PDA

View Full Version : The republican party would make a huge comeback if they



Klippymitch
06-20-2009, 07:21 PM
Started endorsing Ron Paul.

NorthMass
06-20-2009, 07:22 PM
Started endorsing Ron Paul.

You took the words right out of my mouth. =)

ElMariachi
06-20-2009, 07:23 PM
I was going to say if they sponsored National "Free Beer" Hour.

ghengisconor
06-20-2009, 07:23 PM
Started endorsing Ron Paul.

Endorsing Ron Paul isn't correcting the problems in the GOP. Endorsing ron paul is like curing cancer with a band-aid (a bit exagerated, but I think it drives the point home).

WilyCoder
06-20-2009, 07:24 PM
They will make a huge comeback if they kicked out the religious right.

Lincoln (an atheist) was republican.

Just sayin'

evilsteve02
06-20-2009, 07:24 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth. =)

i like the fiscal conservativism of ron paul... Keep the money in the U.S. and stop giving it to other countires and let them take care of their own mess like we should ours...amen brother....

AronP24
06-20-2009, 07:25 PM
Lincoln (an atheist) .

Just sayin'


False. So very, very false.


Just sayin'

evilsteve02
06-20-2009, 07:26 PM
They will make a huge comeback if they kicked out the religious right.

Lincoln (an atheist) was republican.

Just sayin'

oh man.....next thing you are going to say is get rid of the ultra-Liberal's...then we'd have a congress full of moderates who all worked together and probably would get way more done (that was good) instead of the clear party line voting that goes on now.........lol


i like your idea sir....

AronP24
06-20-2009, 07:28 PM
In today's age of American Idol-esque electability..Ron Paul will NEVER be seen or treated as anything more than a fringe kook..

He was continually censored and "shafted" in debates, public forums, etc...
They treated him like he was dirt...

Regardless of how good or bad his beliefs and policies would be, he will never be the 'rock star" that is needed at the present time...in, fact, there isn't one of those currently on the major stage right now AT ALL for the Repub party...

WilyCoder
06-20-2009, 07:28 PM
False. So very, very false.


Just sayin'

[citation needed]

WilyCoder
06-20-2009, 07:29 PM
oh man.....next thing you are going to say is get rid of the ultra-Liberal's...then we'd have a congress full of moderates who all worked together and probably would get way more done (that was good) instead of the clear party line voting that goes on now.........lol


i like your idea sir....

people, no, my fellow Americans, think I'm a pagan crazy person when I say that I'm an independent. I wage each issue on my own morality instead of towing party lines.

fuk political parties. Jefferson was right.

Klippymitch
06-20-2009, 07:31 PM
In today's age of American Idol-esque electability..Ron Paul will NEVER be seen or treated as anything more than a fringe kook..

He was continually censored and "shafted" in debates, public forums, etc...
They treated him like he was dirt...

Regardless of how good or bad his beliefs and policies would be, he will never be the 'rock star" that is needed at the present time...in, fact, there isn't one of those currently on the major stage right now AT ALL for the Repub party...

Despite never getting any media coverage he was still a hit from word of mouth and would become huge from the support of Fox news pumping him up with media coverage.

AronP24
06-20-2009, 07:48 PM
[citation needed]

I can give you many many many direct quotes if you wish. I spent a majority of my Minor in American History researching the American Civil War era as well as the life and character of Lincoln (no...I'm not beating my chest sayin "look at me I are smart...I've merely spent countless hours studying the lifetime and events of and around Lincoln)

here is one that helps illuminate his fears and worries in the dark days of 1860's America

"...I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

and here, of course, is one a BIT more famous....

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."




and here...just for the Lulz

"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book." (upon being presented with a Bible from the LCPB in 1864)

Whether or not he was truly a Christian can be disputed due to one of his early books and certain quotes...,,,but he certainly was no atheist

gjohnson5
06-20-2009, 07:49 PM
Started endorsing Ron Paul.

lulz
That would be out of the frying pan and into the fire

Ephedra
06-20-2009, 07:51 PM
Fox News would need to support him....

T150
06-20-2009, 07:56 PM
Fox News would need to support him....

This.

And rush limbaugh would just about go crazy, which is ironic as he's always preaching the need for real conservatism.

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 08:20 PM
Endorsing Ron Paul isn't correcting the problems in the GOP. Endorsing ron paul is like curing cancer with a band-aid (a bit exagerated, but I think it drives the point home).

agreed

They gotta move towards the more libertarian side and embrace their "roots" as some folks (including me) say, lol.

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 08:26 PM
Despite never getting any media coverage he was still a hit from word of mouth and would become huge from the support of Fox news pumping him up with media coverage.

I kinda think Fox News support would hurt him cus the other side would then just assume that he's a fringe-area, right-wing, neo-conservative nutjob. it might get more of the Republican base to support him though.

Oh and to clarify my previous post in this thread, the Republican party also needs to ditch pandering to the religious zealots in the party. Lots of folks find themselves agreeing with a lot of what's said....until they get to the religious part and go off on their "my faith determines everything I do, and God hates terrorists, so therefore we should limit freedom to get terrorists" spiel. It just has overly religious folks foaming at the mouth and turns everyone else off to the party.

Even at the local Tea Party (the non-partisan grassroots one, not the GOP one) the last speaker went on a religious rant and even though most of the folks there were of religious faith, one of the folks from the meetup group I'm in was in the crowd and came back to us and said that it had turned off a lot of the people in the crowd and some of them even started leaving.

ghengisconor
06-20-2009, 08:27 PM
agreed

They gotta move towards the more libertarian side and embrace their "roots" as some folks (including me) say, lol.

Reagan said it, too.

nutsy54
06-20-2009, 08:31 PM
Started endorsing Ron Paul.The ending of your sentence should have been "... start embracing true Conservative values".

I initially supported Ron Paul, including with donations & a Primary vote. Then I saw his pandering to the insane Alex Jones crowd - including implied accusations of mass murder, treason, and conspiracy against a sitting President.

He won't get another dollar of support until he explains those accusations - but when I made that request, the only result was an abrupt end to campaign/donation letters in my mailbox.

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 08:35 PM
Reagan said it, too.

Reagan was able to help stop the growth of government, but there wasn't any cuts in the growth of government. :(


Anyways, so the point is not to just elect the right people....we have to make it politically popular for even the WRONG people to do the RIGHT things while in office.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w
ac9j15eig_w

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 08:47 PM
The ending of your sentence should have been "... start embracing true Conservative values".

I initially support Ron Paul, including with donations & a Primary vote. Then I saw his pandering to the insane Alex Jones crowd - including implied accusations of mass murder, treason, and conspiracy against a sitting President.

He won't get another dollar of support until he explains those accusations - but when I made that request, the only result was an abrupt end to campaign/donation letters in my mailbox.

He wasn't saying that Bush himself was guilty. He said the war in Iraq is an illegal war (it is) and that there should be investigated to see if someone gave out incorrect information purposely and if someone like that is found, then they should be punished. He also said that from the information he has heard of and understands, looks like Cheney MAY have had something to do with it.

Ironstone-
06-20-2009, 09:19 PM
Ron Paul.. :rolleyes:

The libertarians have finally realized they will never win so they decide to bring their values to the GOP. Oh well, as long as they have no say within the GOP, which they dont, I'll be fine.

Klippymitch
06-20-2009, 09:22 PM
Ron Paul.. :rolleyes:

The libertarians have finally realized they will never win so they decide to bring their values to the GOP. Oh well, as long as they have no say within the GOP, which they dont, I'll be fine.

GOP needs values of libertarians to survive. If the republican party chooses not to adapt they will die.

Ironstone-
06-20-2009, 09:25 PM
GOP needs values of libertarians to survive. If the republican party chooses not to adapt they will die.

I can assure you that many will fortunatley die before the party will die itself.

DCarruso
06-20-2009, 09:34 PM
GOP needs values of libertarians to survive. If the republican party chooses not to adapt they will die.

yep. I can see that the Libertarian party is doing so well for it. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul ran for the presidency as the Libertarian party nominee once already. Paul is a decent human being, but he should just give up the ghost.

