Quote:
Hi Peter and All,
I don't have to quote anyone here . The kook has always been a kook let's remember he was unable to win even as a Libertarian because no one was buying his crap save a few kooks like himself ,so he rejoined the Republican party. That makes him a RHINO .
There are 40% of the delegates still left on the table true . No one can say where those will go , the only way Paul would get them is if he BUYS them but of course I wouldn't put that past him either. He is a snake in the grass.

It is the Paulbots who has divided the Republican Party not the Democrats ( I guess that was his plan all along maybe it's him who is working behind the scenes with Obama and the Brotherhood ) if any one is to the cause of division, the blame is all on the shoulders of Ron , he is the one that brainwashes the ignorant , teaches freedom without responsibility and conspiracy on every corner and under every rock. Propaganda brought down the U.S.S.R. or have we forgotten how it works or I don't know might be none of his followers ever even knew that is why it fell.
His foreign policy alone should scare the bejesuse out of any sane adult. It's dangerously stupid. He is the UN-AMERCIAN.

Many of his followers, lets not forget are X Democrats so that explains a lot to me . They have to be lead around by the nose because they haven't had one single thought for themselves in their whole adult lives. Paul is evil and it's sad that his followers are so blinded by the whole Liberty movement. Isolation is not a good idea , freedom comes with a price the Paulbots are not willing to pay.
Shalom,
Geketa

Quote:
Wow Peter, your memory seems short. No apology needed But that's okay, but, quoting Briebart ain't winning the argument either, as Romney is yet only the presumptive nominee. We shall see in Tampa, what comes about.

Remember the RNC changed the rules in an attempt to assure Romney wins the nomination. Unfortunately no one read the rules but the "kook". We shall see.

Brietbarts argument goes both ways and is quite petty, still what happens if Paul should win? Will you and all the "mittens" practice what you preach? I doubt it.

You see either party of this duopoly can only count on 30% of the electorate, that leaves another 40% of deciders, which makes a third party all that more reasonable to consider. Also remember Americans Elect holds positions on the ballots of all 50 states in the upcoming election as I understand it, therefore no one is a shoe in.

Supporting the constitution, and being against NDAA and the ilk, is divisive? Then mark me decisive in my resolve not to support this closet socialist.

I ain't changing my mind on settling for the lessor of the two evils we are being spoonfed this BS and I ain't hungry.

Jim

Quote:
Sorry Jim, Paul was a kook in 2008 and is still the same kook in 2012. C'mon Jim. Are you trying to rewrite the history of this primary campaign. It's the ronbots who were divisive all along and still are. They were the ones that said they would NOT support the GOP nominee if it's anyone but the kook Paul. Check your own thread and the posts you made there.

That's the same divisiveness we're seeing today after Paul sold you all out.

I've said many a time that Romney will get my support even though he's not my first choice, far from it. I went so far as to say that anyone would get my support except for the kook Paul. The objective is to defeat B Hussein and according to all the polls Romney has a chance of doing just that.

You're the one preaching about a third party candidate all along so let's keep the record straight and not try to rewrite history cos it suits you now. I guess you finally understood he won't run as a third party candidate so you'll have to find someone else to support unless you understand what Andrew Breitbart said that if you don't support the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME ON YOU.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
In case you're wondering we are now divided on this issue and that was the agenda wasn't it? Obama wins because of this division. Romneybots just don't get it.

Quote:
Funny Ron Paul wasn't a kook in '08 but today he is today? I stand by my statement "settling for the lessor of two evils... for security" We shall see what happens but Romney will lose sorry to say.

Quote:
Hey Jim,

Why are you trying to tell me why I despise the kook Paul? It's way beyond the Israeli issue and as I said many a time aside from his fiscal policies I like nothing he says or does. I didn't mention money in my post aside from the fact that everything he's done so far is by his supporters donations. They seem to be willing to give every time he asks for money but he knew and knows he never had a chance of being elected and I guess he thinks he reached the point where he can go for a power play which was his original plan all along.

All you supporters were duped and conned. Wake up and realize that. He's the one that claimed he's in the race till the convention and he lied didn't he??? I think you better change the title of your thread again now. :)

As far as B Hussein and Romney is concerned I see the differences and the similarities with out a ronbot slant to it. Yet, he's not the lesser of 2 evils cos the only evil I see is B Hussein. FYI, your kook Paul is farther left then B Hussein is on many issues and that's not a joke my friend.

The bottom line is he's out of the race but the ronbots haven't comprehended that quite yet. That's very good news as far as I'm concerned.

In a recent chat we had I told you I would have no problem with him as a member of Romney's cabinet. I even mentioned what position would suit him so that isn't an issue I would have a problem with.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hello Again Peter,

I believe you missed the point and meaning of what Ron Paul, has done and have taken that and made the argument why you will settle for the lessor of two evils, when evil is evil no matter whether it is lessor or greater.

Positioning for the voice of the people to be heard at the convention, or even on the ticket, or better yet a position of relevance in the cabinet, is not selling out. I see it as facing reality.

This race will be won by the one spending the most money, based off your reality. Especially when the only reason you offer up for such a settlement is based off the fact you believe Israel needs justification by the US to protect itself.

I call them the way I see them because here is the report card on the two leading candidates. What's the difference between the Obamneys?

Later Gator.

Jim

Quote:
Hello Friends,

An interesting thing happened yesterday, the kook Ron Paul showed his rel intentions for all to see but the ronbots still fail to comprehend and understand that they've been had and used.

Ron Paul knew something that none of his supporters knew from the start. He knew he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination but he went into this campaign eyes open for one reason only and that's to get a power base at the GOP convention. The power base is to make deals for himself and his son and in the long run that's all it boils down to. I've been saying this for the longest time and now that he's come clean and says it himself the ronbots still fail to understand.

After reading the different news flashes about Paul pulling out of the upcoming primary elections, I decided to wait till this morning to post about it cos I wanted to see whether the ronbots will come out of the woodwork once again and they didn't disappoint me in the least. They're out there in total denial and even after literally being told they've been had and used by the kook Paul they still believe he'll win. You can't be more brainwashed then that.

