Mitt Romney desperate and in panic, spends a million dollars to stop Ron Paul *tricks inside*

page: 11
259
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pistolerooo
Why Ron Paul supporters are just inventive, not Democrats in disquise. Just pick up the on how they picked up the Delegates at www.pressherald.com... You should be impressed, tricks right outta the Obama's Community Organizer playbook. Just what we need, Paul supporters using loopholes to try and get their man a podium at the Republican Convention, not that he will win, just a chance to speak at the convention....Check out the website.


How the hell could they be democrats in disguise? Do you enjoy spreading misinformation or what?


Libertarians feel closer to the republican party just like socialists feel closer to the democrat side. It is what it is!

When america can ONLY CHOOSE between the lesser of two evils, then obviously that is what WILL HAPPEN.




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

The Paul revolution comes to Nevada



Las Vegas Sun



The RNC, represented at the Nugget and watching the Paul folks dominate similar conventions across the country, would prefer an uneventful (read: choreographed) national convention where Paul delegates don’t boo Mitt Romney as he accepts the nomination or start a resolution revolution from the floor. Similarly, they were hoping for a relatively sedate Nevada Republican Party event this weekend, with the Paul folks leaving happy and the Romney contingent fairly represented on the national delegate slate (3 of 25!).

Instead what transpired Saturday was a microcosm of the war for the soul of the Republican Party, with orange-capped Romney captains patrolling the convention floor, motivated by a desire to keep the sheep in line, while more colorfully dressed Paul delegates destabilized the convention, animated by either a love of liberty or a love of black helicopters (hard to tell percentages.).

There is a certain sameness to all of these political conventions, Republican or Democratic: Inane floor fights over minutiae, impassioned delegates who arise and act as if they are the Robert in the Rules of Order, goofy resolutions to do something to someone.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

The democrats FEAR Ron Paul MUCH MORE than the republicans. Take my word for it!


If by some miracle Paul were to win the nomination I'm sure the Dems would be delighted. He didn't have the support of the Republican primary voters, he will be lucky to have the grudging support of the republican establishment, he will be opposed by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, the international monetary system. Obama will be able to run to the right of him on a number of issues. He will be severely handicapped in fund raising compared to Obama. And he's an honest man and consequently a loose cannon which will damage his ability to run a national political campaign. He also has negative baggage, as well as baggage that can be construed as negative that hasn't been vetted yet on a national stage.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

The democrats FEAR Ron Paul MUCH MORE than the republicans. Take my word for it!


If by some miracle Paul were to win the nomination I'm sure the Dems would be delighted. He didn't have the support of the Republican primary voters, he will be lucky to have the grudging support of the republican establishment, he will be opposed by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, the international monetary system. Obama will be able to run to the right of him on a number of issues. He will be severely handicapped in fund raising compared to Obama. And he's an honest man and consequently a loose cannon which will damage his ability to run a national political campaign. He also has negative baggage, as well as baggage that can be construed as negative that hasn't been vetted yet on a national stage.


Paul does not need the support of any you mention! Paul has the support of the MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! What ever label you use matters not! For once in many, many years the populace has a voice!
edit on 6-5-2012 by ajay59 because: to amend



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59

Paul does not need the support of any you mention! Paul has the support of the MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!


Then why isn't he winning the popular vote in the primaries?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

The democrats FEAR Ron Paul MUCH MORE than the republicans. Take my word for it!


If by some miracle Paul were to win the nomination I'm sure the Dems would be delighted. He didn't have the support of the Republican primary voters, he will be lucky to have the grudging support of the republican establishment, he will be opposed by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, the international monetary system. Obama will be able to run to the right of him on a number of issues. He will be severely handicapped in fund raising compared to Obama. And he's an honest man and consequently a loose cannon which will damage his ability to run a national political campaign. He also has negative baggage, as well as baggage that can be construed as negative that hasn't been vetted yet on a national stage.


Wrong. Center-left and Center-right appear to be enemies but they always get together to screw the smaller parties if and when it becomes necessary. The common denominator in all of this is centerism aka corporate-capitalism the masonic way.

The people are getting the picture and starting to turn away from centrism! Plus Ron Paul is very charismatic because he believes strongely in what he says. Obama was the lesser of two evils when it came to the last election but he will NOT be the lesser of two evils in this election if and when Ron Paul gets the republican nomination.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ajay59

Paul does not need the support of any you mention! Paul has the support of the MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!


Then why isn't he winning the popular vote in the primaries?


Oh he is. You know it as well as I and everyone else for that matter! You can keep perpetuating the MSM lies but the truth is coming out by the minute!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I think Ron Paul adds some important elements to the political discourse, forcing all the candidates to at least superficially address subjects that would typically and conveniently be swept aside. By having Ron Paul continue in the race, all the candidates have to up the ante and give some kind of lip service to these issues.

I donated a couple hundred bucks to Ron Paul for this presidential campaign because he helps make all the other candidates get to the deeper stuff than standard mudslinging, but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country. It's just too much too fast. Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully. Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ajay59

Paul does not need the support of any you mention! Paul has the support of the MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!


Then why isn't he winning the popular vote in the primaries?


Oh he is. You know it as well as I and everyone else for that matter! You can keep perpetuating the MSM lies but the truth is coming out by the minute!


Erm, I thought that Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ajay59

Paul does not need the support of any you mention! Paul has the support of the MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!


Then why isn't he winning the popular vote in the primaries?


Oh he is. You know it as well as I and everyone else for that matter! You can keep perpetuating the MSM lies but the truth is coming out by the minute!


Erm, I thought that Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee?


