The Ron Paul Thread

[DooSPX]

Originally Posted by captain planet

Some of the practices of romney are a bit unsavory and he changes position on things a lot so he comes across to me as less than honest. That is the root of my generalization.

I do agree with you here... We are screwed either way....

Anyone want to buy an island somewhere and start our own country?..

[captain planet]

Originally Posted by JimN

Myopic doesn't mean 'narrow minded', it basically means 'short-sighted' (it actually means 'old eyes). Narrow-minded people can't see anything outside of their little capacity and I mean short-sighted in that the person of interest is clearly in view but not the effect of voting for them.

Any time a candidate who's not a front-runner gets votes, it means the second place candidate could win in a close race if they get enough of that third place candidate's votes. In the last election, Obama won by 7.2%, which is pretty amazing if you consider the fact that McCain ran on public campaign financing (with almost $380M) and Obama didn't, collecting close to $780Million. All of the other votes could have gone to McCain and it wouldn't have made a difference but again, things can sway people when htey see their guy's position changing or if they're not doing well at the start. Obama used audio and video clips that went viral online, used the internet extensively and McCain was ridiculed for "not being able to e-mail", which is BS. The fact that he has a hard time raising his arms because of his imprisonment in Vietnam was wiped off of the board. Obama spent almost $11/vote and McCain spent less than $6/vote.

The other candidates totaled a little over 1.2% of the total votes. If Paul gets 5% and the winner comes in with a slim margin, maybe 4%, you can see where I'm going. I would recommend that anyone who really wants to vote for Paul, on principle, they may want to wait until the election is well on its way- if someone is winning by a large margin, a vote for the 3rd place candidate will be wasted when it could potentially tilt the election to allow a new President to be elected.

Making a statement when an election is at stake is bad timing. If people want Paul to have more exposure, they need to shoot their own videos, put them on the Web and make it easy to see when & where it took place and make it very easy to see that there is no editing of the video. I don't care if two cameras are used, with staggered starting times and the video shown side by side until the battery of the first camera has to be replaced and then restarted- I want continuous video with no stops.

my·op·ic   [mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Ophthalmology . pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2.
unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3.
lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

From Dictionary.com

[JimN]

Originally Posted by captain planet

my·op·ic   [mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Ophthalmology . pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2.
unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3.
lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

From Dictionary.com

Fine- argue about the definition of a word that didn't have 'narrow-minded' attached when I learned it. That's not the problem- we need to elect someone else, not vote for someone who may not have a chance of winning, even if he is the better candidate.

[oxberger]

I think a lot of people have been mislead by the mainstream media. Alot of people are saying he's unelectable. My question is why? If you believe he is someone that stands for something and has the guts to stand by that vote for him. Everyone I talk to likes the fact at least some portion of what he stands for they like, wether that be his economic policy or foreign policy or whatever. If you like those things that he stands by vote that way. Stop listening to those who say he can't win. He can't win if you don't vote for him in your states primaries or caucus, even then he still has a chance based on delegate count. Don't quote me the 51 delegates the Associated Press says he has because that is not the true count. We won't know the true count until the Republican Convention in Tampa. I'm voting for him and if he doesn't win our country deserves what it gets. I don't like it, but if Obama is re elected a very large number of Americans will wake up and realize the crap we're in furthering the liberty movement and bringing about the real change in 2016. That's assuming we're all not in FEMA camps because we spoke out about our usurper in charge. He's an article that I think may help:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/9386.cfm

[captain planet]

Originally Posted by JimN

Fine- argue about the definition of a word that didn't have 'narrow-minded' attached when I learned it. That's not the problem- we need to elect someone else, not vote for someone who may not have a chance of winning, even if he is the better candidate.

I wasn't arguing over the definition. I was referring that my stance on this election has me pigeon-holed as narrow-minded on this thread/board so that is how I took it.

[JimN]

Originally Posted by captain planet

I wasn't arguing over the definition. I was referring that my stance on this election has me pigeon-holed as narrow-minded on this thread/board so that is how I took it.

Nah, if you were narrow-minded, you wouldn't even bother to read or listen to other candidates' stance or other peoples' comments & opinions. Unlike far too many, you KNOW what you stand for and that's a very good thing.

[mikeg205]

You're good with me CP...... unfortunately, winning the election takes $$$ if they all had the same $$$ then true servants and stewards would be elected....but the cash rules... I don't care how you slice it...it will be romney - obama with the most votes... those of us who can think unless we have buffet or soros cash can only hope our voice is heard.

The only surprise would be in august at the RNC convention....votes for an independent only take votes away from anyone but obama.

So Romneycare is very close to Obamacare - he ran MA. They kept Kennedy's in office regardless of what they did....to bad Romney was't a governor in a non socialist state.

[JimN]

Originally Posted by mgorczak1

You're good with me CP...... unfortunately, winning the election takes $$$ if they all had the same $$$ then true servants and stewards would be elected....but the cash rules... I don't care how you slice it...it will be romney - obama with the most votes... those of us who can think unless we have buffet or soros cash can only hope our voice is heard.

The only surprise would be in august at the RNC convention....votes for an independent only take votes away from anyone but obama.

So Romneycare is very close to Obamacare - he ran MA. They kept Kennedy's in office regardless of what they did....to bad Romney was't a governor in a non socialist state.

Obama beat McCain with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act- they have until a specific date to decide if they'll accept public funds only, or none. If they accept public funds, each donation has a limit and if private money, the rules are different. The whole time Obama was saying that he's there for the Middle Class and that he wants to take care of the poor, he was collecting more than $780M in total. He complains about the wealthy and some of the wealthiest people on the planet are Democrats or other liberals.

Obamacare is based on Romneycare.

[mikeg205]

Originally Posted by JimN

Obama beat McCain with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act- they have until a specific date to decide if they'll accept public funds only, or none. If they accept public funds, each donation has a limit and if private money, the rules are different. The whole time Obama was saying that he's there for the Middle Class and that he wants to take care of the poor, he was collecting more than $780M in total. He complains about the wealthy and some of the wealthiest people on the planet are Democrats or other liberals.

Obamacare is based on Romneycare.

Well said!

[areamike]

Originally Posted by JimN

Fine- argue about the definition of a word that didn't have 'narrow-minded' attached when I learned it. That's not the problem- we need to elect someone else, not vote for someone who may not have a chance of winning, even if he is the better candidate.

Wow. That is one of the biggest problems with a lot of voters these days.

With that type of thinking it's no wonder there are so many sheep in this Country.

Ron Paul has:
Never voted to raise taxes
Never voted for an unbalanced budget
Never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership
Never taken a government paid junket
Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch
Voted against the Patriot Act
Voted against regulating the internet
Voted against the Iraq War
Does not participate in the lucrative congressional budget pension program
Returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the US treasury every year