain?" as the opposite. In theory the point would be to block votes and let them argue ad nauseum until pretty much nothing gets done.

Yeah, and since the Democrats' hold on Congress was pretty secure, a McCain victory would have lead to a similar deadlock between the Democrat Congress and the Republican president. So what's your point?

By the logic of the Brown nosers, we should have supported a Republican presidential victory at all costs.

[tremendoustie]

So let's assume Brown will stop Obamacare and put a "check" on the Democrats if he wins.

Well then, John McCain would have stopped Obamacare and put at least as much of a "check" on Democrats if he had won. Since "checking" Democrats is what the R3volution is all about now, why didn't you therefore vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in 2008, which polling showed was clearly not Ron Paul? By voting for a quixotic dark horse in the primaries, keeping your Ron Paul signs after he lost and attending Rally for the Republic after the people had spoken and chosen John McCain to lead the anti-Obama movement, you fractured it and caused Obama to win. 2008 was our chance to stop Obamacare and you blew it.

I want to stop neocons as much as I want to stop democrats. I have no preference for McCain over Obama, they're both tyrants. But, gridlock is better than one-party. I definitely would not donate to brown, and I likely wouldn't vote for him on principle, but I do think it would be preferable for him to win. I also think the main message sent would be anti-socialism, not pro-neoconservatism.

[erowe1]

So this thread gets moved and the pro-Brown ones don't?

Which mod did that?

[klamath]

Because libertarians have shown me what they really are. Really blew an illusion I have had for 30 years.

[rp08orbust]

So this thread gets moved and the pro-Brown ones don't?

Which mod did that?

I guess I have to go back to hijacking the Brown nosers' threads since my own get moved.

[romacox]

I voted Ron Paul in the Primaries, and seriously considered writing him in for the election. I decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin whom I did not agree with as much as with Ron Paul.

I do fear that if we vote Brown in we will eventually face a tilt toward the war mongers. But, at the same time, I sure would like to deadlock the Congress before they move us so far to the "Obama Adgenda" that there is no possible return.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul Grassroots is where RP-type activism is placed. Get it? :rolleyes:

It should have been viewed as a good thing, but since you see it otherwise, I'll move it back. Have at it, boys.

[tremendoustie]

Yeah, and since the Democrats' hold on Congress was pretty secure, a McCain victory would have lead to a similar deadlock between the Democrat Congress and the Republican president. So what's your point?

By the logic of the Brown nosers, we should have supported a Republican presidential victory at all costs.

I think that's a pretty different situation. A president and houses of different parties is not the same as a split senate, and the office of president is very different from that of senator. McCain would have had no problem "working with" democrats to "get stuff done".

At least Brown would vote against the healthcare bill, that's all I'm saying. I'm not going to go hold a Brown sign, but I can recognize that it'd be a better thing if he won than his opponent.

[lester1/2jr]

because they could care less about liberty and just want the GOP back in power because they feel like now that the wars are winding down and the financial crisis is out of the way and Katrina has already happened NOW the GOP can have what the BUsh admin was supposed to be!!

[tremendoustie]

So was Obama running as a Repub or was McCain running as a Dem? - guess I didn't geth the memo... :rolleyes:

In the primaries you vote for who you like. In ghe genral election you, unfortunatly, generally vote for the lesser of two evils.

-t

I don't agree with this. I wrote in RP, I would not have voted for McCain in a million years.

[RM918]

I voted Ron Paul in the Primaries, and seriously considered writing him in for the election. I decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin whom I did not agree with as much as with Ron Paul.

I do fear that if we vote Brown in we will eventually face a tilt toward the war mongers. But, at the same time, I sure would like to deadlock the Congress before they move us so far to the "Obama Agenda" that there is no possible return.

I voted exactly the same way. Unfortunately, I don't think that deadlock will actually happen. Neither of the parties are different enough for that.

[tremendoustie]

In any case, to go to the mat about Brown would be rather pointless, as there's no real practical relevance. I do think the general principle is, you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, you vote for the candidate that will stand on principle. I think it's important to remember that.

If we want to change the debate in this country, we have to be willing to stand on principle. That is the way you shift politics -- doing what RP did in the primary and convention.