Ironstone-
06-20-2009, 09:43 PM
yep. I can see that the Libertarian party is doing so well for it. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul ran for the presidency as the Libertarian party nominee once already. Paul is a decent human being, but he should just give up the ghost.

Oh, well havent you heard?

The libertarians of the GOP are actually the largest in sheer terms of numbers and support! We should be thankful for having them on our team. Not only was the infamous Ron Paul incredibly intelligent in regards to his values and campaign strategy but he really really reflects the views and values of a typical conservative!

:rolleyes:

DCarruso
06-20-2009, 09:56 PM
Oh, well havent you heard?

The libertarians of the GOP are actually the largest in sheer terms of numbers and support! We should be thankful for having them on our team. Not only was the infamous Ron Paul incredibly intelligent in regards to his values and campaign strategy but he really really reflects the views and values of a typical conservative!

:rolleyes:

Why doesn't Ron Paul run for the US Senate first? :shrug: Let's see how well he does in the state of Texas. I am sure the libertarians of the GOP there will demonstrate to us how they are the backbone of our party. LOL

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 10:45 PM
Ron Paul.. :rolleyes:

The libertarians have finally realized they will never win so they decide to bring their values to the GOP. Oh well, as long as they have no say within the GOP, which they dont, I'll be fine.

lol, U mad.


GOP needs values of libertarians to survive. If the republican party chooses not to adapt they will die.

yup. If they act like democrats, i think what will happen is that the public will basically be like "well they sound like a democrat...but if I want a democrat then I'm gonna go with the real thing" cus it would make the democrat seem more honest (and they very may well be in some cases, lol)


I can assure you that many will fortunatley die before the party will die itself.

definitely possible but I doubt the libertarian movement will die out before the Republican party dies out. It's just so painstakingly obvious that the trend we've been going on isn't making things better for the most part.

Blindead
06-20-2009, 10:51 PM
This thread makes no sense. Ron Paul got very few votes in the grand scheme of things. Endorsing a relatively unpopular candidate would not revive a major political party.

SkinnyProp03
06-20-2009, 10:54 PM
definitely possible but I doubt the libertarian movement will die out before the Republican party dies out. It's just so painstakingly obvious that the trend we've been going on isn't making things better for the most part.
I believe the Libertarian movement will long outlast the religious right movement. My logic is that people will continue to get progressively more secular in America until the ultra religious becomes a negligible little section of our society.

SkinnyProp03
06-20-2009, 10:55 PM
This thread makes no sense. Ron Paul got very few votes in the grand scheme of things. Endorsing a relatively unpopular candidate would not revive a major political party.
Especially since the majority of the public wants entitlement programs.

NorthMass
06-20-2009, 11:01 PM
The ending of your sentence should have been "... start embracing true Conservative values".

I initially support Ron Paul, including with donations & a Primary vote. Then I saw his pandering to the insane Alex Jones crowd - including implied accusations of mass murder, treason, and conspiracy against a sitting President.

He won't get another dollar of support until he explains those accusations - but when I made that request, the only result was an abrupt end to campaign/donation letters in my mailbox.

How does Ron Paul pander to Alex Jones? He occasionally appears on his radio show, but doesn't endorse Jones' conspiracies.


Ron Paul.. :rolleyes:

The libertarians have finally realized they will never win so they decide to bring their values to the GOP. Oh well, as long as they have no say within the GOP, which they dont, I'll be fine.

I would rather have someone who actually believes in fiscal conservatism, who actually believes in the 2nd amendment, who actually will fight to end Roe v Wade, who will actually try to bring us back to sound money, over the same old GOP politicians

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 11:32 PM
This thread makes no sense. Ron Paul got very few votes in the grand scheme of things. Endorsing a relatively unpopular candidate would not revive a major political party.

reason he lost the republican primaries was cus they thought he "wasn't electable" meaning that he just wouldn't win the Republican primary (for some strange reason, even though the people who thought that wanted to vote for him, by and large, or just totally ignored him JUST for his stance on the war even if they agreed with everything else). However, it was pretty clear he could beat Hillary or Obama and many Republicans were upset with McCain winning and voted for him only because he had gained some traction towards the end and they didnt' want to have runoff at the end.

It was basically a last-ditch effort to put all their eggs in one basket and get started campaigning for SOMEone so that Barack or Hillary wouldn't win....well it backfired cus McCain won and of course most folks saw his loss to Obama coming a mile away. However, many Republicans frantically went to work for McCain campaigning for him and voting for him so Obama wouldn't win....but at the same time some folks in the Republican party voted Democrat for the first time since they didn't like how the Republicans handled things for the last 8 years and weren't satisfied with the war. I feel like many republicans only supported the war because they got caught up in propaganda and tow the party line...they'd probably support whatever position the party took hold of no matter what so I think it's a matter of the party gettin hold of a war-as-a-last resort mentality and to stop pandering to the fringe religious people.

Halfway
06-20-2009, 11:34 PM
Ron Paul is a racist old man who voted against honoring Rosa Parks and is supported by the KKK, blames the US for 9-11, believes the bible and wants to prevent women having abortions.

The actual nuances of those statements would be impossible to explain to the average republican partisan, much less to the average person who votes left of centre, but it would be ridiculously easy for the Left and neo-con media to destroy him if they made a concerted effort.

And people's vote is based on what their media of choice feeds them

stealth_swimmer
06-20-2009, 11:37 PM
How does Ron Paul pander to Alex Jones? He occasionally appears on his radio show, but doesn't endorse Jones' conspiracies.



I would rather have someone who actually believes in fiscal conservatism, who actually believes in the 2nd amendment, who actually will fight to end Roe v Wade, who will actually try to bring us back to sound money, over the same old GOP politicians

That's all great and stuff but we also gotta start convincing people to change their minds. Again, it's nice to vote the right people into office, but the way to fix things is to make it politically profitable to make EVEN the WRONG people to do the RIGHT things.

George Carlinian
06-20-2009, 11:58 PM
Not even all of Fox News can give them a huge comeback. Of course, the second year of Obama will be when D's will blunder their way to give them some form of R 'comeback' in their homoparty teeter-totter from left to right.

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 12:13 AM
Oh, well havent you heard?

The libertarians of the GOP are actually the largest in sheer terms of numbers and support! We should be thankful for having them on our team. Not only was the infamous Ron Paul incredibly intelligent in regards to his values and campaign strategy but he really really reflects the views and values of a typical conservative!

:rolleyes:

Well, since a lot of my fellow so-called "conservative" friends like to reference Ronald Reagan every waking moment of their lives, I shall quote none other than the great Ronald Reagan himself:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."



Let's see how well he does in the state of Texas.

Well, he's done fairly well in the past 10 terms he's served, so I'd say this next one will be fairly easy.


definitely possible but I doubt the libertarian movement will die out before the Republican party dies out. It's just so painstakingly obvious that the trend we've been going on isn't making things better for the most part.

The so-called "libertarian movement" shouldn't even be happening now. Apparently Americans have forgotten where its roots are.

It will take time. I will tell you very confidently that the GOP is changing - to what degree and extent they will change is up for debate, but they are making progress. And if they want to even stay relevant in the next several decades, they will be forced to change some of their insane and idiotic policies.

With that being said, the Libertarians would do very well if they would prevent the extremists from speaking out. Most of them are borderline anarchists, and anytime you get someone going public with some of the stuff about wanting to destroy the Fed, legalizing all drugs, and privatizing every single organization that exists, that scares people away. Americans are delicate little creatures as an aggregate, and any progress that will be made will be made slowly.

Aside from that, what's ironic is Ron Paul is often scored as the most conservative policitican since the early 20th century - a little better than Reagan and miles ahead of Bush.


Ron Paul is a racist old man who voted against honoring Rosa Parks

I did not support that.


and is supported by the KKK

You can't really help who supports and who doesn't.


believes the bible

And the problem with this is what?


and wants to prevent women having abortions.

