Who Else Knows That Ron Paul will NEVER be President?
- Thread starter SisterMaryElephant
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's an awesome tactic for winning support, insult people by calling them stupid.
how'd that work out for ya?
LOL!
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
His supporters hurt him more than he hurt himself.....most of the time. 
I hope they only give speaking spots to the top 3 candidates and don't let him speak at the GOP convention because he never made it past 4th place. Could you imagine how sad they'd be then? Libertarians are funny...like many jokes.
I hope they only give speaking spots to the top 3 candidates and don't let him speak at the GOP convention because he never made it past 4th place. Could you imagine how sad they'd be then? Libertarians are funny...like many jokes.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Yeah, calling people "sheeple" that need to "wake up" is only part of their humorous collection of retarded conspiracy theories to explain his REJECTION. Personally, I like the mental midgets that say that anti-RP people are "scared of the Constitution" or "controlled by Jews." I think it's hilarious...just think how depressed they'll be when RP doesn't get nominated at the convention and Romney wins in November.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
I think most of us have accepted that Ron Paul isn't going to win at this point. Libertarians have taken many positions inside the Republican party now because of Ron Paul. Wouldn't you liberals rather see a more libertarian right as opposed to the neocons? Regardless of what you think of Ron Paul, his views make much more since than the neo-conservatives. As liberals you should want the GOP to head towards a peaceful foreign policy. You should like that the Paulbots don't want to legislate morality (ie abortion and gay rights). You should like that we are against civil rights violations such as the Patriot Act, unlike the neocons. You should like that we focus on monetary policy, instead of blaming international trade and social services for all of our problems. The world will be a better place when the GOP returns to its roots instead of what we have now. I don't see how anyone could disagree that Libertarians would be better than neocons on the right. We aren't going away losers.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the guy who is hinging his hopes on rawn's last stand in nebraska (didn't he pick up 3 delegates or something and so is now completely out for the Nth time?).
i'd rather see a santorum righty, at least he is honest about his wanting to legislate morality, unlike rawn. plus, a better contrast. the right would go away overnight with santorum and bachmann heading the party.
santorum/bachmann 2016!
did you mean sense, collegiate?
rawn pawl wants to legislate that homosexuality can not be an acceptable life style.
and he called sex for any reason other than procreation immoral.
lol, try again, baby deprave.
lol.
take out that last word and you have it right. rawn pawl is against civil rights. period.
that's the winning formula. the libertarians, the biggest losers of all with their pathetic "revolution", are trying to project their loserness on everyone else.
quick, call us sheep and tell us to wake up, baby deprave.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
See? Another bass-ackwards paulbot.
1) I'm not socially liberal like RP and his supporters...
2) Doesn't the fact that no libertarian has gotten more than 1% of the popular vote in a general Presidential election tell you that there is something wrong with the party/platform/candidates? I bet you have a conspiracy theory to explain that...
It doesn't matter if you go away or not, you 1%'rs never mattered anyway, that's why you're consistently REJECTED as the nut-jobs you usually end up revealing yourselves as.
Hope that helps but it wont...
1) I'm not socially liberal like RP and his supporters...
2) Doesn't the fact that no libertarian has gotten more than 1% of the popular vote in a general Presidential election tell you that there is something wrong with the party/platform/candidates? I bet you have a conspiracy theory to explain that...
It doesn't matter if you go away or not, you 1%'rs never mattered anyway, that's why you're consistently REJECTED as the nut-jobs you usually end up revealing yourselves as.
Hope that helps but it wont...
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
No I cannot stand either of them
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
Quoted for truth.His supporters hurt him more than he hurt himself.....most of the time.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Which is better:
War/pseudo free market philosophy/morality legislated
or
Peace/free market philosophy/freedom
SisterMaryElephant we aren't talking about the Libertarian Party, we have always had a 2 party system. The same could be said about all other third parties, the reason they are unsuccessful is because they do not have the power structure that the 2 mainstream parties have. Its not necessarily because their platform is stupid, it is because the Repubs and Dems have gained control of the political system. It is the "wasted vote" notion that keeps the two parties in control. Change always comes from within the political parties and that is what we are seeing.
UncleBuck your theories of Ron Paul's history is irrelevant, aren't we talking about the impact that his supporters will have?
War/pseudo free market philosophy/morality legislated
or
Peace/free market philosophy/freedom
SisterMaryElephant we aren't talking about the Libertarian Party, we have always had a 2 party system. The same could be said about all other third parties, the reason they are unsuccessful is because they do not have the power structure that the 2 mainstream parties have. Its not necessarily because their platform is stupid, it is because the Repubs and Dems have gained control of the political system. It is the "wasted vote" notion that keeps the two parties in control. Change always comes from within the political parties and that is what we are seeing.
UncleBuck your theories of Ron Paul's history is irrelevant, aren't we talking about the impact that his supporters will have?
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Libertarians are socially liberal so conservatives won't support them and they're fiscally conservative so liberals won't accept them either. They're worse than so-called moderates. They embrace the parts of each ideology that one side finds repulsive about the other and even with the parts they agree on, they are never enough to make up for the issues where they don't agree.We're all basically Libertarians, just to varying degrees of practicality
Fiscally conservative + socially liberal will never work and neither does fiscally liberal + socially conservative. Since socialism is a complete failure that leads to the conservative path for individual freedom and the American dream.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
This is the kind of retardation that drive people away from libertarians and especially Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters...
