See other Ron Paul Articles
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: 13276
Comments: 107
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-53) not displayed.
.
.
.
#54. To: titorite (#51)
That's a new one to me. But I disagree with that saying. You're saying "fail". What is their definition of "success"? Their "job" is to rule. In order to succeed at that, they boxed themselves into a corner. It is their own successes that did it to them, not their failures. They are so screwed. If we can outlast them, we will have won. And we will outlast them, because to do so requires cooperation, which only we are capable of. Psychopaths do not play well together. ------------------------------------------ Whenever there's resistance, examine your motivation. Whenever there's flow, consider taking action.
What an absolute moron he's become. The reactions I've seen here are starting to make me think that Rand could possibly succeed with a bit of luck on a scale that Ron never dreamed of. By all means, condemn and reject Rand. Be my guest.
By their I should think we are speaking of economic / political factions that are our fearless leaders in this shitty nation..Our government yuck. Success to people like that is convincing you, me, and the masses to go along with it all as easily as they can will it. They want us to go along with the play of hard dull work, justice preveils, shop wal mart consumer citizen tax payer. Kinda like isreal there haveing the egyptions digging their own grave so to does our nations' leaders, corporate whores that they are, lead its own citizens to dig their own graves... both metaphorically and literally. Ah yes. The pub party will end up owing both.
Ron's campaign was suspended and he had admitted he could not expect the delegates needed to become the nominee. Those are the facts. You seem to be in denial about it. Reporting a conservative-estimate of the number of delegates that he's expecting in Tampa to "Stand up for what we believe in" -- an estimate below the nomination threshold -- doesn't equate to suspending his campaign or all that he can possibly expect to support him there as unbound free agents. Ron Paul: The Revolution Continues - June 6, 2012 ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Apparently, only the diehard Paul supporters believe the delegates are unbound. But it is something of a truism. Even electoral college delegates are, legally, unbound. That doesn't mean they go off to the EC and suddenly start overturning election results in their states. It appears that most the delegates do feel bound. In some states, they are directly bound as a matter of state law. In WV on May 8, they had proportional delegates with 22 for Romney, 2 for Santorum, 4 unbound, all directly elected GOP delegates. In NJ on June 5, they had winner-take-all of 50 delegates, all directly elected by voters. I sometimes suspect some of you aren't actually Ron Paul supporters because the ones that I know already are aware of the differences in state parties, elections, delegates, etc. 4um has a lot of opinions about Ron Paul but they rarely exhibit the kind of knowledge I expect to see among the hardcore Ron Paul cadre. And this persists, despite the fact that Obama clearly stole the 2008 nomination from Hitlery because he displayed a deep strategy for capturing every unbound delegate that wasn't nailed down.
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.
The pub party will end up owing both. Please continue your excellent work as an ex-supporter of Ron Paul.
Agreed. So, how to stop them? Don't go along with them. Don't feed the animals. People hate what they are forced to do. But they hate the idea of cutting the cords even more. Freedom scares the crap out of most people. That's just one reason why I don't depend on them. It's not enough to be against the enemy. People have to be FOR something. Anyone that is against what's happening but doesn't create their own alternative is still under their power, because the focus is still only on the psychopaths. ------------------------------------------ Whenever there's resistance, examine your motivation. Whenever there's flow, consider taking action.
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.
Don't be led. People should be their own leader. That's how I see it. People are responsible for their own interests. People give their personal power over to others so they can be led. I;m just as guilty as anyone else in that I too was supportive of Paul, because I (mistakenly) believed he was our last hope to turn things around. But the way I see it now, things can't be turned around, and it doesn't matter who wins a (s)election. Not to get anyone to think that I like falling on my sword... but I made the mistake of believing that the answers were outside of me, not inside. These rat bastards are masters at getting people to think only of the external. They are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. It has kept them in power because it keeps the citizens focused on what the psychopaths are doing instead of what the self is doing. We could end this in a week, if a majoelrity told these monsters to drop dead, and meant it. But people being people, it might take a little more time than that. 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. I don't believe he had any principles in the first place. He did it because it benefits him, not his constituents. ------------------------------------------ Whenever there's resistance, examine your motivation. Whenever there's flow, consider taking action.