[klamath]

Simple as mcCain would have been pushing his agenda as president rather than Obama pushing his. Either one would have been bad. McCain would have been another bush.

Brown will be in no position to push an agenda only block Obama's. If he was being elected into a position to push an agenda the story would be different.

[AuH20]

I voted for Bob Barr in the presidential election because Ron was not on my state ballot. With that said, every RPer in Mass should gulp down the bad tasting medicine and vote for Brown. It would deal a mortal blow to Obama, forget about healthcare. They will push healthcare regardless but Obama will bleed like a sieve if he loses Mass. I can't think of a better situation than seeing the dems bleed while we're attempting to reshape the GOP. It's win-win.

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, and since the Democrats' hold on Congress was pretty secure, a McCain victory would have lead to a similar deadlock between the Democrat Congress and the Republican president. So what's your point?

By the logic of the Brown nosers, we should have supported a Republican presidential victory at all costs.

1. At the time of the Presidential election, it was not certain who would be in Congress. Right now, people do know who will be in the White House, who is in Congress, and how they are voting on various huge issues, Obamacare being only one of them. There are also histories on the Stimulus, etc.; people have blatant Government power-grabs upon which to base their decsisions. The people in general are also far more polarized on these issues than, say, how their representative voted on the PATRIOT Act.

2. McCain ran on his ability to "reach across the aisle" and all that touchy-feely nonsense during the campaign. We really would have had another mess on our hands, or even the same one under another name. I don't think McCain would have caused a deadlock; there just would have been more debating around. I certainly do not think McCain would have had the backbone to do what a divided power situation would warrant, which would be to veto the whole thing.

I will say again, though, that I don't like that justification for a vote. Okay, great; shooting down Obamacare. Do people really think that'll be that? We have big problems all over the place. Our leadership just pledged another $100 million that we don't have. We're still at war on various fronts. We have "intelligence" failings all over the place. Have you started on your taxes yet? They're more idiotic and complicated than ever. Rights are being grabbed for, and people have segmented into their pet project issues rather than make a stand and determine what's most important.



If one imposed the spending habits, pathological fibbing, and promise-breaking of the Administration onto a spouse... one would have divorced that abusive spouse long ago.

[tremendoustie]

If one imposed the spending habits, pathological fibbing, and promise-breaking of the Administration onto a spouse... one would have divorced that abusive spouse long ago.

You said it -- the only question is, how do I get a restraining order :eek:

[tremendoustie]

I would probably vote for Kennedy in all honesty, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a neocon. I do prefer Brown to Coakley though.

[Charles Wilson]

A vote for Brown is a vote for the warfare state and a vote for Coakley is a vote for the welfare state. Both are unacceptable if you are for liberty. I could not vote for either one of them but if I had to vote for one over the other I would vote for Coakley because it would help bury the neocons and the warfare state. The GOP is shrinking whereas the GOP brand is becoming irrelevant for the most part. We should remember we are in a war against the warfare/welfare state. The individual battles are important but we should plan for the long term.

[Flash]

I voted for Bob Barr in the presidential election because Ron was not on my state ballot. With that said, every RPer in Mass should gulp down the bad tasting medicine and vote for Brown. It would deal a mortal blow to Obama, forget about healthcare. They will push healthcare regardless but Obama will bleed like a sieve if he loses Mass. I can't think of a better situation than seeing the dems bleed while we're attempting to reshape the GOP. It's win-win.

I agree. But it is amazing how many GOP bloggers and writers took this Brown-Coakley race as an oppurtunity to slam Ron Paul. I remember Matt Collins linking a blog from Tennessee that said something like, "finally a true Conservative gets a money bomb." I fail to see why I, as a Massachusetts voter, and other Ron Paul supporters get behind a Party that doesn't seem to want us. Hell, I would've at least liked it if Brown & other GOP big whigs gave Ron Paul credit for the money bomb idea. But even that was too much.

And I realize I have the GOP symbol in my avator, but its only a certain wing of the party that I really like.

