[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Now, do we really need to go there? For earmarks before he was against them, the myth about his military support drawn from very shaky evidence, open borders etc.

They were all career politicians, every single one of them. They lie, it's in their nature.

He is still for earmarks and believe the congress should earmark every spending it does. The myth is only in your side the facts are he receives donations from active military more than other candidates.

BTW running from office soon , Atheism is a religion, libertarians are the neoconservatism


....

[Snowman92D]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

Well character matters to some still.

Indeed. It matters a lot to a lot of people. That's why RP had such a hard time selling his pro-dope, pro-Arab, "Blame America First" campaign message.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

He is still for earmarks and believe the congress should earmark every spending it does. The myth is only in your side the facts are he receives donations from active military more than other candidates.

BTW running from office soon , Atheism is a religion, libertarians are the neoconservatism


....

Actually, Ron was real big on criticizing non constitutionally mandated spending, but supported nonconstitutional spending on earmarks he placed in spending bills, then voted against them knowing they would pass anyway, while claiming to be fiscally holy and pure.

Ron used a factoid about getting more money from a very small number of people that claimed to work for the military, without being able to verify that, or if they were civilian, then claimed the troops have chosen who they want as their next CINC from that insufficient data. Haven't you seen the commercial? First page of the folliwing thead.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1424012

That claim was pushed hard by his campaign.

All I'm saying, is they are all liars, every stinking one of them, Paul included.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Actually, Ron was real big on criticizing non constitutionally mandated spending, but supported nonconstitutional spending on earmarks he placed in spending bills, then voted against them knowing they would pass anyway, while claiming to be fiscally holy and pure.

Ron used a factoid about getting more money from a very small number of people that claimed to work for the military, without being able to verify that, or if they were civilian, then claimed the troops have chosen who they want as their next CINC from that insufficient data. Haven't you seen the commercial? First page of the folliwing thead.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1424012

That claim was pushed hard by his campaign.

All I'm saying, is they are all liars, every stinking one of them, Paul included.

RP has said numerous times congress should earmark all spending then vote against any they find non constitutional, blame the ones that vote yes.

Yes I saw the commercials. I agree with your viewpoint on it as much as I do you for your ideas on atheists is a religion and libertarians are the new neocon arguments you make.


....

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

RP has said numerous times congress should earmark all spending then vote against any they find non constitutional, blame the ones that vote yes.

Yes I saw the commercials. I agree with your viewpoint on it as much as I do you for your ideas on atheists is a religion and libertarians are the new neocon arguments you make.


....

Well, you can choose to ignore the truth if you want too and continue to defend your career politician as noble and pure if you want to, but enough people will see it to make the difference. In fact, looks like that has already happened. Did you see the primary results from his district?

You can lead a horse to water...

This is from a libertarian.

Overall, libertarians claim they want to find out the truth but when faced with the facts they cling to their philosophy or preconceived beliefs like a religion rather than accept reality. A mentality similar to what is seen among left wing academics. In many libertarian's minds they are never and can never be wrong no matter if the truth stares them in the face. They are in complete and utter denial not only about Ron Paul's character but also the lies and misrepresentations he spews despite evidence showing that he does.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Well, you can choose to ignore the truth if you want too and continue to defend your career politician as noble and pure if you want to, but enough people will see it to make the difference. In fact, looks like that has already happened. Did you see the primary results from his district?

You can lead a horse to water...

“If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny. Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes.” ~ Ron Paul; March 16, 2009

You may not agree with him but he is doing just as he says which is not hypocritical or lying when it comes to earmarks.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Well, you can choose to ignore the truth if you want too and continue to defend your career politician as noble and pure if you want to, but enough people will see it to make the difference. In fact, looks like that has already happened. Did you see the primary results from his district?

You can lead a horse to water...

This is from a libertarian.

