[vundy33]

These gas prices are killing me...I'm so pissed off and have no idea who to direct my anger towards. Not even April and I'm paying $4 a damn gallon for gas...

[TheRealThing]

I am little confussed by this statement....and I really am not trying to be a smart... are you talking about since the 1950s or since the founding of the country?

If you are talking about since the 50s the military industrial complex has taken over the Republican Party.

If you are talking about since the founding of the country, I would agree. Personal Choice and Personal Freedom, See Pennslyvania for this example, fex taxes (see constitution before the additional of admendments), see the stance our founding fathers took on debt,war, and foreign policy. (Thomas Jefferson and Washingoton) would be the best to follow here.

My vote is for Ron Paul... to me he is the only one that stands for these ideals in which I believe in... not any other canadiate.

Well, if I give dates and you still don't know of which period of history I am speaking I can understand you're confusion. Throw your vote down a rat hole again tvtimeout.

[tvtimeout]

Well, if I give dates and you still don't know of which period of history I am speaking I can understand you're confusion. Throw your vote down a rat hole again tvtimeout.

I am sorry but you gave two different time periods. I wanted clarification. I thought I pointed out the difference between inside the party from time period to time period. So, again which time period are you referring to the 50's or the foundation of the country?

As far as throwing my vote down the drain... when has an election been decided by popular vote?

If my vote really matters than how do you explain the electorial college, who has right for an independent vote despite the popular vote in ones own region.

Follow Romney because you like his principles and believe in what he stands for, that is fine if you do. I don't. I have already defined my position, whereas, the Romney vote is "well he can beat Obama". To me this is not good enough so I will stand on principle of which I believe in, if that offends anyone I wish you the best.

Remember you must obey...vote Romney, he will change the direction of the country...he believes in what you believe... he is the only one that can beat Obama...

Enjoy the Republicrat

[tvtimeout]

These gas prices are killing me...I'm so pissed off and have no idea who to direct my anger towards. Not even April and I'm paying $4 a damn gallon for gas...

The United States is producing more oil than it ever has according to one news source.

The United States is selling most of their oil to overseas says another news source.

The United States and the companies have not built a new refineory in two decades says another news source.

Unstability in the middle east has caused oil speculation to increase over the last few weeks says a fourth news source.

Demand is down in the U.S says one of the new sources that I found the subject.

So, if I look at these different news sources. I would say the following theories exist: that it falls on the oil companies due to the simple laws of supply and demand and the lack of builiding anything for the supply side such as the refineries. However, it could be argued that the oil speculators have caused the crisis due to the idea of supply and demand. Another arguement could be made that it is all Iran's fault because it is causing turmoil in the middle east. Finally, it could be President Obama's fault due to he did not allow a pipeline to go through the middle of the continental United States which would bring in more supply.

I personally think that it is a evil plot of NWO or Cobra...



Just Joking

[Hoot Gibson]

I am sorry but you gave two different time periods. I wanted clarification. I thought I pointed out the difference between inside the party from time period to time period. So, again which time period are you referring to the 50's or the foundation of the country?

As far as throwing my vote down the drain... when has an election been decided by popular vote?

If my vote really matters than how do you explain the electorial college, who has right for an independent vote despite the popular vote in ones own region.

Follow Romney because you like his principles and believe in what he stands for, that is fine if you do. I don't. I have already defined my position, whereas, the Romney vote is "well he can beat Obama". To me this is not good enough so I will stand on principle of which I believe in, if that offends anyone I wish you the best.

Remember you must obey...vote Romney, he will change the direction of the country...he believes in what you believe... he is the only one that can beat Obama...

Enjoy the Republicrat

Every national election is decided by popular vote. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of popular votes within each state - mostly on a winner take all basis. If Gore had won the majority of popular votes in his home state in 1980, he would have been president.

Romney will change the course that this nation - not as sharply as I would like but he will not keep us on autopilot toward the total destruction of our free market economy. Skip the election or vote for a sure loser and you will have no chance of nudging the country toward the right direction - whatever you think the correct direction may be.