And the problem with this is what?

stealth_swimmer
06-21-2009, 12:54 AM
With that being said, the Libertarians would do very well if they would prevent the extremists from speaking out. Most of them are borderline anarchists, and anytime you get someone going public with some of the stuff about wanting to destroy the Fed, legalizing all drugs, and privatizing every single organization that exists, that scares people away. Americans are delicate little creatures as an aggregate, and any progress that will be made will be made slowly.





lol @ thinking getting rid of the Fed and privatizing most things is crazy. Look even the mainstream economist Milton Friedman PROVED that the Fed caused business cycles. It's no secret. We did fine without a central bank in our history. Bank panics put bad banks out of business. To the extent that "we don't have enough gold/silver" only occurs because of fixed exchange rates. We have the capability of having free market money (whether gold, silver, or anything else or a combination thereof).

As for drugs, look we have a REAL WORLD example: alcohol. Things got vastly worse after it became illegal and the same has happened with other drugs. With alcohol, things improved after we made it legal again....with drugs we haven't gotten that far yet.

Both of these things have real world evidence to back them up. Now as far as privatizing everything, I don't think that's crazy but I can at least understand how other folks may think so since we may not have quite as much evidence backing those up....HOWEVER, in the case of the Fed and drugs, we have plenty of real-world evidence. :)


I agree though that we aren't gonna flip a switch and change things over night. Just as freedom has been eroded over time, it will probably be restored over time if at all. That's why I think many of Milton Friedman's ideas and policies should be put into place. Some of them are far from ideal but could give us more freedom than we currently have and at least convince some folks that things actually can work under freedom.



Ron Paul is a racist old man who voted against honoring Rosa Parks and is supported by the KKK, blames the US for 9-11, believes the bible and wants to prevent women having abortions.




*no he didn't vote against honoring Rosa Parks...or rather he did but you're leaving out the whole story. He offered up money OUT OF HIS POCKET to buy the same exact thing they wanted to buy in order to honor her and said it would be better if he and the other people in Congress divided the cost among themselves instead of spending taxpayer money on it....they declined and decided to spend taxpayer money on it.

*he can't stop the KKK from supporting him. Lots of people have crazy folks supporting them, what matters is the ideas that the person stands for. Ron Paul isn't a racist. There are plenty of folks who attest to that. For one thing, he isn't a collectivist and for another, he also has a lot of minorities supporting him that have taken vids with him and stuff.

*He doesn't "blame the US for 9-11" he blames the government's policies...which are usually in disalignment with the actually feelings and beliefs of the American people

*as for abortions...you're probably right, lol, but at least he would like for that to be decided at the state level, like most controversial things should be decided since it's through government closer to the people. Plus, if the country adopts a policy that people don't like they have to travel to an entirely different country or not be able to get what they want at all. If it's different in different states, it becomes more available to them and the states basically compete to satisfy different needs/wants or at least offer different opportunities.

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 01:04 AM
lol @ thinking getting rid of the Fed and privatizing most things is crazy. Look even the mainstream economist Milton Friedman PROVED that the Fed caused business cycles. It's no secret. We did fine without a central bank in our history. Bank panics put bad banks out of business. To the extent that "we don't have enough gold/silver" only occurs because of fixed exchange rates. We have the capability of having free market money (whether gold, silver, or anything else or a combination thereof).

As for drugs, look we have a REAL WORLD example: alcohol. Things got vastly worse after it became illegal and the same has happened with other drugs. With alcohol, things improved after we made it legal again....with drugs we haven't gotten that far yet.

Both of these things have real world evidence to back them up. Now as far as privatizing everything, I don't think that's crazy but I can at least understand how other folks may think so since we may not have quite as much evidence backing those up....HOWEVER, in the case of the Fed and drugs, we have plenty of real-world evidence. :)


I agree though that we aren't gonna flip a switch and change things over night. Just as freedom has been eroded over time, it will probably be restored over time if at all. That's why I think many of Milton Friedman's ideas and policies should be put into place. Some of them are far from ideal but could give us more freedom than we currently have and at least convince some folks that things actually can work under freedom.

I never offered my opinion on the matters, I was simply stating how America (as an aggregate) reacts when they listen to most modern Libertarian speakers. All of those stances are fairly radical (again, relative to current stances and the way these subjects are thought about now). There are many things that I see ideal that are also unrealistic at this point in time. Any change will have to be implemented in a slow and effective manner over a certain time period. That's all I was saying.

Blindead
06-21-2009, 01:39 AM
reason he lost the republican primaries was cus they thought he "wasn't electable" meaning that he just wouldn't win the Republican primary (for some strange reason, even though the people who thought that wanted to vote for him, by and large, or just totally ignored him JUST for his stance on the war even if they agreed with everything else). However, it was pretty clear he could beat Hillary or Obama and many Republicans were upset with McCain winning and voted for him only because he had gained some traction towards the end and they didnt' want to have runoff at the end.

It was basically a last-ditch effort to put all their eggs in one basket and get started campaigning for SOMEone so that Barack or Hillary wouldn't win....well it backfired cus McCain won and of course most folks saw his loss to Obama coming a mile away. However, many Republicans frantically went to work for McCain campaigning for him and voting for him so Obama wouldn't win....but at the same time some folks in the Republican party voted Democrat for the first time since they didn't like how the Republicans handled things for the last 8 years and weren't satisfied with the war. I feel like many republicans only supported the war because they got caught up in propaganda and tow the party line...they'd probably support whatever position the party took hold of no matter what so I think it's a matter of the party gettin hold of a war-as-a-last resort mentality and to stop pandering to the fringe religious people.

i'm not gonna waste time reading that. ron paul got like 19,000 votes. there's nothing more to say on the subject.

Halfway
06-21-2009, 02:09 AM
*no he didn't vote against honoring Rosa Parks...or rather he did but you're leaving out the whole story. He offered up money OUT OF HIS POCKET to buy the same exact thing they wanted to buy in order to honor her and said it would be better if he and the other people in Congress divided the cost among themselves instead of spending taxpayer money on it....they declined and decided to spend taxpayer money on it.

*he can't stop the KKK from supporting him. Lots of people have crazy folks supporting them, what matters is the ideas that the person stands for. Ron Paul isn't a racist. There are plenty of folks who attest to that. For one thing, he isn't a collectivist and for another, he also has a lot of minorities supporting him that have taken vids with him and stuff.

*He doesn't "blame the US for 9-11" he blames the government's policies...which are usually in disalignment with the actually feelings and beliefs of the American people

*as for abortions...you're probably right, lol, but at least he would like for that to be decided at the state level, like most controversial things should be decided since it's through government closer to the people. Plus, if the country adopts a policy that people don't like they have to travel to an entirely different country or not be able to get what they want at all. If it's different in different states, it becomes more available to them and the states basically compete to satisfy different needs/wants or at least offer different opportunities.


None of that matters - the NARRATIVE created last year by the mainstream press was that he's Racist, invoking that word is enough to shut down the thought process of the average left-leaning potential swing voter, that he is Christian (abortion opposing, not gay-friendly and evolution denying!!!) and supported by extremists. They get an image of some kind of Huckabee/Pat Robertson social conservative southern baptist and that's enough for them to instantly stop listening to anything he says.

The average right-leaning idiot hears the message that Ron Paul is anti-American because he didn't support the war, wants to give kids crack and Blames The US for 9-11, and instantly their guard is up and they become hostile to anything he has to say.

Most people don't think like you.. they don't care about the details behind the 5-second headline they saw on fox or ABC.

If he ran again they'd just repeat those same soundbites and 95% of the voters wouldn't care about the context.. remember people outside the net don't know who he is, what he stands for or what he says.. just that they can fit him into their preconcieved ideas of 'racist republican' or 'freedom hater'.

