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:16305 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?
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.
That is an extremely biased view of Romney's history, of Bain, and of Bain Capital.
The founder of Bain was the problem according to industry accounts. Romney had already made his fortune and retired. Lawsuits were flying, the partners and clients were about to lose everything, the founder had gone a little nuts. Romney was the one that all parties agreed to have come and break the logjam that was destroying the company. Mitt came back and hammered out an agreement, one provision of which was that Bain's elderly founder would retire from daily management. Then Bain ended and Bain Capital began, it was Mitt's design for saving the company that had been long engaged in saving other troubled companies.
You sound kind of like a DNC talking point email.
There are things I don't like in Romney's business record, particularly the insanely high pay he gave to his employees, a practice that spread across Wall Street to these hugely inflated CEO salaries. Romney was very much a part of that very capitalistic style. IOW, the rich traders and MBA guys definitely got a lot richer. Romney does have the worldview of a very high-end corporate type with all the baggage it brings.
So, contrary to the usual rants, Romney is nothing like Obama. Or most pols we've seen in a very long time.
I do think that Romney will want two terms (his clock was ticking fairly loud even as a one-term governor and he missed his shot in '08). In his first term, Romney will be very cautious with the base and conservative issues, judicial appointments. It is in a second term that Romney would be dangerous.
That is an extremely biased view of Romney's history, of Bain, and of Bain Capital.
You sound kind of like a DNC talking point email.
I do think that Romney will want two terms (his clock was ticking fairly loud even as a one-term governor and he missed his shot in '08). In his first term, Romney will be very cautious with the base and conservative issues, judicial appointments. It is in a second term that Romney would be dangerous.
Can you answer these two questions now?
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?