Conquer Club

Now....or never. Now, Ron Paul is claiming second place in delegates.

Unfortunately, never.

Boom, indeed.

Woodruff wrote:Unfortunately, never.

Boom, indeed.

True zombie fashion...

What makes you post that? Do you dislike his ideas? Or do you take pleasure in repeating "he can't win" or "he won't win" as if that means anything about his ideas? All that is doing is re-enforcing negativity, just wondering why...

a stone becomes a spark, a spark becomes a flame, a flame becomes a fire

Never say never. The movement and ideas have been steady growing for a while to the point where Ron Paul is finishing a close second in some states and even possibly winning some.

It's not all about winning. It's about being heard, and changing the Republican Party. If you love the Republican Party as is, by all means, post your negative comments and hurt him.

I would really like to see him win, but I just don't see it happening.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Unfortunately, never.
Boom, indeed.

True zombie fashion...

What does that even mean, you moron?

Phatscotty wrote:What makes you post that? Do you dislike his ideas?

I guess you're so busy ignoring threads and posting random, irrelevant videos and pictures that you haven't bothered to pay any attention to this forum. You should work on that, asshat.

Phatscotty wrote:Or do you take pleasure in repeating "he can't win" or "he won't win" as if that means anything about his ideas? All that is doing is re-enforcing negativity, just wondering why...

I am able to recognize the reality of the situation. The Republican Party has made it exceptionally clear that Ron Paul will NOT earn the nomination.

Phatscotty wrote:a stone becomes a spark, a spark becomes a flame, a flame becomes a fire

You do realize that Ron Paul has run for President before, right? Where was that spark?

Phatscotty wrote:The movement and ideas have been steady growing for a while to the point where Ron Paul is finishing a close second in some states and even possibly winning some.

Which won't win a nomination.

Phatscotty wrote:It's not all about winning. It's about being heard, and changing the Republican Party. If you love the Republican Party as is, by all means, post your negative comments and hurt him.

It's cute that you believe my "negative comments" (what negative comments, you idjit?) will have any impact at all on Ron Paul's candidacy or the Republican Party. Hell, the Republican Party doesn't even listen to their own members, so why would my statements affect anything?

I'm not going to argue with you because you will see it my way eventually. I know this because I'm right and you're smart.

So just give up...right? Great advice. We have a plan, and we are seeing it through all the way to the end. We will be heard. We will bring change to your precious Republicans. This, after all, is what Democracy looks like.

Ron Paul's support has over doubled since 2008. It's growing, not shrinking. Far beyond a spark. His son has been elected Senator, but that's not even evidence of a spark to someone smart and not a moron like you. If you look even a little bit harder, you might have seen a landslide in 2010 not equaled since 1938. Almost a spark? We've had this conversation before, and it's clear you are in denial. So be it

Saying Ron Paul can't win or won't win is actually the most effective tool against him. Even people who generally agree with him, in ways they would never agree with any other major candidate, for some reason, feel the need to step out and make a statement to say publicly that he cannot win. I don't get it, it's like a zombie move to try to sound smart, taking pride in knowing who will not win...I've heard it and seen it enough times to know that if every person who repeated that bullshit "I like him, but I like bullshit better" actually voted for him one time, he would be on the way to the nomination.

I know, PHATS, I know, realists suck man. I mean for gawd sake, Woody, why've you got to be such a partypooper? You know Scotty isn't fond of reality.

Phatscotty wrote:Now....or never

It's a great video, regardless.

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he is a million miles to the right of where I would be politically but at least he isn't a sack of shit like most republicans/politicians.

I particularly like his ideas of decentralised government and anti-interventionism.

I've only followed the republican nomination lightly and from the surface of it I'd have to say I want Ron Paul to win. At least he wants the troops out of the middle east unlike Gingrich and Romney.

Dukasaur wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Now....or never

It's a great video, regardless.

Ron Paul has been spot on about everything that has happened in the last 10 years and actually impacts our lives. Too bad some people are more concerned with something that someone wrote 30 years ago, or focused like a laser beam on a single social issue, or obsessed with taking pride in blathering on about who cannot win.

The possibility of winning is not a prerequisite to support that which represents you best.

Republican nonsense is republican nonsense.
Good day, sir.

Maugena wrote:Republican nonsense is republican nonsense.
Good day, sir.

and balls on accurate is balls on accurate.

Good day indeed

Phatscotty wrote: It's not all about winning.

Oddly enough, the GOP makes it sound like that's all it is about. I'm tired of hearing the phrase "I can beat Obama in November" and would like to hear some honest answers about the issues. I do not want repeated phrases spoken by potential nominees that they think voters want to hear. I do not want evidence of who is more conservative than who. All politicians actions are conservative in the White House, there is no other choice when you are President.

Phatscotty wrote:If you love the Republican Party as is...

I do not like the Republican Party platform as it has been. Fear mongering and initiating a war on false pretenses that destroys absurd amounts of infrastructure while killing tens of thousands of civilians on foreign soil pisses me off. Astronomical financial gains by private contractors and business associates of Bush/Cheney Corp by going to war pisses me off. Deregulation of environmental protections to elevate corporate earnings and deregulation of Wall Street, investment banking and all the hedge funds and other BS connected to it until it requires an $800 billion bailout (and more) to rescue them while those CEOs and executives still received million dollar bonuses for their greed induced implosion pisses me off. Seeing this nation get buttfucked by the Republican elite for the first eight years of this century pisses me off. My mom was a dyed in blue Republican all her life, they could do no wrong. Even when Nixon was overcome by his own paranoia and screwed up big time --she said-- no biggie... everyone in politics does it.

