New Hampshire Primary

[jimnyc]

So, does anyone have a chance to beat, or come close to Romney in NH? It's starting to look like his race to lose, more and more with every passing day. I think if he wins big tonight, and then surges through SC, he's only going to gain steam. If that happens, the good news is that polls still show Romney faring best against Obama at this point.

[-Cp]

....the good news is that polls still show Romney faring best against Obama at this point.


Hmmm:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-12-04/only-ron-paul-can-beat-obama-in-iowa/

http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12763

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120104/OPED02/201040338

[jimnyc]

Hmmm:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-12-04/only-ron-paul-can-beat-obama-in-iowa/

http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12763

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120104/OPED02/201040338

Let's see, a link to Paul's site, a link to a story from RP's lawyer, and an op-ed from some unidentified person? Thanks, but I'll stick with the nationally known polls. I'm not real fond of most polls to begin with, but what you posted is a bit one sided.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is done.

[ConHog]

Let's see, a link to Paul's site, a link to a story from RP's lawyer, and an op-ed from some unidentified person? Thanks, but I'll stick with the nationally known polls. I'm not real fond of most polls to begin with, but what you posted is a bit one sided.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is done.

Ron Paul was done before he ever got started. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul was done before he ever got started. :laugh2:

Not to the twoooofers, and racists, and those wanting to legalize heroin for the druggies. They must be salivating while hoping he gets elected.

[ConHog]

Not to the twoooofers, and racists, and those wanting to legalize heroin for the druggies. They must be salivating while hoping he gets elected.

new campaign slogan for RP


" Give me your tired, your poor, your mentally deranged."

[Thunderknuckles]

One thing you have to give to Paul's supporters is their tenacity. They're like political pit bulls that do not let go once they lock their jaws. The guy has been running for President since 1988 and these guys still stand by him.


...or maybe they're just lunatics :p

[-Cp]

http://drudgereport.com/#pd_a_5826843 *<--- check the poll..

<tt><center>DRUDGE PRIMARY NOW OPEN
RON 28% MITT 27% RICK 20% NEWT 14%
</center></tt>

[jimnyc]

:lol: - That's an online poll open to any visitor to that site. Do you really consider that accurate? LOL

[ConHog]

:lol: - That's an online poll open to any visitor to that site. Do you really consider that accurate? LOL

I wonder how many times he voted ?:laugh2:

[-Cp]

:lol: - That's an online poll open to any visitor to that site. Do you really consider that accurate? LOL

Would it be accurate if your "boy" was leading? Of course it's not 100%, but it's a barometer...

[jimnyc]

Would it be accurate if your "boy" was leading? Of course it's not 100%, but it's a barometer...

Online voting polls are retarded and one decent sized site can lead a campaign to distort the poll. There are very little checks and balances, and security, to make it in any way accurate.

By the way, just who is my boy?

[gabosaurus]

Since Romney is such a huge favorite in N.H., the only real effect will be seen if he loses.
The primary in South Carolina will be a bigger determinant of how popular Romney is.

[Mr. P]

Since Romney is such a huge favorite in N.H., the only real effect will be seen if he loses.
The primary in South Carolina will be a bigger determinant of how popular Romney is.

Yup. NH an Iowa are a joke really. Just something for the media to do IMO.

[CSM]

Yup. NH an Iowa are a joke really. Just something for the media to do IMO.

I dunno; I'm thinking the folks in NH don't think it's a joke. Being from NH myself and still living there, I find it kind of interesting. On a side note, one of my sons went to vote today and somebody had registered him as a democrat during the mid terms. Now we could say that he accidently did that except for one little detail. He was deployed at that time and didn't vote. I would like to assume it was merely a mistake but hard to see how.Of course, no ID required to vote in NH. Hmmmmm

[pegwinn]

Not to the twoooofers, and racists, and those wanting to legalize heroin for the druggies. They must be salivating while hoping he gets elected.

twoooofers? WTF is a twooooofer?