[AuH20]

I agree. But it is amazing how many GOP bloggers and writers took this Brown-Coakley race as an oppurtunity to slam Ron Paul. I remember Matt Collins linking a blog from Tennessee that said something like, "finally a true Conservative gets a money bomb." I fail to see why I, as a Massachusetts voter, and other Ron Paul supporters get behind a Party that doesn't seem to want us. Hell, I would've at least liked it if Brown & other GOP big whigs gave Ron Paul credit for the money bomb idea. But even that was too much.

And I realize I have the GOP symbol in my avator, but its only a certain wing of the party that I really like.

It's insane that the foreign policy divides the mainstream republicans and RPers so much. They agree on many of the same things but the WoT really fires up the emotion. Some of the stuff I read on both sides is extremely vitriolic. But we have to keep pushing against the Republican gatekeepers who keep their flock in check.

[klamath]

I agree. But it is amazing how many GOP bloggers and writers took this Brown-Coakley race as an oppurtunity to slam Ron Paul. I remember Matt Collins linking a blog from Tennessee that said something like, "finally a true Conservative gets a money bomb." I fail to see why I, as a Massachusetts voter, and other Ron Paul supporters get behind a Party that doesn't seem to want us. Hell, I would've at least liked it if Brown & other GOP big whigs gave Ron Paul credit for the money bomb idea. But even that was too much.

And I realize I have the GOP symbol in my avator, but its only a certain wing of the party that I really like.

I can't count the number of times the libertarians attacked RP. I can't count the times the libertarians blanketly attacked the republicans. I found out they don't want us republicans and the feeling has become mutual.

[The Deacon]

I voted for McCain because he would have been the best candidate to fight global warming, since we'd have a nuclear winter instead of it.

[erowe1]

2. McCain ran on his ability to "reach across the aisle" and all that touchy-feely nonsense during the campaign. We really would have had another mess on our hands, or even the same one under another name. I don't think McCain would have caused a deadlock; there just would have been more debating around. I certainly do not think McCain would have had the backbone to do what a divided power situation would warrant, which would be to veto the whole thing.

The reason there hasn't been much reaching across the aisle lately and the reason no Republicans are on board with the health care bill is not because Obama is less interested in bipartisanship than McCain. It's that the dems haven't needed to be bipartisan to get what they want. If electing Brown changes that (and I'm not at all certain that it will), then all it will mean is that they'll start getting more bipartisan, and all the McCains (and Browns) who are just itching to get in on the action with the leftist agenda by tweaking each bill to be a tad bit more corporatist and a tad bit less socialist will have their big chance to do that.

Electing Brown (and over and over electing people like him year after year) may slightly postpone, or slightly ameliorate, this one atrocity (then again, it may not even do that). But it will only invigorate and prolong the bipartisan leviathan, and further entrench the GOP leadership in its embrace of big government and marginalization of those who wish to work to move the party away from that. If we want to change things for the better, and if we think politics has any role in doing that, then we have to pursue either the reform of the destruction of the GOP. Accepting it as it is, and rewarding it for being that, only hurts us.

[dannno]

The ship rocks back and forth, and it takes in water on both sides.

Exactly, all you people who support establishment candidates are helping to rock the damn boat!!

This is a pretty simple concept.

If you want to win at chess, you have to have patience. Those who are thinking in the short term instead of the long term and supporting establishment candidates need to chill back and remember what liberty is all about and consider who you're really supporting.

[tremendoustie]

Exactly, all you people who support establishment candidates are helping to rock the damn boat!!

This is a pretty simple concept.

If you want to win at chess, you have to have patience. Those who are thinking in the short term instead of the long term and supporting establishment candidates need to chill back and remember what liberty is all about and consider who you're really supporting.

It's a good point -- perhaps if Kennedy gets enough votes it will send a strong message.

[MelissaWV]

The reason there hasn't been much reaching across the aisle lately and the reason no Republicans are on board with the health care bill is not because Obama is less interested in bipartisanship than McCain. It's that the dems haven't needed to be bipartisan to get what they want. If electing Brown changes that (and I'm not at all certain that it will), then all it will mean is that they'll start getting more bipartisan, and all the McCains (and Browns) who are just itching to get in on the action with the leftist agenda by tweaking each bill to be a tad bit more corporatist and a tad bit less socialist will have their big chance to do that.