I agree that there are RP supporters & libertarians (as with any group of people) who can be annoying. They can also be wrong. And they can do damage to their cause in terms of how they present/debate their positions. Some may even be confused and hold a patchwork of views, claiming merely the libertarian label without a full understanding of what it means. As with any position, the thoughtful proponent would have read volumes and volumes of the applicable philosophy, writings, and premises. The average supporter of any position has not done sufficient homework. Nor may the average supporter of any position have the bandwidth to understand the limitations of any political philosophy.

That said, however, the article you posted is a collection of opinions, mistruths, and straw men. I find it hard to believe the author was ever a "libertarian" or, if he was, if he actually understood what that philosophy entails or if he was merely, like many, a frustrated conservative. I could have constructed a better critique of Ron Paul, or of libertarianism, from a 'conservative' point of view, that the quoted author.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

“If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny. Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes.” ~ Ron Paul; March 16, 2009

You may not agree with him but he is doing just as he says which is not hypocritical or lying when it comes to earmarks.

The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters in all directions.

The guy's not pure as the wind driven snow, that's all. That's the only point I'm making. He's better than some in the integrity issues, but he has a couple that are indisputable from my perspective.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters in all directions.

The guy's not pure as the wind driven snow, that's all. That's the only point I'm making. He's better than some in the integrity issues, but he has a couple that are indisputable from my perspective.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Actually, Ron was real big on criticizing non constitutionally mandated spending, but supported nonconstitutional spending on earmarks he placed in spending bills, then voted against them knowing they would pass anyway, while claiming to be fiscally holy and pure.


All I'm saying, is they are all liars, every stinking one of them, Paul included.

No you called him a liar based on his stance on earmarks. I think his stance and actions on earmarks are right in line with that quote I posted.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

No you called him a liar based on his stance on earmarks. I think his stance and actions on earmarks are right in line with that quote I posted.

Spending money that is not constitutionally mandated and/or wasteful is where he breaks from his stated position. The tool used to do that isn't that big of a deal to me. If he takes a positive action that results in that happening, and it is foreseeable that it will happen once he takes that action, that's the problem. Putting in earmarks for special interests within his district, on things that the federal government should not be involved in, then voting against them knowing they will pass anyway, and claiming moral superiority because he voted against it is a bit dishonest, isn't it?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Spending money that is not constitutionally mandated and/or wasteful is where he breaks from his stated position. The tool used to do that isn't that big of a deal to me. If he takes a positive action that results in that happening, and it is foreseeable that it will happen once he takes that action, that's the problem. Putting in earmarks for special interests within his district, on things that the federal government should not be involved in, then voting against them knowing they will pass anyway, and claiming moral superiority because he voted against it is a bit dishonest, isn't it?

Admittedly, that makes him no worse than the rest.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Spending money that is not constitutionally mandated and/or wasteful is where he breaks from his stated position. The tool used to do that isn't that big of a deal to me. If he takes a positive action that results in that happening, and it is foreseeable that it will happen once he takes that action, that's the problem. Putting in earmarks for special interests within his district, on things that the federal government should not be involved in, then voting against them knowing they will pass anyway, and claiming moral superiority because he voted against it is a bit dishonest, isn't it?

Like I said you may not agree with his reasons but in the quote I posted he was honest and upfront about why he does it.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

Like I said you may not agree with his reasons but in the quote I posted he was honest and upfront about why he does it.

His excuse may be well worded for you, but I find it contrary to his staunch fiscal conservative reputation.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Well, you can choose to ignore the truth if you want too and continue to defend your career politician as noble and pure if you want to, but enough people will see it to make the difference. In fact, looks like that has already happened. Did you see the primary results from his district?

You can lead a horse to water...

This is from a libertarian.

essentially, we've got a threadfail.

ronulans DON'T recover.

Or we might say recovering ronulans is an oxymoron.

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

His excuse may be well worded for you, but I find it contrary to his staunch fiscal conservative reputation.

