Top Republicans Excoriate Romney On Sunday Talk Shows

[CaptainAmerica]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/top-republicans-excoriate-romney-on-sunday-talk-shows.php?m=1


If Mitt Romney has any friends left in the Republican Party, they’re in hiding.


“We’re in a big hole, we’re not getting out of it by comments like that. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. He keeps digging,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We’re in a death spiral with Hispanic voters because of our rhetoric on immigration, and our candidate Romney and the primaries dug the hole deeper.”

It is pathetic to see the neoconservatives bring up race as the culprit to their chosen one being a huge failure. It is also hilarious to see the GOP take jabs at Romney after the fact that he was nominated,and it shows how shallow they really are.

[Anti Federalist]

Even the awful Kelly Ayotte has thrown him overboard.

Worthless, the whole miserable lot of them, feckless assholes.

Not that I'm defending Mutt, but to watch these cheerleaders now turn and devour him is just sickening.

[Agorism]

Even the awful Kelly Ayotte has thrown him overboard.

Worthless, the whole miserable lot of them, feckless assholes.

Not that I'm defending Mutt, but to watch these cheerleaders now turn and devour him is just sickening.

What did she say?

[Anti Federalist]

What did she say?

Oh, I'd have to dig up the article, I didn't save it...I don't pay much mind to what comes out of that broad's clam hole anyways.

"Romney was a lousy candidate, blarg blarg blarg, minorities and women, blarg blarg blarg, bomb Iran, blarg blarg blarg."

[acptulsa]

Good. Just makes it easier for us to roast Fox News for pronouncing him 'electable'.

Romney, Bachmann, Santorum (for Christ's sake!), Clown Cain and the crooked butterball Gingrich all 'electable'. And the guy who would have kicked Obama's skinny ass right back to Hawaii not 'electable'. If Fox listeners do anything but laugh the next time a Fox commentator uses that word, we aren't worth our salt.

We need to rub this in, rub this in, and rub this in some more. We can remove this weapon from Murdoch's arsenal. And we must.


http://i.imgur.com/OskYdl.jpg

[VIDEODROME]

So much for FOX's presumed Nominee.

One can hope this even creates a rift here. That maybe some Republicans look at FOX as almost fundamentalist conservatives that are a liability to the party rather then an asset. They should turn their back on the likes of Chris Wallace.

[The Goat]

So much for FOX's presumed Nominee.

One can hope this even creates a rift here. That maybe some Republicans look at FOX as almost fundamentalist conservatives that are a liability to the party rather then an asset. They should turn their back on the likes of Chris Wallace.

No they will still follow that floundering mess. They're like college football fans. blind faith in their team. Its good in football, completely stupid in politics.

[alucard13mmfmj]

So those ***** nominated their boy and now they complaining about it because they lost. They only have themselves to blame. It is sickening and offensive that they will probably pander to hispanics for the next 4 years with immigration reform and probably nominating a hispanic candidate or VP.

[Anti Federalist]

http://i.imgur.com/OskYdl.jpg

It's Dale Gribble on the right and Dave VanDreesen on the left.

LOLOLOL

[carclinic]

So those ***** nominated their boy and now they complaining about it because they lost. They only have themselves to blame. It is sickening and offensive that they will probably pander to hispanics for the next 4 years with immigration reform and probably nominating a hispanic candidate or VP.
Exactly.

Personally, I don't see how Romney was "anti-immigration." He was a son of immigrants and believed in a pathway to citizenship. Seems to me that the NWO is hell bent on destabilizing America with endless immigration and welfare.

[Tinnuhana]

Before the election, they were telling all Paul supporters that if they didn't vote Mittens, they were handing the election to Obama. But now that the election is over, they are busy seeking ANY explanation other than that.
And WHY is the GOP pushing Ayotte? Man, could you see a Palin/Ayotte (so easy to say Payin' A-lot) meme for 2016? :rolleyes:

[Athan]

Even the awful Kelly Ayotte has thrown him overboard.

Worthless, the whole miserable lot of them, feckless assholes.

Not that I'm defending Mutt, but to watch these cheerleaders now turn and devour him is just sickening.
What you call sickening, I call an aquired taste. DELICIOUS ESTABLISHMENT TEARS!

[angelatc]

I really don't get it. What he said about the 47% was true. And what he said about gift-giving was true. The Democrats ran around screeching that Ryan was going to take away MEdicare and Romney was going to outlaw birth control.

Those memes caught on. But Romney is a dick for saying it out loud? The same with the rape crap. Akin could have phrased "legitimate" differently, but he wasn't the only person that learned that erroneous bit of information when he was growing up. And the guy in Indiana was saying what he believed - that babies are a gift from God even when they are conceived in rape.

There seems to be some expectation that politicians need to moderate the message so that liberals aren't offended, but that's a fool's game. Those people are offended by conservative values.

And this conversation was leaked from a private, GOP elite conference call. WTF?

[Athan]

I really don't get it. What he said about the 47% was true. And what he said about gift-giving was true.
...
And this conversation was leaked from a private, GOP elite conference call. WTF?
What you call "WTF?" I call "LOL!"

[angelatc]

What you call "WTF?" I call "LOL!"

Oh, I have some of that in me. :) But if the liberals in the GOP elite are now sabotaging the GOP....the Democrats are going to have a permanent majority.

[Athan]

Oh, I have some of that in me. :) But if the liberals in the GOP elite are now sabotaging the GOP....the Democrats are going to have a permanent majority.
Truth be told, they already had a permanent majority. They just fooled everyone into thinking they didn't by having one by calling their other wing "GOP".

[BAllen]

Ironic, isn't it? All the Paul and Johsons supporters sat home, and proclaimed: "We'll teach the Republicans to ignore us! We'll vote for another candidate or sit it out! They'll then come to their senses and change their platform to Constitutinal freedoms! Yay! We'll all be free!"
Well, it didn't work, did it? They're trying to be even more socialist appealing now, aren't they? Romney ran the right campaign.

[Acala]

Ironic, isn't it? All the Paul and Johsons supporters sat home, and proclaimed: "We'll teach the Republicans to ignore us! We'll vote for another candidate or sit it out! They'll then come to their senses and change their platform to Constitutinal freedoms! Yay! We'll all be free!"
Well, it didn't work, did it? They're trying to be even more socialist appealing now, aren't they? Romney ran the right campaign.

I sat home because I refuse to endorse evil, not because I wanted to teach anyone a lesson. A vote for either Romney or Obama was showing support for tyranny and murder. Ain't gonnna do it. Ever. Simple.

[Athan]

Ironic, isn't it? All the Paul and Johsons supporters sat home, and proclaimed: "We'll teach the Republicans to ignore us! We'll vote for another candidate or sit it out! They'll then come to their senses and change their platform to Constitutinal freedoms! Yay! We'll all be free!"
Well, it didn't work, did it? They're trying to be even more socialist appealing now, aren't they? Romney ran the right campaign.
What are you talking about? The GOP is running scared. They can say socialist is what is needed all they want in the media, but that is just the media narrative. The actual politicians are peeing their armani's because they know we are coming for their asses.

[Origanalist]

Ironic, isn't it? All the Paul and Johsons supporters sat home, and proclaimed: "We'll teach the Republicans to ignore us! We'll vote for another candidate or sit it out! They'll then come to their senses and change their platform to Constitutinal freedoms! Yay! We'll all be free!"
Well, it didn't work, did it? They're trying to be even more socialist appealing now, aren't they? Romney ran the right campaign.

Right campaign for what? Who wins if Romney becomes president?

Supporting that which you disagree with helps how? Let them move to the left and become irrelevant.

[Anti Federalist]

I sat home because I refuse to endorse evil, not because I wanted to teach anyone a lesson. A vote for either Romney or Obama was showing support for tyranny and murder. Ain't gonnna do it. Ever. Simple.

Oh, that I could give ten thousand reps.

Outside of my narrow personal reasons that I've already stated that prevented me from ever supporting RMoney, this was the primary reason above everything else.

And will never choose "lesser evil" again.

[specsaregood]

Who is this romney cat everybody is talking about? I certainly dont expect to find much of him in our history books. or ebooks even.

[Lucille]

I sat home because I refuse to endorse evil, not because I wanted to teach anyone a lesson. A vote for either Romney or Obama was showing support for tyranny and murder. Ain't gonnna do it. Ever. Simple.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Acala again.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ironic, isn't it? All the Paul and Johsons supporters sat home, and proclaimed: "We'll teach the Republicans to ignore us! We'll vote for another candidate or sit it out! They'll then come to their senses and change their platform to Constitutinal freedoms! Yay! We'll all be free!"
Well, it didn't work, did it? They're trying to be even more socialist appealing now, aren't they? Romney ran the right campaign.

Cut the cable, man. The Pundit Propaganda bears no resemblance to the reality on the ground. Turn off the talking heads and spread the moral ideology of the NAP (or Golden Rule if you know how to speak that language) amongst Republican primary voters. You can find a whole mass of the buggers all together at the GOP conventions.

[BAllen]

So, for those of you who didn't vote: What is your plan? You didn't vote for Romney, so you prefer obama? It's really that simple.

[specsaregood]

So, for those of you who didn't vote: What is your plan? You didn't vote for Romney, so you prefer obama? It's really that simple.

I prefer power divided amongst the parties.

[Origanalist]

So, for those of you who didn't vote: What is your plan? You didn't vote for Romney, so you prefer obama? It's really that simple.

I prefer neither, and I couldn't care less which one is driving the bus.

Your argument is old, tired, and lame. And we've heard it a thousand times. Get some new material.

[CaptainAmerica]

So much for FOX's presumed Nominee.

One can hope this even creates a rift here. That maybe some Republicans look at FOX as almost fundamentalist conservatives that are a liability to the party rather then an asset. They should turn their back on the likes of Chris Wallace.

chris wallace is progressive

[Brian4Liberty]

Even the awful Kelly Ayotte has thrown him overboard.

Worthless, the whole miserable lot of them, feckless assholes.

Not that I'm defending Mutt, but to watch these cheerleaders now turn and devour him is just sickening.

What else would you expect from her? She was just another neo-conservative angling for Romney's VP slot. Now that Romney is a has-been, she can reveal her true feelings (and run back into the arms of her elderly lovers McCain and Lieberman).