I don't lump Ron Paul into the same bundle as the rest of the blue bitches cat fighting through this marathon of debates, but I'm also not sure he can impliment any improvements to the status quo. Tell me five ideas that Ron Paul would like to initiate that make him worth considering as president.

Phatscotty wrote:So just give up...right? Great advice. We have a plan, and we are seeing it through all the way to the end. We will be heard. We will bring change to your precious Republicans. This, after all, is what Democracy looks like.

Ron Paul's support has over doubled since 2008. It's growing, not shrinking. Far beyond a spark. His son has been elected Senator, but that's not even evidence of a spark to someone smart and not a moron like you. If you look even a little bit harder, you might have seen a landslide in 2010 not equaled since 1938. Almost a spark? We've had this conversation before, and it's clear you are in denial. So be it

Saying Ron Paul can't win or won't win is actually the most effective tool against him. Even people who generally agree with him, in ways they would never agree with any other major candidate, for some reason, feel the need to step out and make a statement to say publicly that he cannot win. I don't get it, it's like a zombie move to try to sound smart, taking pride in knowing who will not win...I've heard it and seen it enough times to know that if every person who repeated that bullshit "I like him, but I like bullshit better" actually voted for him one time, he would be on the way to the nomination.

Dont take it personally man. Its just that he cant win.

http://ronpaulfilm.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22
If you really want any info about Ron Paul, i would suggest watching this video. I can guarantee that this will change your thoughts on him if you are having any doubts.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win." - Gandhi

Phatscotty wrote:a stone becomes a spark, a spark becomes a flame, a flame becomes a fire
It's not all about winning. It's about being heard, and changing the Republican Party.

When you think about it, it really is about winning. Republican's don't want to change the party any more than any elected law maker in Washington D.C. wants campaign reform.

If this country truly wanted a legitimate change Ralph Nader would have been elected,
but this is a faux two party democracy to run one government. Ron Paul is fine as
a Senator from Texas, but doesn't fit the mold to be the president.

oVo wrote:Tell me five ideas that Ron Paul would like to initiate that make him worth considering as president.

Here are five ideas, in no particular order, that Ron Paul has that differentiate him from any Republican candidate and President Obama:

(1) Scale back federal spending to 2000 levels, which includes financing government operations by excise taxes and eliminating most federal agencies.
(2) Eliminate the Federal Reserve.
(3) Nonintervention foreign policy.
(4) Withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO.
(5) Opposes and would repeal the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

The president and all other Republican candidates: (1) do not want to scale back spending to 2000 levels or eliminate federal agencies; (2) do not want to eliminate the federal reserve; (3) do not support nonintervention foreign policy; (4) do not support free trade (by withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO); and (5) support the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

So, if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum run against Barack Obama and your realistic choice is Romney/Santorum or Obama, the issues indicated above will not be handled different by any of them. In essence, you don't have a choice on these issues unless Ron Paul is a candidate for president.

Interestingly, Ron Paul was apparently endorsed by Stephen Colbert, DL Hughley, Norm McDonald, Joe Rogan, Oliver Stone, Vince Vaughn, and Snoop Dogg (I'm not saying that means anything, I just think it's interesting).

I'll vote for Ron Paul.

thegreekdog wrote:Here are five ideas, in no particular order...

(1) Scale back federal spending to 2000 levels, which includes financing government operations by excise taxes and eliminating most federal agencies.
(2) Eliminate the Federal Reserve.
(3) Nonintervention foreign policy.
(4) Withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO.
(5) Opposes and would repeal the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

Thanks for this post Greek, I'll definitely give Ron Paul a serious look and may even take the time to vote in next Tuesday's Republican primary.

maasman wrote:I would really like to see him win, but I just don't see it happening.

He won't win because the elections are rigged. If they weren't, he'd have a good chance at winning. But the powers that be aren't going to let him win. The elections are just to make us believe we have a roll in the process.

jay_a2j wrote:

maasman wrote:I would really like to see him win, but I just don't see it happening.

He won't win because the elections are rigged. If they weren't, he'd have a good chance at winning. But the powers that be aren't going to let him win. The elections are just to make us believe we have a roll in the process.

Tell us more, George

Paul has some good ideas, but I cant agree with the reactionary ideology that he seems to want implemented, unless of course he went the extra mile back to the Platonic form of government.

Very good Ideas on "some" issues Scotty, however, he's an absolute nut when it comes to foreign policy based soley on his words during each debate. Aside from foreign policy, as Fitz said, he's un-electable at this time. I do agree however, that his support has continued to grow during each run for president. Unfortunately, once he gets enough supporters, he'll be in a box, six feet under.

Although "IF" it came down to he and Obama, ole ronnie would be my choice.

codeblue1018 wrote:Very good Ideas on "some" issues Scotty, however, he's an absolute nut when it comes to foreign policy based soley on his words during each debate. Aside from foreign policy, as Fitz said, he's un-electable at this time. I do agree however, that his support has continued to grow during each run for president. Unfortunately, once he gets enough supporters, he'll be in a box, six feet under.

Although "IF" it came down to he and Obama, ole ronnie would be my choice.

How is he a nut, specifically, with respect to foreign policy?