I'd legalise heroin in a heart beat. It's win/win. The drug dealers lose out and the hopeless junkies OD and drop dead.

[jimnyc]

twoooofers? WTF is a twooooofer?

I'd legalise heroin in a heart beat. It's win/win. The drug dealers lose out and the hopeless junkies OD and drop dead.

My horrible attempt at humor. Those who think 9/11 was an inside job and/or want a new investigation because they think the official reports are lies, are all on Paul's side. Paul catered to the truthers and what they wanted to hear, about investigations, and then went on to tell them that America was partly responsible for being attacked due to foreign policy. His former aide also states that Paul thought perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known ahead of time.

[pegwinn]

My horrible attempt at humor. Those who think 9/11 was an inside job and/or want a new investigation because they think the official reports are lies, are all on Paul's side. Paul catered to the truthers and what they wanted to hear, about investigations, and then went on to tell them that America was partly responsible for being attacked due to foreign policy. His former aide also states that Paul thought perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known ahead of time.

Oh. Ok. Yeah the truthers, birthers, and other 'irs are a bit out there.

Catering to a group, no matter how extreme, is just part of politics. So, I don't hold that against him or anyone since they all do it.

[ConHog]

Oh. Ok. Yeah the truthers, birthers, and other 'irs are a bit out there.

Catering to a group, no matter how extreme, is just part of politics. So, I don't hold that against him or anyone since they all do it.

Catering to a group that can't accept that the man in office is a US citizen is okay? Catering to a group who believes are own country orchestrated or at the very least was complacent in 9/11 is okay? Nay say I.

[pegwinn]

Catering to a group that can't accept that the man in office is a US citizen is okay? Catering to a group who believes are own country orchestrated or at the very least was complacent in 9/11 is okay? Nay say I.

Nay all y'like. If you were in or running for office you'd be a fool to not do the most to alienate the least. I may have quixotic opinions but I do recognize reality for what it is.

[jimnyc]

Oh. Ok. Yeah the truthers, birthers, and other 'irs are a bit out there.

Catering to a group, no matter how extreme, is just part of politics. So, I don't hold that against him or anyone since they all do it.

I understand that its generally a part of politics, but then Paul shouldn't be running around proclaiming to be some sort of brand new guy to Washington who isn't part of the establishment. He's no different than the others. And if what his aide claims is true, he's just an outright idiot for spouting absolute crap. Pandering for votes is one thing, but a candidate has to be careful that what he says to small groups doesn't come back to haunt him - like racist writings when he thought his political career was over.

[pegwinn]

I understand that its generally a part of politics, but then Paul shouldn't be running around proclaiming to be some sort of brand new guy to Washington who isn't part of the establishment. He's no different than the others. And if what his aide claims is true, he's just an outright idiot for spouting absolute crap. Pandering for votes is one thing, but a candidate has to be careful that what he says to small groups doesn't come back to haunt him - like racist writings when he thought his political career was over.

Paul is a Pol, we agree.

Of all the Pols being considered for President who has done the least harm over his career?

[ConHog]

Paul is a Pol, we agree.

Of all the Pols being considered for President who has done the least harm over his career?

Doing the least harm means nothing if you also have done the least to help.

[pegwinn]

Doing the least harm means nothing if you also have done the least to help.

Well that was pretty least helpful. You wanna try to answer the question, or would you rather pass and leave it to Jim?

[jimnyc]

Paul is a Pol, we agree.

Of all the Pols being considered for President who has done the least harm over his career?

"harm" is subjective. I look at it as - who can do more good for our country if elected. I don't think RP has done a single thing to "lessen harm" to our country.

