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

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
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....

I second that! It should be blatantly obvious to all that when you are forced to decide between two people chosen by the system, it is rigged! I would much rather chose one who is a regular guy tired of being a debt slave!

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
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....

I'm British, but my wife is American. She's highly intelligent and extremely liberal - and she'll never vote for Paul. She's voting for Obama.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Choosing the lesser of two evils is no choice. I will vote my conscience from now on. I have to live with myself and my choices. I have to look myself in the mirror everyday. I will not sell myself out.

Modern day republicans and democrats have severely distorted the meaning of 'conservative' and 'liberal'...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

A government "by the people and for the people" implies socialism and I am not talking about any "peoples republic" either.

That statement, sir, is a BOLD FACED LIE! You should go back and read Thomas Paine, 'The Rights of Man'.

The people need to own the means of production such as central banking, electricity, oil and gas, shipping, telephone service, parks, stadiums, libraries, etc.

That idea, sir, should be taken back to the communists where it belongs.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
She's highly intelligent and extremely liberal - and she'll never vote for Paul. She's voting for Obama.

Sorry, but that entire statement is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
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....

I'm British, but my wife is American. She's highly intelligent and extremely liberal - and she'll never vote for Paul. She's voting for Obama.

.......having an "extreme" view on almost anything, especially politics and religion, precludes that person from being considered highly intelligent.........

Originally posted by pistolerooo

The other thing to think about is who will you vote for? Are you going to "write in" Ron Paul? and lose a chance to vote against Obama.

Voting for anyone other than Obama, in any way - whether write-in or not - is a vote against Obama. Folks don't necessarily have to vote for YOUR guy to be voting against Obama. They won't be losing their chance to vote against Obama... they will be EXERCISING that right.

Soon it will be so bad for Romney he will quit, Thats why Santorum quit, besides he was in debt, he knew his deklegates wouldnt stick to him. I jut wonder what those santorum lovin hicks that tried to cheat that one caucus in particular are going to do now....Redeem theirselves and vote Paul ?

To All Obama/Romney shills,

There is still time to leave the Dark Side. I sense there is good in you. It's not too late for you. Join us and fight for true liberty. Together we can defeat the evil empire ....

Victories in all state conventions that took place this weekend.

21 of 21 available delegates in Maine

22 of 25 available delegates in Nevada


DESPITE the fraud presented in the OP and throughout this thread.



Now, watch Romney panic and Ron Paul get some interesting headlines this week, mainly by alternative media sources.

reply to post by DelMarvel


It might help you understand my post if you look at the context in which it was supplied. I was responding to a supposed Paul supporter who was saying something about how great "Democracy" was.

Context. Check it out.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

The democrats FEAR Ron Paul MUCH MORE than the republicans. Take my word for it! The democrats are almost as sleazy as the republicans and Ron Paul is very charismatic with everyone. Again he is not "a real conservative" but rather a libertarian!

Libertarians span the same spectrum as Authoritarians - from the far "liberal" to the far"conservative". They just value liberty over authority.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by TheDude2
it just doesn't make sense to me, from an outsiders view.. seems the majority want him.. but he wont win?

The majority DON'T want him. He's consistently only getting around 10% of the vote in the Republican primaries.

Originally posted by TheDude2
isn't that the idea of of this voting system, to have a say about who runs the country?

In case you haven't been following all the thread the argument now is that since the U.S. is a republic, that justifies a group of people taking over the government without popular support.

1) The Republican Party is NOT "the government". A takeover of the Republicans is not the same as a takeover of the government. Hell, the Neocons did it without a squawk, throwing a liberal majority in government to a nation that doesn't have a popular liberal majority.

2) You are assuming that Neocon Republicans have the only votes that count. This is not the case in America. There will be other parties in the running as well. Their votes will count, too, as will the votes of conservatives - whether Republican or not. If Paul draws enough of the disenchanted, disenfranchised voters in America, the Neocons will be a historical footnote, with a seat beside their Progressive brethren in the basement.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by eLPresidente

You guys are witnessing history, Ron Paul is going to be the GOP nominee while the MSM and Mitt Romney are going to get embarrassed.