He knew he never had a chance but was out there telling all his brainwashed supporters that he's in the race till the convention and even after pulling out of the primary race they still don't get it. He lied to his supporters but that doesn't stop them does it? You really can't fix stupid and brainwashed. Carry on and make it easier for him to make behind closed doors deals for himself and mostly for his son. His intentions were on the wall for all to see and he isn't running for reelection either so he has nothing to lose.

Many of us discerned there was a deal between Romney and Paul almost from the beginning of the race. Both of them bashed all the other candidates but rarely had bad things to say about each other. That was a pretty obvious and transparent fact that the deal was in and in a sense you have to think that if Paul chose to make a deal with Romney he can't be as bad as his ronbots are claiming. That said the fact that there was a deal at all shows that he had only one thing in mind during this race and that's insuring his son's future with his power base. And why not, he didn't do it on his dime but that of his rabid supporters.

Now Romney isn't my first choice, far from it but my conviction was and still is that our main concern during these elections is to rid our selves of the monster sitting in the White House and I'll quote Andrew Breitbart in his last major speech before he 'died'. He was saying what I said now and he ended by saying that if you don't support and vote for the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME on you for that. The problem is that the ronbots have no shame nor do they have real understanding how badly they've been had and used by Paul and all you have to do is read their rabid rants after the announcement yesterday. For them nothing's changed and they fail to understand that now's the time for unity and not divisiveness. But that's beyond the comprehension of the ronbots but I do believe that the fence sitters and so called devils advocates will finally get it and unite to oust the fraud and great pretender and send him home as he so richly deserves this November.

Shalom,

Peter

Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes

By Stephen Dinan

-

The Washington Times

Rep. Ron Paul said Monday he will not compete in Republican primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially ending the 2012 primary season and leaving the path open for Mitt Romney to win the GOP presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will still try to win over delegates in states where the voting is done but where state conventions are still picking representatives to the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. But the Texas congressman and three-time presidential hopeful said he’s done actively trying to win over voters themselves in the 11 primaries still ahead.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

That move leaves Mr. Romney as the only man actively seeking the Republican nomination, having outlasted a half-dozen opponents over the last four months of voting. The former Massachusetts governor is still shy of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, but is expected to easily collect those in upcoming votes in Texas, California and nine other states still to hold primaries.

Mr. Romney’s campaign did not return a message seeking comment, but the push to win over Paul supporters is already under way in other circles. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary E. Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee, said he’ll pick up Mr. Paul’s torch heading into the election.

“You can’t suspend liberty,” said Mr. Johnson, who had initially tried to win the Republican nomination before dropping out to join the Libertarians. “The Ron Paul revolution must continue, whether he is actively campaigning or not. His message must be a part of the conversation leading to November.”

Mr. Paul is retiring at the end of this term in the House. But he has already bequeathed his political movement to his son, freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who rode voter dissatisfaction to victory in a Republican primary and then in the general election in Kentucky in 2010.

The 2012 campaign marked Mr. Paul’s third run for the White House, following a 1988 campaign as the Libertarian Party’s nominee and then his 2008 bid for the Republican nomination.

That unorthodox 2008 campaign rewrote the manual on Internet fundraising and attracted Americans who had been alienated by much of the political process but were attracted to Mr. Paul’s message of limited government bound more strictly to original constitutional intent.

His rallies attracted supporters dressed as Colonial soldiers, and “Don’t tread on me” flags became staples of his appearances, well before they would become a part of the anti-Washington tea party movement in the 2010 elections.

“Ron Paul presaged the tea party movement, and many of his supporters fueled the tea party and its 2010 victories, not least that of his own son. That is one major impact. Another is Paul’s ability to attract young people, a feat few in the GOP have been able to duplicate in recent years,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato.

Still, Mr. Sabato said, Mr. Paul’s stances on foreign policy and on drug legalization were unacceptable to too many Republican voters for him to have gone further within the party.

Mr. Paul briefly surged late last year, topping the polls in Iowa ahead of that state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. His third-place showing also seemed to leave him poised to make a run.

But that never materialized.

He ends his active campaigning without having won the popular vote in any state — though he did end up with the most bound delegates in Maine, thanks to his delegate-maximizing strategy.

According to the latest tally by the Associated Press, Mr. Romney has 966 delegates of the 1,144 needed to win the nomination. Mr. Paul has 104 delegates.

More than 700 delegates are still available across the 11 states still to hold primaries, and Mr. Romney is now virtually assured of collecting the bulk of them and clinching the nomination.

Throughout the campaign, Mr. Paul has said his lower vote totals would be countered by his supporters’ enthusiasm, particularly in states that hold caucuses.

In many of those states, the initial caucuses amounted to nonbinding straw polls, with the real delegate-selection process for the Tampa convention happening at regional and state meetings. Mr. Paul’s supporters have been more likely to show up at those meetings and win the delegate slots.

Now Mr. Paul will rely on trying to maximize delegates at the few states that have yet to choose their final delegates to the national convention, such as Washington and Missouri. He can also try to win over support of delegates who were bound to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum — two former candidates who have suspended their campaigns.

“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that liberty is the way of the future,” Mr. Paul said.

Many of Mr. Paul’s supporters argue he can still win the nomination, pointing to his success in having his supporters elected as delegates to the convention.

But most of those delegates are actually bound by the results of the primaries and conventions to vote for another candidate in the first round of voting. Most delegates’ personal views won’t come into play unless no candidate wins on the first ballot.

The Ideology of Isolationism

Supporters of Ron Paul have re-launched an old ad promoting the old idea of American isolationism. “We now are a nation known to start war,” Paul is quoted as saying. “We feel compelled because of our insecurity that we have to go over and attack these countries to maintain our empire.” The message here (and repeated elsewhere) is that Paul’s isolationism is aligned with the Founding Fathers and “what is truly American and truly constitutional.” Not only is this refrain a gross misrepresentation of American history but it offers dangerously misleading guidance to a nation that faces serious challenges at home and abroad.