[revelarts]

"harm" is subjective. I look at it as - who can do more good for our country if elected. I don't think RP has done a single thing to "lessen harm" to our country.
the congress has been drifting left big gov't and imperialist for the last 60 years or so he's stood like a rock against the tide the whole time he's been able. not being able to get his fellow republicans and the democrats to vote for smaller gov't and more constitutional adherence is no small job and after 24 years of work Ithink he's finally seeing a little turn of the tide. the TEA pArty is really his baby, the 1st one was a Ron Paul fund rasier.

but the country needs to go away from big gov't to small he's always voted that way consistently for years, the rest of congress hasen't, he couldn't change it alone but as president he can veto the heck out of every big gov't program and unbalanced budget for 4 years or longer.

If we are serious about samll gov't and don't want another republican "talker" who grows the gov't while telling us "big gov't am bad, me no like too" then Ron Paul should be an easy win.

that's for starters.



Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.



solid 2nd in New hampshire, close 3rd behind a tie for 1st in Iowa. Ron Paul is a front runner. period.

toothers support Paul and so do active duty military who support him with their dollars more than all of the other candidates combined, you want
add that to you list of groups that support paul Jim. Doesn't fit your poor caricature of Ron Paul supportters? I mean hey just asking you not to be so dismissive. a little more honest on this point.

[Abbey Marie]

Catering to small groups is one thing. Catering to/agreeing with wack jobs who think our government orchestrated 9-11, is grounds for a tin foil crowning.

[jimnyc]

solid 2nd in New hampshire, close 3rd behind a tie for 1st in Iowa. Ron Paul is a front runner. period.

toothers support Paul and so do active duty military who support him with their dollars more than all of the other candidates combined, you want
add that to you list of groups that support paul Jim. Doesn't fit your poor caricature of Ron Paul supportters? I mean hey just asking you not to be so dismissive. a little more honest on this point.

Getting beat by 15+ percentage points is still getting destroyed, whether you finish in 2nd or 6th. And polls suggest he'll do about as well in SC. Consider him your front runner, keep your hopes up, I don't care.

[-Cp]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/igQ20jXRCnE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/igQ20jXRCnE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

This guy looks familiar... Isn't this the same guy that Rev posted a video of, declaring to the masses that Obama passed a bill that allowed for indefinite detention of Gitmo detainees, even if found not guilty? If so, his opinion AND facts leave very little to be desired.

[jimnyc]

This guy looks familiar... Isn't this the same guy that Rev posted a video of, declaring to the masses that Obama passed a bill that allowed for indefinite detention of Gitmo detainees, even if found not guilty? If so, his opinion AND facts leave very little to be desired.

Yep, one and the same.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33863-Obama-had-no-balls-to-close-Gitmo&p=514786#post514786

[CSM]

Yep, one and the same.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33863-Obama-had-no-balls-to-close-Gitmo&p=514786#post514786

yeah, his sister works for homeland security. Donchya recognize the name?

[jimnyc]

yeah, his sister works for homeland security. Donchya recognize the name?

Great, 2 idiots then. But if he's going to broadcast incorrect information on something so critical, he should find a new career. Either way, I don't think his "endorsement" amounts to jack shit.

[MtnBiker]

Sister?? I thought it was his brother. :cool:

[pegwinn]

"harm" is subjective. I look at it as - who can do more good for our country if elected. I don't think RP has done a single thing to "lessen harm" to our country.

Alright. I can go the other way.

What good has any Presidential Candidate done to lessen harm to the country?

[CSM]

Sister?? I thought it was his brother. :cool:


I can see how one would make that mistake; she's ugly enough!

[CSM]

Alright. I can go the other way.

What good has any Presidential Candidate done to lessen harm to the country?

Well, Bachmann did drop out.

[jimnyc]

Alright. I can go the other way.

What good has any Presidential Candidate done to lessen harm to the country?

I don't think I can say. Are we talking safety? economically? The question is much too broad to answer that easily. But if you're reaching to somehow state that RP has somehow made us "safer" as a congressman, I'm not biting. But I will say, I'm a firm believer that he WOULD make us less safe as a President.

