Title: The Man That Shot Liberty In The Back- Rand Paul (watch!) Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Jun 8, 2012 Author:. Post Date:2012-06-08 10:51:35 by christine Keywords:None Views:18289 Comments:107
I could only stand about 1 minute of his sniveling. I despise whiners. I just hate them with a passion.
It's not over.
This is what happens when one depends on another man (or woman) to make things right, when that person should take personal responsibility to shape their own destinies, and quit depending on others. If everyone would do that, there would be no more psychopathic leaders, because these psychopaths depend on others to depend on them.
So now he is all sad. Poor baby needs a pacifier. Sucks to be him. He is no better than a sheep. In fact, imo, he is even lower than a sheep.
I could only stand about 1 minute of his sniveling. I despise whiners. I just hate them with a passion.
It's not over.
I agree. I guess I'd say let those who are most disappointed have a bit of grief. But that is no reason to quit. We have made tremendous progress and the future will hold many more opportunities, particularly as the overseas empire and its financial burden turns into a political and fiscal shooting war with the retiring Baby Boomers. And these poor kids who were sold into paying all the bills for it before they were even born; you know they aren't going to tolerate that forever because they want to have kids and a house too.
Just as we are seeing the beginning of the end of the big public employee union goons in recent news, this fight I am describing is coming much sooner than later. The Empire vs. the Boomers. But you can't win if you desert the battle. History is not made by the fickle or the timid.
good posts, both of you. you make some very astute points. there's one point that i think you're missing here and, that is, that many of us are disappointed again in what we see as a lack of honesty here not that we expected Ron Paul to be our saviour. i think all of us on 4um are more realistic than that. this is a repeat of 2008 when Ron Paul pulled out just before the Texas primary. we were led to believe that he had a delegate strategy. now with this, he's pulled the rug out from under all those who worked to become delegates and who planned to cast a vote for him at the convention. he pulled up short again and i am certain that that it was not a sudden decision.
imo, he and Rand both owe his many, many supporters an immediate explanation.
and one more thing...how is it after all the criticism of Romney heretofore can the Pauls suddenly do a 180 and endorse him (assuming Ron plans to also)? that to me is an abandonment of his principles.
and one more thing...how is it after all the criticism of Romney heretofore can the Pauls suddenly do a 180 and endorse him (assuming Ron plans to also)? that to me is an abandonment of his principles.
Do you honestly think that endorsements ever sway that many votes? The political pros say it can never help more than a few percent. At most.
Even picking a VP from a state is assumed to never help more than 5% in that state. If it's a popular regional figure, like Christie for instance, you might pick up a point or two in bordering states. And that's the best you can hope for with a veep.
Now what is the endorsement of the junior senator of 2 years worth to Romney.
You really aren't reading the Tea leaves correctly.
what is the endorsement of the junior senator of 2 years worth to Romney.
When you're talking about Romney, you're talking about a ruthless ingrate -- a corporate raider who tookover the company of his Bain-benefactor (who had started him in business and financed him), and then fired the man as the reward for his favors. What do you suppose it's worth to Romney to devastate the Ron Paul movement's morale and cohesion through his junior senator son? What do you suppose Rand Paul thinks it was worth to his own career plans to kick his father's movement to the curb as he joined up with Romney's antithetical clique?
Well, Rand only endorsed him. He didn't say he'd actually vote for him.
Maybe Romney convinced him.
The truth is that Romney may have entered politics in a completely unprincipled way, determined to outliberal the libs of Massachusetts, no matter what. He spent a small fortune in a completely hopeless race against Kennedy in the mid-Nineties.
Romney's record was not all liberal either. More an efficiency nut but nowhere near as good at it as Mitch Daniels was in Indiana. This is basically bean-counting, job performance and organizational metrics, boring business school stuff. Romney wasn't too bad, Daniels was brilliant. People forget, whatever government we do agree to have should be a quality organization with proper internal performance controls.
Anyway, we know that Mittster was lying then (to Massachusetts) or he's lying now (to the rest of us). And we know he's aware of how the GOP turned on his dad for saying we were "brainwashed" over Vietnam (I'd bet money that no lib reporter, however tricky, could ever get Mittster to utter the word "brainwash"). And Ford got primaried from the Right by Reagan who came within a hundred delegates of beating Ford who was still weakened enough to lose to Carter. And he noticed that Bush Senior got primaried from the Right (Buchanan) and then lost for betraying his No New Taxes pledge.
So Mittster probably is just as willing to kowtow to us as he was to kowtow to libs. Unless he thinks he can flip us all to liberals (something most of his fellow-Mormons really oppose) and risk us dumping him.
And the one Republican most likely to challenge him from the Right in 2016 (almost guaranteed to defeat him for the nomination or the general election) is probably Rand Paul.
the one Republican most likely to challenge [Mittster] from the Right in 2016 (almost guaranteed to defeat him for the nomination or the general election) is probably Rand Paul.
I was agreeable to most of all you were saying until you got there. Honestly, isn't it his last name that makes you put so much stock in him as a contender? Surely you can see others more suitable otherwise? Has Mitch Daniels fallen out of favor with you by cavorting with the Bilderbergs? By my observations, Rand Paul hasn't endeared himself to many professed Ron Paul Republicans roundabout besides you with his Romney endorsement. Au contraire.
Has Mitch Daniels fallen out of favor with you by cavorting with the Bilderbergs?
I think they cavorted with him. He retired from Lilly with over $20M and he isn't about the money anyway.
I don't go in much for all the Jonesy Bildy stuff because it never seems to amount to anything, despite years of alarmist posts about them. Rich weirdos rubbing shoulders with pols, Hollywood, libmedia. It's hardly their only outlet (CFR, etc.).
By my observations, Rand Paul hasn't endeared himself to many professed Ron Paul Republicans roundabout besides you with his Romney endorsement.
We'll see. There certainly is a snit going on. But this is about Rand positioning himself in the Senate, not about actually trying to get any RP Republicans to vote for Romney. It would, of course, make Rand's support a little more valuable (not much) if some RP folk actually did vote for Romney, especially in a swing state. But no one is counting on that happening nor should Rand expect any rewards if they do.