Following this lead, some are tempted by the myth that our Founders were isolationists who sought to withdraw from the world and focus solely on the home front. At a time of international fatigue and anxiety about America’s future, I understand the sentiment. But it’s simply not the case.

The Founders rejected modern approaches in American foreign policy—whether power politics, isolationism or crusading internationalism. They especially disagreed with the “visionary, or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace,” as Hamilton put it in Federalist 6. Instead, they designed a truly American foreign policy—fundamentally shaped by our principles but not ignorant of the place of necessity in international relations.

The classic statement of this is Washington’s Farewell Address, sometimes wrongly read as isolationist dogma. Yes, Washington rightly warns us against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence” and yes, Washington correctly states that in extending commercial relations we should have as little political connection with those nations as possible. That’s not isolationism but common sense. Washington goes on to state the objective: “to gain time for our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, command of its own fortunes.” And again:

If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Rather than trap themselves in some absolute and permanent doctrine of nonintervention in the world, the Founders advocated a prudent and flexible policy aimed at achieving and thereafter permanently maintaining the sovereign independence for Americans to determine their own fate. And without providing for our own security, how can we hope to control our own destiny or command our own fortunes?

The requirements of security are dictated by the challenges and threats we face in the world. “How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?” Madison asked in Federalist 41.

The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others…. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions.

The dangerous ambitions of power were to be found in the passions of human nature. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 34:

To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

Necessity dictates that the United States must be ready to fight wars and use force to protect the nation and the American people. Hence Washington often liked to use the old Roman maxim: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of promoting peace.” The Founders made sure they were prepared and were not reluctant to use force. How else can we choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel?

National security is a challenge for all nations, but particularly for democratic political systems dedicated to the limitation of power. Many actions necessary for security employ the use of force and proceed in ways that are often secretive and less open than democracy prefers. Likewise, national security sometimes requires restrictions and sacrifices that would be inimical to personal liberty were it not for significant threats to the nation.

The solution to this dilemma is not to deny the use of force or to make it so onerous as to be ineffective. Rather, it is to establish a well-constructed constitution that focuses power on legitimate purposes and then divides that power so that it does not go unchecked, preserving liberty while providing for a nation that can—and will—defend its liberty.

Government spending, its massive bloat and constitutional overreach must be on the chopping block. But the core and undisputed constitutional responsibility of the United States government to provide for the common defense is not up for negotiation.

At a time when we should be seriously thinking about our strategy and commitments anew in an increasingly dangerous world—doing so in the context of unlimited government spending and uncontrolled debt that threatens to force us in to national bankruptcy and undermine our very sovereign independence—we should be wary of claims, however tempting in the moment, that the naïve ideology of isolationism has a place in the pantheon of America’s principles.

Quote:
Glad you got that out your systems Peter and Geketa,

You both need to reread the constitution methinks. It is obvious who is right on this, if you do. Paul's foreign policy is not isolationist at all if you listen with an open mind.

I see you so called patriots supporting CISP, NDAA and the Patriot Act with your words.

This has been fun, and I am sure there are many to see this group disagree in this way. But I will, stand alone if I must. I had much rather keep my principles than choose between the lessor of two evils.

The way I see it, if by doing so we lose our freedoms it will not be because I wouldn't stand up and say NO MORE! Its will be because most are still sheeple.

Geketa, good to see you here.

Jim

Quote:
Hi Peter and All,
I don't have to quote anyone here . The kook has always been a kook let's remember he was unable to win even as a Libertarian because no one was buying his crap save a few kooks like himself ,so he rejoined the Republican party. That makes him a RHINO .
There are 40% of the delegates still left on the table true . No one can say where those will go , the only way Paul would get them is if he BUYS them but of course I wouldn't put that past him either. He is a snake in the grass.

It is the Paulbots who has divided the Republican Party not the Democrats ( I guess that was his plan all along maybe it's him who is working behind the scenes with Obama and the Brotherhood ) if any one is to the cause of division, the blame is all on the shoulders of Ron , he is the one that brainwashes the ignorant , teaches freedom without responsibility and conspiracy on every corner and under every rock. Propaganda brought down the U.S.S.R. or have we forgotten how it works or I don't know might be none of his followers ever even knew that is why it fell.
His foreign policy alone should scare the bejesuse out of any sane adult. It's dangerously stupid. He is the UN-AMERCIAN.

Many of his followers, lets not forget are X Democrats so that explains a lot to me . They have to be lead around by the nose because they haven't had one single thought for themselves in their whole adult lives. Paul is evil and it's sad that his followers are so blinded by the whole Liberty movement. Isolation is not a good idea , freedom comes with a price the Paulbots are not willing to pay.
Shalom,
Geketa

Quote:
Wow Peter, your memory seems short. No apology needed But that's okay, but, quoting Briebart ain't winning the argument either, as Romney is yet only the presumptive nominee. We shall see in Tampa, what comes about.

Remember the RNC changed the rules in an attempt to assure Romney wins the nomination. Unfortunately no one read the rules but the "kook". We shall see.

Brietbarts argument goes both ways and is quite petty, still what happens if Paul should win? Will you and all the "mittens" practice what you preach? I doubt it.

You see either party of this duopoly can only count on 30% of the electorate, that leaves another 40% of deciders, which makes a third party all that more reasonable to consider. Also remember Americans Elect holds positions on the ballots of all 50 states in the upcoming election as I understand it, therefore no one is a shoe in.

Supporting the constitution, and being against NDAA and the ilk, is divisive? Then mark me decisive in my resolve not to support this closet socialist.

I ain't changing my mind on settling for the lessor of the two evils we are being spoonfed this BS and I ain't hungry.

Jim

Quote:
Sorry Jim, Paul was a kook in 2008 and is still the same kook in 2012. C'mon Jim. Are you trying to rewrite the history of this primary campaign. It's the ronbots who were divisive all along and still are. They were the ones that said they would NOT support the GOP nominee if it's anyone but the kook Paul. Check your own thread and the posts you made there.

That's the same divisiveness we're seeing today after Paul sold you all out.