Electing Brown (and over and over electing people like him year after year) may slightly postpone, or slightly ameliorate, this one atrocity (then again, it may not even do that). But it will only invigorate and prolong the bipartisan leviathan, and further entrench the GOP leadership in its embrace of big government and marginalization of those who wish to work to move the party away from that. If we want to change things for the better, and if we think politics has any role in doing that, then we have to pursue either the reform of the destruction of the GOP. Accepting it as it is, and rewarding it for being that, only hurts us.

I know Obama isn't less interested in bipartisanship, but I mention McCain's self-characterization to point out that it would have happened even as you say. Some "cooperative Democrats" would have voted with McCain to put us up to our necks in a shit of a different color.

* * *

Rocking the boat's cool... but... people are tipping it this way and that, harder and harder, expecting it not to take on water. As dannno said, it helps to be patient. The idiots captaining this ship can't last forever. All actions have to have an intent that you can look back on and be proud of. Vote *for* someone, please, 99% of the time. The only way I could see voting against someone is if you would be helping unseat someone with a seniority position (Pelosi?) that would send a spectacular message, but that's just chopping off one head of the hydra.

[haaaylee]

mccain would have given us even more wars though. that would have been a dumb strategy to vote for him to stop obamacare. this brown strategy makes more sense.

and besides, why does it get under everyone's skin so much. how many of us here can actually vote in MA? we don't get to have opinions or hope that the lesser of two evils wins? some freedom.

only on RPFs!

[libertarian4321]

The whole voting for the "lesser evil" thing is not productive- you end up with evil if you "win" or if you "lose."

Voting for a really bad Republican just to stop a slightly worse Democrat is just insane- you lose regardless of the outcome.

The last time I voted for the lesser evil was in '92 when I pulled the lever for George Bush Sr (while simultaneously puking into my mouth).

The one thing that sucks more than supporting for the "lesser evil" and winning is voting for the lesser evil and losing.

I learned my lesson. Now I support the candidate I like- whether that be Ron Paul, or perhaps a Libertarian- regardless of his odds of winning.

The only time voting for the lesser evil makes sense is when there are no decent candidates- in that case, I guess voting for the lesser evil can be justified.

[klamath]

The whole voting for the "lesser evil" thing is not productive- you end up with evil if you "win" or if you "lose."

Voting for a really bad Republican just to stop a slightly worse Democrat is just insane- you lose regardless of the outcome.

The last time I voted for the lesser evil was in '92 when I pulled the lever for George Bush Sr (while simultaneously puking into my mouth).

The one thing that sucks more than supporting for the "lesser evil" and winning is voting for the lesser evil and losing.

I learned my lesson. Now I support the candidate I like- whether that be Ron Paul, or perhaps a Libertarian- regardless of his odds of winning.

The only time voting for the lesser evil makes sense is when there are no decent candidates- in that case, I guess voting for the lesser evil can be justified.

You forget some of us have been around since these forums started.

Your statement from the official who are you voting for thread a year ago.

"Bob Barr won't get enough votes in Texas to continue ballot access.

To keep ballot access, the LP has to get 5% in a statewide race (I think its 2% when there is a gubernatorial race).

Not a chance that Barr will get 5% (or even 2%).

The Libertarians will likely maintain ballot access by getting 5% in some oddball race- like railroad commissioner or Supreme Court Justice, in which only one of the major parties has a candidate.

I don't like any of the candidates- McCain/Palin are total neocon douche bags, Obama is a big government liberal, Barr is a neocon in sheeps clothing (and an ass to boot), Baldwin is only a write-in and I don't like the theocratic positions of the CP. Nader is an out and out socialist, and McKinney is, well, McKinney (she's NUTS).

I voted early today. I was going to just make a completely futile, uncounted vote for Ron Paul- but then I remembered the RPF and that EndtheFed and Tones and a couple of others were shilling for John McWar.

So I voted for Obama as an official SCREW YOU to McCain, Palin, Tones, and EndtheFed. First time I've ever voted for a Democrat at any level- and I have Tones and EndtheFed to thank for helping me make this decision .