[vundy33]

I think that oil speculator's effect of gas prices is really overrated...everyone likes to point to them, but I've seen oil man after oil man say how little speculators actually effect prices.

[TheRealVille]

I think that oil speculator's effect of gas prices is really overrated...everyone likes to point to them, but I've seen oil man after oil man say how little speculators actually effect prices.

The main guy for Exxon was on TV the other day, and he said the same thing, that the speculators have very little to do with the price of gas.

[tvtimeout]

Every national election is decided by popular vote. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of popular votes within each state - mostly on a winner take all basis. If Gore had won the majority of popular votes in his home state in 1980, he would have been president.

Romney will change the course that this nation - not as sharply as I would like but he will not keep us on autopilot toward the total destruction of our free market economy. Skip the election or vote for a sure loser and you will have no chance of nudging the country toward the right direction - whatever you think the correct direction may be.

Yes...Fox news will tell you this...Romney represents the values of the true Republican Party...must follow Fox...must not be able to think... yesa master yesa master...I vote Romney :please:

[tvtimeout]

The main guy for Exxon was on TV the other day, and he said the same thing, that the speculators have very little to do with the price of gas.

What was his reasoning for the higher gas prices?

[tvtimeout]

[B]Every national election is decided by popular vote. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of popular votes within each state - mostly on a winner take all basis.[/B] If Gore had won the majority of popular votes in his home state in 1980, he would have been president.

Romney will change the course that this nation - not as sharply as I would like but he will not keep us on autopilot toward the total destruction of our free market economy. Skip the election or vote for a sure loser and you will have no chance of nudging the country toward the right direction - whatever you think the correct direction may be.

Wrong...

5. December 15, 2008
Meetings of Electors and Transmission of Certificates of Vote to NARA:
• The electors meet in their State to select the President
and Vice President of the United States. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. NARA’s web site lists the States that have laws to bind electors to candidates.
Site: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register...mphlet.pdf

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes...Fox news will tell you this...Romney represents the values of the true Republican Party...must follow Fox...must not be able to think... yesa master yesa master...I vote Romney :please:

That's funny coming from a Ron Paul sycophant. How many online polls have you voted in today? :lmao:

Ron Paul is broke and has no chance of winning the nomination or changing anything. It does not take much brainpower to realize that fact.

[tvtimeout]

That's funny coming from a Ron Paul sycophant. How many online polls have you voted in today? :lmao:

Ron Paul is broke and has no chance of winning the nomination or changing anything. It does not take much brainpower to realize that fact.

Quick ? Where did the tea-party get its start from???

Let me guess Romney...right

[Hoot Gibson]

Quick ? Where did the tea-party get its start from???

Let me guess Romney...right

I fail to see the relevancy of your question. You are constantly telling everybody that there is zero difference between the two parties, which is absolutely not true - and that it makes no difference whether people vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. What you fail to do, in post after post, is to make the case for voting for Ron Paul, a man who has absolutely no chance to win any election outside of his own Congressional district. So enlighten us, do you agree with Ron Paul on every single issue and what difference will your vote for Ron Paul make?

[TheRealThing]

Quick ? Where did the tea-party get its start from???

Let me guess Romney...right

The Tea Party is not a party at all. The name is representative of a grass roots movement comprised of American voters who are tired of watching liberal Democrats redefine the basic tenets of the US Constitution. These voters are usually gainfully employed, tax paying folks who have their pants pulled up where they should be and have had enough of paying the bills for people who don't want to work. The liberal Democrat knows only too well he can depend on the non-working people in the US to continue to vote democratic because they have openly promised to keep the checks going out as long as their adoring public keeps voting them back into office. Vote buying is all it amounts to.