I've said many a time that Romney will get my support even though he's not my first choice, far from it. I went so far as to say that anyone would get my support except for the kook Paul. The objective is to defeat B Hussein and according to all the polls Romney has a chance of doing just that.

You're the one preaching about a third party candidate all along so let's keep the record straight and not try to rewrite history cos it suits you now. I guess you finally understood he won't run as a third party candidate so you'll have to find someone else to support unless you understand what Andrew Breitbart said that if you don't support the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME ON YOU.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
In case you're wondering we are now divided on this issue and that was the agenda wasn't it? Obama wins because of this division. Romneybots just don't get it.

Quote:
Funny Ron Paul wasn't a kook in '08 but today he is today? I stand by my statement "settling for the lessor of two evils... for security" We shall see what happens but Romney will lose sorry to say.

Quote:
Hey Jim,

Why are you trying to tell me why I despise the kook Paul? It's way beyond the Israeli issue and as I said many a time aside from his fiscal policies I like nothing he says or does. I didn't mention money in my post aside from the fact that everything he's done so far is by his supporters donations. They seem to be willing to give every time he asks for money but he knew and knows he never had a chance of being elected and I guess he thinks he reached the point where he can go for a power play which was his original plan all along.

All you supporters were duped and conned. Wake up and realize that. He's the one that claimed he's in the race till the convention and he lied didn't he??? I think you better change the title of your thread again now. :)

As far as B Hussein and Romney is concerned I see the differences and the similarities with out a ronbot slant to it. Yet, he's not the lesser of 2 evils cos the only evil I see is B Hussein. FYI, your kook Paul is farther left then B Hussein is on many issues and that's not a joke my friend.

The bottom line is he's out of the race but the ronbots haven't comprehended that quite yet. That's very good news as far as I'm concerned.

In a recent chat we had I told you I would have no problem with him as a member of Romney's cabinet. I even mentioned what position would suit him so that isn't an issue I would have a problem with.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hello Again Peter,

I believe you missed the point and meaning of what Ron Paul, has done and have taken that and made the argument why you will settle for the lessor of two evils, when evil is evil no matter whether it is lessor or greater.

Positioning for the voice of the people to be heard at the convention, or even on the ticket, or better yet a position of relevance in the cabinet, is not selling out. I see it as facing reality.

This race will be won by the one spending the most money, based off your reality. Especially when the only reason you offer up for such a settlement is based off the fact you believe Israel needs justification by the US to protect itself.

I call them the way I see them because here is the report card on the two leading candidates. What's the difference between the Obamneys?

Later Gator.

Jim

Quote:
Hello Friends,

An interesting thing happened yesterday, the kook Ron Paul showed his rel intentions for all to see but the ronbots still fail to comprehend and understand that they've been had and used.

Ron Paul knew something that none of his supporters knew from the start. He knew he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination but he went into this campaign eyes open for one reason only and that's to get a power base at the GOP convention. The power base is to make deals for himself and his son and in the long run that's all it boils down to. I've been saying this for the longest time and now that he's come clean and says it himself the ronbots still fail to understand.

After reading the different news flashes about Paul pulling out of the upcoming primary elections, I decided to wait till this morning to post about it cos I wanted to see whether the ronbots will come out of the woodwork once again and they didn't disappoint me in the least. They're out there in total denial and even after literally being told they've been had and used by the kook Paul they still believe he'll win. You can't be more brainwashed then that.

He knew he never had a chance but was out there telling all his brainwashed supporters that he's in the race till the convention and even after pulling out of the primary race they still don't get it. He lied to his supporters but that doesn't stop them does it? You really can't fix stupid and brainwashed. Carry on and make it easier for him to make behind closed doors deals for himself and mostly for his son. His intentions were on the wall for all to see and he isn't running for reelection either so he has nothing to lose.

Many of us discerned there was a deal between Romney and Paul almost from the beginning of the race. Both of them bashed all the other candidates but rarely had bad things to say about each other. That was a pretty obvious and transparent fact that the deal was in and in a sense you have to think that if Paul chose to make a deal with Romney he can't be as bad as his ronbots are claiming. That said the fact that there was a deal at all shows that he had only one thing in mind during this race and that's insuring his son's future with his power base. And why not, he didn't do it on his dime but that of his rabid supporters.

Now Romney isn't my first choice, far from it but my conviction was and still is that our main concern during these elections is to rid our selves of the monster sitting in the White House and I'll quote Andrew Breitbart in his last major speech before he 'died'. He was saying what I said now and he ended by saying that if you don't support and vote for the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME on you for that. The problem is that the ronbots have no shame nor do they have real understanding how badly they've been had and used by Paul and all you have to do is read their rabid rants after the announcement yesterday. For them nothing's changed and they fail to understand that now's the time for unity and not divisiveness. But that's beyond the comprehension of the ronbots but I do believe that the fence sitters and so called devils advocates will finally get it and unite to oust the fraud and great pretender and send him home as he so richly deserves this November.

Shalom,

Peter

Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes

By Stephen Dinan

-

The Washington Times

Rep. Ron Paul said Monday he will not compete in Republican primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially ending the 2012 primary season and leaving the path open for Mitt Romney to win the GOP presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will still try to win over delegates in states where the voting is done but where state conventions are still picking representatives to the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. But the Texas congressman and three-time presidential hopeful said he’s done actively trying to win over voters themselves in the 11 primaries still ahead.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

That move leaves Mr. Romney as the only man actively seeking the Republican nomination, having outlasted a half-dozen opponents over the last four months of voting. The former Massachusetts governor is still shy of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, but is expected to easily collect those in upcoming votes in Texas, California and nine other states still to hold primaries.

Mr. Romney’s campaign did not return a message seeking comment, but the push to win over Paul supporters is already under way in other circles. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary E. Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee, said he’ll pick up Mr. Paul’s torch heading into the election.

“You can’t suspend liberty,” said Mr. Johnson, who had initially tried to win the Republican nomination before dropping out to join the Libertarians. “The Ron Paul revolution must continue, whether he is actively campaigning or not. His message must be a part of the conversation leading to November.”