[BAllen]

I prefer neither, and I couldn't care less which one is driving the bus.

Your argument is old, tired, and lame. And we've heard it a thousand times. Get some new material.

Doesn't matter how old it is, it's still true. Putting labels like lame doesn't change that. I speak the truth.

[specsaregood]

Doesn't matter how old it is, it's still true. Putting labels like lame doesn't change that. I speak the truth.

And it doesn't matter anymore either, it is old news. Romney lost, he got his ass kicked by Obama, he was a terrible choice as nominee and we can't change that. So let's focus on the future and keep the GOP from nominating such a loser again.

[Origanalist]

Doesn't matter how old it is, it's still true. Putting labels like lame doesn't change that. I speak the truth.

And it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still bullshit.

Voting for Romney wouldn't have done anything to get us out of this mess, he would not have shrunk government one little bit, merely tranferred power from one group to another.

I refuse to participate in that, nor would it really change anything.

[BAllen]

And it doesn't matter anymore either, it is old news. Romney lost, he got his ass kicked by Obama, he was a terrible choice as nominee and we can't change that. So let's focus on the future and keep the GOP from nominating such a loser again.

It was lost b/c people like you didn't participate, and obama had his thugs changing votes.

[BAllen]

And it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still bullshit.

Voting for Romney wouldn't have done anything to get us out of this mess, he would not have shrunk government one little bit, merely tranferred power from one group to another.

I refuse to participate in that, nor would it really change anything.

He would have reduced federal government, and expanded energy jobs. He was a good Christian man.
I speak the truth.

[specsaregood]

It was lost b/c people like you didn't participate, and obama had his thugs changing votes.

I participated. Romney told me he didn't want my vote, so i gave it to somebody else.

[Origanalist]

"I speak the truth. "

You sure say that a lot.

[Acala]

He would have reduced federal government, and expanded energy jobs. He was a good Christian man.
I speak the truth.

A vote for Romney was a vote for:

1. More foreign war
2. More domestic war on US citizens
3. More crony capitalist bailouts, subsidies, and government contracts
4. Less personal freedom
5. More bank domination of monetary policy
6. a known liar
7. a supporter of gun control
8. a suporter of government-run health care

I wonder why everyone didn't run out to support THAT agenda? :rolleyes:

Stick around and get an education.

[Anti Federalist]

He would have reduced federal government, and expanded energy jobs. He was a good Christian man.
I speak the truth.

Romney is a gun banner.

I don't vote for gun banners.

You want my vote GOP?

Earn it.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I really don't get it. What he said about the 47% was true. And what he said about gift-giving was true. The Democrats ran around screeching that Ryan was going to take away MEdicare and Romney was going to outlaw birth control.

Those memes caught on. But Romney is a dick for saying it out loud? The same with the rape crap. Akin could have phrased "legitimate" differently, but he wasn't the only person that learned that erroneous bit of information when he was growing up. And the guy in Indiana was saying what he believed - that babies are a gift from God even when they are conceived in rape.

There seems to be some expectation that politicians need to moderate the message so that liberals aren't offended, but that's a fool's game. Those people are offended by conservative values.

And this conversation was leaked from a private, GOP elite conference call. WTF?

EXACTLY!

I'm not defending Romney, as his previous flip-flops were enough to draw attention, but he didn't say anything that was so horrible during the 2012 general election campaign.

And those of you who think Ron Paul would have had an easier time, whoa Nellie. Democrats would have been running ads all day and all night saying how Paul would kill grandma by cutting entitlement spending. They would have savaged Ron. He wouldn't have had any defense or be given any time to tell the truth.

[Acala]

EXACTLY!

I'm not defending Romney, as his previous flip-flops were enough to draw attention, but he didn't say anything that was so horrible during the 2012 general election campaign.

And those of you who think Ron Paul would have had an easier time, whoa Nellie. Democrats would have been running ads all day and all night saying how Paul would kill grandma by cutting entitlement spending. They would have savaged Ron. He wouldn't have had any defense or be given any time to tell the truth.

During the campaign, although he tried to avoid saying ANYTHING with any specificity, Romney said very clearly that he would increase defense spending, not raise taxes, and balance the budget. Elementary school math proves that to be a huge lie. And not only is it a huge lie, but it is a huge lie about the single most likely and immediate cause of the collapse of what is left of this savaged Republic.

[specsaregood]

I'm not defending Romney, as his previous flip-flops were enough to draw attention, but he didn't say anything that was so horrible during the 2012 general election campaign.


I heard he gave some uber neocon speech at the centeniannal or something. Guess thats not horrible?

[BAllen]

During the campaign, although he tried to avoid saying ANYTHING with any specificity, Romney said very clearly that he would increase defense spending, not raise taxes, and balance the budget. Elementary school math proves that to be a huge lie. And not only is it a huge lie, but it is a huge lie about the single most likely and immediate cause of the collapse of what is left of this savaged Republic.

You don't know that. Ron Paul had a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars without cutting ss or medicare. So why couldn't Romney do it?

[Anti Federalist]

You don't know that. Ron Paul had a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars without cutting ss or medicare. So why couldn't Romney do it?

Because RMoney was not going to address the other two legs of out of control spending: debt service and the insane amount of spending on the military/surveillance/police state complex.

Why are you fighting a battle that has already been lost?

[Acala]

You don't know that. Ron Paul had a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars without cutting ss or medicare. So why couldn't Romney do it?

You can't INCREASE defense spending, leave taxes the same, and balance the budget. Run the numbers. It doesn't work. Add to that the lack of any serious program for making the deep cuts needed in domestic spending and you have numbers that don't add up - not even close.

[BAllen]

You can't INCREASE defense spending, leave taxes the same, and balance the budget. Run the numbers. It doesn't work. Add to that the lack of any serious program for making the deep cuts needed in domestic spending and you have numbers that don't add up - not even close.

And why do you think he wouldn't make the cuts?

[Acala]

And why do you think he wouldn't make the cuts?

He SAID he would increase defense spending. That ALONE makes it impossible to balance the budget. The fact that he also named not a single Federal department he would eliminate suggests strongly that he had no plan to do so. That simply made his lie about balancing the budget more ridiculous.

It was absolutely blind hope, against all the evidence, to think that Romney would reduce the size of government or advance the cause of liberty in any way.

[Origanalist]

And why do you think he wouldn't make the cuts?

A better question would be why would you believe anything he said? He couldn't stay still on any issue long enough to figure out just what he was for.

[Anti Federalist]

A better question would be why would you believe anything he said? He couldn't stay still on any issue long enough to figure out just what he was for.

Seriously, it was like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

[Jingles]

As long as I've seen Romney in politics, I've had no idea what his stance on any issue was. It's like he wasn't even a person with views. He was more of a "what does x focus group say, or poll and then I'll say that while pandering to some things I guess" kind of guy. I still don't know what he believes and hell, I don't think he does either.

[BAllen]

Oh, come now. You can't really be that naive. You nitpick every candidate the GOP endorses. Grow up! There is no perfect candidate. You abstained, which is a vote for obummer. Well, I hope you like what you get.

[Kodaddy]

^^^ I refuse to believe you are that stupid to believe that not voting is voting....

[twomp]

Oh, come now. You can't really be that naive. You nitpick every candidate the GOP endorses. Grow up! There is no perfect candidate. You abstained, which is a vote for obummer. Well, I hope you like what you get.

WAH WAH WAH Team Red lost and you are still crying over it. We told you this would happen, I hope you guys like what you get. We'll do it again in 2016 and 2020 until people like you get it through your thick skull that you can't win without us. Get on board or continue to lose and continue to cry.

[BAllen]

WAH WAH WAH Team Red lost and you are still crying over it. We told you this would happen, I hope you guys like what you get. We'll do it again in 2016 and 2020 until people like you get it through your thick skull that you can't win without us. Get on board or continue to lose and continue to cry.

YOU and your ilk are the cause of it. YOU are the ones not participating. YOU are the destructive ones. YOU are part of the problem. You just don't get it. They are not going to change to an RP stance just b/c you stayed home. Have you been listening, lately? They think they need to be more enticing to mestizos, NOT the position of freedoms. So your plan did not work, did it?
Better come up with something else.

[twomp]

YOU and your ilk are the cause of it. YOU are the ones not participating. YOU are the destructive ones. YOU are part of the problem. You just don't get it. They are not going to change to an RP stance just b/c you stayed home. Have you been listening, lately? They think they need to be more enticing to mestizos, NOT the position of freedoms. So your plan did not work, did it?
Better come up with something else.

NO YOU and YOUR ilk are the cause of it. The day you nominated Romney was the day you gave the election to Obama. So I HOPE you enjoy what you get and learn to get used to it. It's going to be a long ride from now until 2016 and you can choose to work together and win together or you can ignore and dismiss us and LOSE AGAIN!!

[torchbearer]

NO YOU and YOUR ilk are the cause of it. The day you nominated Romney was the day you gave the election to Obama. So I HOPE you enjoy what you get and learn to get used to it. It's going to be a long ride from now until 2016 and you can choose to work together and win together or you can ignore and dismiss us and LOSE AGAIN!!

the GOP in louisiana sure didn't want our vote.

[angelatc]

YOU and your ilk are the cause of it. YOU are the ones not participating. YOU are the destructive ones. YOU are part of the problem. You just don't get it. They are not going to change to an RP stance just b/c you stayed home. Have you been listening, lately? They think they need to be more enticing to mestizos, NOT the position of freedoms. So your plan did not work, did it?
Better come up with something else.

The rare union-lovin' GOP team player has been sighted! Ssssh - don't scare him. Let's watch this fascinating creature feather his nest.

[Origanalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJn467qVZgw&feature=player_embedded

[BAllen]

The rare union-lovin' GOP team player has been sighted! Ssssh - don't scare him. Let's watch this fascinating creature feather his nest.

Union lover? Nice try, but it won't fly. I'm just realistic. We have to deal with the way things are, don't we? Or do you live in some fantasy world that Ron Paul's ideals will be implemented by obummer? Not likely, my friend. You have a much better chance of winning the million dollar lottery. I'm in sales, paid on straight commission. So, a good economy helps my pay. If it's with unions, so be it.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, come now. You can't really be that naive. You nitpick every candidate the GOP endorses. Grow up! There is no perfect candidate. You abstained, which is a vote for obummer. Well, I hope you like what you get.