The coalition of minority/special interest groups that comprise the Democratic voting base is a strange mix of folks with their hands out. A super-pack of money and favor seekers. The gays want special laws passed; they want the institution of marriage redefined from a life long union between one man and one woman, to a union between two anythings. And, the family is to be redefined as any combination of humans and or wildlife that may choose to live together. Folks that think they're too good to work for a living have been made to believe entitlements are human rights, so they vote Democrat. Earth worshippers want to revert civilization back to the days prior to the industrial revolution and are therefore trying to regulate industry out of existence through pollution standards which, thanks to an ever acutely increasing angle of ascent, will never be met. Organized labor to me is the faction of the party that doesn't make sense. If one works for a living and is trying to attain as good an existence for self and family as possible through hard work, why the dedication to a party sworn to met the needs of those who won't work to support themselves? Ne'er the twain shall meet, the two concepts are infinite poles apart.

What's hilarious about tvtimeout's line of thought, whatever that may be, is the failure to recognize 220 plus years of American history. We are what we have been from 1776 to date. Free enterprise, checks and balances, the concept of being governed of the people, for the people, by the people. etc. There are enough level headed folks around to get things staightened out. Debate and process have always been part of our success as a nation. We know what works, we have our own glorious and successful history to guide us. Trying something new is how we got ourselves into the mess we're in. The "Great Society" experiment didn't work. Now the question is, how do we stop the runaway entitlement train, and who has the courage to budget us back onto the right track? Folks like Paul Ryan will make it happen if they get the needed support at the voting booth. To me it is really a question of character rather than politics or parties. Man is to earn his living by the "sweat of his brow", not laying around in front of a big screen TV demanding others pay for his needs and wants. To succeed we just need to adhere to the values of the past, and vote for candidates of moral fiber.

Voting for a non-viable candidate is cutting one's nose off to spite his face. Ron Paul has NO chance. He is a far cry short of Ross Perot and only somewhat better than Ralph Nader. Which, admittedly still puts him out in front of Obama. When you go in and vote for Paul in November, you will be helping Obama.

[tvtimeout]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]I fail to see the relevancy of your question. You are constantly telling everybody that there is zero difference between the two parties, which is absolutely not true - and that it makes no difference whether people vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. What you fail to do, in post after post, is to make the case for voting for Ron Paul, a man who has absolutely no chance to win any election outside of his own Congressional district. So enlighten us, do you agree with Ron Paul on every single issue and what difference will your vote for Ron Paul make?[/QUOTE]

I have made the point before and as soon as I figure out how to double quote I will show it. So I will have two post in response to this interesting post.

There are so many issues inside of this post it is difficult for me to decide which is the best point to begin with so I will try to in the simplest of terms:

There is a not a difference in Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending: Republicans will cry DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE, we need more and more, which includes us being in 128 countries around the world. That part of the budget needs to be cut.

Democrats cry POOR POOR POOR, we need so spend more on the poor.

Republicans and the religious right will tell people how to live. Democrats will telll people how to spend their money. I disagree with both of these principles.

As far as popular vote goes, I have proven to us by the National Archives that it does not matter the elector can choose who he or she votes for, which is usually the poplular vote of the region: which brings me up to the next point: let us say you a Republican in Pike Co, you vote Republican, did that change the electorial vote? No, it did not. Let us say you are a Democrat in Whitley Co... you vote Democrat, did that change the electorial vote for the 5th congressional: NO!

Now Why Vote for Ron Paul: I do agree with most of his domestic and foreign agenda. I believe that cutting spending even in the military is smart, I believe in his stance on getting rid of the Federal Reserve. I believe in his stance on taxes. I believe in his stance on Education. I believe in his stance again on foreign policy, which I articulate in another post. I believe in the idea of PERSONAL LIBERTY! That to me means both financially as well as morally.

Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? In this case no, because Romney will not cut from everywhere... he has no back bone, he his a liberal at heart and hates personal choice. Proven by his preivous actions as governor...Romney Care= Obama Care in my mind... for an example.

[tvtimeout]

The Tea Party is not a party at all. The name is representative of a grass roots movement comprised of American voters who are tired of watching liberal Democrats redefine the basic tenets of the US Constitution. These voters are usually gainfully employed, tax paying folks who have their pants pulled up where they should be and have had enough of paying the bills for people who don't want to work. The liberal Democrat knows only too well he can depend on the non-working people in the US to continue to vote democratic because they have openly promised to keep the checks going out as long as their adoring public keeps voting them back into office. Vote buying is all it amounts to.