Mr. Paul is retiring at the end of this term in the House. But he has already bequeathed his political movement to his son, freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who rode voter dissatisfaction to victory in a Republican primary and then in the general election in Kentucky in 2010.

The 2012 campaign marked Mr. Paul’s third run for the White House, following a 1988 campaign as the Libertarian Party’s nominee and then his 2008 bid for the Republican nomination.

That unorthodox 2008 campaign rewrote the manual on Internet fundraising and attracted Americans who had been alienated by much of the political process but were attracted to Mr. Paul’s message of limited government bound more strictly to original constitutional intent.

His rallies attracted supporters dressed as Colonial soldiers, and “Don’t tread on me” flags became staples of his appearances, well before they would become a part of the anti-Washington tea party movement in the 2010 elections.

“Ron Paul presaged the tea party movement, and many of his supporters fueled the tea party and its 2010 victories, not least that of his own son. That is one major impact. Another is Paul’s ability to attract young people, a feat few in the GOP have been able to duplicate in recent years,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato.

Still, Mr. Sabato said, Mr. Paul’s stances on foreign policy and on drug legalization were unacceptable to too many Republican voters for him to have gone further within the party.

Mr. Paul briefly surged late last year, topping the polls in Iowa ahead of that state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. His third-place showing also seemed to leave him poised to make a run.

But that never materialized.

He ends his active campaigning without having won the popular vote in any state — though he did end up with the most bound delegates in Maine, thanks to his delegate-maximizing strategy.

According to the latest tally by the Associated Press, Mr. Romney has 966 delegates of the 1,144 needed to win the nomination. Mr. Paul has 104 delegates.

More than 700 delegates are still available across the 11 states still to hold primaries, and Mr. Romney is now virtually assured of collecting the bulk of them and clinching the nomination.

Throughout the campaign, Mr. Paul has said his lower vote totals would be countered by his supporters’ enthusiasm, particularly in states that hold caucuses.

In many of those states, the initial caucuses amounted to nonbinding straw polls, with the real delegate-selection process for the Tampa convention happening at regional and state meetings. Mr. Paul’s supporters have been more likely to show up at those meetings and win the delegate slots.

Now Mr. Paul will rely on trying to maximize delegates at the few states that have yet to choose their final delegates to the national convention, such as Washington and Missouri. He can also try to win over support of delegates who were bound to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum — two former candidates who have suspended their campaigns.

“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that liberty is the way of the future,” Mr. Paul said.

Many of Mr. Paul’s supporters argue he can still win the nomination, pointing to his success in having his supporters elected as delegates to the convention.

But most of those delegates are actually bound by the results of the primaries and conventions to vote for another candidate in the first round of voting. Most delegates’ personal views won’t come into play unless no candidate wins on the first ballot.

Quote:
Glad you got that out your systems Peter and Geketa,

You both need to reread the constitution methinks. It is obvious who is right on this, if you do. Paul's foreign policy is not isolationist at all if you listen with an open mind.

I see you so called patriots supporting CISP, NDAA and the Patriot Act with your words.

This has been fun, and I am sure there are many to see this group disagree in this way. But I will, stand alone if I must. I had much rather keep my principles than choose between the lessor of two evils.

The way I see it, if by doing so we lose our freedoms it will not be because I wouldn't stand up and say NO MORE! Its will be because most are still sheeple.

Geketa, good to see you here.

Jim

Quote:
Hi Peter and All,
I don't have to quote anyone here . The kook has always been a kook let's remember he was unable to win even as a Libertarian because no one was buying his crap save a few kooks like himself ,so he rejoined the Republican party. That makes him a RHINO .
There are 40% of the delegates still left on the table true . No one can say where those will go , the only way Paul would get them is if he BUYS them but of course I wouldn't put that past him either. He is a snake in the grass.

It is the Paulbots who has divided the Republican Party not the Democrats ( I guess that was his plan all along maybe it's him who is working behind the scenes with Obama and the Brotherhood ) if any one is to the cause of division, the blame is all on the shoulders of Ron , he is the one that brainwashes the ignorant , teaches freedom without responsibility and conspiracy on every corner and under every rock. Propaganda brought down the U.S.S.R. or have we forgotten how it works or I don't know might be none of his followers ever even knew that is why it fell.
His foreign policy alone should scare the bejesuse out of any sane adult. It's dangerously stupid. He is the UN-AMERCIAN.

Many of his followers, lets not forget are X Democrats so that explains a lot to me . They have to be lead around by the nose because they haven't had one single thought for themselves in their whole adult lives. Paul is evil and it's sad that his followers are so blinded by the whole Liberty movement. Isolation is not a good idea , freedom comes with a price the Paulbots are not willing to pay.
Shalom,
Geketa

Quote:
Wow Peter, your memory seems short. No apology needed But that's okay, but, quoting Briebart ain't winning the argument either, as Romney is yet only the presumptive nominee. We shall see in Tampa, what comes about.

Remember the RNC changed the rules in an attempt to assure Romney wins the nomination. Unfortunately no one read the rules but the "kook". We shall see.

Brietbarts argument goes both ways and is quite petty, still what happens if Paul should win? Will you and all the "mittens" practice what you preach? I doubt it.

You see either party of this duopoly can only count on 30% of the electorate, that leaves another 40% of deciders, which makes a third party all that more reasonable to consider. Also remember Americans Elect holds positions on the ballots of all 50 states in the upcoming election as I understand it, therefore no one is a shoe in.

Supporting the constitution, and being against NDAA and the ilk, is divisive? Then mark me decisive in my resolve not to support this closet socialist.

I ain't changing my mind on settling for the lessor of the two evils we are being spoonfed this BS and I ain't hungry.

Jim

Quote:
Sorry Jim, Paul was a kook in 2008 and is still the same kook in 2012. C'mon Jim. Are you trying to rewrite the history of this primary campaign. It's the ronbots who were divisive all along and still are. They were the ones that said they would NOT support the GOP nominee if it's anyone but the kook Paul. Check your own thread and the posts you made there.