[revelarts]

This guy looks familiar... Isn't this the same guy that Rev posted a video of, declaring to the masses that Obama passed a bill that allowed for indefinite detention of Gitmo detainees, even if found not guilty? If so, his opinion AND facts leave very little to be desired.

So if you've made a mistake, everything you say is invalid thereafter, Hmm. Well i guess I can ignore everything you've said as well Jim? I think we all could fall into that category frankly.
But hey, how bout some facts with that backhanded dismissal of what's he's saying in this specific commentary?

Is he wrong about Romeny in comparison to Obama?

[jimnyc]

So if you've made a mistake, everything you say is invalid thereafter, Hmm. Well i guess I can ignore everything you've said as well Jim? I think we all could fall into that category frankly.
But hey, how bout some facts with that backhanded dismissal of what's he's saying in this specific commentary?

Is he wrong about Romeny in comparison to Obama?

When a TV analyst makes an endorsement, it means little to me. I don't watch the news pundits and very rarely have.

[ConHog]

Sister?? I thought it was his brother. :cool:

I'm of the opinion that Janet is just the Judge in drag. Ever seen them together?

[jimnyc]

Here is some more on Ron Paul and his voting record.


When Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced his most recent run for the White House back in May 2011, MSNBC Host Chris Matthews pressed him on the extent of his libertarian convictions. Would he have opposed the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act had he been in office when it was considered, Matthews wanted to know.

It was a hypothetical question and Paul gave a fairly broad answer, saying he appreciated the intent of the law but disagreed with the specific language on property rights.

Left unmentioned was that Paul had -- in more than a hypothetical sense -- already cast a vote on the famous bill. On June 24, 2004, the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Four hundred and fourteen members voted yes, and 18 didn't show up to vote. Only one member said nay: Ron Paul.

And more:


Civil rights issues weren't the only areas where Paul was a man alone in Congress. On foreign policy matters, and those pertaining to Israel in particular, he has routinely isolated himself from all other lawmakers.

On July 30, 1997, Paul was the lone dissenter on a House-passed resolution titled "Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist bombing in the Jerusalem market." Three-and-a-half years later, he was the lone dissenter on a House-passed resolution congratulating Ariel Sharon for his election as Israeli prime minister. In July 20, 2006, he was one of eight no votes on another House-passed resolution sponsored by now-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) condemning terrorist attacks against Israel.

The list goes on.

Paul's supporters have long argued that his posture towards Israel is driven not out of some latent anti-Semitism, but conviction that U.S. policy in the Middle East is imbalanced and over-engaged. And, indeed, a look at other votes on Paul's resume shows that he's been an equal opportunity offender.

In February 2005, he was the only member in the House to vote against a resolution "commending the Palestinian people" for conducting a "free and fair" presidential election. During the height of the Green Revolution, Paul was the lone House member to vote against a resolution "expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."


And more:


On September 7, 2000, Paul was alone in his opposition to a bill exempting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum from limits established during the previous year's budget. The bill ultimately became law.

On March 10, 1998, he was one of two House members to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which promoted better data collection and sharing on the topic. The bill ultimately became law.

On November 4, 1997, he was one of two members to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill that would "require the Attorney General to establish a program in local prisons to identify, prior to arraignment, criminal aliens and aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States." The bill ultimately became law.

On October 27, 2000, he was one of two votes against the Assistance for International Malaria Control Act. The bill, which was sponsored by former Sen. Jesse Helms, eventually became law.

On February 1, 2000, Paul was one of two no votes on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, which provided more state grant funding for criminal justice and child welfare agencies to collect and share data on child abuse. The bill ultimately became law.

On December 15, 2009, Paul was the only member to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the "First Responder Anti-Terrorism Training Resources Act" which loosened restrictions on the type of financial help the Department of Homeland Security could get for the purpose of terrorism preparedness and prevention. The bill ultimately became law.