The coalition of minority/special interest groups that comprise the Democratic voting base is a strange mix of folks with their hands out. A super-pack of money and favor seekers. The gays want special laws passed; they want the institution of marriage redefined from a life long union between one man and one woman, to a union between two anythings. And, the family is to be redefined as any combination of humans and or wildlife that may choose to live together. Folks that think they're too good to work for a living have been made to believe entitlements are human rights, so they vote Democrat. Earth worshippers want to revert civilization back to the days prior to the industrial revolution and are therefore trying to regulate industry out of existence through pollution standards which, thanks to an ever acutely increasing angle of ascent, will never be met. Organized labor to me is the faction of the party that doesn't make sense. If one works for a living and is trying to attain as good an existence for self and family as possible through hard work, why the dedication to a party sworn to met the needs of those who won't work to support themselves? Ne'er the twain shall meet, the two concepts are infinite poles apart.

What's hilarious about tvtimeout's line of thought, whatever that may be, is the failure to recognize 220 plus years of American history. We are what we have been from 1776 to date. Free enterprise, checks and balances, the concept of being governed of the people, for the people, by the people. etc. There are enough level headed folks around to get things staightened out. Debate and process have always been part of our success as a nation. We know what works, we have our own glorious and successful history to guide us. Trying something new is how we got ourselves into the mess we're in. The "Great Society" experiment didn't work. Now the question is, how do we stop the runaway entitlement train, and who has the courage to budget us back onto the right track? Folks like Paul Ryan will make it happen if they get the needed support at the voting booth. To me it is really a question of character rather than politics or parties. Man is to earn his living by the "sweat of his brow", not laying around in front of a big screen TV demanding others pay for his needs and wants. To succeed we just need to adhere to the values of the past, and vote for candidates of moral fiber.

Voting for a non-viable candidate is cutting one's nose off to spite his face. Ron Paul has NO chance. He is a far cry short of Ross Perot and only somewhat better than Ralph Nader. Which, admittedly still puts him out in front of Obama. When you go in and vote for Paul in November, you will be helping Obama.

You mean like when a Republican Congress gave the President the authority to declare war when he saw fit or maybe the Patriot ACT? Who was in control of both houses and President during that time? I love when Republicans talk the consitiution then they can see how far they have fallen.

I could also say deficit spending and it is like the 2000s didn't even happen, even though the republicans were in charge.

[tvtimeout]

This is the standard that I would vote for...

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as "free enterprise". I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world, liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it out to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to the same thing. Robert Taft

I would then ask about foreign policy they would follow this advice " The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commerical relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.. why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why be interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entagle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest humor or caprice?"

George Washington.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall beunfurled, there will her heart, her benedication and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, hse would involve herself beyond the power of extricationm in all the wars of insterest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force... she might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirt.

John Quincy Adams

If you could find a candadate that holds these ideals up... I would vote for him.... wait there is one and only one...

Ron Paul

[tvtimeout]

This post above is from another thread...that I posted earlier. Again, this is what I stand for, vote your beliefs...military industrial complex Vs. Soicalism... business as usual vs, business as usual:
Quoating from the man "...every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government. The supposedly conservative candidate tells us about wast in the government and ticks off $10 million in frivolous pork barrel projects that outrage him.... Conservatives are told that they must support these candidates and so they do hoping for the best. And nothing changes".

The Revolution: A manifesto: Ron Paul published 2008.

[tvtimeout]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en...Y_2011.png Under President Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United...l_Spending
Under President Bush

[Hoot Gibson]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en...Y_2011.png Under President Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United...l_Spending
Under President Bush

Looking at federal spending in the budgets for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, can you say that in terms of irresponsible spending, there is no difference between the Bush administration's record and the current administration's record? The U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget, as required by law, for more than 1,000 days to avoid making it a bigger campaign issue. Can you recall any Republican controlled Senate refusing to obey the law and pass its own budget?

