Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Political Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   You vote for Romney because Ron Paul would never win...but... (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1446209)

Eurodriver 10-04-2012 17:53

You vote for Romney because Ron Paul would never win...but...
 
http://i46.tinypic.com/15h9qa.jpg

Gundude 10-04-2012 17:59

Its absurdity doesn't make it any less true.

countrygun 10-04-2012 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurodriver (Post 19485976)

You completely fail to account for the fact that Ron Paul was dismissed in the primary because people just didn't like some of his policies.

Not every child gets in the van with the guy that offers them candy

Fed Five Oh 10-04-2012 18:10

Ronulans are in full melt down. Weird.

Gundude 10-04-2012 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun (Post 19486017)
You completely fail to account for the fact that Ron Paul was dismissed in the primary because people just didn't like some of his policies.

Not every child gets in the van with the guy that offers them candy

That was an unfortunate title for that graphic, but the message of the graphic itself is valid. Unfair, frustrating, but all too true.

Ruble Noon 10-04-2012 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun (Post 19486017)
You completely fail to account for the fact that Ron Paul was dismissed in the primary because people just didn't like some of his policies.

Not every child gets in the van with the guy that offers them candy

Yeah, that's not quite how it went but you keep on telling lies though. :wavey:

Flying-Dutchman 10-04-2012 18:15

The “Cult of Paul”

I don’t get it.

Paul ran, he lost.

countrygun 10-04-2012 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman (Post 19486060)
The “Cult of Paul”

I don’t get it.

Paul ran, he lost.

Yah, but they are squealing all of a sudden because Barry lost the debate.

JFrame 10-04-2012 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman (Post 19486060)
The “Cult of Paul”

I don’t get it.

Paul ran, he lost.


I'm getting that way myself -- and I actually like a number of Paul supporters on this forum...


.

Gundude 10-04-2012 18:22

Since this is a new thread, let's do an experiment and keep track of who's more rabid: the Ron Paul supporters or the Ron Paul detractors.

Let's also see how many posts go by before anybody else acknowledges that the graphic really isn't about Ron Paul, something the OP apparently also missed.

JFrame 10-04-2012 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundude (Post 19486083)
Since this is a new thread, let's do an experiment and keep track of who's more rabid: the Ron Paul supporters or the Ron Paul detractors.

Let's also see how many posts go by before anybody else acknowledges that the graphic really isn't about Ron Paul, something the OP apparently also missed.


Gundude -- I appreciate the empirical analysis you're trying to accomplish at this point -- but it may be impossible to assess, because of past (and often incredibly bitter) history that has occurred for the past 6-8 months.

If there was some way to declare peace between all participants from this juncture, and start from scratch, there may be some point to the analysis. But otherwise -- I dunno.


.

Jerry 10-04-2012 18:25

Edited: I'm referring to the OP.

Actually that's pure BS. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries because I though he was the better man. Romy won! I'm now voting for Romney because I KNOW between him and The Obimination he's the BETTER MAN.

Gunnut 45/454 10-04-2012 18:29

And you Paulbots are voting for who? Garry Johnson? Cause RP isn't on any bailot!!! I see epic fail! So take your marbles home cause we don't want to play! :rofl:

Jerry 10-04-2012 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 (Post 19486113)
And you Paulbots are voting for who? Garry Johnson? Cause RP isn't on any bailot!!! I see epic fail! So take your marbles home cause we don't want to play! :rofl:

If you call me a Palbot again I'll hunt you down and open fire with my SuperSoker. :tongueout:

countrygun 10-04-2012 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon (Post 19486055)
Yeah, that's not quite how it went but you keep on telling lies though. :wavey:

Face Facts.

Paul's domestic policy was attractive BUT much like all of Obama's Fundamental Restructuring could not work without the support of a party in Congress. Paul doesn't have a party in Congress, ergo, because of the limits established for the POTUS by the Founders, he would be impotent.

His foreign policy was was his weakest point. In short most Americans viewed it as nuts, yet because of the structure of the Government, it was the part a POTUS could have the most effect on by himself.

We were therefore guaranteed that he could do the worst part, and highly doubtful that he could do the good part.

That doesn't take into account the fact that, even with the promise of legalized weed (which he actually couldn't do by himself), he couldn't draw enough votes to make a blip on the radar. If he was truly "running in the Republican primary" and his voter pull was so low, how was he going to draw enough from the Dems to get elected? If he could do that then why wasn't he running against Obama in the Dem primary?

Give it up folks. you are just embarrasing the libertarians and making it harder on those who might want to run for other important offices.

Jerry 10-04-2012 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun (Post 19486128)
Face Facts.