Paul was one of only three House members to vote against a conference report creating a commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks. One of the other two to vote against the measure (which became law) is former Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), the current Secretary of Transportation.

On October 17, 2001, Paul was the lone no vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which dramatically heightened rules and enforcement on funds that went to terrorist or terrorist-connected organizations. The bill wouldn't become law but portions of it were put into the PATRIOT Act.

On November 8, 1999, Paul was the lone nay vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass an amendment to fund the Office of Government Ethics.

On July 1, 2010, he was one of four members who voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass an amendment that prohibited "any person from performing lobbying activities on behalf of a client which is determined by the Secretary of State to be a State sponsor of terrorism."

There are, of course, many more. Paul was one of two House members to vote against a September 2008 motion to adopt a bill extending a "grant program for armor vests for law enforcement officers." That same month, he was one of two members to vote against suspending a rule and adopting a bill that would require group health plans to ensure that inpatient coverage and radiation therapy were provided for breast cancer treatment.

Paul was the only member to vote against a House measure expressing condolences to the families and victims of the February 2010 Chilean earthquake. He was also the only member to vote against a House measure expressing condolences to the victims of the Haiti earthquake. And when the House considered a resolution that would make any organ donor eligible for a Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life medal, in honor of the late congresswoman, he was, once again, the lone vote in opposition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/ron-paul-voting-record_n_1173255.html

[-Cp]

3104

[jimnyc]

3104

If that makes you or others feel better about his chances! :lol:

[-Cp]

3105

[jimnyc]

So Ron Paul communicates through racist newsletters, Rev does so with Youtube and you like pictures! :laugh2:

[pegwinn]

Gonna have to break this down. Bear with me Jim. I said:


Paul is a Pol, we agree.

Of all the Pols being considered for President who has done the least harm over his career?

You said:


"harm" is subjective. I look at it as - who can do more good for our country if elected. I don't think RP has done a single thing to "lessen harm" to our country.

To which I said:


Alright. I can go the other way.

What good has any Presidential Candidate done to lessen harm to the country?

And you replied:


I don't think I can say. Are we talking safety? economically? The question is much too broad to answer that easily. But if you're reaching to somehow state that RP has somehow made us "safer" as a congressman, I'm not biting. But I will say, I'm a firm believer that he WOULD make us less safe as a President.

You reframed the question and so I responded. You can define it as you wish because as far as I know this is not a scored debate where we are playing "gotcha". By, "who can do more good" we can reverse that to who has done less harm. Your "can do good" list should logically reverse itself.

The point is that every GOP pol has major problems that Paul doesn't have. Those problems are practical disqualifiers in my view. Rev posted a list of positives for Paul. If you agree that those are good things, where is the comprehensive list of good things for the other candidates? I don't expect you to change your mind IRT Paul. Here's your chance to perhaps change mine.

[jimnyc]

You reframed the question and so I responded. You can define it as you wish because as far as I know this is not a scored debate where we are playing "gotcha". By, "who can do more good" we can reverse that to who has done less harm. Your "can do good" list should logically reverse itself.

The point is that every GOP pol has major problems that Paul doesn't have. Those problems are practical disqualifiers in my view. Rev posted a list of positives for Paul. If you agree that those are good things, where is the comprehensive list of good things for the other candidates? I don't expect you to change your mind IRT Paul. Here's your chance to perhaps change mine.

I wouldn't want to change your mind nor attempt to. I'm basically a "spoiler" as far as I can see, I think at this point I can fairly say that they all suck. But read back a few posts to where I pointed out an article showing Ron Pauls whacky voting record. As a "spoiler", someone who votes like that would be first on my list out of the game. Someone so unpredictable and out in right field would be dangerous for our country.

[pegwinn]

I wouldn't want to change your mind nor attempt to. I'm basically a "spoiler" as far as I can see, I think at this point I can fairly say that they all suck. But read back a few posts to where I pointed out an article showing Ron Pauls whacky voting record. As a "spoiler", someone who votes like that would be first on my list out of the game. Someone so unpredictable and out in right field would be dangerous for our country.