Other than that, I voted mostly for Libertarians (they should maintain ballot access because there was one "unopposed" statewide election), and a few Republicans that I know are decent."
__________________

[ItsTime]

Because unlike the Libertarian Party we understand politics.

[JamesButabi]

Woops! At least tones was/is consistent in his vying for BO lol

[parocks]

Who is to say that some didn't work to stop Obamacare by supporting McCain?

I can assume that everyone here supported Ron Paul in the Primaries, which was the right thing to do (some of course who just joined rpf.com might've not been paying attention).

People wanted change in 2008. They voted against Bush / McCain / Republicans. They got tired of Republicans after 8 years of Bush. Typically, that's the way it goes.

Quickly, people learn that Obama is something they do not want. Tea Parties, Republicans win the Governorship in states that Obama won the year before. Now, Republicans are on the verge of winning a US Senate seat in MA for the first time since 1972.

In 2008, significant numbers of people weren't sure Obama would be too bad. Now they know.


So let's assume Brown will stop Obamacare and put a "check" on the Democrats if he wins.

Well then, John McCain would have stopped Obamacare and put at least as much of a "check" on Democrats if he had won. Since "checking" Democrats is what the R3volution is all about now, why didn't you therefore vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in 2008, which polling showed was clearly not Ron Paul? By voting for a quixotic dark horse in the primaries, keeping your Ron Paul signs after he lost and attending Rally for the Republic after the people had spoken and chosen John McCain to lead the anti-Obama movement, you fractured it and caused Obama to win. 2008 was our chance to stop Obamacare and you blew it.

[angelatc]

dont agree. everything was saying a big obama win. the economy trumped everything, even a few polls.

Nonsense. McCain was polling even with Obama after he added Palin to the ticket. If he had flown to DC to vote against the bailout instead of voting for it, he'd likely be President today.

His health plan looked a lot like this one, from what we know about it. Taxing Cadillac plans, changing Medicare....both those were openly discussed by him.

[lester1/2jr]

weird phone survey (http://wonkette.com/413232/the-best-phone-survey-in-massachusetts-right-now) malaria? nazis? martha coakley?

[angelatc]

weird phone survey (http://wonkette.com/413232/the-best-phone-survey-in-massachusetts-right-now) malaria? nazis? martha coakley?
Wow. One of us should have signed up for the phone survey just to hear the spiel. Israel? Really?

[lester1/2jr]

angela- when you have money coming out of your ears like the brown camapign does, stuff like that seems like a good idea. I don't think it's going to get them an awful lot of votes, more likely alot of people scratching their heads.

[tonesforjonesbones]

So I voted for Obama as an official SCREW YOU to McCain, Palin, Tones, and EndtheFed. First time I've ever voted for a Democrat at any level- and I have Tones and EndtheFed to thank for helping me make this decision .

I don't believe you did it for that reason. I believe you did it because it was trendy to vote for OBAMA...

TONES voted for McCain because of the reason I am voting for BROWN...CHECKS AND BALANCES. THe Democrats do FAR more damage than the REpublicans. You see that Obama is not backing off the wars but EXPANDING THEM and he is MUCKING up domestic and economic issues as well.

GROW TH F UP. TONES

[AuH20]

So I voted for Obama as an official SCREW YOU to McCain, Palin, Tones, and EndtheFed. First time I've ever voted for a Democrat at any level- and I have Tones and EndtheFed to thank for helping me make this decision .

I don't believe you did it for that reason. I believe you did it because it was trendy to vote for OBAMA...

TONES voted for McCain because of the reason I am voting for BROWN...CHECKS AND BALANCES. THe Democrats do FAR more damage than the REpublicans. You see that Obama is not backing off the wars but EXPANDING THEM and he is MUCKING up domestic and economic issues as well.

GROW TH F UP. TONES

Tones, you really voted for McCain? Yikes. After he besmirched us over immigration objections & then supported the bailouts? I could have never pulled the lever for him after the way he behaved. Plus, he's a Teddy Roosevelt republican.

[parocks]

During this year at least, it's a pretty good bet that Brown would vote the same way as Ron Paul more often than Coakley. That's as good a reason as any.