And he's far from a rock star, and people seem to have a preference for smooth talking empty suits over those with an actual message :p

stealth_swimmer
06-21-2009, 02:19 AM
I never offered my opinion on the matters, I was simply stating how America (as an aggregate) reacts when they listen to most modern Libertarian speakers. All of those stances are fairly radical (again, relative to current stances and the way these subjects are thought about now). There are many things that I see ideal that are also unrealistic at this point in time. Any change will have to be implemented in a slow and effective manner over a certain time period. That's all I was saying.

ah ok. :)


i'm not gonna waste time reading that. ron paul got like 19,000 votes. there's nothing more to say on the subject.

U mad. There's nothing more to say on the subject. :p


None of that matters - the NARRATIVE created last year by the mainstream press was that he's Racist, invoking that word is enough to shut down the thought process of the average left-leaning potential swing voter, that he is Christian (abortion opposing, not gay-friendly and evolution denying!!!) and supported by extremists. They get an image of some kind of Huckabee/Pat Robertson social conservative southern baptist and that's enough for them to instantly stop listening to anything he says.

The average right-leaning idiot hears the message that Ron Paul is anti-American because he didn't support the war, wants to give kids crack and Blames The US for 9-11, and instantly their guard is up and they become hostile to anything he has to say.

Most people don't think like you.. they don't care about the details behind the 5-second headline they saw on fox or ABC.

If he ran again they'd just repeat those same soundbites and 95% of the voters wouldn't care about the context.. remember people outside the net don't know who he is, what he stands for or what he says.. just that they can fit him into their preconcieved ideas of 'racist republican' or 'freedom hater'.

And he's far from a rock star, and people seem to have a preference for smooth talking empty suits over those with an actual message :p

nah, I think he could do better next time (depending on how bad things get under the Obama administration. i actually think the worse it gets, the better chance Ron Paul or some other Republican, especially one who HASN'T just towed the party line, has at getting elected). If the Fed's actions help in the short run, then another Democrat could get in and continue the trend and cause more damage in the long-run. We'll just have to see how things go. Or of course if Obama makes Afghanistan the next Iraq, then I think it's possible for a Republican to win next time, though I hope(strong wishful thinking, lol) it wouldn't be a neo-conservative.

Halfway
06-21-2009, 02:29 AM
you know they'll run palin in '12 thinking that people cluster around celebrities, for good or for bad. The 10% of the population who use their brains will be drowned out again by the indifference of the majority :p

nutsy54
06-21-2009, 05:28 AM
How does Ron Paul pander to Alex Jones? He occasionally appears on his radio show, but doesn't endorse Jones' conspiracies.The clip I saw was him (Paul) explicitly describing "false flag" attacks that had already been conducted (in the form of 9/11), and would likely occur in the future, under the Bush administration. He was hyping up the same fear-mongering that Jones does for a living, with clear but completely unproven accusations of conspiracy, treason, and mass murder.

If I get really bored, I may try to find that interview later. I've given Ron Paul and his office plenty of opportunities to explain what he "really" meant - and the only response has been silence.

all pro
06-21-2009, 06:19 AM
Ron Paul is a racist old man who voted against honoring Rosa Parks and is supported by the KKK, blames the US for 9-11, believes the bible and wants to prevent women having abortions.

The actual nuances of those statements would be impossible to explain to the average republican partisan, much less to the average person who votes left of centre, but it would be ridiculously easy for the Left and neo-con media to destroy him if they made a concerted effort.

And people's vote is based on what their media of choice feeds them

To date I've only been able to find democrats that were active or former KKK members and or supported by the KKK. Most notable among them, Wilson, FDR, justice Black, George Wallace and David Duke.
No matter how you look at it, the US is responsible for 9/11
The republic of the United States of America was founded for the most part by Christians and upon christian, judeo values. There will always be a fringe element to any issue but for the most part the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion not from religion. States could legally have an official religion just so long as they don't forbid the practice of any other.
Ron Paul's stance on abortion is that it should be decided at the state level and he's right. No where in the constitution is that authority given to the federal government.
When it's all said and done with, Ron Paul's views are more inline with the founding fathers than any other candidate that I'm aware of.

ghengisconor
06-21-2009, 06:52 AM
you know they'll run palin in '12 thinking that people cluster around celebrities, for good or for bad. The 10% of the population who use their brains will be drowned out again by the indifference of the majority :p

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/imagesye-20old-20roflmao.jpg

so true. so goddamn true.

Barbarian440
06-21-2009, 08:13 AM
I was going to say if they sponsored National "Free Beer" Hour.

Lol

9987
06-21-2009, 09:46 AM
I realize this may come as a shock, but not everyone agrees with Libertarianism. Especially when you have a candidate talking about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was tyranny and there was no poverty before the New Deal it tends to cause people to roll their eyes.

I realize there are post hoc rationalizations to try to comfort the fact that maybe, just maybe, the people really didn't like his positions and accordingly did not give him the votes he needed.

SkinnyProp03
06-21-2009, 10:08 AM
To date I've only been able to find democrats that were active or former KKK members and or supported by the KKK. Most notable among them, Wilson, FDR, justice Black, George Wallace and David Duke.
Wow, you're just an outright liar. David Duke ran for Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat, tried to run in the 1988 Democratic Presidential primaries before running for President as a Populist, then in 1989 switched to the Republican Party when he won a in the Louisiana State House, and he has stayed in the Republican Party ever since. There's no real evidence to suggest FDR had affiliation with the KKK either. Not like it matters. You know full well the demographics of the two parties has switched since that time period. You also know full well that KKK members were fringe elements regardless of which party they affiliate themselves with.

You are the problem with the Republican Party. You purposefully lie and misrepresent facts to defame people you disagree with.

all pro
06-21-2009, 10:17 AM
Wow, you're just an outright liar. David Duke ran for Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat, tried to run in the 1988 Democratic Presidential primaries before running for President as a Populist, then in 1989 switched to the Republican Party when he won a in the Louisiana State House, and he has stayed in the Republican Party ever since. There's no real evidence to suggest FDR had affiliation with the KKK either. Not like it matters. You know full well the demographics of the two parties has switched since that time period. You also know full well that KKK members were fringe elements regardless of which party they affiliate themselves with.

You are the problem with the Republican Party. You purposefully lie and misrepresent facts to defame people you disagree with.

Your either a liar, living in denial or flat out ignorant!

The Long, Sad, Violent History of Democrats' Racial Hatred for Blacks
It has always seemed unnatural and unwise to me whenever I hear someone who's been slandered by a particularly egregious lie reply that they're not going to dignify that accusation with a response.

For it has always been crystal clear to me that whenever your honor, integrity and reputation are called into question that you should be quick, thorough and ? when circumstances demand ? quite loud in defense of them.

Otherwise, people will assume that the accusation must carry some weight and the falsity levied against you just might end up sticking.

That's what has happened to the political party that I belong to ? the Republicans. For decades the Party of Lincoln has been under almost constant assault for being "racist" and "openly hostile" to blacks.

However, nothing could be further from the truth ? but you would never know it by the party's spineless, practically nonexistent defense of its record on race and civil rights.

From the days of Lincoln until the present, blacks have had no better friend, party-wise, than the Republicans. Since its inception in the mid-19th century, the GOP has built an exemplary record on civil rights, particularly if you want to use the Democrat Party as a comparison.

The party's first president, Abraham Lincoln, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, the height of the Civil War, squelching any chance that the European powers of the day would intervene in the conflict in favor of the Confederacy. With the stroke of his pen, Lincoln destroyed the last real hope the Confederacy had for a victory.

Soon after the war ended, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that, among other things, abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection and due process and addressed blacks' right to vote.

In the late 19th century, Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South couldn't pass Jim Crow laws fast enough. Those Democrats created a nearly century-long, legal racial caste system that relegated blacks to the lowest educational, political, economic and social strata. I have family members who grew up under Jim Crow. To hear them tell it, it weren't no joke.

And let us not forget that during the same period it was Democrats throughout the United States who organized and ran America's premier terrorist organization ? the Ku Klux Klan.

And speaking of the Klan, remember the great Democrat President Woodrow Wilson? After a screening of D.W. Griffith's paean to the Ku Klux Klan, "Birth of a Nation," Wilson, turned-movie critic, said of the film: "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Needless to say, the NAACP had a different outlook. After its viewing, the civil rights organization was mortified to the point of launching a nationwide protest in 1915 against the film. The group was equally appalled by President Wilson's comments and it launched a public protest against him.