[COLOR="Blue"]2006 - $2.66 trillion
2007 - $2.73 trillion
2008 - $2.9 trillion[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Orange"]2009 - $3.52 trillion
2010 - $3.72 trillion
2011 - $3.36 trillion
2012 - $3.80 trillion[/COLOR]

I would like to see the size of the federal government slashed by at least 50 percent, but given the choice between an extremely fiscally irresponsible president and one who was simply fiscally irresponsible, I would take the latter every time. Until more fiscally conservative members are elected to Congress, those are the only two choices that we will have.

[tvtimeout]

The Tea Party is not a party at all. The name is representative of a grass roots movement comprised of American voters who are tired of watching liberal Democrats redefine the basic tenets of the US Constitution. These voters are usually gainfully employed, tax paying folks who have their pants pulled up where they should be and have had enough of paying the bills for people who don't want to work. The liberal Democrat knows only too well he can depend on the non-working people in the US to continue to vote democratic because they have openly promised to keep the checks going out as long as their adoring public keeps voting them back into office. Vote buying is all it amounts to.

The coalition of minority/special interest groups that comprise the Democratic voting base is a strange mix of folks with their hands out. A super-pack of money and favor seekers. The gays want special laws passed; they want the institution of marriage redefined from a life long union between one man and one woman, to a union between two anythings. And, the family is to be redefined as any combination of humans and or wildlife that may choose to live together. Folks that think they're too good to work for a living have been made to believe entitlements are human rights, so they vote Democrat. Earth worshippers want to revert civilization back to the days prior to the industrial revolution and are therefore trying to regulate industry out of existence through pollution standards which, thanks to an ever acutely increasing angle of ascent, will never be met. Organized labor to me is the faction of the party that doesn't make sense. If one works for a living and is trying to attain as good an existence for self and family as possible through hard work, why the dedication to a party sworn to met the needs of those who won't work to support themselves? Ne'er the twain shall meet, the two concepts are infinite poles apart.

What's hilarious about tvtimeout's line of thought, whatever that may be, is the failure to recognize 220 plus years of American history. We are what we have been from 1776 to date. Free enterprise, checks and balances, the concept of being governed of the people, for the people, by the people. etc. There are enough level headed folks around to get things staightened out. Debate and process have always been part of our success as a nation. We know what works, we have our own glorious and successful history to guide us. Trying something new is how we got ourselves into the mess we're in. The "Great Society" experiment didn't work. Now the question is, how do we stop the runaway entitlement train, and who has the courage to budget us back onto the right track? Folks like Paul Ryan will make it happen if they get the needed support at the voting booth. To me it is really a question of character rather than politics or parties. Man is to earn his living by the "sweat of his brow", not laying around in front of a big screen TV demanding others pay for his needs and wants. To succeed we just need to adhere to the values of the past, and vote for candidates of moral fiber.

Voting for a non-viable candidate is cutting one's nose off to spite his face. Ron Paul has NO chance. He is a far cry short of Ross Perot and only somewhat better than Ralph Nader. Which, admittedly still puts him out in front of Obama. When you go in and vote for Paul in November, you will be helping Obama.

I would think they would fall under the line of the libertarian party.

[tvtimeout]

Looking at federal spending in the budgets for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, can you say that in terms of irresponsible spending, there is no difference between the Bush administration's record and the current administration's record? The U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget, as required by law, for more than 1,000 days to avoid making it a bigger campaign issue. Can you recall any Republican controlled Senate refusing to obey the law and pass its own budget?

[COLOR="Blue"]2006 - $2.66 trillion
2007 - $2.73 trillion
2008 - $2.9 trillion[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Orange"]2009 - $3.52 trillion
2010 - $3.72 trillion
2011 - $3.36 trillion
2012 - $3.80 trillion[/COLOR]

I would like to see the size of the federal government slashed by at least 50 percent, but given the choice between an extremely fiscally irresponsible president and one who was simply fiscally irresponsible, I would take the latter every time. Until more fiscally conservative members are elected to Congress, those are the only two choices that we will have.

