Thread: mitt romney

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

How about you actually refute some of my "how abouts," then?

The guy IS a lousy public speaker. Witness his stammering "explanation" of his voting record on MSNBC a few weeks ago.

The guy DOES have an anti-war position, but the GOP base is pro-war.

The guy DOES associate with racists - there's a picture of him with the founder of Stormfront, and Lew Rockwell was his ghostwriter.

The guy DOES have a name-recognition problem. Multiple polls have found this. No one will vote for a guy they never heard of.

The guy DOES have a blimp, and is the only candidate to have one. I do not know if blimps are effective campaigning (though the slogan could be "Propaganda from above!").



Yes, but fortunately we do not live in Soviet Russia. If Ron Paul fans think we do, that is simply another symptom of their continuing delusion.

I don't agree with you at all. A breed as I stated. You really have too much time on your hands.

Yeah, that's about what I expected. You can't rebut the facts presented, so instead attack the guy who presents them.

You'll just have to excuse me for actually taking the time to research the presidential candidates. I am very glad I did, rather than taking the word of Ron Paul fans about how great their guy is, and how only "Dr. Paul" can save America.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

Yeah, that's about what I expected. You can't rebut the facts presented, so instead attack the guy who presents them.

You'll just have to excuse me for actually taking the time to research the presidential candidates. I am very glad I did, rather than taking the word of Ron Paul fans about how great their guy is, and how only "Dr. Paul" can save America.

Like I stated, too much time on yer hands. I don't know how much research you are happy to have done regarding the candidates. Not enough it seems. So please do tell, who...do,you endorse? Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution. The rest.......and yours?

Ron Paul may indeed adhere to the Constitution. The point in question was about voter fraud. The fact that people are not voting per your thinking doesn't suggest that there is something nefarious going on. They may simply disagree.

I don't "endorse" anyone. I will very likely abstain.

McCain is an authoritarian.

Paul has zero chance, and I distrust him anyway.

Clinton and Obama are socialists.

Vote fraud is alive and healthy.Always has been. Like I stated in another post,
"Those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"
Josef Stalin
Being in Communist Russia makes no difference.
Not trusting Ron Paul? Well, perhaps adhering to the Constitution must be bad. It's been a while since anyone has. Scary thing for those one worlders.

Was it voter fraud when Ronald Reagan was elected too?

Ron Paul has 14 delegates to the convention, only 1150 to go. Woo Hoo. I hear he's big in American Samoa.

Romney had sense enough to drop out with only 291 delegates.

Originally Posted by TerryP

Ron Paul has 14 delegates to the convention, only 1150 to go. Woo Hoo. I hear he's big in American Samoa.

Romney had sense enough to drop out with only 291 delegates.

Yeah, Ron Paul has been eliminated on the basis of the delegate count alone. Then again, Ron Paul fans haven't wanted to do the math since the beginning. The guy has seldom even polled in the double digits, and most of the primary/caucus results have reflected that. Saying it's Stalinist voter fraud is just a way of trying to rationalize Paul's poor showing, which can be blamed more on a message that doesn't resonate with GOP primary voters and the fact that he's cozied up to racists, 9/11 Truthers and loony people who chase talk show hosts in the streets(which are the reasons I don't trust him). Generally, things involving government can be blamed on incompetence rather than malice, and I think Paul ran a pretty incompetent campaign.

Well, that and his "I voted against earmarks before I voted for them" thing.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't see how Mike Huckabee can make a comeback with the delegate count the way it is. But I suppose Huckabee and "Dr. Paul" will forge on in an attempt to make the point that Sen. McCain doesn't speak for all Republicans, which is certainly true.

Maybe Paul will run as a third party Libertarian, which is really where most of his beliefs belong, anyway. This way he can get less than 1% of the vote, which seems about right. I wonder if his remaining fans will demand a recount. Of course, in Ron Paul Fantasy Land, I'm sure the election officials in every state are secretly Stalinists conspiring to strip The Constitutional Messiah of his rightful ascension to the presidency.

Originally Posted by Fred40

Probably a stupid question to ask on a gun forum but, is gun control really the BIGGEST issue when it come to deciding the next President?

I'm probably more concerned with Iraq, Heath Care, Stem Cell Research...........OIL/Economy......etc....

I consider support for the Second Amendment a terrific "Litmus Test" after reading this essay by L. Neil Smith:

From: http://www.lneilsmith.org/

Speaking of politicians in general, he says:

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

Then I guess Mr. Smith will be abstaining or voting third party this year. I do agree that there is an overaching philosophical difference that generally makes conservatives lean against gun control and liberals lean toward it, though.

Realistically, though, most politicians (like most people) hold contradictory philosophical premises. The candidate you like on gun control may be completely off base (to you) on, say, the environment or the war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

....
Realistically, though, most politicians (like most people) hold contradictory philosophical premises. The candidate you like on gun control may be completely off base (to you) on, say, the environment or the war in Iraq.

And ain't that the rub? I mean, Where is theat perfect candidate who agrees with me on everything gall dang it. Wait. Thats me. And I am not running.

But seriously don't we all sorta wish there was that "perfect" candidate whom we agreed with 98% of the time? As has been stated here and elsewhere, we gotta go with the one closest. And that really sucks right now in my NSHO.

Originally Posted by niadhf

But seriously don't we all sorta wish there was that "perfect" candidate whom we agreed with 98% of the time? As has been stated here and elsewhere, we gotta go with the one closest. And that really sucks right now in my NSHO.

I think it was Ed Koch who basically said, "Pick twelve issues. If you agree with me on eight of them, I'm your man."

I can agree with that to a degree. In a democracy, compromise is often necessary, though to quote Jeff Cooper, "One should not be happy about shaving one's principles."

But I do think there are some things that are non-negotiable. I won't vote for a candidate who, like Sen. McCain, goes out of his way to crush the First Amendment, for example. Even if I liked his positions on many other issues, I couldn't give him my vote because of McCain-Feingold. It says way too much about his arrogance and his very casual disregard (if not outright disdain) for the Bill of Rights.