Paul's domestic policy was attractive BUT much like all of Obama's Fundamental Restructuring could not work without the support of a party in Congress. Paul doesn't have a party in Congress, ergo, because of the limits established for the POTUS by the Founders, he would be impotent.

His foreign policy was was his weakest point. In short most Americans viewed it as nuts, yet because of the structure of the Government, it was the part a POTUS could have the most effect on by himself.

We were therefore guaranteed that he could do the worst part, and highly doubtful that he could do the good part.

That doesn't take into account the fact that, even with the promise of legalized weed (which he actually couldn't do by himself), he couldn't draw enough votes to make a blip on the radar. If he was truly "running in the Republican primary" and his voter pull was so low, how was he going to draw enough from the Dems to get elected? If he could do that then why wasn't he running against Obama in the Dem primary?

Give it up folks. you are just embarrasing the libertarians and making it harder on those who might want to run for other important offices.

He's believes in the Constitution. Yah, he may be a little crazy (or a lot. Arguable!) but then so am I. I really would liked to have seen what happened with him as president. God knows it couldn't be any worse that what's going on right now.

countrygun 10-04-2012 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry (Post 19486150)
He's believes in the Constitution. Yah, he may be a little crazy (or a lot. Arguable!) but then so am I. I really would liked to have seen what happened with him as president. God knows it couldn't be any worse that what's going on right now.

I would like to see how a President with no one in Congress could change domestic policies. He would only have "Executive Orders" which is what Obama is abusing.

I would like to see someone like him WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT on the Hill to get things done. But I am afraid that looking to the highest office in the Federal Government to cure the problem of a Federal Government that is too big is a bit like wiping your tail on a hoop.

In a way it is either oxymoronic or ironic (depending on how it is said) to look for one person to solve the problem of a centralized Federal Government. It's kind of like hoping a new bartender can help you stop drinking.

Ruble Noon 10-04-2012 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun (Post 19486128)
Face Facts.

Paul's domestic policy was attractive BUT much like all of Obama's Fundamental Restructuring could not work without the support of a party in Congress. Paul doesn't have a party in Congress, ergo, because of the limits established for the POTUS by the Founders, he would be impotent.

His foreign policy was was his weakest point. In short most Americans viewed it as nuts, yet because of the structure of the Government, it was the part a POTUS could have the most effect on by himself.

We were therefore guaranteed that he could do the worst part, and highly doubtful that he could do the good part.

That doesn't take into account the fact that, even with the promise of legalized weed (which he actually couldn't do by himself), he couldn't draw enough votes to make a blip on the radar. If he was truly "running in the Republican primary" and his voter pull was so low, how was he going to draw enough from the Dems to get elected? If he could do that then why wasn't he running against Obama in the Dem primary?

Give it up folks. you are just embarrasing the libertarians and making it harder on those who might want to run for other important offices.


Keep wallowing in your ignorance.

countrygun 10-04-2012 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon (Post 19486248)
Keep wallowing in your ignorance.

Well I have been put in my place by your well crafted argument. Obviously, from your response, you have laid your intellectual cards on the table right there and I am defeated.

GAFinch 10-04-2012 19:20

I understand Ron Paul's policies and agree with some of them, but I just straight up don't like him.

Libertarians have been around for a long time, but in general they have a hard time screening candidates for backgrounds and/or craziness. Saw that problem a couple years ago during our gubernatorial race that a good friend of mine got involved in. Many of the normal party volunteers get fed up and return to the Republican Party. People also tend to get more socially conservative as they get older and start families.

Cavalry Doc 10-04-2012 19:21

Personally, I blame the candidate and his supporters.

The candidate was lame. The supporters were repulsive.

Both made their beds, and now will sleep in it. If you want to know why, you need a mirror, not a spotlight.

fortyofforty 10-04-2012 19:25

Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:

Cavalry Doc 10-04-2012 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by fortyofforty (Post 19486299)
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:

Sent from either dailypaul or ronpaulforums.

They are desperate to avoid the irrelevance that they have achieved.

fortyofforty 10-04-2012 19:36

Paulistas remind me a little of...

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1331687280

"Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"

Jerry 10-04-2012 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun (Post 19486182)
I would like to see how a President with no one in Congress could change domestic policies. He would only have "Executive Orders" which is what Obama is abusing.

I would like to see someone like him WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT on the Hill to get things done. But I am afraid that looking to the highest office in the Federal Government to cure the problem of a Federal Government that is too big is a bit like wiping your tail on a hoop.

In a way it is either oxymoronic or ironic (depending on how it is said) to look for one person to solve the problem of a centralized Federal Government. It's kind of like hoping a new bartender can help you stop drinking.

No argument! But I still would like to have seen the outcome.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:51.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.