I didn't abstain.

I voted for the man who best represented my beliefs and principles and had a thirty year track record of standing firm to those principles.

No One But Paul

[BAllen]

NO YOU and YOUR ilk are the cause of it. The day you nominated Romney was the day you gave the election to Obama. So I HOPE you enjoy what you get and learn to get used to it. It's going to be a long ride from now until 2016 and you can choose to work together and win together or you can ignore and dismiss us and LOSE AGAIN!!

I don't ignore or dismiss anything. You are the one living an illusion if you think casting your vote for Ron Paul actually changed anything. It did not. I went that route when Pat Buchanan was running. I wrote his name in, and we got Clinton again.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't ignore or dismiss anything. You are the one living an illusion if you think casting your vote for Ron Paul actually changed anything. It did not. I went that route when Pat Buchanan was running. I wrote his name in, and we got Clinton again.

So?

Then we got W, who was worse.

[Cowlesy]

Follow the money. Romney was cutting off staffer credit cards on election night.

All these little pundits/strategists like Mike Murphy go where the money is, and it's not with Romney anymore.

[GunnyFreedom]

And why do you think he wouldn't make the cuts?

Because if his own words were true, then the ONLY things Washington would operate were the military and social security. You can't increase military spending, leave 'entitlements' alone, not raise taxes, and balance the budget without ending literally everything Washington does except conquest and retirement. The math doesn't lie.

[twomp]

I don't ignore or dismiss anything. You are the one living an illusion if you think casting your vote for Ron Paul actually changed anything. It did not. I went that route when Pat Buchanan was running. I wrote his name in, and we got Clinton again.

What illusion? You voted for Romney didn't you? Did you win? Did you change anything? The only difference between you and me is I actually voted for someone who would make my country better. You voted for who Team Red told you to vote for and in the end we both lose. I sleep better knowing that unlike you, I stuck by my principles. That is if you have any.

Guess what? We are the future, every day that passes from now till the next election, more of us become eligible to vote. More of us become eligible to run for office while your kind slowly dies off. Just look at this last election, Obama lost 10 million votes. Romney had 2 million less than McCain. We are the future and no amount of crying from you and TEAM RED can change that. Join us or continue to lose. That is what we won from this election. We proved that you can't win without us and we will teach you that lesson again in 2016 if you want.

[torchbearer]

What illusion? You voted for Romney didn't you? Did you win? Did you change anything? The only difference between you and me is I actually voted for someone who would make my country better. You voted for who Team Red told you to vote for and in the end we both lose. I sleep better knowing that unlike you, I stuck by my principles. That is if you have any.

Guess what? We are the future, every day that passes from now till the next election, more of us become eligible to vote. More of us become eligible to run for office while your kind slowly dies off. Just look at this last election, Obama lost 10 million votes. Romney had 2 million less than McCain. We are the future and no amount of crying from you and TEAM RED can change that. Join us or continue to lose. That is what we won from this election. We proved that you can't win without us and we will teach you that lesson again in 2016 if you want.

+1
http://logo.cafepress.com/nocache/3/16071073.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

So much for FOX's presumed Nominee.

One can hope this even creates a rift here. That maybe some Republicans look at FOX as almost fundamentalist conservatives that are a liability to the party rather then an asset. They should turn their back on the likes of Chris Wallace.

I think that's how they see us. I've been accused way too often of being 'non-compromising', even though I say all the time that I'd be happy if we could just get people to agree on our Bill of Rights. Silly me, for being too demanding to suggest that our Bill of Rights is something we Americans could come together and agree on again. Guess I'm just asking too much.

[nobody's_hero]

YOU and your ilk are the cause of it. YOU are the ones not participating. YOU are the destructive ones. YOU are part of the problem. You just don't get it. They are not going to change to an RP stance just b/c you stayed home. Have you been listening, lately? They think they need to be more enticing to mestizos, NOT the position of freedoms. So your plan did not work, did it?
Better come up with something else.

Well, I can't speak for everyone but for me there is nothing else. If 'freedom' won't sell as a message, then I might as well stay home. A message of freedom is what got me involved in this shitty, hateful world of politics.

There is some truth, though, to your comments about people who think that sending no message somehow sends a powerful (noticeable) message.

I mean, if only 3 people voted I'm sure whoever got a majority of 2 votes would take that to mean that they have authority to rule over the other 300 million+ Americans. Not voting out of principle is fine, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that the folks in Washington are going to suddenly realize that not everyone voted, and therefore they should look to you with compassion and try to find out why you didn't vote so they can try to offer adequate representation. That'll never happen.

[torchbearer]

Well, I can't speak for everyone but for me there is nothing else. If 'freedom' won't sell as a message, then I might as well stay home. A message of freedom is what got me involved in this shitty, hateful world of politics.

There is some truth, though, to your comments about people who think that sending no message somehow sends a powerful (noticeable) message.

I mean, if only 3 people voted I'm sure whoever got a majority of 2 votes would take that to mean that they have authority to rule over the other 300 million+ Americans. Not voting out of principle is fine, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that the folks in Washington are going to suddenly realize that not everyone voted, and therefore they should look to you with compassion and try to find out why you didn't vote so they can try to offer adequate representation. That'll never happen.


got it!
we change the election rules to state that the candidate has to get 50% +1 of all eligible voters are no government.
i know that isn't moral unless its a government rules by laws that are above it, but it would make the government responsive to the people.

[LibertyEagle]

So, for those of you who didn't vote: What is your plan? You didn't vote for Romney, so you prefer obama? It's really that simple.

Dear sir, when are you going to understand that the lesser of 2 evils is still an evil? When will you be ready to take a stand and support good? How much further down the slope do you think we can slide before we run out of slope altogether? I think we are there right now and just haven't yet heard the thud.

You must know that Romney wasn't the answer. If he would have been elected, he may have been 5-10% better on domestic issues, while being much worse on foreign policy militarism. But it is also true that Republicans fall asleep when they believe one of their own is in power and allow that person to do things that they would be screaming bloody murder about had a Democrat done it. If we do not remember the principles that once made our country great and do it soon, this little experiment of freedom that our Founders gave us, is going to be over.

[BAllen]

Dear sir, when are you going to understand that the lesser of 2 evils is still an evil? When will you be ready to take a stand and support good? How much further down the slope do you think we can slide before we run out of slope altogether? I think we are there right now and just haven't yet heard the thud.

Sigh.
Romney is not evil. He's a good, Christian family man.

[BAllen]

What illusion? You voted for Romney didn't you? Did you win? Did you change anything? The only difference between you and me is I actually voted for someone who would make my country better. You voted for who Team Red told you to vote for and in the end we both lose. I sleep better knowing that unlike you, I stuck by my principles. That is if you have any.

Guess what? We are the future, every day that passes from now till the next election, more of us become eligible to vote. More of us become eligible to run for office while your kind slowly dies off. Just look at this last election, Obama lost 10 million votes. Romney had 2 million less than McCain. We are the future and no amount of crying from you and TEAM RED can change that. Join us or continue to lose. That is what we won from this election. We proved that you can't win without us and we will teach you that lesson again in 2016 if you want.

No, the difference is, I realized that method did not work. You still haven't figured it out, yet. I vote for the best available candidate, while working on changing the system within. R.P. couldn't get the presidential nomination but he has had an effect on the local levels. He has had an influence. He contacts young people at universities, which is what the marxists did to get to the positions they're in today. We can learn from these things, but this all or nothing attitude gets us nowhere and allows traitors like obummer to get the position. Minorities are dedicated. They stick with the democrap party, and are rewarded with government goodies. They combine their different groups for support of their candidate. It should be easier for us. All we have to do is combine the Tea Party with The Constitution Party with the rest of the Conservatives and support the GOP candidate. They have to combine people of different nationalities, sexual orientation, languages, and religions, and yet still manage to stick together for the vote. They even cheat for votes in their favor. One would think with all that 'diversity' they have to overcome, we'd at least be able to combine our forces for one vote, as well. But, no! There is an all or nothing attitude that splits our vote each time, and allows them to win.

[Origanalist]

http://evilcatchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/Mitt%20Romney%20Mormon%20Republican%20They%20Told% 20Me%20I%20could%20be%20anything%20So%20I%20Decide d%20to%20be%20a%20Human%20They%20said%20I%20could% 20be%20anything%20Evil%20Cat%20Chronicles%20Floria n%20Schmid.jpg#evil%20romney%20564x804

[GunnyFreedom]

Sigh.
Romney is not evil. He's a good, Christian family man.

Who supports indefinitely detaining Americans without Habeas Corpus, monitoring Americans without a warrant, and expanding America's global war of planetary domination into a region certain to bring retaliation from Russia and China. None of that sounds either moral or Christian to me.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, the difference is, I realized that method did not work. You still haven't figured it out, yet. I vote for the best available candidate, while working on changing the system within. R.P. couldn't get the presidential nomination but he has had an effect on the local levels. He has had an influence. He contacts young people at universities, which is what the marxists did to get to the positions they're in today. We can learn from these things, but this all or nothing attitude gets us nowhere and allows traitors like obummer to get the position. Minorities are dedicated. They stick with the democrap party, and are rewarded with government goodies. They combine their different groups for support of their candidate. It should be easier for us. All we have to do is combine the Tea Party with The Constitution Party with the rest of the Conservatives and support the GOP candidate. They have to combine people of different nationalities, sexual orientation, languages, and religions, and yet still manage to stick together for the vote. They even cheat for votes in their favor. One would think with all that 'diversity' they have to overcome, we'd at least be able to combine our forces for one vote, as well. But, no! There is an all or nothing attitude that splits our vote each time, and allows them to win.

Then you will keep losing. For the next 8 years or 80. I'm a young man. I can wait the idiots out. People who spit on the Constitution will never get my vote, nor the votes of the Ron Paul movement, nor the votes of those we awaken. We are growing by leaps and bounds. Nominate a candidate for President who will actually uphold and defend the Constitution, or deal with the communists. The choice is black and white.

[klamath]

bAllen, I have been following politics and elections since RP and I backed Ronald Reagan over Ford in 1976. I didn't vote for Romney, as Romney COULD NOT WIN. I will tell you why.