Before we move on, one more thing about President Wilson. He was the president who led our nation into WWI with the ringing declaration that it was to make the world "safe for democracy." In Woodrow's mind, though, "democracy" applied to everyone except those annoying little dark-skinned people in America who are always clamoring for civil rights. In 1913, Wilson introduced segregation into the federal government.

Yes, dear readers, the man who is worshipped as the utmost "progressive" (where and by who have you heard that term used lately?) of his time allowed federal officials to segregate "toilets, cafeterias and work" areas of various federal departments.

It was left to Wilson's successor, Republican Warren G. Harding to scrap the segregation policy. And Warren G. didn't stop there. In 1922, Harding delivered a bold speech in Birmingham, Ala., (A Democrat stronghold that was later known by blacks as "Bombingham") in which he called for black equality. Up to then, no U.S. president had ever spoken so forcefully about civil rights.

Harding was elected in 1920. Funny thing about the Republican Party platform that Harding ran under. It called for federal anti-lynching legislation. Guess which party didn't? If you said Democrat, go to the head of the line.

Moving on, in answer to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the '50s, it was Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South that placed the Confederate battle flag on their state capitol flags. It's an issue that continues to inflame racial passions even today.

In 1957, Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, called out his state's National Guard to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock. In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to the city to escort nine frightened black teens into the school past riotous mobs inflamed by Faubus' defiance of a federal court order. Faubus was a Democrat. Eisenhower was a Republican.

On June 11, 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to block its integration. Wallace was a Democrat. Now, I grant you, John F. Kennedy was the Democrat president who federalized the Alabama National Guard and ordered its units to the university to force its doors open to black students. But it's not generally known that the then-Sen. Kennedy ? with an eye on the Democrat presidential nomination for 1960 ? voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the law that really got the ball rolling on federal civil rights legislation.

And it was Kennedy's brother, Robert, who in 1964 assisted the FBI's efforts to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by approving the wiretapping of the man considered the heart and soul of the civil rights movement.

And to think at one time you could find in black homes across the nation what I used to call the Black Person's Trinity: chintzy, black-velvet portraits of JFK, RFK and Dr. King painted side by side.

As far as other important civil rights legislation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would never have became law if not for Republican senators and congressmen whose overwhelming support offset extreme Democrat opposition.

Now honesty demands that I admit that I have never been in favor of affirmative action programs. As a black man I find them demeaning, and as an American, divisive. But that's an argument for another day. However, the fact remains that it was President Nixon who implemented the first affirmative action program with the Philadelphia Plan in the late 1960s. The plan required government contractors to set goals and timetables for hiring minorities. Nixon was a Republican.

Sure, some will say that it's all well and good to cite the historical record, but what about now? What have the Republicans done of late? I begin by pointing out that Democrats continue to demonstrate a curious affinity for standing in schoolhouse doors, especially when black children are involved.

But of late, Democrats are not trying to keep black children out, but in. In public opinion polls on school choice, blacks overwhelmingly favor vouchers to rescue their children from failing schools. No one knows better the damage that poor schools can do to their children's future and communities than blacks. Republicans are in favor of school choice. Democrats aren't.

Also in more contemporary times, President Bush appointed two blacks to the highest positions in government ever occupied by blacks in America. Today, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell are very powerful, influential members of the Bush administration. Powell, in fact, is fourth in the succession line for the presidency.

Oh, by the way, do you know who is third in line? Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Old "Sheets" himself. The same Byrd of the "white ******s" comments on March 5, 2001, and who was a member of the KKK. And Sen. Byrd was not just any old member. No, sir. He was a "grand kleagle" ? a recruiter!

Does anyone remember the late war with Iraq? It lasted about a minute but you may have had a chance to notice that the vice chief of operations at Central Command was a brotha ? Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks.

And let's not let the "fair and free" press off the hook. Back when Jim Crow and segregation were "the law of the land" in the South, the press served as cheerleaders for all those kind, compassionate Democrats as they lovingly lynched black people by the hundreds on a yearly basis.

Small wonder that the press behaved as badly as it did, though. The people who ran those papers, which proudly featured the brutalized and desecrated bodies of black lynching victims on their front pages quite frequently, were all Democrats.

Today, whenever a Republican says anything that can be twisted by Democrats and race hustlers to smack the least bit of racism, the press is quick to pounce on him like Jesse Jackson on a bag of stolen federal dollars.

The hypocrisy of the press on matters of race is appalling. Just take a walk into your average newsroom and tell me what you see? Wait, I'll save you the trip ? a sea of white faces and sprinkled here and there, a black face or two. Or better still, tune in to any one of the numerous weekly Sunday news shows and what you'll find is overwhelming white.

Now here's a homework assignment ? what political party do you think most of the members of the press belong to? Here's a hint ? Democrat.

I need not end here. I could go on all day citing example after example on this matter (Does the name Bull Connor ring a bell, for instance? A Democrat. Hah!). But it would be heartening indeed if the next time accusations of racism are hurled against them, that Republicans would grow a spine and quickly, thoroughly and ? when circumstances demand ? quite loudly defend their honor, integrity and reputation.

all pro
06-21-2009, 10:28 AM
Hugo Black and the KKK http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/ideas/portfolio/vandersee/vandersee.html

Byrd's KKK Alibi Comes Unraveled
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827607/posts
I could post a lot more but I've made my point.
Thou shalt not lie

Never take the word of an atheist on anything, ever, for any reason. Anyone that regards themselves as god should never be trusted.

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 11:11 AM
Hugo Black and the KKK http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/ideas/portfolio/vandersee/vandersee.html

Byrd's KKK Alibi Comes Unraveled
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827607/posts
I could post a lot more but I've made my point.
Thou shalt not lie

Never take the word of an atheist on anything, ever, for any reason. Anyone that regards themselves as god should never be trusted.

Atheists do not regard themselves as "God," and religious preferences have absolutely nothing to do with credibility.

all pro
06-21-2009, 11:19 AM
Atheists do not regard themselves as "God," and religious preferences have absolutely nothing to do with credibility.

Yes they do on both counts.

DCarruso
06-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Well, he's done fairly well in the past 10 terms he's served, so I'd say this next one will be fairly easy.


Dream on. Running in a safe congressional district is not the same as going statewide. Talk is cheat. As an US Senator, he would have much more power to block legislation and bills. So why hasn't he? If he could, he would have done it. Chances are, he won't even make it pass the first base. It is a lot easier to talk BS to the media, than to actually run for higher office.

Ron Paul will NEVER run for the US Senate seat. It is safer to hide in his little district and talks **** every now and then, and makes wave every 4 years to rake in donations from the internet idiots. He knows damn well that he will never make it to first base if he tries the Senate office, and such failure would permanently shove him into the dust bin, depriving him of his "once every 4 yr" presidential election soap box.

SkinnyProp03
06-21-2009, 11:38 AM
Hugo Black and the KKK http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/ideas/portfolio/vandersee/vandersee.html

Byrd's KKK Alibi Comes Unraveled
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827607/posts
I could post a lot more but I've made my point.
Thou shalt not lie

Never take the word of an atheist on anything, ever, for any reason. Anyone that regards themselves as god should never be trusted.
Lol! Did I get under your skin a little, you old ****? You're right, atheists shouldn't be trusted on anything, except science, medicine, academics, and reasoning. That's a hilariously empty ad hominem attack that makes no sense at all. You clearly cannot defend any point you make with actual facts. Hahahaha

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 11:42 AM
Yes they do on both counts.

I am sorry that you feel that way, but you are mistaken. You are mistaken by a ridiculous margin.


Dream on. Running in a safe congressional district is not the same as going statewide. Talk is cheat. As an US Senator, he would have much more power to block legislation and bills. So why hasn't he? If he could, he would have done it. Chances are, he won't even make it pass the first base. It is a lot easier to talk BS to the media, than to actually run for higher office.