Oh yeah, I know that. As I have told people, probably some on here, there might be a bond issue or something like that on the ballot to vote against. Otherwise the trip to the polls is probably a waste of time and gas. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." Mencken "..if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain. LOL. It's a stupid saying here locally that these sheeplike idiots bleat at every occasion, as though repetition makes it true. I think it's stupid and un-American to suggest any citizen can lose his rights to free speech because of how he chose to exercise his voting franchise. And I always explain this carefully. For some reason, I still don't get invited to nice cocktail parties.
Yes. But the Senate is all about being an insider, amassing power and favors so you can do more (in Rand's case, less) for all the party's constituents. It's easy to criticize Rand but you don't have all that many examples of American government shrinking. It's grown like a cancer rather steadily except for a few brief contractions following major wars or banking failures or the business cycle downturns. Certainly, other than Truman's sharp cutback of government after WW II, there are few examples of American government shrinking at all in the modern era, since WW I.
And this persists, despite the fact that Obama clearly stole the 2008 nomination from Hitlery because he displayed a deep strategy for capturing every unbound delegate that wasn't nailed down. I didn't get whatever point you were trying to make there. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
uh huh. And to those who would tell me that (and I know that you weren't saying it, just that others do) I would say, what is it that I am supposed to be voting for? A black man who is a proven liar, who has spent other people's money like it belonged to him or a white man who will do the very same thing? Tweddledumb and Tweedledumber are not worth voting for, they are both traitors and warmongers. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." Mencken "..if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
You knew I was a snake (politician) when you took me in ! (And a FED to boot). "The few who understand the [FEDERAL RESERVE] system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
If we don't fight them Over There, we're going to have to fight them here. Who are "they"? What do they want? Why are my tax dollars being squandered to bring 'them' here to fight me? "I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
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? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Okay. I surrender to your awesome barrage of annoying cliches. Funning aside, I do get your point.
You better, I got stacks and stacks of People Magazines just sitting here looking at you accusingly! "I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
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.
They are who I tell you they are. And they want to kill your family in front of you, then gang rape you daughter, then kill her and arrange the weapons to make it seem they were attacking you. OOOPS - me bad - That was some elements of the United States Army in Iraq. Of course, I should have waited for White Rabbit to peak. "I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
It's easy to criticize Rand but you don't have all that many examples of American government shrinking. It's grown like a cancer rather steadily except for a few brief contractions following major wars or banking failures or the business cycle downturns. Certainly, other than Truman's sharp cutback of government after WW II, there are few examples of American government shrinking at all in the modern era, since WW I. That is essentially, stripped down, an "ends justify the means" argument. "Everybody does it" is no different ethically from "I vas chust followink hoarders". The problem with returning government to its rightful bounds is that Somebody has to do it, and if Nobody does it, then Everybody loses. What did the dormouse say? Something about study hall?
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
??? Excerpts from: Will Ron Paul's battle transform the party? - Washington Times Communities battle was rejoined in the afternoon breakout session with Congressman Ron Paul. When Paul was introduced, the crowd gave him the rock star welcome anyone following the Republican primary has seen dozens of times. Shouts of “President Paul” and “End the Fed” reverberated throughout the arena. This wasn’t just agreement or support for a candidate’s electability or likeability. [sic] The energy and passion expressed for this old veteran stood in stark contrast to the reception speakers received earlier that day. Once the audience had calmed down, Congressman Paul prefaced his remarks by saying that he had been asked to speak on uniting the party and balancing the budget. Not a strange request given the fact that his fiscal conservatism is almost as well known as the fact that dissension within the Republican Party primarily emanates from the ideas he has championed. But Paul made it clear that he wasn’t going to play ball, or shall we call it what it is - politics. His speech was a virtual litany of the positions that have defined his candidacy, and there was no hint of compromise. Instead, he said, “Unity is important but what do we unify behind? No Child Left Behind? What about uniting around principle, around the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?” [sic] In fact, there were so many standing ovations during the speech one could hardly keep count. The seats in the arena seemed almost pointless. These people had come ready for battle, and Paul was their champion leading the charge. On issue after issue, the congressman hammered home his message that freedom is the answer, not government, that individual liberties were the basis of a wealthy and prosperous nation, not a welfare state that impoverishes the middle class, decimates the poor and empowers the rich. He said that his positions were often criticized as ideas that would take the country back not forward. His answer was simple. “My ideas do come from the founding fathers. Gold and silver are still legal tender according to the Constitution. But big government, now that, is a very very old idea. There are those who say government is the answer, but they are the past; we are the future.” He concluded his remarks by saying that there was only one message which would unite the Republican Party and that message was freedom. Reposting a 4um video of Ron Paul's Speech at the Texas GOP Convention (1 of 4) ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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.