Romney was the mastermind behind encouraging McCain to suspend his campaign and go lobby for TARP and beings that Romney is rich it set him up as the very last person the republicans could win with. It fell right into the democrats hands that he was ONLY going to be interested in the rich people even to bail them out with tax payers money. That was NOT going to fly this election. He even played into it even more with his 47% comments.

Romney invented the mandate. The very thing that made Obama so dispised, not one conservative Republican could stand up with a straight face and attack Obama and defend Romney on it.

Romney managed to run as more prowar than Obama which is pretty darn hard to do. Read ANY poll. The Americans are sick of all the wars in the middle east. Even the majority of republicans are now against even being in Afganistan. Romney was a chickenhawk.

You CANNOT get up and say you are going to raise the defence budget and hint you will cut social programs to balance the budget. If he would have gone up and said we need to cut across the board maybe people would have believed he could balance the budget.

Romney NEVER once lead in the electoral college and based on my years of electoral politic following I could see Obama was going to be reelected.

As retired military I tend to look at things strategically and tactically. To me I see the political landscape as a massed line of battle generally in a stalemate. Too me a Romney win might have been a tiny thrust forward for a short term gain but would have given the opposition an opening to massively counterattack, flanking and collaspsing our whole line. It is NOT always good to make a short term thrust without looking at the whole strategic picture.
I think you would be very well to study this.

[angelatc]

Who supports indefinitely detaining Americans without Habeas Corpus, monitoring Americans without a warrant, and expanding America's global war of planetary domination into a region certain to bring retaliation from Russia and China. None of that sounds either moral or Christian to me.

Are Mormons technically Christians?

[BAllen]

Then you will keep losing. For the next 8 years or 80. I'm a young man. I can wait the idiots out. People who spit on the Constitution will never get my vote, nor the votes of the Ron Paul movement, nor the votes of those we awaken. We are growing by leaps and bounds. Nominate a candidate for President who will actually uphold and defend the Constitution, or deal with the communists. The choice is black and white.

Then it's a stalemate. You won't win, either. We all lose. Thanks for nothing.

[BAllen]

bAllen, I have been following politics and election since RP and I back Ronald Reagan over Ford. I didn't vote for Romney, as romney COULD NOT WIN. I will tell you why.
Romney was the mastermind behind encouraging McCain to suspend his campaign and go lobby for TARP and beings that Romney is rich it set him up as the very last person the republicans could win with. It fell right into the democrats hands that he was ONLY going to be interested in the rich people even to bail them out with tax payers money. That was NOT going to fly this election. He even played into it even more with his 47% comments.

Romney invented the mandate. The very thing that made Obama so dispised, not one conservative Republican could stand up with a straight face and defend Romney on it.

Romney managed to run as more prowar than Obama which is pretty darn hard to do.Read ANY poll. the American are sick of all the war in the middle east. Even the majority of republicans are now against even being in Afganistan. Romney was a chickenhawk.

You CANNOT get up and say you are going to raise the defence budget and hint you will cut social programs to balance the budget. If he would have gone up and said we need to cut across the board go people to go alone with him.

Romney NEVER once lead in the electoral college and based on my years of electoral politic following I could see Obama was going to be reelected.

As retired military I tend to look at thing strategically and tactically. To me I see the political landscape as a massed line of battle generally in a stalemate. Too me a Romney win might have been a tiny thrust forward for a short term gain but would have given the opposition an opening to massively counterattack, flanking and collaspsing our whole line. It is NOT always good to make a short term thrust without looking at the whole strategic picture.
I think you would be very well to study this.

If obummer keeps along his path, we may not even have a country to save.

[klamath]

If obummer keeps along his path, we may not even have a country to save.
Sorry I have heard that line on every election since 1976 and reading history it goes way back in our history.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then it's a stalemate. You won't win, either. We all lose. Thanks for nothing.

Don't look at me, I'm the one defending the Constitution, like I have twice sworn an oath to do, and as is the DUTY of every red blooded American to do. We either restore the Constitution or America dies, and if America has to die, then let it die now while I am still around to rebuild her according to the Constitution and not in 40 years when my children and grandchildren will have to suffer with possible endless tyranny.

As far as I am concerned, those like you who support candidates who spit on the Constitution are traitors to America, because without your sort, we would have a free and Constitutional government today. You want to know why we are all losing, then look in the mirror sir, because it's not me and those of us who will die to uphold and defend the Constitution, but you who abandon it in fear and in favor of a man blatantly identical to the enemy you fear, except for wearing your team jersey.

Disgust doesn't even begin to cover it. If Obama were (R) and Romney were (D) with all other things being identically the same, then you'd be here desperate to elect Obama because Romney was going to destroy the country. You may not even admit it to yourself, but in your heart you know it, because Obama and Romney ARE the same, with their only difference being their party of nomination.

See, the way I see it, you and the rest of the Romney voters voted for 8 more years of Obama, the Obama voters voted for four more years of Obama, and those of us who refused to vote for either voted for no more years of Obama. When you look at it that way, you end up worse even than those people who actually cast their vote to reelect Barack Obama.

So go ahead, read me the riot act, just like the loyalists of Colonial America excoriated the Patriots who sued for Independence.


"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" ~ Samuel Adams

[GunnyFreedom]

Sorry I have heard that line on every election since 1976 and reading history it goes way back in our history.

Truth.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to klamath again.

[klamath]

Then it's a stalemate. You won't win, either. We all lose. Thanks for nothing.
I have always been a peace through strength conservative. I have been very uncomfortable with all the wars since the end of the cold war. As a good republican I voted for who I thought was the best in the primaries and then voted for the neoconservatives that were handed up as the best of two evils. The neoconservatives have NOT compromised one tiny Bit toward the libertarian wing of the party. It is time YOUR wing compromise and put one of our candidates up for the general election if you want to get the libertarian wing back in the coalition.

[BAllen]

I have always been a peace through strength conservative. I have been very uncomfortable with all the wars since the end of the cold war. As a good republican I voted for who I thought was the best in the primaries and then voted for the neoconservatives the were handed up as the best of two evils. The neoconservatives have NOT compromised one tiny Bit toward the libertarian wing of the party. It is time YOUR wing compromise and put one of our candidates up for the general election if you want to get the libertarian wing back in the coalition.

I know well the frustration. Remember, I was a big Buchanan supporter. I still think he had the best plan for this country. But, it didn't happen. I look at things realistically, and make the most of what's available. What you're doing won't work. Been there, done that.

[GunnyFreedom]

I know well the frustration. Remember, I was a big Buchanan supporter. I still think he had the best plan for this country. But, it didn't happen. I look at things realistically, and make the most of what's available. What you're doing won't work. Been there, done that.

Then America dies, and it will be those who are willing to compromise the Constitution for nothing that have done it. The neocons will either get out of our way, get crushed beneath our bulldozers, and go extinct in the death of the Republican Party. Those are the only options left to us now. Are you not aware that America is in dire straits? This is NOT a game! Romney's plan to fling America over he cliff at 55mph was no more responsible or helpful than Obama's plan to fling America over he cliff at 60mph. Somebody has to take a stand, or all we will ever get is Romney v Obama until the end of time or until America no longer exists. How can you not see that?

[invisible]

Looks like nickles is back

[klamath]

I know well the frustration. Remember, I was a big Buchanan supporter. I still think he had the best plan for this country. But, it didn't happen. I look at things realistically, and make the most of what's available. What you're doing won't work. Been there, done that.

No what we have been doing hasn't worked and I am not a 100% for me or you are against me libertarian. it is time to hold our ground and set up for the future. Please reread what I wrote.


I see the political landscape as a massed line of battle generally in a stalemate. A Romney win might have been a tiny thrust forward for a short term gain but would have given the opposition an opening to massively counterattack, flanking and collaspsing our whole line. It is NOT always good to make a short term thrust without looking at the whole strategic picture.

[Anti Federalist]

So much win in this thread...

I'd rep all of you.

I just hope our new member takes our words to heart and sees the light.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110809110832/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/e/e8/Blues-brothers.jpg/250px-Blues-brothers.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

No what we have been doing hasn't worked and I am not a 100% for me or you are against me libertarian. it is time to hold our ground and set up for the future. Please reread what I wrote.

Nor am I, much to the chagrin of many of our libertarian friends, but there are lines you do not cross for any reason.

Also, if one is to be a party loyalist with the big picture in mind, they should understand that the economy is going to be sucked into a giant black hole by December 2014 no matter who is President, as neither had any intention of reversing QE3. If one really wants Republicans to win future offices, then it would likely be a bad idea for a Republican to be holding the reigns when the economy implodes into hyperinflation.

[liberty2897]

Then it's a stalemate. You won't win, either. We all lose. Thanks for nothing.

It is always a stalemate every year. Your choice is stale blue or stale red.

"Thanks for nothing" ... right back at ya.

Here is a little reminder as to why Romney lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related

[BAllen]

Then America dies, and it will be those who are willing to compromise the Constitution for nothing that have done it. The neocons will either get out of our way, get crushed beneath our bulldozers, and go extinct in the death of the Republican Party. Those are the only options left to us now. Are you not aware that America is in dire straits? This is NOT a game! Romney's plan to fling America over he cliff at 55mph was no more responsible or helpful than Obama's plan to fling America over he cliff at 60mph. Somebody has to take a stand, or all we will ever get is Romney v Obama until the end of time or until America no longer exists. How can you not see that?

We can banter back and forth about what Romney would, or would not have done, but it's all a moot point now anyway. We'll never know. The point is obama wasn't even an American, he was born in kenya. Where are your consitutional convictions on that? You helped him get there. And, realistically, Ron Paul did not have a chance without the nomination, which he did not get. You live in a fantasy world if you think you can change a group by not participating. Is that working? No. And it NEVER will. They don't pay attention to how many DID NOT vote.

[Acala]

If obummer keeps along his path, we may not even have a country to save.

I DO feel guilty. I feel guilty that I am reveling in the childish sniveling of the Romney supporters who first sold out their principles and THEN lost the election anyway. I shouldn't do that.

[Anti Federalist]

They don't pay attention to how many DID NOT vote.

Yes, they do.

There have been numerous news reports on how many millions less voted for O-Bomb-ya this time around.

And how many millions less voted for RMoney than McPain.

[Origanalist]

I DO feel guilty. I feel guilty that I am reveling in the childish sniveling of the Romney supporters who first sold out their principles and THEN lost the election anyway. I shouldn't do that.