You just keep thinking that. You are not alone, many have been dooped! The truth is coming out way to fast to be controlled now. I suggest not watching MSM and look for the real truth.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by twoandthree
I think Ron Paul adds some important elements to the political discourse, forcing all the candidates to at least superficially address subjects that would typically and conveniently be swept aside. By having Ron Paul continue in the race, all the candidates have to up the ante and give some kind of lip service to these issues.

I donated a couple hundred bucks to Ron Paul for this presidential campaign because he helps make all the other candidates get to the deeper stuff than standard mudslinging, but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country. It's just too much too fast. Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully. Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy.


Where in the constitution does it say you cannot discuss masonry, ufos, underground alien bases, socialism, communism, anarchy, nazism, holding companies like monsato/bp/tepco liable for damages, wanting to punish 9-11 criminals, discussing everything openly and fairly without the defacto national security BS stamp attached?

I think Ron Paul is tooooo mild and that speaks volumes of how corrupt american and global politics are! We are light years behind in political discourse!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by twoandthree
I think Ron Paul adds some important elements to the political discourse, forcing all the candidates to at least superficially address subjects that would typically and conveniently be swept aside. By having Ron Paul continue in the race, all the candidates have to up the ante and give some kind of lip service to these issues.

I donated a couple hundred bucks to Ron Paul for this presidential campaign because he helps make all the other candidates get to the deeper stuff than standard mudslinging, but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country. It's just too much too fast. Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully. Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy.


A government "by the people and for the people" implies socialism and I am not talking about any "peoples republic" either. The people need to own the means of production such as central banking, electricity, oil and gas, shipping, telephone service, parks, stadiums, libraries, etc.

Not all of them centrally owned. Some should be local or state owned.





As far as I am concerned Ron Paul is controlled opposition. When thousands of people lost their life fighting against socialism/communism then just saying those two words sends a cold shiver down many collective spines.

Centerism, especially of the right kind, has been unbelievably effective in america and to a lesser extent on europe as well. At least in the UK they don't throw those folks in prison nor harrass them as much as they do in the states.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Its sad so many people do not know what a Constitutional Republic is and also that the founding fathers by and large loathed the idea of a democracy. Hence, the story of a lady asking Benjamin Franklin what kind of country was created, to which Franklin replied: “A Republic Ma’am… if you can keep it.”



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
Its sad so many people do not know what a Constitutional Republic is and also that the founding fathers by and large loathed the idea of a democracy. Hence, the story of a lady asking Benjamin Franklin what kind of country was created, to which Franklin replied: “A Republic Ma’am… if you can keep it.”


The only republicanism i see is the ultra-wealthy choking everyone else.

If we had a democracy all the leetches would have been cast to jupiter by now.

It is the reason for the occupy movement and why it was stronger than the tea party. It is also the reason why the media spends ten times more energy demonising socialism then the Ron Paul campaign and the tea party.

Every country on earth has a republican form of government, and every country on earth is doomed. Even the communist nations had a republican form of government. The few controlling the many! I don't buy republicanism one bit. If you don't like it then YOU LEAVE...that is the way it should be. Racism is bound to explode in every multicultural nation regardless if we have republicanism or democracy, so that is a lame excuse.

Decisions are made almost exclusively on majority vote. I see no reason why with politics it should be any different. In any case, most people are so brainwashed, that what I say either means nothing to them or they get that instant knee-jerk reaction.......you are wrong!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


(If by 90 you actually meant zero, then now we're talking. You obviously don't know anything about Dr Paul.
edit on 6-5-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pistolerooo
 


AWWW, wrong again, no they are not, period.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by twoandthree
I think Ron Paul adds some important elements to the political discourse, forcing all the candidates to at least superficially address subjects that would typically and conveniently be swept aside. By having Ron Paul continue in the race, all the candidates have to up the ante and give some kind of lip service to these issues.

I donated a couple hundred bucks to Ron Paul for this presidential campaign because he helps make all the other candidates get to the deeper stuff than standard mudslinging, but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country. It's just too much too fast. Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully. Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy.


Excellent post.

"but I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he wants to make massive overhauls or reforms to the country.

It's just too much too fast.

Healthy, ongoing changes are most often successful when implemented gradually and carefully.

Ron just puts too much at hazard, almost as much as having a communist president whose inner circle aim is to bring down the system within a very Saul Alinsky strategy."
edit on 6-5-2012 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 


The status quo carries way too much moral hazard. Paul's changes would be a welcome addition. There are a few things I don't fully agree with him on, but I agree with his principals and thought process that led him to those conclusions.

If the government funded by the bankers continues playing the game their way, there won't be a U.S. of A left.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 


Ron Paul doesn't really want to end every immediately. He has stated a few times in interviews that he would rather that the various things he wants to be gone be dismantled over time. For example, he wants Social Security to be optional. He theorizes that, over a period of time, after the various old persons who have already payed into Social security most of their lives are no longer alive that, naturally, there won't be anyone using social security anymore, allowing it to simply be repealed, as it no longer has a point.

He has a similar approach with the Federal Reserve, to simply allow different currencies to be used as legal tender, giving the Fed competition. Eventually the paper Federal Reserve Note (the dollar), with its awful inflation, will be either the least used currency, or it won't be used at all (this also plays into his gold standard policy), at which point there'd no longer be any real negative consequences of ending the Fed and its currency.

The only thing that he would do that would be really "fast" would be to bring all of the soldiers around the globe back home immediately, and to cut one trillion dollars from the budget during his first year in office.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Liberals that have "seen" the light will NEVER vote for Obama again....so let's get past that "dumb ass" theory, and reject this silly notion that we have to pick the "lesser" of 2 wrongs, lol, 2 wrongs don't make a right....



top topics
 
259
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join