Vote for President

[rpanic]

half voted for Hillary, i am suprised there were that many women looking at the post.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Hillary is so FAKE...I don't care how left wing you are, how could you possibly vote for such a phony? Isn't it obvious this b!tch will say anything to get elected? She has no principles...Her message changes daily depending on what audience she is addressing.. Paul is an honest man, and a man of principle. He doesn't seek government power...He seeks to REDUCE it. He has been preaching the same message of liberty for 30 years...no pandering, no flip flopping...no bending to pressure from his colleagues. We could really use someone like him in the White House right now.

Hillary...the woman with the fake wide-eyed expression...a plastered-on mannequin smile, and a penchant for taking more money from your paycheck and controlling the US economy...

what a disaster she will be.

Nice to see it's brought the frothy mouthed hillary haters out of the woodwork. Always nice to see a good dose of crazy.

Sure Ron Paul has stuck to his guns, he doesn't have to compromise because he knows he has zero chance of winning. Just so you know by the way... we have someone in the White House right now who doesn't flip flop or bend to pressure. How's that working out?

And why should I vote for someone who will be steadfast and resolute in getting policy enacted that I don't like? Isn't that even more of a reason to vote against him? The gold standard!? hahahaha!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Lets see.

1) Increased spending.

or

2) Cutback on spending.

#2 please! Ron wins again!

Let's see if you whistle that same ditty when every road in America is tolled. Some government spending is required for a healthy, functioning society; you act as though spending is always bad and should be completely abolished. Absurd.

I'd be fine with all toll roads if it meant the abolishment of registration, gas and vehicle taxes.

That is the sign of someone who probably hasn't thought this problem through. If all roads are toll roads, how do you handle transportation needs to far flung places? Do you subsidize them with tolls from major highways, etc? If so then we're right back to where we started with the current tax system, only we've created a massive extra level of traffic management into things through toll collection. As an alternative do we close 'unprofitable' roads or leave them in disrepair? Talk about a catastrophe for business. Now businesses have to check constantly and see if they are able to deliver goods or services to various areas, because of questionable road existence/quality. This would be a monsterous hit to productivity.

So it seems like we either invent a massive new traffic regulation scheme that largely emulates the tax system we have currently, or we let parts of America be cut off from one another due to letting roads fall into disrepair. There's a reason the postal service runs mail to the far reaches of Alaska and to the middle of Montana. It's not because they feel bad for the people who live there, it's because the country gains an incredible amount by knowing that mail will be delivered to whoever its sent to no matter where they are. Same goes for roads, we gain a huge advantage by knowing that everywhere there are people is nearly certainly accessible.

 

[Lemon law]

Less than 90 days before the primaries start. And we may finally be able to dispense with all the Ron Paul polls and get to the real thing.

And see exactly how deep Republican support for Ron Paul is. And see if it get deeper or shallower as the field thins. One thing for sure, Ron Paul is a
penny pincher and has the funds to stay in the race. Now all he needs are enough REAL votes.

 

[stuicidal]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Hillary is so FAKE...I don't care how left wing you are, how could you possibly vote for such a phony? Isn't it obvious this b!tch will say anything to get elected? She has no principles...Her message changes daily depending on what audience she is addressing.. Paul is an honest man, and a man of principle. He doesn't seek government power...He seeks to REDUCE it. He has been preaching the same message of liberty for 30 years...no pandering, no flip flopping...no bending to pressure from his colleagues. We could really use someone like him in the White House right now.

Hillary...the woman with the fake wide-eyed expression...a plastered-on mannequin smile, and a penchant for taking more money from your paycheck and controlling the US economy...

what a disaster she will be.

agreed 100%
I would rather have Rudy Guliani (dont know how to spell his name) in office instead of Ron Paul, but just as long as Republicans stay in office

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: stuicidal

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Hillary is so FAKE...I don't care how left wing you are, how could you possibly vote for such a phony? Isn't it obvious this b!tch will say anything to get elected? She has no principles...Her message changes daily depending on what audience she is addressing.. Paul is an honest man, and a man of principle. He doesn't seek government power...He seeks to REDUCE it. He has been preaching the same message of liberty for 30 years...no pandering, no flip flopping...no bending to pressure from his colleagues. We could really use someone like him in the White House right now.

Hillary...the woman with the fake wide-eyed expression...a plastered-on mannequin smile, and a penchant for taking more money from your paycheck and controlling the US economy...

what a disaster she will be.

agreed 100%
I would rather have Rudy Guliani (dont know how to spell his name) in office instead of Ron Paul, but just as long as Republicans stay in office

Get used to disappointment.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Get used to disappointment.

Is that the Clinton campaign theme for 2008? :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Get used to disappointment.

Is that the Clinton campaign theme for 2008? :laugh:

If it is, it is simply not necessary, considering we've already been through 7+ years of Bush.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Get used to disappointment.