Shame on you...

[acptulsa]

I DO feel guilty. I feel guilty that I am reveling in the childish sniveling of the Romney supporters who first sold out their principles and THEN lost the election anyway. I shouldn't do that.

This. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Including the silly notion that a corrupt, big goverment, Constitution-trashing socialist totalitarian is somehow better for having a capital R next to his name as opposed to that capital D for 'dreaded'.

When we get BA's freedom back for him, despite his inaction, he'll thank us. And he still won't admit that he was a tool for totalitarianism, or even that his course would have slowed down our progress.

Someone said earlier in this thread that the GOP can't win without us. That isn't because their numbers plus our numbers are enough numbers to put it over. That's because as long as Republicans turn to Fox to tell them who is and isn't electable, instead of judging candidates by the principles we expound and hold dear, they'll continue to field bad imitations of Democrats, and they'll continue to lose. They need us because Red Team has to be different from Blue Team to win. And conservatism can win--our Blue Republican efforts proved that--but as long as it's Blue Team diamonds against Red Team cubic zirconia the result will be the same.

Republicans need us because they need our help to stand for something. As it is, they keep falling for anything--and can't figure out why the independent voters don't fall with them.

[GunnyFreedom]

We can banter back and forth about what Romney would, or would not have done, but it's all a moot point now anyway. We'll never know. The point is obama wasn't even an American, he was born in kenya. Where are your consitutional convictions on that? You helped him get there.

Only in your tortured reasoning is a vote cast for one person the selection of another. Your mindset is precisely why we have a two party duopoly, and why America is on the verge of failure today. You are exactly the sort of unthinking irrational mindless voter that George Washington had in mind when he warned against the formation of parties and factions.

And I love the insituation that one has to abandon the Constitution in order to preserve it. Is that like Bush's abandoning the free market in order to protect it? So Romney was TARP?


And, realistically, Ron Paul did not have a chance without the nomination, which he did not get. You live in a fantasy world if you think you can change a group by not participating. Is that working? No. And it NEVER will. They don't pay attention to how many DID NOT vote.

Who says I'm not participating in the Republican Party or politics? My refusal to vote for one guy who spits on the Constitution doesn't make me uninvolved or unrepublican. Indeed, look at the turnout. A lot of hard-core Republican super-voters didn't bother to show up this time. Those aren't Ron Paulers I'm talking about, but good old "team red" Republicans from way back who caught the party in a fumble and couldn't be motivated to show up at the polls.

When are you going to come to terms with the fact that the only person who lost this election for Romney, is Romney? He was one of the worst possible choices for nominee, and while you sit here blaming us for his own failures, the mainstream media is out there telling GOP primary voters that the reason Romney failed was because he wasn't mushy enough and had too much backbone.

If you let this go on, then 2016 will be 2012 all over again.

Compromise is a two way street. Since Goldwater, Constitutionalists have done nothing but compromise towards the neocons, while the neocons haven't compromised one inch. That compromising is why Romney lost, and I am done with it. The GOP wants our votes, then they have to come our way.

See, here you are re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and yelling at us because we won't help you rearrange the deck chairs, while we are down in engineering trying to rudder around the iceberg so as to avoid hitting it. Good luck with your deck chairs. At least when the ship sinks, we'll go down in style, right?

[VBRonPaulFan]

We can banter back and forth about what Romney would, or would not have done, but it's all a moot point now anyway. We'll never know. The point is obama wasn't even an American, he was born in kenya. Where are your consitutional convictions on that? You helped him get there. And, realistically, Ron Paul did not have a chance without the nomination, which he did not get. You live in a fantasy world if you think you can change a group by not participating. Is that working? No. And it NEVER will. They don't pay attention to how many DID NOT vote.

are you f'ing joking? are you really this dense?

not participate? paul delegates were a majority of delegates coming from what - 7 states? for someone who was a 'presumed nominee', losing that many states in the primary is pretty unheard of. and all that was accomplished strictly through a grassroots, while the media kept chanting over and over to the country that Ron Paul was unelectable and crazy and this and that, and of course Romney would eventually win. imagine if the coverage had been relatively unbiased? i think the RNC results would've been significantly different. and then your Team R shenanigans at the RNC to RP friendly supporters was absolutely beyond ridiculous. if you have no idea what happened, go back and look. to expect any of us to give the nominee the vote after we were spit on, silenced, ostracized, ridiculed, assaulted? you're nuts.

we, all of us, absolutely did participate and will continue to do so. so you can absolutely get bent if you're going to try to sit here and say we did nothing. on top of that, we did exactly what we told the Republican party we were going to do all along after all the shit they did to us - vote our CONSCIENCE. we wrote in Ron Paul or voted Gary Johnson and did the same thing to the republican party that they did to us - we told them to go fuck themselves.

[Acala]

This. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Including the silly notion that a corrupt, big goverment, Constitution-trashing socialist totalitarian is somehow better for having a capital R next to his name as opposed to that capital D for 'dreaded'.

When we get BA's freedom back for him, despite his inaction, he'll thank us. And he still won't admit that he was a tool for totalitarianism, or even that his course would have slowed down our progress.

Someone said earlier in this thread that the GOP can't win without us. That isn't because their numbers plus our numbers are enough numbers to put it over. That's because as long as Republicans turn to Fox to tell them who is and isn't electable, instead of judging candidates by the principles we expound and hold dear, they'll continue to field bad imitations of Democrats, and they'll continue to lose. They need us because Red Team has to be different from Blue Team to win. And conservatism can win--our Blue Republican efforts proved that--but as long as it's Blue Team diamonds against Red Team cubic zirconia the result will be the same.

Republicans need us because they need our help to stand for something. As it is, they keep falling for anything--and can't figure out why the independent voters don't fall with them.

That's the fact, Jack. It's about principles: who has them and who doesn't. What good is winning an election if the result is installing yet another lying, unprincipled jackass in power?

[BAllen]

You didn't get the media support that Romney did, that's true. Then it simply means you have more work to do, so get busy! Chop Chop! Come back to me when you get enough support, and I'll vote for your candidate, okay?

[torchbearer]

You didn't get the media support that Romney did, that's true. Then it simply means you have more work to do, so get busy! Chop Chop! Come back to me when you get enough support, and I'll vote for your candidate, okay?


hold you to it.
the shit the GOP pulled in 2012 has brought a bounty to my caucus.
If you were part of that bullshit, please continue.

[BAllen]

hold you to it.
the shit the GOP pulled in 2012 has brought a bounty to my caucus.
If you were part of that bullshit, please continue.

It really doesn't matter who the gop picks, at this point. As Rush said, we have to compete with Santa Claus. People have properly conditioned by schools and the media that Obama is best, despite all the crap that he's done wrong. They demonize conservative principles. Voters are just too dumb to make the right choice. They let the media tell them who to vote for.

[torchbearer]

It really doesn't matter who the gop picks, at this point. As Rush said, we have to compete with Santa Claus. People have properly conditioned by schools and the media that Obama is best, despite all the crap that he's done wrong. They demonize conservative principles. Voters are just too dumb to make the right choice. They let the media tell them who to vote for.


You have to change the debate.
YOu don't say I want to end X, Y and Z...
you say, i agree with the ends... i want everyone to have good health care. what i disagree with is the means. how does it get done? with force, or with people joining a program of their choice voluntarily? is forcing your neighbor to buy something they don't want with the threats of fine and imprisonment moral?
If an idea is good, why do you have to force people to fund it?
etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

It really doesn't matter who the gop picks, at this point. As Rush said, we have to compete with Santa Claus. People have properly conditioned by schools and the media that Obama is best, despite all the crap that he's done wrong. They demonize conservative principles. Voters are just too dumb to make the right choice. They let the media tell them who to vote for.

And yet a big chunk of lefties and the vast majority of indies would vote Ron Paul over Obama. Ron Paul only lost voters from the right, which is insane, as Ron Pauls whole platform and 30 year record is basically the direct embodiment of the US Constitution. Ron Paul is to the right of the GOP, and it's only the GOP from where he loses votes. He picks up in the middle and on the left. The GOP can in fact win, by picking up the middle and the left, but they have to come our way to do it. It's the GOP establishment who has to get their act together and compromise with us if they want to win, because we, and we alone are the Republicans on the right with the formula to pick up the left and the middle.

[BAllen]

And yet a big chunk of lefties and the vast majority of indies would vote Ron Paul over Obama. Ron Paul only lost voters from the right, which is insane, as Ron Pauls whole platform and 30 year record is basically the direct embodiment of the US Constitution. Ron Paul is to the right of the GOP, and it's only the GOP from where he loses votes. He picks up in the middle and on the left. The GOP can in fact win, by picking up the middle and the left, but they have to come our way to do it. It's the GOP establishment who has to get their act together and compromise with us if they want to win, because we, and we alone are the Republicans on the right with the formula to pick up the left and the middle.

No, you're wrong, they would not pick Paul. They will not pick anyone who cuts their welfare benefits. The media would not support Paul, either. He would not get far. The marxists have this well planned out. The dept. of education to the media, all owned by the marxists. It's by design. I think Paul has the right idea about reaching out to young people at universities about these principles, but there is still too much too overcome. These young people will have to get in positions of power in the media and education system to effect a real change. The only thing that could bring it about any quicker would be for the welfare people to lose their gubmint checks, and that ain't gonna happen any time soon. We could, of course, help it along as I've said in other posts.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, they do.

There have been numerous news reports on how many millions less voted for O-Bomb-ya this time around.

And how many millions less voted for RMoney than McPain.

The point is that they do not care if people don't vote. It's all good to the establishment. The only thing they hate is when people are engaged and trying to overturn their stranglehold.

[presence]

ex·co·ri·ate - ikˈskôrēˌāt
Verb:

Censure or criticize severely.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, you're wrong, they would not pick Paul. They will not pick anyone who cuts their welfare benefits. The media would not support Paul, either. He would not get far. The marxists have this well planned out. The dept. of education to the media, all owned by the marxists. It's by design. I think Paul has the right idea about reaching out to young people at universities about these principles, but there is still too much too overcome. These young people will have to get in positions of power in the media and education system to effect a real change. The only thing that could bring it about any quicker would be for the welfare people to lose their gubmint checks, and that ain't gonna happen any time soon. We could, of course, help it along as I've said in other posts.