Ron Paul will NEVER run for the US Senate seat. It is safer to hide in his little district and talks **** every now and then, and makes wave every 4 years to rake in donations from the internet idiots. He knows damn well that he will never make it to first base if he tries the Senate office, and such failure would permanently shove him into the dust bin, depriving him of his "once every 4 yr" presidential election soap box.

I never said anything about anybody running for Senate.

leafs43
06-21-2009, 11:45 AM
The GOP is making a comeback by doing nothing but allowing the dems to screw themselves.

DCarruso
06-21-2009, 11:51 AM
Why doesn't Ron Paul run for the US Senate first? :shrug: Let's see how well he does in the state of Texas. I am sure the libertarians of the GOP there will demonstrate to us how they are the backbone of our party. LOL



Well, he's done fairly well in the past 10 terms he's served, so I'd say this next one will be fairly easy.



I never said anything about anybody running for Senate.

Do you even pay attention when you open your mouth? If you didn't mean to refer to Ron Paul running for the US Senate, then why did you respond directly to my post where I SPECIFICALLY referred to him running for the US Senate from Texas? Did I somehow mistakenly refer to him running for dog catcher perhaps? :rolleyes: Don't try to be a smart ass with me, boy. I pwned you every time. Give it up.

stealth_swimmer
06-21-2009, 12:07 PM
you know they'll run palin in '12 thinking that people cluster around celebrities, for good or for bad. The 10% of the population who use their brains will be drowned out again by the indifference of the majority :p

I think so, too, but she won't be the only one running. I hope she doesn't get the nomination if she runs. I'd want her to win the Republican nomination if I wanted the Democrats to win again, lol. On the bright side, would be nice havin an excuse to watch a milf on TV all day. :D

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 12:10 PM
Do you even pay attention when you open your mouth? If you didn't mean to refer to Ron Paul running for the US Senate, then why did you respond directly to my post where I SPECIFICALLY referred to him running for the US Senate from Texas?

He's not going to run for Senate, and I don't know where you got the idea that he will run for Senate in the first place. I never implied that he would would for Senate. I was referring to his terms in the the House, since you wanted to know "how well he would do in the state of Texas."


Did I somehow mistakenly refer to him running for dog catcher perhaps? :rolleyes: Don't try to be a smart ass with me, boy. I pwned you every time. Give it up.

LOL. You don't "pwn" anybody, you're just a child that runs his/her mouth behind a computer screen.

all pro
06-21-2009, 01:59 PM
Lol! Did I get under your skin a little, you old ****? You're right, atheists shouldn't be trusted on anything, except science, medicine, academics, and reasoning. That's a hilariously empty ad hominem attack that makes no sense at all. You clearly cannot defend any point you make with actual facts. Hahahaha

WOW you failed miserably. I proved you wrong and you turned it into a personal attack and proved my point about atheists.

KDK
06-21-2009, 02:42 PM
Never take the word of an atheist on anything, ever, for any reason. Anyone that regards themselves as god should never be trusted.

LOL. That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on here.

all pro
06-21-2009, 02:46 PM
LOL. That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on here.

What moral authority stops an atheist from lying at will? By their standards what they consider to be their good intentions will be a case of the ends justify the means.

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 03:09 PM
What moral authority stops an atheist from lying at will? By their standards what they consider to be their good intentions will be a case of the ends justify the means.

I'm not going to get deep into it as this can be settled with some very simple reasoning. No matter which perspective you look at it from, all humans and all of their systems are composed of the same fundamental matter. All humans have some type of an innate moral system. If you believed in an omnipotent creator, then you would probably believe that God installed a moral system in all of His creations and created all humans alike. If you were a naturalist, then it wouldn't be any different, only that any sense of morality was obtained through reason and a naturalistic way.

Your morality does not come from any type of scripture or writing. It may be influenced to an extent, but your sense of morality does not originate in the scripture. No matter how much you want it to or how bad you want to convince yourself of it, it doesn't. Furthermore, if you have to have a so-called "moral authority" or if you have to rely on writings to be moral, then you are not moral.

BTW, someones actions is a reflection of the individuals themselves, not whether they think that this world was created by a conscious creator or not. So-called "Christians" will lie and kill, so-called "Muslims" will lie and kill, so-called "atheists" will lie and kill, etc. Get used to it. Christianity addresses this with the concept of "original sin."

Ironstone-
06-21-2009, 09:47 PM
The GOP is making a comeback by doing nothing but allowing the dems to screw themselves.

Its the truth.

The GOP doesnt have to worry about changing their conservative beliefs to cater to the few thousand libertarians who give the GOP a few votes here and there.

With each day that goes by the Democrat libertarian voters are realizing where their priorities lie. Instead of going to the local gay pride rally, or bi-sexual parent awarness meeting, they are starting to realize the financial burden of giving the Democrats a vote. Lets face it, people are dropping their hippies ideologies nowadays for a more fiscally conservative govt. Most of the few thousand, correct me if i am wrong, Libertarians dont even give the libertarian party a vote anyway.

On another note let me just remind you of something else. Outside of bodybuilding.com's r/p section, not everyone is driving around with ron paul bumper stickers(forum signatures) spouting ron paul quotes like he is the second coming of.. whoops cant say that because not everyone is christian in this libertarian dreamland. ;)

ElMariachi
06-21-2009, 09:54 PM
Its the truth.

The GOP doesnt have to worry about changing their conservative beliefs to cater to the few thousand libertarians who give the GOP a few votes here and there.

With each day that goes by the Democrat libertarian voters are realizing where their priorities lie. Instead of going to the local gay pride rally, or bi-sexual parent awarness meeting, they are starting to realize the financial burden of giving the Democrats a vote. Lets face it, people are dropping their hippies ideologies nowadays for a more fiscally conservative govt. Most of the few thousand, correct me if i am wrong, Libertarians dont even give the libertarian party a vote anyway.

On another note let me just remind you of something else. Outside of bodybuilding.com's r/p section, not everyone is driving around with ron paul bumper stickers(forum signatures) spouting ron paul quotes like he is the second coming of.. whoops cant say that because not everyone is christian in this libertarian dreamland. ;)




WHAT CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS? FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE? LIKE WHO????



Are you nuts? The GOP is only slightly less fiscally liberal than the Democrats. I can't believe you're actually defending this bull****. The last campaign proved that the GOP is going in the wrong way. Democrat-lite is not sound strategy for anything but defeat. Republicans talk a good name, but they're just as full of **** as everyone else.


Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is an absolute disaster for a political party, especially one of that talks about its "conservative roots." Total BS. At least the Democrats can firmly admit who they are and what they want to do. Republicans can't even admit that much.


Voters are leaving the Republican Party in droves, and after the Obama debacle, they'll start leaving the Democrats as well. At this point I don't see the difference between either major political party. The Republicans $^&&^& this nation over hardcore for 8 years. Obama is only continuing what Bush started. I don't see how any reasonable and sane person can stand up and make the case that the Republicans are anymore noble or trustworthy then the Democrats. They're all the same. Bush took over and expanded spending like crazy, helped to nearly drive this country into the ground. Obama is simply taking his policies and amplifying them 10x fold.


If the Republican party actually acted on their claims of being "conservative", Obama would have never made it to the White House, and they'd still be running Congress. They betrayed their constituents and made an end-run around the Constitution. There is no reason to praise them whatsoever.

Why look forward to the Republicans being in charge? They're the same sorts of *******s, you think they're going to change anything? Please. Instead of sitting here and talking **** about libertarians, why not go out and try to make a difference? Neither of the two political parties is the answer, that much is clear, but please, feel free to keep your head buried in the sand and let the two-party system continue to rape this nation.

Ironstone-
06-21-2009, 10:02 PM
WHAT CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS? FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE? LIKE WHO????



Are you nuts? The GOP is only slightly less fiscally liberal than the Democrats. I can't believe you're actually defending this bull****. The last campaign proved that the GOP is going in the wrong way. Democrat-lite is not sound strategy for anything but defeat. Republicans talk a good name, but they're just as full of **** as everyone else.


Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is an absolute disaster for a political party, especially one of that talks about its "conservative roots." Total BS. At least the Democrats can firmly admit who they are and what they want to do. Republicans can't even admit that much.


Voters are leaving the Republican Party in droves, and after the Obama debacle, they'll start leaving the Democrats as well. At this point I don't see the difference between either major political party. The Republicans $^&&^& this nation over hardcore for 8 years. Obama is only continuing what Bush started. I don't see how any reasonable and sane person can stand up and make the case that the Republicans are anymore noble or trustworthy then the Democrats. They're all the same. Bush took over and expanded spending like crazy, helped to nearly drive this country into the ground. Obama is simply taking his policies and amplifying them 10x fold.


If the Republican party actually acted on their claims of being "conservative", Obama would have never made it to the White House, and they'd still be running Congress. They betrayed their constituents and made an end-run around the Constitution. There is no reason to praise them whatsoever.

Why look forward to the Republicans being in charge? They're the same sorts of *******s, you think they're going to change anything? Please. Instead of sitting here and talking **** about libertarians, why not go out and try to make a difference? Neither of the two political parties is the answer, that much is clear, but please, feel free to keep your head buried in the sand and let the two-party system continue to rape this nation.

Oh darnit, I forgot. bodybuilding.com R/P Section. AKA Ron Paul Section

Ron Paul for 2012!

http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ron_paul_photo_4.jpg

Libertarian FTW Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Libertarian Rep Trade w/ Ron Paul. :)

SkinnyProp03
06-21-2009, 11:02 PM
WOW you failed miserably. I proved you wrong and you turned it into a personal attack and proved my point about atheists.
I turned it into a personal attack? That's a funny one! You proved me wrong? I'm sorry, has David Duke not been a Republican for the past 20 years? Has the Republican party not embraced the bigoted religious right since Reagan? Where did you prove me wrong with actual facts?

ElMariachi
06-21-2009, 11:15 PM
Oh darnit, I forgot. bodybuilding.com R/P Section. AKA Ron Paul Section )



You're the one making the argument that the Republicans are somehow conservative, which at this point in time falls somewhere in between idiotic and ignorant. The GOP has a lot to learn from a guy like Ron Paul. Not saying that they need to embrace all his idea's, but as far as fiscal conservatives go, he is one of the FEW that are actually around in Congress. Jeff Flake here from in AZ is another. The majority are simply either Bible-thumpers or moderate Democrats.

SkinnyProp03
06-21-2009, 11:16 PM
WHAT CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS? FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE? LIKE WHO????



Are you nuts? The GOP is only slightly less fiscally liberal than the Democrats. I can't believe you're actually defending this bull****. The last campaign proved that the GOP is going in the wrong way. Democrat-lite is not sound strategy for anything but defeat. Republicans talk a good name, but they're just as full of **** as everyone else.


Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is an absolute disaster for a political party, especially one of that talks about its "conservative roots." Total BS. At least the Democrats can firmly admit who they are and what they want to do. Republicans can't even admit that much.


Voters are leaving the Republican Party in droves, and after the Obama debacle, they'll start leaving the Democrats as well. At this point I don't see the difference between either major political party. The Republicans $^&&^& this nation over hardcore for 8 years. Obama is only continuing what Bush started. I don't see how any reasonable and sane person can stand up and make the case that the Republicans are anymore noble or trustworthy then the Democrats. They're all the same. Bush took over and expanded spending like crazy, helped to nearly drive this country into the ground. Obama is simply taking his policies and amplifying them 10x fold.


If the Republican party actually acted on their claims of being "conservative", Obama would have never made it to the White House, and they'd still be running Congress. They betrayed their constituents and made an end-run around the Constitution. There is no reason to praise them whatsoever.

Why look forward to the Republicans being in charge? They're the same sorts of *******s, you think they're going to change anything? Please. Instead of sitting here and talking **** about libertarians, why not go out and try to make a difference? Neither of the two political parties is the answer, that much is clear, but please, feel free to keep your head buried in the sand and let the two-party system continue to rape this nation.
Exactly. Any so-called conservative that still stands behind the Republican party is a poser and a hack. People need to wake up. The bailouts began with Bush. Obama is continuing the corporate welfare.

ElMariachi
06-21-2009, 11:25 PM
Exactly. Any so-called conservative that still stands behind the Republican party is a poser and a hack. People need to wake up. The bailouts began with Bush. Obama is continuing the corporate welfare.


The vote for the lesser evil ideal is misguided. Personally I hope that the Republicans do take back the House in 2010, not so that they can push policy, but so that there is gridlock in Congress. However ultimately, relying one either of the two parties to look out for the interests of the individual is extremely short-sighted.



They all have their own big pocket lobbyists and donors that they are beholden to and over the past 20 years, their decision-making has been anything but favorable to the average individual.


They are out of touch and changes are needed, but as long as the guy above buy into all the bull**** propaganda and laugh at the potential of other political options, we're going to continue to be slaves to an out-of-control two-party monopoly.

-SLASH-
06-21-2009, 11:53 PM
Alright, look:

The Republican party is bleeding profusely, and it has been doing so since Reagan left office - Mr. Bush (Jr.) just made the final and deepest cut. Self-indentified "Republicans" have dropped off the map since Bush (Jr.) was re-elected, yet the conservative population is still where it was two decades ago. It doesn't matter which way you look at it, nor does it matter what demographics you're looking at. The so-called "religious right" has been cut deeply as well. The GOP will not go anywhere as it stands today.

No, Bush was not even remotely close to being any type of conservative.

Those are objective facts, and that is all that needs to be said on this topic. If you try to argue with them, then I have little use for you. Check yourself into a mental institution.

DCarruso
06-22-2009, 12:06 AM
He's not going to run for Senate, and I don't know where you got the idea that he will run for Senate in the first place. I never implied that he would would for Senate. I was referring to his terms in the the House, since you wanted to know "how well he would do in the state of Texas."



LOL. You don't "pwn" anybody, you're just a child that runs his/her mouth behind a computer screen.

You are an idiot.

He is not representing the state of Texas. He is only representing his congressional district in Texas. When I referred to the state of Texas, it is understood that, the US SENATE seat of TEXAS is what I was referring to.


Apparently, you are the child who failed to comprehend that simple fact.


Ron Paul's winning his reelection in his congressional district got fock **** to do with how he would do in the state of Texas, moron.

Ron Paul will fail if he ever tries to run a statewide election outside of his congressional district and that will sink him into oblivion permanently. That is why Ron Paul is hiding inside his little congressional district in Texas.

-SLASH-
06-22-2009, 12:13 AM
You are an idiot.

He is not representing the state of Texas. He is only representing his congressional district in Texas.

Yes.


Apparently, you are the child who failed to comprehend that simple fact.

Ok.


Ron Paul's winning his reelection in his congressional district got fock **** to do with how he would do in the state of Texas, moron.

Ron Paul will fail if he ever tries to run a statewide election outside of his congressional district and that will sink him into oblivion permanently. That is why Ron Paul is hiding inside his little congressional district in Texas.

Ok.

NorthMass
06-22-2009, 12:16 AM
The clip I saw was him (Paul) explicitly describing "false flag" attacks that had already been conducted (in the form of 9/11), and would likely occur in the future, under the Bush administration. He was hyping up the same fear-mongering that Jones does for a living, with clear but completely unproven accusations of conspiracy, treason, and mass murder.

If I get really bored, I may try to find that interview later. I've given Ron Paul and his office plenty of opportunities to explain what he "really" meant - and the only response has been silence.

In that Dr. Paul was saying that we could see a repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which something that didn't happen the way it was originally thought to have happened was used as a reason to go to war. He wasn't being a fear monger, because in the 60's the same thing happened to mislead us into the Vietnam War. It doesn't mean its a conspiracy, it very well could just mean the government used data that it didn't know for sure to be true or false to justify going to war.

He was basically saying the government was going to try to use any excuse it could find to go to war with Iran.