That's the same divisiveness we're seeing today after Paul sold you all out.

I've said many a time that Romney will get my support even though he's not my first choice, far from it. I went so far as to say that anyone would get my support except for the kook Paul. The objective is to defeat B Hussein and according to all the polls Romney has a chance of doing just that.

You're the one preaching about a third party candidate all along so let's keep the record straight and not try to rewrite history cos it suits you now. I guess you finally understood he won't run as a third party candidate so you'll have to find someone else to support unless you understand what Andrew Breitbart said that if you don't support the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME ON YOU.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
In case you're wondering we are now divided on this issue and that was the agenda wasn't it? Obama wins because of this division. Romneybots just don't get it.

Quote:
Funny Ron Paul wasn't a kook in '08 but today he is today? I stand by my statement "settling for the lessor of two evils... for security" We shall see what happens but Romney will lose sorry to say.

Quote:
Hey Jim,

Why are you trying to tell me why I despise the kook Paul? It's way beyond the Israeli issue and as I said many a time aside from his fiscal policies I like nothing he says or does. I didn't mention money in my post aside from the fact that everything he's done so far is by his supporters donations. They seem to be willing to give every time he asks for money but he knew and knows he never had a chance of being elected and I guess he thinks he reached the point where he can go for a power play which was his original plan all along.

All you supporters were duped and conned. Wake up and realize that. He's the one that claimed he's in the race till the convention and he lied didn't he??? I think you better change the title of your thread again now. :)

As far as B Hussein and Romney is concerned I see the differences and the similarities with out a ronbot slant to it. Yet, he's not the lesser of 2 evils cos the only evil I see is B Hussein. FYI, your kook Paul is farther left then B Hussein is on many issues and that's not a joke my friend.

The bottom line is he's out of the race but the ronbots haven't comprehended that quite yet. That's very good news as far as I'm concerned.

In a recent chat we had I told you I would have no problem with him as a member of Romney's cabinet. I even mentioned what position would suit him so that isn't an issue I would have a problem with.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hello Again Peter,

I believe you missed the point and meaning of what Ron Paul, has done and have taken that and made the argument why you will settle for the lessor of two evils, when evil is evil no matter whether it is lessor or greater.

Positioning for the voice of the people to be heard at the convention, or even on the ticket, or better yet a position of relevance in the cabinet, is not selling out. I see it as facing reality.

This race will be won by the one spending the most money, based off your reality. Especially when the only reason you offer up for such a settlement is based off the fact you believe Israel needs justification by the US to protect itself.

I call them the way I see them because here is the report card on the two leading candidates. What's the difference between the Obamneys?

Later Gator.

Jim

Quote:
Hello Friends,

An interesting thing happened yesterday, the kook Ron Paul showed his rel intentions for all to see but the ronbots still fail to comprehend and understand that they've been had and used.

Ron Paul knew something that none of his supporters knew from the start. He knew he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination but he went into this campaign eyes open for one reason only and that's to get a power base at the GOP convention. The power base is to make deals for himself and his son and in the long run that's all it boils down to. I've been saying this for the longest time and now that he's come clean and says it himself the ronbots still fail to understand.

After reading the different news flashes about Paul pulling out of the upcoming primary elections, I decided to wait till this morning to post about it cos I wanted to see whether the ronbots will come out of the woodwork once again and they didn't disappoint me in the least. They're out there in total denial and even after literally being told they've been had and used by the kook Paul they still believe he'll win. You can't be more brainwashed then that.

He knew he never had a chance but was out there telling all his brainwashed supporters that he's in the race till the convention and even after pulling out of the primary race they still don't get it. He lied to his supporters but that doesn't stop them does it? You really can't fix stupid and brainwashed. Carry on and make it easier for him to make behind closed doors deals for himself and mostly for his son. His intentions were on the wall for all to see and he isn't running for reelection either so he has nothing to lose.

Many of us discerned there was a deal between Romney and Paul almost from the beginning of the race. Both of them bashed all the other candidates but rarely had bad things to say about each other. That was a pretty obvious and transparent fact that the deal was in and in a sense you have to think that if Paul chose to make a deal with Romney he can't be as bad as his ronbots are claiming. That said the fact that there was a deal at all shows that he had only one thing in mind during this race and that's insuring his son's future with his power base. And why not, he didn't do it on his dime but that of his rabid supporters.

Now Romney isn't my first choice, far from it but my conviction was and still is that our main concern during these elections is to rid our selves of the monster sitting in the White House and I'll quote Andrew Breitbart in his last major speech before he 'died'. He was saying what I said now and he ended by saying that if you don't support and vote for the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME on you for that. The problem is that the ronbots have no shame nor do they have real understanding how badly they've been had and used by Paul and all you have to do is read their rabid rants after the announcement yesterday. For them nothing's changed and they fail to understand that now's the time for unity and not divisiveness. But that's beyond the comprehension of the ronbots but I do believe that the fence sitters and so called devils advocates will finally get it and unite to oust the fraud and great pretender and send him home as he so richly deserves this November.

Shalom,

Peter

Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes

By Stephen Dinan

-

The Washington Times

Rep. Ron Paul said Monday he will not compete in Republican primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially ending the 2012 primary season and leaving the path open for Mitt Romney to win the GOP presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will still try to win over delegates in states where the voting is done but where state conventions are still picking representatives to the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. But the Texas congressman and three-time presidential hopeful said he’s done actively trying to win over voters themselves in the 11 primaries still ahead.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

That move leaves Mr. Romney as the only man actively seeking the Republican nomination, having outlasted a half-dozen opponents over the last four months of voting. The former Massachusetts governor is still shy of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, but is expected to easily collect those in upcoming votes in Texas, California and nine other states still to hold primaries.

Mr. Romney’s campaign did not return a message seeking comment, but the push to win over Paul supporters is already under way in other circles. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary E. Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee, said he’ll pick up Mr. Paul’s torch heading into the election.

“You can’t suspend liberty,” said Mr. Johnson, who had initially tried to win the Republican nomination before dropping out to join the Libertarians. “The Ron Paul revolution must continue, whether he is actively campaigning or not. His message must be a part of the conversation leading to November.”