According to the pollsters and the evidence on the ground, I am correct and you are wrong. I am working from empirical data, and you are working from a gut feeling. I will stick with empirical data thank you very much. Ron Paul picked up the middle and a big chunk of the left. The only voters he lost were the idiots on the right who hate the Constitution. If Paul had been nominated in 2012, then the Republicans would have won. This isn't about entitlements. Stop letting the lame stream media frame the argument. (that includes Fox and Rush)

Republicans can win, but they can only win on our platform now. You come our way, or keep losing. The choice is as simple as that. And it should be easy, because our way is nothing more than to "obey the Constitution" full stop.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, you're wrong, they would not pick Paul. They will not pick anyone who cuts their welfare benefits. The media would not support Paul, either. He would not get far. The marxists have this well planned out. The dept. of education to the media, all owned by the marxists. It's by design. I think Paul has the right idea about reaching out to young people at universities about these principles, but there is still too much too overcome. These young people will have to get in positions of power in the media and education system to effect a real change. The only thing that could bring it about any quicker would be for the welfare people to lose their gubmint checks, and that ain't gonna happen any time soon. We could, of course, help it along as I've said in other posts.

And you are also blatantly wrong about Paul's success with the younger generation. Paul didn't pick up the younger generations because he went out and talked to them Paul picked up the younger generation because of the message he brought. The platform he upheld.

The way you put it, it's like you think Santorum or Gingrich could have toured the college campuses and done as well as Paul. That would be a delusion. It's not Paul himself or the places he chose to go which picked up the younger generation, it was specifically the message he brought. The specific message he brought which attracted the younger generation.

Go to the college campuses with a Romney message or a Bachmann message and you will get unceremoniously dumped out the door. There is only one message on the right that wins, and that is the strict Constitutionalist message of Ron Paul. The GOP comes our way or continues to lose. End of story. The sooner you guys come to terms with that fact, the sooner we can start winning and taking this country back from the socialists communists and fascists.

[BAllen]

And you are also blatantly wrong about Paul's success with the younger generation. Paul didn't pick up the younger generations because he went out and talked to them Paul picked up the younger generation because of the message he brought. The platform he upheld.

The way you put it, it's like you think Santorum or Gingrich could have toured the college campuses and done as well as Paul. That would be a delusion. It's not Paul himself or the places he chose to go which picked up the younger generation, it was specifically the message he brought. The specific message he brought which attracted the younger generation.

Go to the college campuses with a Romney message or a Bachmann message and you will get unceremoniously dumped out the door. There is only one message on the right that wins, and that is the strict Constitutionalist message of Ron Paul. The GOP comes our way or continues to lose. End of story. The sooner you guys come to terms with that fact, the sooner we can start winning and taking this country back from the socialists communists and fascists.

Go back and re-read my post. I'm not saying that Paul's positions are not what convinces the young people at universities. He may have them. I'm saying there are too many people on the government dole, and too many that take their cue from the media, for it to make any difference at this point. It took the marxists, what? 45 yrs. to get to this point, and you think Paul can turn it around just by getting the nomination? If you believe that, you really are naive. The enemy is too embedded in the current system to effect an immediate change.

[klamath]

Go back and re-read my post. I'm not saying that Paul's positions are not what convinces the young people at universities. He may have them. I'm saying there are too many people on the government dole, and too many that take their cue from the media, for it to make any difference at this point. It took the marxists, what? 45 yrs. to get to this point, and you think Paul can turn it around just by getting the nomination? If you believe that, you really are naive. The enemy is too embedded in the current system to effect an immediate change.If you really believe this then why the H*LL were you ranting on us for not voting for Romney????? Nothing matters anyway all is lost!!!!!

[GunnyFreedom]

Go back and re-read my post. I'm not saying that Paul's positions are not what convinces the young people at universities. He may have them. I'm saying there are too many people on the government dole, and too many that take their cue from the media, for it to make any difference at this point. It took the marxists, what? 45 yrs. to get to this point, and you think Paul can turn it around just by getting the nomination? If you believe that, you really are naive. The enemy is too embedded in the current system to effect an immediate change.

That's just your gut feeling, and your gut feeling is wrong. This conversation has not been about accomplishing given reforms, it has been about electability. Why are you moving the goalposts as soon as you see your argument in jeopardy?

Of course it will take time to correct the damage that has been done, but that correction will NEVER happen until we elect people who actually want to correct that damage. In 2012 the only person who wanted to correct that damage was Ron Paul. Which is part of why he picked up a large chunk of the left and pretty much all of the middle and the independents.

You are just repeating this 47% mantra with no evidence that the 47% would reject Paul. It's like you are trying to convince yourself it's true. You have your gut feelings, I have Rasmussen, Gallup, and the whole constellation of pollsters left middle and right. Paul wins a 2012 General vs Obama, and that was spread widely around the nation. The only way to beat Democrats in a General is to steal their voters and hold the middle. The only candidate in 2012 that could hold the middle and steal from the left was Ron Paul.

You are like some kind of broken robot repeating that the Republicans can't win because of entitlements. If Republicans can't win anyway, then why are you so hostile towards the nomination of a strict Constitutionalist? Is it because you are afraid that such a Republican WOULD win, and that victory would shake your whole meticulously constructed false paradigm apart?

We know that Ron Paul would have beat Obama, because the polls said so. Paul's only weak spot were right-establishmentarians and big government Republicans who live every day in fear that the GOP grassroots are going to rise up and demand the party stand true to it's actual platform.

You are right that the Romneys and the Santorums of this world can never win a Presidential General again. You are right that the Republican Establishment has played out and there is no more there to draw enough voters to win. There is only one Republican philosophy that can win a Presidential General election, the same Republican philosophy that brought the GOP to the height of greatness from Douglass, Taft, to Goldwater. The platform of Ron Paul. Climb on board and win, or continue to reject us and lose.

Just open your eyes and look. It's not as though this is hard to see. Paul's platform is further to the right than any Republican nominated since Goldwater, and even so he wins progressives and liberals. It's been common knowledge for 200 years that that's how you win elections, by stealing the other guy's base. All the sudden common knowledge points our way so you reject it? That's silly.

You would really rather give up and concede defeat to the communists than to elect a government that strictly obeys the Constitution? Really? Yeah, that's the problem.

If you want Republicans to win, there is one and only one sure fire way to do it. Nominate a candidate with our platform. Otherwise, continue to lose, as you say Republicans are destined to do anyway.

Entitlements are not the issue. Stop letting the media frame the debate.

[BAllen]

Here is a brief histoy of how the marxists took over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASdKwmHN-fI

[BAllen]

Horkheimer worked on turning marxism into a cultural revolution against western civilization. That is why many did not recognize the importance of the economy, and supported the cultural icon, obama, despite the horrible economic conditions. They have been indoctrinated.

[GunnyFreedom]

You are still only dealing with half of the equation. The Soviet Union perpetuated it's control by setting up a false paradigm with Marx on the left and Trotsky on the right. You can wail about Marxist progressives all day long, but until and unless you deal with the Trotskyite Neoconservatives, it's just going to be noise.

[Kodaddy]

^^^ As were the Romney supporters....
Don't worry, you'll get there....you're in the right place, and believe it or not, you are among friends... My awakening was akin to 'Neo's' in the movie "The Matrix"....painful, but enlightening...

[belian78]

I don't ignore or dismiss anything. You are the one living an illusion if you think casting your vote for Ron Paul actually changed anything. It did not. I went that route when Pat Buchanan was running. I wrote his name in, and we got Clinton again.
Wrong, for some their vote for Dr Paul did change something, themselves. Like me, 4 years ago, I voted for RP and that was the time I ended my support for the illusion of a 2 party system. For the folks doing it for the first time this year, this is their moment. So our votes did change something but like anything that's worth a shit, it takes time to really take effect, because it's forever.

[acptulsa]

No, you're wrong, they would not pick Paul. They will not pick anyone who cuts their welfare benefits.

Buddy, if you had joined us one hell of a lot earlier, when we were getting things done instead of merely listening to the misplaced sour grapes of couch-sitters like yourself, you'd know that we had them sold on Paul because their states could handle welfare better and more efficiently, and with less corruption, than the federal government ever could. We showed them that states handle this anyway, and all the federal government does about welfare is collect the money by force and take their cut, prior to giving to the states to distribute. You say they wouldn't vote for Paul, but they are part of the reason why Paul did as well as he did in the primaries, Bubba. While you and yours were lapping at Fox News' milk bowl, they were changing registrations and voting for liberty and federal conservatism. While you were agonizing over whether Romney was far enough left for Hannity to pronounce him electable, we had bona fide liberals voting for small federal government just to get the corporations out of power.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe if you weren't a Johnny-Come-Lately, you'd be capable of giving us credit where credit is due. As it is, you think if Fox doesn't report it it didn't happen, or isn't worth a conservative's attention. You've been misled. Badly.

You aren't going to get anywhere repeating to us Fox's lies about us. We know what we accomplished. Perhaps you should hush and read until you get caught up. Fox will make you ignorant, but we can cure you if you let us. For you see, the thing you don't see because Fox refuses to tell you, the thing you don't see because you're ignorant of the Constitution of the United States of America, is that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee liberals all the state-level socialism 51% of their states' electorates can stand. I don't know about you, but I don't live in Romney's Taxachusetts. So I didn't have to worry about socialized medicine until you and your ilk guaranteed Obama--and Obamacare--four years ago when you nominated an asshole who was the same thing as Obama only more frightening. Yes, I said the same thing. You're so caught up in the Red Team Mentality you can't even look at McCain the way an independent voter does. An independent voter knows about McCain-Feingold. An independent voter knows what McCain-Kennedy does to us. The same thing only more frightening.

Under Ron Paul, if you had only had enough sense to help us nominate him, Romneycare would be Taxachusetts' problem, not everyone's problem. And Taxachusetts would have to pay for it, not all of us.


Go back and re-read my post. I'm not saying that Paul's positions are not what convinces the young people at universities. He may have them. I'm saying there are too many people on the government dole, and too many that take their cue from the media, for it to make any difference at this point. It took the marxists, what? 45 yrs. to get to this point, and you think Paul can turn it around just by getting the nomination? If you believe that, you really are naive. The enemy is too embedded in the current system to effect an immediate change.