Which is better?
Let me think....The problem is, sometimes you need that war to get that peace. Sometimes minimal regulations are needed. The Founding fathers weren't against States regulating things that the federal government shouldn't. It was the left that slowly eroded American Capitalism into an overly regulated government bureaucratic shell of a free market system. American Capitalism was never intended to be laissez-faire but it was never intended to be ran by socialists either. Virtually all laws are "morality legislated," are you suggesting that doing away with all laws that legislate morality in any way, shape or form is somehow an option? Think about that...
SirGreenThumb
Well-Known Member
You have the nerve to mention our Founding Fathers and regulations in the same sentence. Wow. Just wow. Do yourself a favor and actually look up the constitution and unalienable rights. Since apparently you think that calling Ron Paul a bigot in every comment you write makes you intelligent. I don't really care if you think Ron Paul is a bigot because whoever you support is also a bigot. In a matter of politics every single candidate is a bigot. Oh look I can do it to. Bigot, bigot, bigot..This is the kind of retardation that drive people away from libertarians and especially Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters...
Which is better?
The problem is, sometimes you need that war to get that peace. Sometimes minimal regulations are needed. The Founding fathers weren't against States regulating things that the federal government shouldn't. It was the left that slowly eroded American Capitalism into an overly regulated government bureaucratic shell of a free market system. American Capitalism was never intended to be laissez-faire but it was never intended to be ran by socialists either. Virtually all laws are "morality legislated," are you suggesting that doing away with all laws that legislate morality in any way, shape or form is somehow an option? Think about that...
And the vast majority of wars are caused because of religion. Do away with religion in a whole and there is no need for wars. Oh wait, that's unconstitutional. Freedom of speech is also part of being a liberal. So since you don't like liberals. Hush.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
This is the kind of retardation that drive people away from libertarians and especially Ron "the bigot" Paul supporters...
Which is better?
The problem is, sometimes you need that war to get that peace. Sometimes minimal regulations are needed. The Founding fathers weren't against States regulating things that the federal government shouldn't. It was the left that slowly eroded American Capitalism into an overly regulated government bureaucratic shell of a free market system. American Capitalism was never intended to be laissez-faire but it was never intended to be ran by socialists either. Virtually all laws are "morality legislated," are you suggesting that doing away with all laws that legislate morality in any way, shape or form is somehow an option? Think about that...
Hows that war for peace going for you? Yes sometimes war is necessary, the last time that was true was world war 2. We now support unconstitutional wars to fight people that we continue to make hate us. If another country was bombing your city for 10 years how would that make you feel about them? Republican claim to be moral yet they reject the christian just war theory
The current Republican platform is the most hypocritical political philosophy ever. They preach small government but create massive government. They preach freedom yet fight to make anything illegal that they don't believe in. They preach free market but support controlled currency monopoly. They preach free market but blame job loss on free trade. They preach free markets but they bailout corporations. they say they believe in the constitution but don't follow it when it comes to: monetary policy, civil rights, and foreign policy.
What a fraud of a platform.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Actually I think we have nearly a dozen parties in America, the others are just as kooky as the libertarian party so they get rejected too.
So that's your conspiracy theory as to why no libertarian has gotten more than 1% of the popular vote in a general Presidential election? Because the other 99% are divided into two groups that wouldn't be willing to support a 3rd group with better ideas....even IF they truly were better ideas?
Tell me, what happened to the Whig party and what year did the Republican party start again? See? If a party has bad ideas it can disappear and if a new party has ideas that Americans support they can grow and become powerful. Just as the founding fathers intended.
So what was that excuse as to why libertarians aren't popular again?
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
From wiki:
"Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.[SUP][19][/SUP] The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.In his 1973 study of the economic principles established at the foundation of the United States, E.A.J. Johnson wrote:
The general view, discernible in contemporaneous literature, was that the responsibility of government should involve enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social usefulness of all economic activity. It is quite proper, said Bordley, for individuals to choose for themselves how they will apply their labor and their intelligence in production. But it does not follow from this that legislators and men of influence are freed from all responsibility for giving direction to the course of national economic development. They must, for instance, discountenance the production of unnecessary commodities of luxury when common sense indicates the need for food and other essentials. Lawmakers can fulfill their functions properly only when they become benefactors to the public; in new countries they must safeguard agriculture and commerce, encourage immigration, and promote manufactures. Admittedly, liberty is one of the most important blessings which men possess, but the idea that liberty is synonymous with complete freedom from restraint is a most unwise, mistaken apprehension. True liberty demands a system of legislation that will lead all members of society to unite their exertions for the public welfare. It should therefore be the policy of government to aid and foster certain activities or kinds of business that strengthen a nation, even as it should be the duty of government to repress those fashions, habits, and practices, which tend to weaken, impoverish, and corrupt the people. [SUP][20]"
[/SUP]
I call Ron "the bigot" Paul a bigot because that's what he is, like many of his supporters.[/SUP]
Oh, you're a God-hating bigot, now I understand...
Freedom of speech is something all of us Vets served to protect for EVERYONE, not just for liberals. Grow up and quit pretending that you know anything about the founding fathers...
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul got more contributions from military than any other candidate, because most people that served noticed that interventionism doesn't work. Obama was second and the Republicans LAST.