Is that the Clinton campaign theme for 2008? :laugh:

Another snappy come back from Pabster complete with cackling smiley.

Hate to tell you Pabster, less than 365 days until the election, and long long long odds
the results will knock your socks and smiley away in a landslide.

The GOP was given a chance, and THEY BLEW IT BIG TIME.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
You post this because it's probably the closest he will get to actually running?

Why do you RP supporters continually spam the forums with this kind of trash?

A Ron Paul supporter is an active supporter; all others are passive. As much as people try to discount Ron Paul supporters, there are a LOT of them - and we want to talk about it!

The media means nothing. They try to push an agenda.. and they get nowhere. They pushed Gore on us in 2000 and they pushed Kerry on us in 2004.. Hell, they said according to polls, Kerry was gonna win by a landslide.

For the 'Paul doesn't have a chance' people... I say he does. Ron Paul supporters are active enough to vote in the primaries - and they're active enough to tell their friends what the primaries are.

So wait, media means nothing but is the media's fault that Ron Paul isn't #1 in the polls? Which is it?
If there are so many Paulistas, why does he consistently come in around the margin of error in polls? By polls, I mean ones by reputable polling companies, like Gallup.

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
I gave an explanation to the "woe is me" whining about ron paul threads. Are people so f-ing lazy that they can't scan ahead to the next line in an internet forum?

If you don't like people complaining about your spam, then go post on the Goldismoney forums so you can recreate the echochamber.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
YARPT....Where is the option for write in?

Yeah. With those choices, I'd vote for a third party or at least write in "none of the above"

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The GOP was given a chance, and THEY BLEW IT BIG TIME.

Let's keep Bill's adventures in the Oval out of the discussion :laugh:

I'm marking all these threads with predictions of liberal utopia for next November.

 

[Jeff7]

Between them, I'd probably go with Ron Paul.

 

[HeXploiT]

Funny how so many think the poll is not valid. My question is if it's not valid then why the hell did you bother voting? Did you have to discover first that Hillary cannot defeat Ron Paul before you decided this poll meant nothing? :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

The only place Hillary can't defeat Ron Paul is in magical internet message board land. You can like Ron Paul as much as you want, and I fully endorse your support of him, but to think that he could possibly take on Hillary is sad sad wishful thinking. She would demolish him... even worse then she would demolish Thompson or Giuliani.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Lets see.

1) Increased spending.

or

2) Cutback on spending.

#2 please! Ron wins again!

Let's see if you whistle that same ditty when every road in America is tolled. Some government spending is required for a healthy, functioning society; you act as though spending is always bad and should be completely abolished. Absurd.

I'd be fine with all toll roads if it meant the abolishment of registration, gas and vehicle taxes.

That is the sign of someone who probably hasn't thought this problem through. If all roads are toll roads, how do you handle transportation needs to far flung places? Do you subsidize them with tolls from major highways, etc? If so then we're right back to where we started with the current tax system, only we've created a massive extra level of traffic management into things through toll collection. As an alternative do we close 'unprofitable' roads or leave them in disrepair? Talk about a catastrophe for business. Now businesses have to check constantly and see if they are able to deliver goods or services to various areas, because of questionable road existence/quality. This would be a monsterous hit to productivity.

So it seems like we either invent a massive new traffic regulation scheme that largely emulates the tax system we have currently, or we let parts of America be cut off from one another due to letting roads fall into disrepair. There's a reason the postal service runs mail to the far reaches of Alaska and to the middle of Montana. It's not because they feel bad for the people who live there, it's because the country gains an incredible amount by knowing that mail will be delivered to whoever its sent to no matter where they are. Same goes for roads, we gain a huge advantage by knowing that everywhere there are people is nearly certainly accessible.

Far flung people could build their own roads. The free market would determine what roads would be popular, and what roads would cease to exist.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The only place Hillary can't defeat Ron Paul is in magical internet message board land. You can like Ron Paul as much as you want, and I fully endorse your support of him, but to think that he could possibly take on Hillary is sad sad wishful thinking. She would demolish him... even worse then she would demolish Thompson or Giuliani.

Actually, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that could stand a chance against Hillary. The rest of the Republicans are just a continuation of what we currently have under Bush. The only Republican that stands out is Paul. The dyed in the wool Republicans aren't going to vote for Hillary so they'd be stuck with him, and Paul could bring in a block of previously apathetic voters and even the Democrats who are disillusioned with the current congress and their complete lack of gonads.

If the Republican party truly wanted to win the White House, Ron Paul would be their best candidate. But they don't want to win the White House if it means an end to their expansionist policy and all the perks for the corporate friends and that's what Paul would do. The high ranking Republicans will gladly take Hillary over Paul, because at least with Hillary they know they have someone to count on when it comes to continuing their war mongering and nation building, rather than dismantle it as Paul would.