I didn't say that I picked Romney simply because I thought he was inevitable, but because I actually thought he was the best bet, even though I believe its already decided. On the Dark horse thing, I might have said "never," but I also led into it with "usually" and that left me plenty of wiggle room. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you 10 bucks, (not 10,000), that Romney is the last man standing.

It left you none...No Vaseline allowed. You used "are usually" in regards to the predictability of primaries and "never occur" in regards to dark horse candidates. You cannot conveniently decide to move your adverbs because the verb they are attached to is quite obvious. Maybe you should go back to school and learn English.

I would probably bet on Romney as well but not because "he is the next in line". I look at the money sources behind the campaigns and PACS,

 

I'll cut you a deal. I'll go back to learn English if you go back to learn manners.

Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon and as such should be disqualified (on stupidity alone). I will grant the Christians at least have an imponderable tale to tell. Mormonism is as phony as a three dollar bill and there is nothing there to argue about as we have their complete history. He argues to this day that his Mormon Faith is strong in him … humm, room for pause … or not? This guy lost to John McCain too ... what’s up with that vote of confidence? Last man standing … I wouldn’t take a firm stand yet.

Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

Well, whatever we are going to do it had better be pretty soon … this clip shows why we need someone like Ron Paul now … at this crucial crossroad. I know there are issues with him … but his honesty and Constitutional stand is sorely needed.

Its all phony to me. Another "prophet" has a vision. Doesn't matter to me whether its a burning bush or an angel. Simply the same story regurgitated for a different audience.

He's no different than Gingrich.Both want to take your tax dollars and give them to Wall st. and big business. What is funny is he openly (and through Bain Capital) lobbied against a republican conservative backed tax reform bill that would have closed some of the loopholes he personally takes advantage of. And we all know about Gingrich and Freddie Mac. They are political clones whose only differences are how they present their hypocrisy to the public and whether they actually live by the "family values" they espouse or not.

 

The clip is a bit extreme but does put across the point. The problem with Paul is the establishment won't let him win and even if he did he would have extreme opposition from both sides of the aisle. He could wind down the war in Afghanistan....but that is already what is happening. He is very good at pointing out the problems but his solutions are not good at all. My guess is that he could possibly put us over the cliff even faster.

Never looked at it that way ... humm ... but I think we are already on the precious and I think it is going to take something quite drastic and damaging to change the direction we are headed in … and I see nothing approaching another viable solution in the republican field. What better person to throw (vote, sorry) into the middle of this mess. If there is anything politically appealing to me any more … it is electing someone (just about anyone semi-qualified) both parties despise that the people actually like. But as things stand, most people seem to bet on the most money … the root of all evil, hahaha. Our choices are quite limited as usual so ... Ron Paul is where I have to offer support based on truth speak and honest convictions. When he is gone, I will then again have to decide the least of the evils ... what a lot in life. I envision the look on the face of the king when he presents his ring for President Paul to kiss, hahaha.

No disagreement there, but "drastic and damaging" seems to be on the horizon no matter the direction. Depends on ones own point of view and own circumstances I suppose.

Neither do I. I don't consider Ron Paul providing viable solutions either though.

I don't blame anyone for seeing things that way. The establishment needs a huge wake up call.

That's simply diplomatic protocol to me. Ron Paul believes in diplomacy over military engagement so maybe what you envision is not what would actually happen? I might think otherwise when the global economy finds a way to replace the 10 mil bbls/day of black gold that is hiding behind such pragmatic kisses.

 

You know I used to laugh at Ron Paul, but these days I generally respect him, although I do still think he is totally divorced from reality on the threat of Islamic fascism and Islamic nukes. One thing about Paul though, he says what he means and doesn't focus group it or poll it to find out if its popular. That's integrity and conviction and I respect that. Paul is a truer conservative and much better man than Newt Gingrich, but his followers treat him like a cult leader, and that gives me great pause and the creeps. Paul really needs to stop saying crazy things out there, like "the US shouldn't have fought WWII." Paul would be a tough vote for those reasons. I'm not sure if I could do it, but I wouldn't rule it out in a general election against Obama. I would rule out Gingrich. I would never vote for him.

Ridiculous statement. That implies that his followers are doing so blindly and without good reason. I strongly disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's "solutions", however it is obvious to me why many people support him.

Not quite what he said. He was asked hypothetical questions which did not mirror the circumstances of what actually occurred. Best I can make of much of the speculation regarding that issue: his views tend to follow along the lines of wouldn't go to war for strictly humanitarian reasons and that the situation would have to present a threat to the US and it would always necessitate congressional approval. Most of this controversy revolves around his position on Israel. Once he mentioned "examining" and potentially cutting the amount of foreign aid we commit to Israel he stepped on a hornet's net. Best to look at video's of Ron Paul's actual words about this issue because there are a lot of opposing forces who will paint this one any way they wish since this involves a very large sum of taxpayer dollars.

 

I agree, Paul has some peculiarities but who doesn't, huh. I understand your concern over his WWII comments but if you take the time to look at what he says about it you might change your mind. I remember a big argument I had over the Korean conflict. I wasn't real pissed at first ... except he used one of my old time favorite classic SF movies in a disparaging way (The original, The Day the Earth Stood Still). So my mood was tainted. My Father had fought in Korea and I took this guy’s insults personally … instead of logically. Well, we eventually went our own ways vowing to never speak to each other, hahaha just like children. Later, I started going over things more specifically and decided we just never had a meeting of the minds and were always behind or ahead in the conversation with each other.  

When it comes to the general … I am going to be forced to accept the republican candidate, suck it up and grimace my way through the polls again. Obama needs to go…

I don't think there's any misunderstanding, when Paul says weird stuff he usually means it. Then there's some other disturbing stuff like his newsletters and his acceptance and refusal to return 500 bucks donated to him by the racist website Stormfront. He claimed it would be "pandering" to return the money while most people contend it would simply have been the right thing. Something like that is enough to injure a candidate fatally especially when a guy like Obama and his billion dollar Chicago propaganda machine get their hands on it. The best bet is likely the squeaky clean Mormon with no skeletons falling out of his closet. Obama has nothing positive to run on as he has failed on almost every level so we can expect the most scorched earth , swiftboat campaign imaginable. Bush's swiftboating of Kerry cost just a fraction of what the Democrats are amassing for Obama, one can only imagine what type of ugliness, real or imagined they can purchase with it.

That is one thing I do question. I have not seen him answer to that one in a way that is acceptable to me. That kind of thing is very similar to some of the things Gingrich does. They are both examples of provocative politics and it is hard to discern whether that is all it is. I have never liked that kind of thing.

Squeaky clean? Are you sure? What about lying? Or do you think he changes his positions overnight because he has revelations every time he sleeps? Do you vote on appearance only? How about tax policy? His tax rate is already lower than mine and his tax plan raises mine and lowers his. I pay less on the income I make sitting on my ass than I do on the income I actually work for. And trust me the money I make sitting on my ass is not creating many if any jobs in this country.

Too polished for me. He has no concept who the average Joe is or what they deal with in life.

No imagination necessary. They will go after Bain. It's about time the public learns how venture capital and tax shelters actually work. Then there is the flip flopping of course.

 

 

I guess we just see different things as important. To pick out a questionable donation (one) doesn't even begin to make some pattern. And newsletters do not make policy or establish they have his approval. (But they are on my mind too). I am of course thinking along other important aspects like this:

… not within their purview …hahaha???

Well its not. That's only within the purview of the administration  lawyers who craft their legal opinions around the outcome they desire.