These arguments grow circular and a little tiresome. People love to rant about the Constitution and the Founders, none more than Ron Paul. But what is often neglected is exactly how the Founders performed once the Constitution was ratified as they became the early congressmen and senators and served as president. Constitutionalism isn't quite so neat once you have politicians and lawyers involved. It's never neat, never pretty.
I'll keep that in mind come November. :) "I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
What you are not comparing is Romney's flip flopping term in state executive. He was for mandates and Obamacare and gun control and abortions. He's a consistent flip flopper........like Obama.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
These arguments grow circular and a little tiresome. People love to rant about the Constitution and the Founders, none more than Ron Paul. But what is often neglected is exactly how the Founders performed once the Constitution was ratified as they became the early congressmen and senators and served as president. Constitutionalism isn't quite so neat once you have politicians and lawyers involved. It's never neat, never pretty. And I never did say it was neat or pretty, but I would like to think that I have fundamental principles which I will not compromise. And though the founding fathers were less than perfect the most ingenious thing about the Constitution was that they recognized that which is why we were to be a nation of laws not of men. Neither does imperfection in man relieve us of trying to live up to and promote the ideals which are fundamental to a free society. There is no such thing as "limited free speech" or "kinda' honest elections". All of these are issues which are old territory in philosophy. The reality is that while we may not achieve absolute perfection striving for an ideal, and defending principles, which serve the greatest good is the basis of a free and just society. To throw up ones hands and say that because men, and women, are less than perfect and therefore we should accept compromise and dilution of fundamental principles is to lose before you begin. Or 'almost' free trade, subject to state approval? "I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
What's neglected more is mention of the means they provided in the Constitution for enforcement of it to arrest insurrectionists against it. Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Meh. Don't think I'm telling you to vote for the Mormo-American. He leaves a lot to be desired. He's just not Obama. At best, we can assume that Obama will attempt to destroy this country entirely through appointments to the Court since his legislative agenda stalled even with his own party (0 votes in either branch of Congress for his 2013 budget and similar results on his other legislation). Romney might destroy the country but it would be far more likely to occur in a second term as he has good cause to fear the conservative base and a challenger from the Right in 2016. Romney is worrisome in other ways, just not the kind of imminent peril that the Kenyan represents. It's like the quandary of eastern Europe during WW II: who's worse, Hitler or Stalin?
His state's legislature was 85% Kennedy liberal Dems. You think he had much choice on some of these? He says that, once he dragged the state out of deep red ink, the Dems were hellbent on state healthcare. There is considerable evidence that this was true. We do know he is duplicitous though. We have to figure out if he'll stab the libs in the back for us as president just as freely as he stabbed conservatives in the back when he was pandering to the libs of MA to run for Senate or as gov. I still say he would be truly dangerous to conservatives in a second term, not a first. JMO. My decoder ring just isn't up to the job. I still wonder if Romney even knows what he is, other than a guy who just wants to be prez.
A lovely sentiment for a man who was gifted $20 million on his 21st birthday by his gangster-father-gone-legit.
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.). 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.
Comments (94 - 107) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestwhat is that old saying? It's a governments job to pretend to fail???
#55. To: Lod (#53)
It's been said here before, but I too believe that the ultimate, big-time loser in this stupendous CF will be rand paul.
#56. To: PSUSA2 (#54)
What is their definition of "success"?
I support the occupation
Fuck it if it kills me. Liberty before death.
#57. To: TooConservative (#55)
Rand could possibly succeed with a bit of luck on a scale that Ron never dreamed of.