Which is why we've been at this for years now. Which leaves you with a choice to make. Will you lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way?


You are like some kind of broken robot repeating that the Republicans can't win because of entitlements. If Republicans can't win anyway, then why are you so hostile towards the nomination of a strict Constitutionalist? Is it because you are afraid that such a Republican WOULD win, and that victory would shake your whole meticulously constructed false paradigm apart?

[Acala]

Voters are just too dumb to make the right choice. They let the media tell them who to vote for.

Which is why you voted for Romney and believe he represents the free market. Hahahahaha.

[BAllen]

Which is why you voted for Romney and believe he represents the free market. Hahahahaha.

Much better than obama!
But, it doesn't matter now, anyway. There were areas where obama got over 100%! He had his thugs at the polling stations. Electronic machines were switching votes! The election was rigged. It's game over! The marxists have won, and the know it. They will NEVER let anyone else get elected.

[acptulsa]

Much better than obama!
But, it doesn't matter now, anyway. There were areas where obama got over 100%! He had his thugs at the polling stations. Electronic machines were switching votes! The election was rigged. It's game over! The marxists have won, and the know it. They will NEVER let anyone else get elected.

There is no difference between Romney and Obama where the free market is concerned. Have you never heard of the Big Dig? Do you not know Romney was a corporate raider? They didn't have to rig the general election--the Marxists won either way.

As for whether or not red-blooded Americans can get the right person elected, the answer is yes. But we have to stop lapping up the Fox distractions and lies, remember what we stand for and why, and give ourselves a firm foundation from which to fight for our heritage. Without that, our votes don't matter anyway. Who really cares if we vote for the father of Obamacare or the grandfather of Obamacare? The powers that be don't care, they win either way. And they know it. What's more, most Americans don't care either. We lose either way, and somewhere deep inside, we know it.

You're whining over whether we gave them one more inch to the left or two more inches to the left. You have to know that either way, we were going to give them at least an inch and they were going to take a mile. If you can't see that, you're a fool.

[BAllen]

Romney would have been much better, but it's a moot point now, anyway, isn't it? The only way we have a chance now, is to tear the system down.

[acptulsa]

Romney would have been much better, but it's a moot point now, anyway, isn't it? The only way we have a chance now, is to tear the system down.

Step one: Stop listening to Fox. They pronounced those bozos (honestly, can you see anyone selling Santorum to independent voters?) electable, and the man they called unelectable could have sent Obama right back to Hawaii. We had Ron Paul sold to independent voters! There were polls that proved it! And I'll tell you something, if you want to know. Despite the smear campaign of the young millenium, we'd have widened the gap. We'd have helped Ron Paul make a landslide of it.

Stop listening to Fox. They won't lead you back to a Constitutional republic. We will.

[Acala]

Romney would have been much better.

You have said that several times. What is your factual evidence? I will even accept things Romney said as evidence, though he is a demonstrable liar, unless they are contradicted by other things he said or did.

[Origanalist]

You have said that several times. What is your factual evidence? I will even accept things Romney said as evidence, though he is a demonstrable liar, unless they are contradicted by other things he said or did.

Good luck with that.

[acptulsa]

You have said that several times. What is your factual evidence? I will even accept things Romney said as evidence, though he is a demonstrable liar, unless they are contradicted by other things he said or did.

I think he thinks Romney would have been much better because his election would have sent our overlords a clear message: Yeah, we elected a liberal, but we didn't want to! That's why we didn't vote for the liberal that admitted it!

Meanwhile, the independents wanted peace and the prosperity that comes with it. So, they voted for the obvious warmonger that didn't admit to being a warmonger, so as to send a clear signal...

[BAllen]

Sigh
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter now anyway whether we agree on that, does it? NO!
The goal now is to restore the Republic, and it ain't gonna happen in the voting process. The marxists have that locked out for anyone except their puppets. They proved that with the rampant fraud that went on in the election:
http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/
We have to wreck the system to get our country back.

[erowe1]

The marxists have won, and the know it.

That happened a century ago.

[acptulsa]

Sigh
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter now anyway whether we agree on that, does it? NO!
The goal now is to restore the Republic, and it ain't gonna happen in the voting process. The marxists have that locked out for anyone except their puppets. They proved that with the rampant fraud that went on in the election:
http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/
We have to wreck the system to get our country back.

Damned right! Fortunately, the vote is administered by the county. Does your county have recountable paper ballots? If not, what are you doing in your county to get them? County boards are easy. Get with your area libertarians and take one over.

[Acala]

Sigh
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter now anyway whether we agree on that, does it? NO!
The goal now is to restore the Republic, and it ain't gonna happen in the voting process. The marxists have that locked out for anyone except their puppets. They proved that with the rampant fraud that went on in the election:
http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/
We have to wreck the system to get our country back.

No, YOU are missing the point. The SAME PEOPLE supported Obama and Romney. The SAME PEOPLE! The election was a puppet show and you bought into the illusion that there was a real choice.

Name ONE substantive issue about which Obama and Romney disagreed.

[acptulsa]

No, YOU are missing the point. The SAME PEOPLE supported Obama and Romney. The SAME PEOPLE! The election was a puppet show and you bought into the illusion that there was a real choice.

Name ONE substantive issue about which Obama and Romney disagreed.
..
http://i.imgur.com/rD1N3l.png?1

[twomp]

Sigh
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter now anyway whether we agree on that, does it? NO!
The goal now is to restore the Republic, and it ain't gonna happen in the voting process. The marxists have that locked out for anyone except their puppets. They proved that with the rampant fraud that went on in the election:
http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/
We have to wreck the system to get our country back.

LOL so it was okay for Mitt Romney to do it to Ron Paul but you are OUTRAGED when Obama does it to Romney? You reap what you sow.

Here is a quick reminder of just the TIP of the iceburg of what Ron Paul went through this campaign season. It's only 4 min. Watch and see how far this rabbit hole goes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw

P.S. This just a SMALL sample of what Dr. Paul went through. Your friend Mitt Romney,the GOP and the corporate media (FOX included) did their best to screw us all over.

[BAllen]

The same people DID NOT support obama and romney. Romney was for real energy jobs to get this country back on track.
Why do you keep arguing this, anyway? Get this through your head:
IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW!!!
You will NEVER convince me otherwise, so forget it!!
The point is, what do we do from THIS POINT ON?

[erowe1]

The point is, what do we do from THIS POINT ON?

The same thing we've been doing for the past century. It's not like the 2012 election changed anything.


Romney was for real energy jobs to get this country back on track.

Since when is it the president's job to be for any kind of jobs?

[twomp]

The same people DID NOT support obama and romney. Romney was for real energy jobs to get this country back on track.
Why do you keep arguing this, anyway? Get this through your head:
IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW!!!
You will NEVER convince me otherwise, so forget it!!
The point is, what do we do from THIS POINT ON?

We continue to do what we've been doing. We need folks like you to stop watching Fox and at the very least, stop taking what they say as 100% truth. The Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck's, Ed Sullivan's, Rachel Maddows, Chris Matthews of the world have people believing that there is currently 2 sides to our political system.

We need more people to wake up and stop with this Red Team/Blue Team crap.

[Acala]

The same people DID NOT support obama and romney. Romney was for real energy jobs to get this country back on track.
Why do you keep arguing this, anyway? Get this through your head:
IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW!!!
You will NEVER convince me otherwise, so forget it!!
The point is, what do we do from THIS POINT ON?

Why do I keep arguing it? Ummm . . because that is the thread topic! I'm actually ON topic for once.

Real energy jobs! Hahahahahahaha! That's an empty slogan right off the spin doctor's clip board. What does that even mean? Was Obama opposed to real energy jobs?

[Aratus]

saw these maps at intrade. they are kinda COOL! http://the0phrastus.typepad.com/the0phrastus/2012/11/america-really-look-like-this.html

[wgadget]

OMG...You guys, this is by far the funniest of all: Michael Medved's e-book, titled "The Odds Against Obama: Why History and Logic Make the President a Likely Loser."

Read the one-star comments. LOL


http://www.amazon.com/The-Odds-Against-Obama-ebook/product-reviews/B0093L8YXW/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

[BAllen]

We continue to do what we've been doing. We need folks like you to stop watching Fox and at the very least, stop taking what they say as 100% truth. The Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck's, Ed Sullivan's, Rachel Maddows, Chris Matthews of the world have people believing that there is currently 2 sides to our political system.

We need more people to wake up and stop with this Red Team/Blue Team crap.

First, I don't watch fox news. Secondly, I do listen to Rush and Hannity, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise. There is some good information there. I'm not a Paulbot, though I do agree that Ron has some really good ideas, as does Gary Johnson and The Constitution Party. We need to stop bickering and focus on what we can do to take this country back. Some of you act like a person has to 100% agree with Ron Paul on everything.

[torchbearer]

First, I don't watch fox news. Secondly, I do listen to Rush and Hannity, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise. There is some good information there. I'm not a Paulbot, though I do agree that Ron has some really good ideas, as does Gary Johnson and The Constitution Party. We need to stop bickering and focus on what we can do to take this country back. Some of you act like a person has to 100% agree with Ron Paul on everything.


I understand what you are saying about that.. and i agree with you.
But I do see from their perspective as well.
I can tell you what Ron Paul would say about any topic because I understand the root of his principles. he follows the non-aggression principle.
so, the question is... do you intend to live your life morally or immorally?

government is an organization that is granted a monopoly use of violence over a certain area.
the only moral use of violence is self-defense.
the only moral use of any government force is in direct defense of life, liberty, and property.
any political activity that violated the above, is immoral no matter what the claimed end is...

this is why its seems like some people are saying. 'ron paul's ideas or none.'

once you start applying a moral standard to all human action, people's belief's here start to make more sense.

i'd rather live in a moral society.

[Origanalist]

OMG...You guys, this is by far the funniest of all: Michael Medved's e-book, titled "The Odds Against Obama: Why History and Logic Make the President a Likely Loser."

Read the one-star comments. LOL


http://www.amazon.com/The-Odds-Against-Obama-ebook/product-reviews/B0093L8YXW/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0


Judging by the results of Election Day, it's quite obvious that everything that Michael Medved wrote in this book is 100% accurate. Because of his failed presidency, Barack Obama didn't have a chance at being reelected, and Mitt Romney won in a landslide. This is proof that God did not want Obama to be the President for four more years. Now Obamacare can be repealed and America can retain all of the freedoms it lost during the only Presidential term Barack Obama will ever serve.