Mr. Paul is retiring at the end of this term in the House. But he has already bequeathed his political movement to his son, freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who rode voter dissatisfaction to victory in a Republican primary and then in the general election in Kentucky in 2010.

The 2012 campaign marked Mr. Paul’s third run for the White House, following a 1988 campaign as the Libertarian Party’s nominee and then his 2008 bid for the Republican nomination.

That unorthodox 2008 campaign rewrote the manual on Internet fundraising and attracted Americans who had been alienated by much of the political process but were attracted to Mr. Paul’s message of limited government bound more strictly to original constitutional intent.

His rallies attracted supporters dressed as Colonial soldiers, and “Don’t tread on me” flags became staples of his appearances, well before they would become a part of the anti-Washington tea party movement in the 2010 elections.

“Ron Paul presaged the tea party movement, and many of his supporters fueled the tea party and its 2010 victories, not least that of his own son. That is one major impact. Another is Paul’s ability to attract young people, a feat few in the GOP have been able to duplicate in recent years,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato.

Still, Mr. Sabato said, Mr. Paul’s stances on foreign policy and on drug legalization were unacceptable to too many Republican voters for him to have gone further within the party.

Mr. Paul briefly surged late last year, topping the polls in Iowa ahead of that state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. His third-place showing also seemed to leave him poised to make a run.

But that never materialized.

He ends his active campaigning without having won the popular vote in any state — though he did end up with the most bound delegates in Maine, thanks to his delegate-maximizing strategy.

According to the latest tally by the Associated Press, Mr. Romney has 966 delegates of the 1,144 needed to win the nomination. Mr. Paul has 104 delegates.

More than 700 delegates are still available across the 11 states still to hold primaries, and Mr. Romney is now virtually assured of collecting the bulk of them and clinching the nomination.

Throughout the campaign, Mr. Paul has said his lower vote totals would be countered by his supporters’ enthusiasm, particularly in states that hold caucuses.

In many of those states, the initial caucuses amounted to nonbinding straw polls, with the real delegate-selection process for the Tampa convention happening at regional and state meetings. Mr. Paul’s supporters have been more likely to show up at those meetings and win the delegate slots.

Now Mr. Paul will rely on trying to maximize delegates at the few states that have yet to choose their final delegates to the national convention, such as Washington and Missouri. He can also try to win over support of delegates who were bound to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum — two former candidates who have suspended their campaigns.

“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that liberty is the way of the future,” Mr. Paul said.

Many of Mr. Paul’s supporters argue he can still win the nomination, pointing to his success in having his supporters elected as delegates to the convention.

But most of those delegates are actually bound by the results of the primaries and conventions to vote for another candidate in the first round of voting. Most delegates’ personal views won’t come into play unless no candidate wins on the first ballot.

Quote:
Hi Jim,
Nothing in my system to get out . I haven't changed my stand against Ron Paul in 30 years. Just speaking telling the truth . Just because you hang around people who THINK they know the Constitution or what it says dose not make you or them experts. Ron Paul is wonderful at twisting what the document actually says to suit his own personal agenda. He says we're warmongers, I say he is a fear monger, which is worse? I believe if you have one of those OPEN MINDS you talk about and read this article from a real expert you might see that Ron Paul is not only an isolationist but also misrepresents history and the Constitution.
Here is a very old saying and it's what has kept war off of American soil for many , many years.
Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" (usually interpreted as meaning peace through strength—a strong society being less likely to be attacked by enemies).
Shalom,
Geketa

The Ideology of Isolationism

Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

January 21, 2012

Supporters of Ron Paul have re-launched an old ad promoting the old idea of American isolationism. “We now are a nation known to start war,” Paul is quoted as saying. “We feel compelled because of our insecurity that we have to go over and attack these countries to maintain our empire.” The message here (and repeated elsewhere) is that Paul’s isolationism is aligned with the Founding Fathers and “what is truly American and truly constitutional.” Not only is this refrain a gross misrepresentation of American history but it offers dangerously misleading guidance to a nation that faces serious challenges at home and abroad.

Following this lead, some are tempted by the myth that our Founders were isolationists who sought to withdraw from the world and focus solely on the home front. At a time of international fatigue and anxiety about America’s future, I understand the sentiment. But it’s simply not the case.

The Founders rejected modern approaches in American foreign policy—whether power politics, isolationism or crusading internationalism. They especially disagreed with the “visionary, or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace,” as Hamilton put it in Federalist 6. Instead, they designed a truly American foreign policy—fundamentally shaped by our principles but not ignorant of the place of necessity in international relations.

The classic statement of this is Washington’s Farewell Address, sometimes wrongly read as isolationist dogma. Yes, Washington rightly warns us against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence” and yes, Washington correctly states that in extending commercial relations we should have as little political connection with those nations as possible. That’s not isolationism but common sense. Washington goes on to state the objective: “to gain time for our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, command of its own fortunes.” And again:

If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Rather than trap themselves in some absolute and permanent doctrine of nonintervention in the world, the Founders advocated a prudent and flexible policy aimed at achieving and thereafter permanently maintaining the sovereign independence for Americans to determine their own fate. And without providing for our own security, how can we hope to control our own destiny or command our own fortunes?

The requirements of security are dictated by the challenges and threats we face in the world. “How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?” Madison asked in Federalist 41.

The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others…. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions.

The dangerous ambitions of power were to be found in the passions of human nature. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 34:

To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

Necessity dictates that the United States must be ready to fight wars and use force to protect the nation and the American people. Hence Washington often liked to use the old Roman maxim: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of promoting peace.” The Founders made sure they were prepared and were not reluctant to use force. How else can we choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel?

National security is a challenge for all nations, but particularly for democratic political systems dedicated to the limitation of power. Many actions necessary for security employ the use of force and proceed in ways that are often secretive and less open than democracy prefers. Likewise, national security sometimes requires restrictions and sacrifices that would be inimical to personal liberty were it not for significant threats to the nation.