#58. To: TooConservative (#33)
Ron Paul emailed supporters yesterday to indicate he expected no more than 500 delegates total (obviously including some of the unreliable Santorum/Gingrich delegates).
#59. To: GreyLmist (#58)
Reporting a conservative-estimate of the number of delegates that he's expecting in Tampa to "Stand up for what we believe in" -- an estimate below the nomination threshold -- doesn't equate to suspending his campaign or all that he can possibly expect to support him there as unbound free agents.
#60. To: TooConservative, PSUSA2 (#26)
#61. To: Cynicom (#57)
Ah yes.
#62. To: titorite (#56)
(Edited)
They want us to go along with the play of hard dull work, justice preveils, shop wal mart consumer citizen tax payer.
#63. To: christine (#60)
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.
#64. To: christine (#60)
we were led to believe that he had a delegate strategy.
#65. To: TooConservative (#38)
You can choose to vote how you wish regardless of what Rand says.
#66. To: James Deffenbach (#65)
#67. To: PSUSA2 (#64)
He did it because it benefits him, not his constituents.
#68. To: TooConservative (#59)
I sometimes suspect some of you aren't actually Ron Paul supporters because the ones that I know already are aware of the differences in state parties, elections, delegates, etc. 4um has a lot of opinions about Ron Paul but they rarely exhibit the kind of knowledge I expect to see among the hardcore Ron Paul cadre.
#69. To: TooConservative (#66)
If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.
#70. To: christine (#60)
#71. To: TooConservative (#66)
If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.
#72. To: TooConservative (#63)
what is the endorsement of the junior senator of 2 years worth to Romney.
#73. To: Dakmar (#71)
If we don't fight them Over There, we're going to have to fight them here. Who are "they"? What do they want? Why are my tax dollars being squandered to bring 'them' here to fight me?
#74. To: TooConservative (#73)
(Edited)
I surrender to your awesome barrage of annoying cliches.
#75. To: GreyLmist (#72)
(Edited)
When you're talking about Romney, ...
#76. To: Dakmar (#71)
Who are "they"? What do they want?
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#77. To: tom007 (#76)
They are who I tell you they are.
#78. To: TooConservative (#67)
But the Senate is all about being an insider, amassing power and favors so you can do more (in Rand's case, less) for all the party's constituents.
#79. To: tom007 (#76)
#80. To: christine (#60)
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
FORT WORTH - The Fort Worth convention center welcomed delegates to the Texas Republican State Convention on Thursday morning June 7th with a few rousing bagpipe tunes. [sic]
#81. To: GreyLmist (#72)
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.
#82. To: Original_Intent (#78)
That is essentially, stripped down, an "ends justify the means" argument.
#83. To: TooConservative (#81)
So, contrary to the usual rants, Romney is nothing like Obama.
#84. To: TooConservative (#81)
#85. To: TooConservative (#82)
That is essentially, stripped down, an "ends justify the means" argument.
"Whenever you decide that you are willing to settle for second best that is what your wind up with in life, I find." ~ John Fitzgerald Kennedy
#86. To: Original_Intent (#85)
Neither does imperfection in man relieve us of trying to live up to and promote the ideals which are fundamental to a free society. There is no such thing as "limited free speech" or "kinda' honest elections".
#87. To: TooConservative (#75)
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.
#88. To: TooConservative (#81)
Excerpts from your post:
#89. To: TooConservative (#82)
(Edited)
People love to rant about the Constitution and the Founders, none more than Ron Paul. But what is often neglected is exactly how the Founders performed once the Constitution was ratified as they became the early congressmen and senators and served as president.
#90. To: Dakmar (#83)
I'll keep that in mind come November.
#91. To: abraxas (#84)
What you are not comparing is Romney's flip flopping term in state executive. He was for mandates and Obamacare and gun control and abortions. He's a consistent flip flopper........like Obama.
#92. To: Original_Intent (#85)
"Whenever you decide that you are willing to settle for second best that is what your wind up with in life, I find." ~ John Fitzgerald Kennedy
#93. To: GreyLmist (#87)
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.
.
.
.