And John McManus, president of the John Birch Society supports Brown. That's another good reason.


So I voted for Obama as an official SCREW YOU to McCain, Palin, Tones, and EndtheFed. First time I've ever voted for a Democrat at any level- and I have Tones and EndtheFed to thank for helping me make this decision .

I don't believe you did it for that reason. I believe you did it because it was trendy to vote for OBAMA...

TONES voted for McCain because of the reason I am voting for BROWN...CHECKS AND BALANCES. THe Democrats do FAR more damage than the REpublicans. You see that Obama is not backing off the wars but EXPANDING THEM and he is MUCKING up domestic and economic issues as well.

GROW TH F UP. TONES

[AuH20]

Oh tones. I agree with you that the democrats are more dangerous than the republicans as bad as they are. The democrats got us started on the imperialist model by thrusting our country into both world wars. They created the Fed and enslaved us with these Raw Deal policies. Fast forward to LBJ with the Great Society programs. The dems are lunatics and social engineers. Very scary people. The republicans love their GDP to a fault but they usually don't like to micromanage our lives. For the dems, it's not enough that you support their welfare state, but you must alter your very way of thinking to appease them.

[Dieseler]

If you support Brown you must not really be a Ron Paul supporter.
Ad Hom by association through questioning via a thread title.

[rp08orbust]

If you support Brown you must not really be a Ron Paul supporter.
Ad Hom by association through questioning via a thread title.

A forum post has two parts: A thread title and a body. If you read the body of my post, you'll see that it was not a guilt by association attack at all.

[Dieseler]

A forum post has two parts: A thread title and a body. If you read the body of my post, you'll see that it was not a guilt by association attack at all.

Not quite sure what I'd call the body of the post because Ron Paul wasn't even an option in my State during the General Election.


So let's assume Brown will stop Obamacare and put a "check" on the Democrats if he wins.

Well then, John McCain would have stopped Obamacare and put at least as much of a "check" on Democrats if he had won. Since "checking" Democrats is what the R3volution is all about now, why didn't you therefore vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in 2008, which polling showed was clearly not Ron Paul? By voting for a quixotic dark horse in the primaries, keeping your Ron Paul signs after he lost and attending Rally for the Republic after the people had spoken and chosen John McCain to lead the anti-Obama movement, you fractured it and caused Obama to win. 2008 was our chance to stop Obamacare and you blew it.

I supported Dr. Paul throughout the primaries, but I voted for McCain in the general.
Alabama didn't put Obama in the White House.
I know I didn't, that's for certain.
No shame in my game. I took the only option that was left available to me.
I'm not a libertarian either.

[Liberty Star]

Whether you liked Bush/Cheney regime or not, there was no obamacare under their watch. Time to bring them back.

[speciallyblend]

Tones, you really voted for McCain? Yikes. After he besmirched us over immigration objections & then supported the bailouts? I could have never pulled the lever for him after the way he behaved. Plus, he's a Teddy Roosevelt republican.

she votes for the R,even if they are corrupt, lesser of 2 evils still gets you evil!!!

she wins with obama or mccain!!!

[speciallyblend]

Whether you liked Bush/Cheney regime or not, there was no obamacare under their watch. Time to bring them back.

obama/cheney 2012, there you go... same ole same ole,

[Toureg89]

as someone said, McCain wasn't going to win.

here in Fl., third party votes actually cost Obama more votes than it did McCain.

and if you took everybody who voted, but for a candidate that was neither Obama or McCain, and forced all of them to vote for McCain, Obama still would have taken Fl.


So let's assume Brown will stop Obamacare and put a "check" on the Democrats if he wins.

Well then, John McCain would have stopped Obamacare and put at least as much of a "check" on Democrats if he had won. Since "checking" Democrats is what the R3volution is all about now, why didn't you therefore vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in 2008, which polling showed was clearly not Ron Paul? By voting for a quixotic dark horse in the primaries, keeping your Ron Paul signs after he lost and attending Rally for the Republic after the people had spoken and chosen John McCain to lead the anti-Obama movement, you fractured it and caused Obama to win. 2008 was our chance to stop Obamacare and you blew it.