The solution to this dilemma is not to deny the use of force or to make it so onerous as to be ineffective. Rather, it is to establish a well-constructed constitution that focuses power on legitimate purposes and then divides that power so that it does not go unchecked, preserving liberty while providing for a nation that can—and will—defend its liberty.

Government spending, its massive bloat and constitutional overreach must be on the chopping block. But the core and undisputed constitutional responsibility of the United States government to provide for the common defense is not up for negotiation.

At a time when we should be seriously thinking about our strategy and commitments anew in an increasingly dangerous world—doing so in the context of unlimited government spending and uncontrolled debt that threatens to force us in to national bankruptcy and undermine our very sovereign independence—we should be wary of claims, however tempting in the moment, that the naïve ideology of isolationism has a place in the pantheon of America’s principles.

Quote:
Glad you got that out your systems Peter and Geketa,

You both need to reread the constitution methinks. It is obvious who is right on this, if you do. Paul's foreign policy is not isolationist at all if you listen with an open mind.

I see you so called patriots supporting CISP, NDAA and the Patriot Act with your words.

This has been fun, and I am sure there are many to see this group disagree in this way. But I will, stand alone if I must. I had much rather keep my principles than choose between the lessor of two evils.

The way I see it, if by doing so we lose our freedoms it will not be because I wouldn't stand up and say NO MORE! Its will be because most are still sheeple.

Geketa, good to see you here.

Jim

Quote:
Hi Peter and All,
I don't have to quote anyone here . The kook has always been a kook let's remember he was unable to win even as a Libertarian because no one was buying his crap save a few kooks like himself ,so he rejoined the Republican party. That makes him a RHINO .
There are 40% of the delegates still left on the table true . No one can say where those will go , the only way Paul would get them is if he BUYS them but of course I wouldn't put that past him either. He is a snake in the grass.

It is the Paulbots who has divided the Republican Party not the Democrats ( I guess that was his plan all along maybe it's him who is working behind the scenes with Obama and the Brotherhood ) if any one is to the cause of division, the blame is all on the shoulders of Ron , he is the one that brainwashes the ignorant , teaches freedom without responsibility and conspiracy on every corner and under every rock. Propaganda brought down the U.S.S.R. or have we forgotten how it works or I don't know might be none of his followers ever even knew that is why it fell.
His foreign policy alone should scare the bejesuse out of any sane adult. It's dangerously stupid. He is the UN-AMERCIAN.

Many of his followers, lets not forget are X Democrats so that explains a lot to me . They have to be lead around by the nose because they haven't had one single thought for themselves in their whole adult lives. Paul is evil and it's sad that his followers are so blinded by the whole Liberty movement. Isolation is not a good idea , freedom comes with a price the Paulbots are not willing to pay.
Shalom,
Geketa
Quote:
Wow Peter, your memory seems short. No apology needed But that's okay, but, quoting Briebart ain't winning the argument either, as Romney is yet only the presumptive nominee. We shall see in Tampa, what comes about.

Remember the RNC changed the rules in an attempt to assure Romney wins the nomination. Unfortunately no one read the rules but the "kook". We shall see.

Brietbarts argument goes both ways and is quite petty, still what happens if Paul should win? Will you and all the "mittens" practice what you preach? I doubt it.

You see either party of this duopoly can only count on 30% of the electorate, that leaves another 40% of deciders, which makes a third party all that more reasonable to consider. Also remember Americans Elect holds positions on the ballots of all 50 states in the upcoming election as I understand it, therefore no one is a shoe in.

Supporting the constitution, and being against NDAA and the ilk, is divisive? Then mark me decisive in my resolve not to support this closet socialist.

I ain't changing my mind on settling for the lessor of the two evils we are being spoonfed this BS and I ain't hungry.

Jim
Quote:
Sorry Jim, Paul was a kook in 2008 and is still the same kook in 2012. C'mon Jim. Are you trying to rewrite the history of this primary campaign. It's the ronbots who were divisive all along and still are. They were the ones that said they would NOT support the GOP nominee if it's anyone but the kook Paul. Check your own thread and the posts you made there.

That's the same divisiveness we're seeing today after Paul sold you all out.

I've said many a time that Romney will get my support even though he's not my first choice, far from it. I went so far as to say that anyone would get my support except for the kook Paul. The objective is to defeat B Hussein and according to all the polls Romney has a chance of doing just that.

You're the one preaching about a third party candidate all along so let's keep the record straight and not try to rewrite history cos it suits you now. I guess you finally understood he won't run as a third party candidate so you'll have to find someone else to support unless you understand what Andrew Breitbart said that if you don't support the GOP nominee you're part of the problem and SHAME ON YOU.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
In case you're wondering we are now divided on this issue and that was the agenda wasn't it? Obama wins because of this division. Romneybots just don't get it.

Quote:
Funny Ron Paul wasn't a kook in '08 but today he is today? I stand by my statement "settling for the lessor of two evils... for security" We shall see what happens but Romney will lose sorry to say.

Quote:
Hey Jim,

Why are you trying to tell me why I despise the kook Paul? It's way beyond the Israeli issue and as I said many a time aside from his fiscal policies I like nothing he says or does. I didn't mention money in my post aside from the fact that everything he's done so far is by his supporters donations. They seem to be willing to give every time he asks for money but he knew and knows he never had a chance of being elected and I guess he thinks he reached the point where he can go for a power play which was his original plan all along.

All you supporters were duped and conned. Wake up and realize that. He's the one that claimed he's in the race till the convention and he lied didn't he??? I think you better change the title of your thread again now. :)

As far as B Hussein and Romney is concerned I see the differences and the similarities with out a ronbot slant to it. Yet, he's not the lesser of 2 evils cos the only evil I see is B Hussein. FYI, your kook Paul is farther left then B Hussein is on many issues and that's not a joke my friend.

The bottom line is he's out of the race but the ronbots haven't comprehended that quite yet. That's very good news as far as I'm concerned.

In a recent chat we had I told you I would have no problem with him as a member of Romney's cabinet. I even mentioned what position would suit him so that isn't an issue I would have a problem with.

Shalom,

Peter