Hilarious Casablanca Clip - YouTube

Hilarious Casablanca Clip - YouTube

I'm shocked, shocked.

[kirgi08]

Kinda sorta doubt that Chute.'08.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Glock30Eric

I agree with the OP.

I hope Obama will win the 2nd term so he could shake us up. If Romney is TPOTUS and then he will send us back to our beds, while the America is decaying.

Obama is the only best shot we have at this time for 2nd term (I wish we could elect Ron Paul, but America doesn't want him at this time.) It is America's fault. If we elect Ron Paul but it might won't change anything because of the gridlock on the senator/house floor.

Obama = Romney, no question.

I gotta ask... Why do you think the same electorate who remains centrist will suddenly "wake up" after another four abysmal years of a declining economy and further degradation of the COTUS? How much pain does it take? How much more "hope and change" can we tolerate?

Another four years, and the 7 trillion added to our debt will balloon further still - perhaps beyond all possibility of ever recovering.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by eracer

Seig Heil.

... And Godwin lives...

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

It is much better to vote for someone that tells you what you want to hear or changes their position based on current polling data. Hey, I know of a guy like that, Obama....Or was that Romney.....maybe it was Obomney.

But Obama doesn't do that... He picks his polls to support his agenda.

There are worse qualities in a President than altering his thinking to match those of his constituents. This guy doesn't give a crap.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

What are you going to accomplish by voting for Romney?

That's obvious - electing someone other than Obama.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You claimed to be unbound, but coyly avoided telling me which state you are from to avoid me looking to see if you are right.

I smell a stinker.

I think that's "Internet poser" you smell...

[QNman]

Originally Posted by aspartz

Nope. Neither would one who supports 10 commandments in the public square. Neither would one who opposes Newdow...

ARS

Of course, Romney has stated he does not wish to overturn RvW, and instead chooses to educate women in their choice... Right? Sorta like those who propose to "know" Paul supports legalizing drugs, when he purports to allow states to regulate.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by QNman

I gotta ask... Why do you think the same electorate who remains centrist will suddenly "wake up" after another four abysmal years of a declining economy and further degradation of the COTUS? How much pain does it take? How much more "hope and change" can we tolerate?

Another four years, and the 7 trillion added to our debt will balloon further still - perhaps beyond all possibility of ever recovering.

Ditto. These guys that think 4 more years of a bad thing will somehow lead to an improvement are deluded. Their crystal balls are broken.

We have a very far way to go to reach bottom. And when we do, you are forgetting half the people are going to be screaming for more government spending and less liberty. Look at Greece. Are the people rioting in the streets asking for more fiscal responsibility and austerity measures? Nope. How often have you heard the democrats wishing for a more conservative president to win so they can get an uber liberal in office.

4 more years for Barry is a 50/50 proposition at the moment. I've prepared either way. None of us can fix the whole country, but we may be able to mitigate the effects on ourselves and our families.

There is no pathway to success through a process of failure. On the Ronulans side, I see a bunch of kids kicking over the monopoly board and stomping off toward home because they are losing or because they didn't get their choice of game piece.

Oh well, they will do what they want, and no post on the Internet is likely to change their chosen course of action. But I'd hate to share a foxhole with someone with that attitude.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Doesnt matter. Ill still write him in. I wont sell out to the rest and at least i can go sleep at night and say i did the right thing. My kids/grandkids will never be able to turn around and ask "why did you vote for" so and so.......

Obama will be thrilled to hear you say that.

[Gary W Trott]

What is misunderstood the most about Ron Paul supporters is that as a group it isn't about Ron Paul which they really support, it is the policies that he expouses as the proper role of government. It's all about protecting our freedom and liberty. That is why so many of them aren't going to support a candidate who's policies would work in further encroachment upon our rights and freedom. I realize that a lot of you don't understand that idealistic belief but that's the way it is. Ron Paul is just the messenger...the message is what's important.