:p

[acptulsa]

First, I don't watch fox news. Secondly, I do listen to Rush and Hannity, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise. There is some good information there. I'm not a Paulbot, though I do agree that Ron has some really good ideas, as does Gary Johnson and The Constitution Party. We need to stop bickering and focus on what we can do to take this country back. Some of you act like a person has to 100% agree with Ron Paul on everything.

Good.

No, you don't have to agree on everything. Hell, if we succeed in getting us our liberty back, none of us will agree on everything that's going on. But at least all of us will think some of it is good. Liberty is messy.

The point we're making is we can sell independents, and (believe it or not) some liberals, on a conservative. We can do that. But he or she must have integrity. Won't work otherwise, believe me. Without integrity, they all wind up like McCain and Romney. And there ain't a damned thing we could do about it--even if we wanted to.

But Ron Paul, now. Republicans missed a bet with that one. We could have slid him right in that old White House. Somebody was listening to Fox, and missed a real good bet because of it.

[wgadget]

Did you see what Rand proposes?

Working with Dems on easing marijuana laws, giving states more power, and giving illegals a pathway to citizenship.

What's not to love? Sounds like the Constitution in action to me...

[erowe1]

First, I don't watch fox news. Secondly, I do listen to Rush and Hannity, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise. There is some good information there. I'm not a Paulbot, though I do agree that Ron has some really good ideas, as does Gary Johnson and The Constitution Party. We need to stop bickering and focus on what we can do to take this country back. Some of you act like a person has to 100% agree with Ron Paul on everything.

What is this "take this country back" stuff? Are you still buying the narrative that the USA was just fine for 220 years and then all of a sudden Obama came and changed everything?

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul on everything. But do you even agree with him on much of anything? You seem to be fine with statism as long as the statists have R's after their names.

[BAllen]

I understand what you are saying about that.. and i agree with you.
But I do see from their perspective as well.
I can tell you what Ron Paul would say about any topic because I understand the root of principles. he follows the non-aggression principle.
so, the question is... do you intend to live your life morally or immorally?

government is an organization that is granted a monopoly us of violence over a certain area.
the only moral use of violence is self-defense.
the only moral use of any government force is in direct defense of life, liberty, and property.
any political activity that violated the above, is immoral no matter what the claimed end is...

this is why its seems like some people seem like they are saying. 'ron paul's ideas or none.'

once you start applying a moral standard to all human action, people's belief's here start to make more sense.

i'd rather live in a moral society.

That's a good point. Trinkets were an important part of this campagin. Obama offered more government programs. Rush called it Santa Claus. Even Ron Paul recognized the importance of trinkets. He offered legalized drugs as a way to entice the welfare crowd.

[erowe1]

Even Ron Paul recognized the importance of trinkets. He offered legalized drugs as a way to entice the welfare crowd.

How is leaving people alone to be able to spend their own money on something giving them trinkets?

Also, what's your basis for saying Obama offered more government programs?

[BAllen]

What is this "take this country back" stuff? Are you still buying the narrative that the USA was just fine for 220 years and then all of a sudden Obama came and changed everything?

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul on everything. But do you even agree with him on much of anything? You seem to be fine with statism as long as the statists have R's after their names.

Obama has been the tipping point, yes.

[torchbearer]

That's a good point. Trinkets were an important part of this campagin. Obama offered more government programs. Rush called it Santa Claus. Even Ron Paul recognized the importance of trinkets. He offered legalized drugs as a way to entice the welfare crowd.

that is not why Ron supports legalizing drugs. It wasn't about enticing welfare crowds.
It was about rejecting the use of violence against people who have a vice you disagree with.
Jesus did not advocate using violent mobs to kidnap people from their homes and lock them in cages because they have a vice.
Nor is saying 'it should be legal' an endorsement of the act. Its called tolerance.
Are you seeing yet? I feel like you are on the cusp of maybe breaking through the matrix around you.
keep participating in this forum, and it will finally sink in what we are about.
hint: its a different mindset than the one you get from talk radio.

[acptulsa]

Rush called it Santa Claus.

See, that's where you're losing your way. Rush didn't call it. Rush spun it.


Even Ron Paul recognized the importance of trinkets. He offered legalized drugs as a way to entice the welfare crowd.

And that's why it's so important to pull your head out of Limbaugh's ass. Ron Paul didn't offer legalized drugs as a way to entice the welfare crowd. Ron Paul offered all of us the chance to get the federal government out of the drug regulation business, including the FDA (which has been screwing up royally), as a way to help us secure our freedoms. Which, in turn, leaves state and county governments free to decide what to legalize and what to pass (or continue to enforce) local laws against.

If it sounds like semantics to you, you may not be as pro-liberty as you think you are.

[BAllen]

Romney had some support from Democrats, as well:
http://www.romney-democrats.com/

[erowe1]

Obama has been the tipping point, yes.

I think that's just ludicrous. Rush and Sean have to say that every four years to build up drama on their shows. But there's no excuse for anyone actually believing it.

Obama hasn't done a fraction of what Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ did. In fact, in terms of what he's accomplished so far, he hasn't even been as bad as GWB.

[erowe1]

Romney had some support from Democrats, as well:
http://www.romney-democrats.com/

Of course he did. If there's any mystery of this election it's that he didn't get more of that. He's practically a clone of their 2004 nominee.

[torchbearer]

I think that's just ludicrous. Rush and Sean have to say that every four years to build up drama on their shows. But there's no excuse for anyone actually believing it.

Obama hasn't done a fraction of what Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ did. In fact, in terms of what he's accomplished so far, he hasn't even been as bad as GWB.

GWB medicare part D was a bigger welfare program than Obamacare. BAllen and company forget that info.

[BAllen]

Of course he did. If there's any mystery of this election it's that he didn't get more of that. He's practically a clone of their 2004 nominee.

Ron Paul has worked with Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. Does that make him a democrat clone?

[erowe1]

Ron Paul has worked with Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. Does that make him a democrat clone?

Of course not. Why should anyone care about that?

[BAllen]

Of course not. Why should anyone care about that?

When I mentioned that Romney had some democrat support, you claimed he was a clone, so I wanted to see if you were consistent in your claim, which you are not.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sigh
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter now anyway whether we agree on that, does it? NO!
The goal now is to restore the Republic, and it ain't gonna happen in the voting process. The marxists have that locked out for anyone except their puppets. They proved that with the rampant fraud that went on in the election:
http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/
We have to wreck the system to get our country back.

Pretty sure you are the one missing the point.

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand what you are saying about that.. and i agree with you.
But I do see from their perspective as well.
I can tell you what Ron Paul would say about any topic because I understand the root of his principles. he follows the non-aggression principle.
so, the question is... do you intend to live your life morally or immorally?

government is an organization that is granted a monopoly use of violence over a certain area.
the only moral use of violence is self-defense.
the only moral use of any government force is in direct defense of life, liberty, and property.
any political activity that violated the above, is immoral no matter what the claimed end is...

this is why its seems like some people are saying. 'ron paul's ideas or none.'

once you start applying a moral standard to all human action, people's belief's here start to make more sense.

i'd rather live in a moral society.

Indeed, exactly so. The Constitution is only fit to govern a moral society, and it is not fit to govern any other. The simple application of morality wherein all initiation of aggression is wrong (ie The Golden Rule), especially as it exposits the Constitution, develops a cohesive and comprehensive philosophy from which some deviations although apparently minor are indeed major inasmuch as they reveal a lack of the required morality to carve out a free and Constitutional society.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's a good point. Trinkets were an important part of this campagin. Obama offered more government programs. Rush called it Santa Claus. Even Ron Paul recognized the importance of trinkets. He offered legalized drugs as a way to entice the welfare crowd.

You clearly do not get it. It's about the Constitution. The US Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to even have a position on drugs, but reserves that power to the States. Ron Paul did not campaign on legalizing drugs, but on obeying the Constitution and keeping that power in the states where it belongs.

[erowe1]

When I mentioned that Romney had some democrat support, you claimed he was a clone, so I wanted to see if you were consistent in your claim, which you are not.

How do you figure that I'm not?

He's a rich, boring, monotonous, white, middle-aged, liberal from Massachusetts with nice hair. He couldn't be more like John Kerry.

When Ron Paul disagrees with Republicans, it's when they're the ones being liberal.

[RickyJ]

Rumored 2016 presidential hopefuls in the party saw an opportunity to distance themselves from Romney.

Then that should make Ron Paul the front runner since he never endorsed him.

[BAllen]

Then that should make Ron Paul the front runner since he never endorsed him.

You can forget about that, now. The elections are a sham.

[Origanalist]

You can forget about that, now. The elections are a sham.

Maybe, but if they are a sham now they always were. None of this is new, or even close to new.

[CPUd]

Much better than obama!
But, it doesn't matter now, anyway. There were areas where obama got over 100%! He had his thugs at the polling stations. Electronic machines were switching votes! The election was rigged. It's game over! The marxists have won, and the know it. They will NEVER let anyone else get elected.

Perhaps you should take a visit to the vote flipping thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369316-The-case-for-the-occurence-of-algorithmic-vote-flipping

Whether those guys (or gals) were on to something or not, they have understood for some time now that if you want to prove a theory, it takes more than quoting Hannity on an internet message board, or starting online petitions. Some of them do that stuff, too, but if you want to really prove a theory, you need empirical data. Ironically, you can pull some data about television ratings lately, and you will see these networks are losing people across the board; same with newspapers.

What you are calling a "loss," or a "stalemate" is not a loss at all. You gave up your original plan too soon when you quit Buchanan, without really giving enough time to go look at the empirical results of what you may have achieved. Stalemate is not the problem, constantly changing direction is. Get out of the car and take a walk sometime. Get involved with local politics again, and you may be surprised to see not everyone quit back then, and the groundwork is in place.

There were not 12 million people "sitting out" this election. A few of those 12 million were even on the ballot in some states/counties. This is what they are not saying on the TV/Radio right now, partly because they won't have all the data until the states begin to certify the results. When they say people "didn't vote," what they mean (in some of those cases) is that they didn't vote for President.

[Tudo]

ALL Traitors.