Trying to lump Dr. Paul as a conspiracy theorist is unfair, he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job nor does he believe in FEMA camps.

Halfway
06-22-2009, 12:39 AM
WHAT CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS? FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE? LIKE WHO????
.

In his own mind he IS a conservative, the facist big-government theocrats co-opted the word 'conservative' in the same way fat chick co-opted 'curvy'

It would be much simpler if those of us who think old fashioned fiscal conservatism and minimal government is the best policy would just refer to ourselves as Libertarians.. using the 'C' word muddies the waters these days.

Leave it to those who actually waste emotional energy arguing over whether 2 men should get married

NorthMass
06-22-2009, 05:07 AM
Its the truth.

The GOP doesnt have to worry about changing their conservative beliefs to cater to the few thousand libertarians who give the GOP a few votes here and there.

The same GOP that nominated McCain for president, who then went on to support bailing out banks? How fiscally conservative of them. :rolleyes:


With each day that goes by the Democrat libertarian voters are realizing where their priorities lie. Instead of going to the local gay pride rally, or bi-sexual parent awarness meeting, they are starting to realize the financial burden of giving the Democrats a vote. Lets face it, people are dropping their hippies ideologies nowadays for a more fiscally conservative govt. Most of the few thousand, correct me if i am wrong, Libertarians dont even give the libertarian party a vote anyway.

Many Americans, arguably a majority, are libertarian but have no one to vote for. If you don't see the fact that Ron Paul getting 10% in Iowa and 9% in New Hampshire despite zero positive media coverage and at the same time being called a kook for saying the economy was going to collapse, then IMO you are just not looking at the facts.


On another note let me just remind you of something else. Outside of bodybuilding.com's r/p section, not everyone is driving around with ron paul bumper stickers(forum signatures) spouting ron paul quotes like he is the second coming of.. whoops cant say that because not everyone is christian in this libertarian dreamland. ;)

If you are as fiscally conservative as you claim to be then why are you mocking Ron Paul? Who is more fiscally conservative than Ron Paul?

ZenBowman
06-22-2009, 07:21 AM
GOP said Obama's response to Iran was "too conservative"

They have far bigger problems. They need to not just endorse Ron Paul, but go back to non-interventionist foreign policy and focus on applying the constitution, not masturbating to it in public while ****ting on it when no one is looking.

DCarruso
06-22-2009, 07:31 AM
Typical R&P. Atheists telling Christians how to be christians, and non-GOP telling GOP how to be GOP. :D :D

SkinnyProp03
06-22-2009, 07:50 AM
Many Americans, arguably a majority, are libertarian but have no one to vote for. If you don't see the fact that Ron Paul getting 10% in Iowa and 9% in New Hampshire despite zero positive media coverage and at the same time being called a kook for saying the economy was going to collapse, then IMO you are just not looking at the facts.
That's not really true. Most people want entitlement from the government. If the majority of Americans were libertarian, I don't think Obama would have been elected. Majority of people want welfare from the government because they don't understand how economics actually works.

DCarruso
06-22-2009, 08:20 AM
Obama won 53% and McCain won 46% in 2008.


OMG!!!!! The whole country has gone focking liberal and turned left!!! OMG OMG! :rolleyes:

The GOP is doomed! The GOP had better cloned itself into the Libertarian party with Ron Paul as its leader. But but but.. Ron Paul ran for president as the Libertarian party nominee in 1988, and won 0.5% for the votes. :rolleyes:

In 2008 election, Ron Paul was asked to be the VP nominee for the Libertarian Party by the party's presidential candidate, Bob Barr. He would have a chance to 'give the MASS LIBERTARIAN AMERICANS' a candidate to vote for. He wisely chickened out. :rolleyes:


Obama won 53% and McCain won 46% in 2008. Elections are won, not by trying to capture the base of the other party. There are 35-40% hardcore GOP and 35-40% hardcore Dem. No matter what you do, in the absence of a disastrous event (aka Jimmy Carter), you can forgettabout getting the base to switch over. It is futile for the GOP to become the DEM, and it is also futile for the DEM to become the GOP. You will only lose your base. They will stay home and not vote instead.

Elections are won by firing up your base, and you got 35-40% of the votes EASILY, and capture slightly more than half of the swing voters. You only need to capture slightly more than half the middle 20-30%. You don't need to take them all. This middle are typically non ideological and just vote their pocket book. If their pocket book is ok, then they gravitate toward their pet issues, whatever those happen to be at the time. That is how GW BUSH won. And that is how OBama won. And that is how the future elections will be won.

Just ignore the hardcore Dem base. No need to be something that they can approve of. They will never vote for you. SO might as well just tell them to go fock themselves with their pet issues or pet peeves. It is all about the base + at least half of the swing votes.


The GOP base is sound and solid. McCain got 46%.

McCain failed in presenting a workable economic policy. We watched him spinning out of track and we pleaded with his people to let McCain be McCain. But in the end, McCain chose not to be McCain at the most unfortunate point in his career and he was doomed. McCain has always prided himself as a populist, a non-establishment type of maverick. And he got some great opportunities handed to him where he could be the populist candidate, but he chose the worst time to change his spot. SO McCain failed to capture more than half of the swing votes.

We GOP know exactly where our message has fallen short. The week after the election, grassroot meetings were held at the local and state level across the nation, to evaluate where we failed. We know exactly where the failure is and what it is.


What non GOP people say what we should become, means nothing. They are just regurgitating the stuffs the leftwing media feeds them.

DCarruso
06-22-2009, 08:28 AM
I shall now return you all to your regular programming of "Atheists telling Christians how to be Christians", "Atheists telling god how to be god" and "Non GOP telling GOP how to be GOP" :D

Everyone is an expert in other people's problems. LOL

JolietKev
06-22-2009, 08:34 AM
I shall now return you all to your regular programming of "Atheists telling Christians how to be Christians", "Atheists telling god how to be god" and "Non GOP telling GOP how to be GOP" :D

Everyone is an expert in other people's problems. LOL

Fellow conservative in agreement here. Very good point!

ZenBowman
06-22-2009, 08:55 AM
Fellow conservative in agreement here. Very good point!

LOL @ you calling yourself a conservative. The only true conservative is now siding with our President on Iran:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about ?condemning? the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives.....I have admired President Obama?s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

- His Highness Doctor Ron Paul
http://reason.com/blog/show/134248.html

Ironstone-
06-22-2009, 11:23 PM
Obama won 53% and McCain won 46% in 2008.


OMG!!!!! The whole country has gone focking liberal and turned left!!! OMG OMG! :rolleyes:

The GOP is doomed! The GOP had better cloned itself into the Libertarian party with Ron Paul as its leader. But but but.. Ron Paul ran for president as the Libertarian party nominee in 1988, and won 0.5% for the votes. :rolleyes:

I couldnt help but have a good laugh!

This represents about 5% atleast of all posts in the R/P section right there!




The GOP base is sound and solid. McCain got 46%.

McCain failed in presenting a workable economic policy. We watched him spinning out of track and we pleaded with his people to let McCain be McCain. But in the end, McCain chose not to be McCain at the most unfortunate point in his career and he was doomed. McCain has always prided himself as a populist, a non-establishment type of maverick. And he got some great opportunities handed to him where he could be the populist candidate, but he chose the worst time to change his spot. SO McCain failed to capture more than half of the swing votes.

We GOP know exactly where our message has fallen short. The week after the election, grassroot meetings were held at the local and state level across the nation, to evaluate where we failed. We know exactly where the failure is and what it is.


What non GOP people say what we should become, means nothing. They are just regurgitating the stuffs the leftwing media feeds them.

Wonderfully said.

Also another great thing is that the GOP is not as divided as the Democratic parties on majorities of issues. This is why I dont typically refer to many "conservatives" on here as conservatives. Why? Well they are conservative here, maybe over here, liberal there, liberal for this, etc. on issues. The good thing about this is that these "conservatives" dont represent the majority of the party.

TruckstopBaby
03-17-2015, 11:00 PM
stopped being republicans