Damned shame.

I might have voted for him had he divorced himself from the Republican Party instead of trying to court it.

I guess we'll see. I'm positive that Romney has a lock on the corrupt process, supported by his corrupt masters, and if Paul runs at all, it will have to be as an Independent or for a third party.

Ron Paul has taken the party over from the inside. What about that do you fail to understand?

There is a difference between "understand" and "believe". I "understand" you "believe" that to be the case, but until the Liberal Neocons, AKA "RINOs", are purged, he hasn't taken anything over at all he's only floating on a cesspool.

Originally posted by Another10Pin
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

The people need to own the means of production such as central banking, electricity, oil and gas, shipping, telephone service, parks, stadiums, libraries, etc.

That idea, sir, should be taken back to the communists where it belongs.

Agreed. I don't like the idea of "the people" owning and monopolizing MY means of production any more than I like the idea of some other corporation owning them.

No sense in trading one set of masters for another.

reply to post by nenothtu


If your taking people who self-identify with the label "Libertarian" then you're correct, but in actual fact the US Libertarian Party platform is a very specific thing that few "liberals" would be able to stomach. Of course European Libertarianism is ideologically the opposite of US Libertarianism, so.. That could be confusing you.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


No, I'm going by the political tests that place one on a grid based upon his preferences. "Libertarian" is the polar opposite of "Authoritarian", and runs the spread from "Liberal" to "Conservative" on the lateral axis.

"Liberal" and "Libertarian" are not the same, although they can be related. One can be VERY liberal reapportioning other people's stuff, and at the same time be very authoritarian in taking it from them to redistribute, One can be VERY liberal reapportioning his own stuff, and at the same time be very Libertarian in maintaining other people's rights to do as they will with their own.

In like manner, "Authoritarian" runs the spread from Liberal to Conservative. One can be a right wing Authoritarian, or a left-wing authoritarian, just as one can be a left wing Libertarian or a right wing Libertarian.

" Liberal" and "Conservative" are outlooks on approaches to life and relations with others, and "Libertarian" and "Authoritarian" are a philosophy on who should make those decisions for you.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeah, but considering there's two completely opposing definitions of Libertarian it's not as easy as looking at an infographic and drawing broad conclusions.

Put another way, European Libertarians would have nothing to do with the US libertarian party.

So...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The level of corruption in american politics, and of course in the election process itself, is almost mind boggling.

People have to sacrifice their core beliefs and run with the two major parties to have any real chance of election.

Only campaigns with the most financial endorsements get the appropriate media coverage. I see NO ONE making a big deal about this and that leaves me dumbfounded.

I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul. Firstly he seems to be a libertarian on a republican ticket, and not some "real conservative" as I hear so many people mistakeingly claim. Libertarians are known to be financial conservatives but liberal with most social issues.

Secondely it seems apparent we have lots of fraud by the Romney campaign. I may disagree with many Ron Paul ideas but NEVER will I endorse cheating to win an election. George Bush Jr STOLE the elections from John Kerry back in 2000 so I guess the republicans are NOTORIOUS for cheating to get a status-quo PUPPET into office.

I think Ron Paul should ride the republican train now that he is on it and if he hits a brick wall, then get off the train and run as an independent. It would have been much more honest of him to run as a libertarian from the beginning!

RP is going all the way to the republican convention as a republican. Third party candidates never win nomination. This is because they go “start to finish” as a third party candidate. If he goes all the way to the convention and loses to Romney as a republican candidate, he will than sign on as a third party candidate. RP and all his supporters are not going to roll over and vote for Romney if he wins. Not only will the Republican Party lose a boat load of their base to RP, but RP will also gain the independent voters and most of the Obama voters who will not vote for a republican, but would be will willing to vote for someone else. Most of my liberal friends have told me that they would vote for RP, just as long as he doesn’t stay on as a republican.

If RP was smart, he would let Romney win and then sign on as a third party candidate. Am I the only one who sees the logic in this?