Here we have common ground. The difference between you and me though is that I choose to vote for this change with Ron Paul. ROmney can not will not even come close to this, if you believe otherwise, prove it to me by his record...while governor

[TheRealThing]

[QUOT/]I have made the point before and as soon as I figure out how to double quote I will show it. So I will have two post in response to this interesting post.

There are so many issues inside of this post it is difficult for me to decide which is the best point to begin with so I will try to in the simplest of terms:[QUOTE]




One- (bolded) of this I have no doubt, two- simple terms, as in naive, seem to be your forte. Sorry, your posts may make sense at your local libertarian club but they lack credibility. World affairs do, in fact, influence our nation, sticking your head in the sand and declaring yourself immune won't stop arabs from flying 757's into skyscrapers.

[TheRealThing]

I would think they would fall under the line of the libertarian party.

You have as good a chance of this happening as the student editor of your high school newspaper would have of walking into a board meeting of the Wall Street Journal and announce he was taking over. Similarly, Ron Paul has no chance to be elected president.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here we have common ground. The difference between you and me though is that I choose to vote for this change with Ron Paul. ROmney can not will not even come close to this, if you believe otherwise, prove it to me by his record...while governor

I don't need to prove anything to you. You have demonstrated that your mind is closed and that you intend to waste a vote on a man who has no chance of effecting any kind of change because he has no chance of winning. Ron Paul's only hope of making any change in Washington is to influence the primary campaign and have some of his ideas incorporated into the Republican platform. When Romney says that he will sign a bill to repeal Obamacare, I believe him. The problem is that there may not be enough Republicans in the Senate to send him such a bill to sign. Still, Romney's chances of getting electing and at least nudging the federal government in the right direction are much better than the astronomical odds that Ron Paul will ever be president.

Do you ever ask yourself why Ron Paul runs for office as a Republican instead of running as a Libertarian? If not, then you should. His ideas are much more in line with the Libertarians, yet he remains a Republican. Why would he do that if he believed, as you say that you do, that there are no differences between the parties. The answer is that he knows something that you and so many other Paulistas fail to recognize. Paul's best change of changing the country for the better is to work from within Congress and members of the Libertarian Party never get that opportunity. Ron Paul would rather be in position to make changes than to be an ideologically pure Libertarian on the outside looking in. His supporters are not so wise.

[tvtimeout]

]I don't need to prove anything to you. You have demonstrated that your mind is closed and that you intend to waste a vote on a man who has no chance of effecting any kind of change because he has no chance of winning[/B]. Ron Paul's only hope of making any change in Washington is to influence the primary campaign and have some of his ideas incorporated into the Republican platform. When Romney says that he will sign a bill to repeal Obamacare, I believe him. The problem is that there may not be enough Republicans in the Senate to send him such a bill to sign. Still, Romney's chances of getting electing and at least nudging the federal government in the right direction are much better than the astronomical odds that Ron Paul will ever be president.

Do you ever ask yourself why Ron Paul runs for office as a Republican instead of running as a Libertarian? If not, then you should. His ideas are much more in line with the Libertarians, yet he remains a Republican. Why would he do that if he believed, as you say that you do, that there are no differences between the parties. The answer is that he knows something that you and so many other Paulistas fail to recognize. Paul's best change of changing the country for the better is to work from within Congress and members of the Libertarian Party never get that opportunity. Ron Paul would rather be in position to make changes than to be an ideologically pure Libertarian on the outside looking in. His supporters are not so wise.

Funny is it not that I present a case of why I like Ron Paul and would vote for him. I ask that a case be presented of why to vote Romney... the result. I am told I am closed minded. Not one word on why I should vote for Romney...very telling

[tvtimeout]

[quote=TheRealThing][QUOT/]I have made the point before and as soon as I figure out how to double quote I will show it. So I will have two post in response to this interesting post.

There are so many issues inside of this post it is difficult for me to decide which is the best point to begin with so I will try to in the simplest of terms:[QUOTE]




One- (bolded) of this I have no doubt, two- simple terms, as in naive, seem to be your forte. Sorry, your posts may make sense at your local libertarian club but they lack credibility. World affairs do, in fact, influence our nation, sticking your head in the sand and declaring yourself immune won't stop arabs from flying 757's into skyscrapers.[/QUOTE]

Why?

[TheRealThing]

[quote=TheRealThing][QUOT/]I have made the point before and as soon as I figure out how to double quote I will show it. So I will have two post in response to this interesting post.

There are so many issues inside of this post it is difficult for me to decide which is the best point to begin with so I will try to in the simplest of terms:

Why?

Because you quote John Quincy Adams making poetic reference to his vision of America, for one. That vision is lost my friend. People of our time do not value what they have, nor do they share his love of country. We have been reduced to petty issues here in this land. Until you can convince the 53% of Americans that don't pay taxes and are on Uncle Sam's preferred guest list that they are not special and rather, the privilege of living free (that's living in a state of freedom, not living free in the sense of expecting the government to pay for one's wants and needs), in this great land is the real gift, a candidate like Ron Paul has no chance.

The argument has very cleverly been made to look like philosophical differences based on human rights between the Democrat and the Republican. When in reality, the argument is centered around vote buying. Entitlements for votes.

[tvtimeout]

That is an interesting statement and an interesting proposition that you propose. I believe that Ron Paul does hold true to these ideals that I reguard very highly and I would imagine that most Americans feel the same way. Obviously not in all districts but in a quite a few... my prove is with the Tea Party movement which started with the man that I would like to see be President.

The tea party movement controls 41 seats in the house and at least 1 senator at this moment. Is that majority no, but it is a great start.

These ideals only die when no one stands up for them... I choose to stand.

You are right about the vote buying that happens on the left but what about the right with the military industrial complex...I would contend that both are detramental to our country.

So again I say vote Ron Paul.

[TheRealThing]

That is an interesting statement and an interesting proposition that you propose. I believe that Ron Paul does hold true to these ideals that I reguard very highly and I would imagine that most Americans feel the same way. Obviously not in all districts but in a quite a few... my prove is with the Tea Party movement which started with the man that I would like to see be President.

The tea party movement controls 41 seats in the house and at least 1 senator at this moment. Is that majority no, but it is a great start.

These ideals only die when no one stands up for them... I choose to stand.

You are right about the vote buying that happens on the left but (1) what about the right with the military industrial complex...I would contend that both are detramental to our country.
(2) So again I say vote Ron Paul.

(1) Statements like this one make me wonder about you. Evidently you are too young to understand the realities of our national defense and way in which the armed services protect us. I guess most of what you say along these lines was planted in your mind in college (you did go right?) and sounds like the crap I use to hear coming out of the mouths of stoned dopehead philosophers, sitting in a darkened room staring at black lights. Rarely does America get to sort of pick and choose which conflicts we get involved with. Simply put, defense is just that. Bad guys in this world have in times past put a gun to our head and we have responded in kind. Whether you can accept it or not, we would not be a free people right now if we were in ANY way reluctant to take up arms in our own defense. Case in point, we bent over backwards to accomodate the arab world for decades. In the end all our appeasements in the form of aid and welcoming them into our country by the millions, setting them up in business and educating them all on the taxpayer dime, resulted in the tragedy of 911. Over 3000 innocents, and between 3-4 trillion in direct losses to our economy. Living the isolationist vision has not benefitted us one iota. In short, you owe your freedom to the military compex you keep slamming on every other post.


(2) Look at it like this, say you want to get to LA. Right now there is a for sure ride to Denver but there are no flights to LA. Wouldn't it be better to get as far towards your ultimate destination as you possibly can for the present? Denver is much closer to LA than Paintsville is right? Same thing is true in this case. Ron Paul may be your ticket to LA but he is grounded and going nowhere. Why not fly with Romney to Denver and at least invest your time and money in a sure improvement, making progress in the right direction. Or you can invest your time and money on Paul and just be mad because things didn't get any better.