I wonder how the positives posted by Rev would line up to the negatives you posted. I haven't done that myself. And the next few days (new job tomorrow, I R a renaissance man) are gonna be stacked.

I am starting to think that folks no longer care about character as in honesty and such things. All the slimeball stuff pulled by the other guys make Paul look pretty good to me. Of course I actually want the fed to physically shrink to the point your daily paper has a much larger local section.

If I thought the GOP was an honorable institution I might be tempted to buy the Ron Paul "consolation prize" theories. There's a line going around that he doesn't expect to win and really intends to bargain his delegates to someone who will include his policies. I think any of the likely nominees would promise, break promise, and then ride on.

[ConHog]

peg,

I got a question. Is it your contention that by definition a politician who isn't doing any harm is in fact doing good simply by virtue of not doing any harm?

[pegwinn]

peg,

I got a question. Is it your contention that by definition a politician who isn't doing any harm is in fact doing good simply by virtue of not doing any harm?

nope

[ConHog]

nope

Ok, just wanted to clarify.

[-Cp]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JK4gJb0pulw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[-Cp]

And.. of course.. I post a video from one of Jim's "real news sources'.... and that's till not good enough .. *sigh*...

[jimnyc]

And.. of course.. I post a video from one of Jim's "real news sources'.... and that's till not good enough .. *sigh*...

One of "my" sources? How so? Maybe people just don't want nice little videos and they prefer to actually DISCUSS things instead of posting video after video?

[ConHog]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JK4gJb0pulw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How much does a Ron Paul troll make anyway?

[-Cp]

One of "my" sources? How so? Maybe people just don't want nice little videos and they prefer to actually DISCUSS things instead of posting video after video?

Dude. .you're the one who insisted I post from "real news sources".. I do that.. and since it doesn't support your own warped ideas about Ron Paul, you scoff it off.... *rolls eyes..

[-Cp]

How much does a Ron Paul troll make anyway?

A lot more than a Right-wing kool-aid drinker who has their head so far up the ass of Hannity and Limbaugh that they've lost all objectivity.

[jimnyc]

Dude. .you're the one who insisted I post from "real news sources".. I do that.. and since it doesn't support your own warped ideas about Ron Paul, you scoff it off.... *rolls eyes..

I don't think a 2 minute clip of a pundit speaking means much. I'm sorry you buy into that crap. At any rate, I don't think I scoffed it off, I don't think I addressed it at all other than to say that people here prefer to discuss things than watch videos. Sometimes videos can be cool - but don't use it as a "source" and then come back later complaining when no one has watched/commented. Jeez, at least tell people what the crap is about if you expect them to hit the play button.

[jimnyc]

A lot more than a Right-wing kool-aid drinker who has their head so far up the ass of Hannity and Limbaugh that they've lost all objectivity.

I know I've never watched or listened to either. What makes you think ConHog does? Or does someone automatically meet that assertion when they think RP is the kook he is?

[ConHog]

A lot more than a Right-wing kool-aid drinker who has their head so far up the ass of Hannity and Limbaugh that they've lost all objectivity.

That's odd. I've seen Jim laughing at Rush, and never seen him say anything in reference to Hannity. Can you provide examples of him drinking their Kool aid?

Also, if it's not too much trouble, could you tell me which is your favorite flavor of RP kook aide?

[ConHog]

I know I've never watched or listened to either. What makes you think ConHog does? Or does someone automatically meet that assertion when they think RP is the kook he is?

That's odd, you thought he was referring to me, I thought he was referring to you, and neither of us watch either of them. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

That's odd, you thought he was referring to me, I thought he was referring to you, and neither of us watch either of them. :laugh2:

It's called "making things up", and interestingly enough, he's not the first Ron Paul supporter to do so!

[logroller]

I know I've never watched or listened to either. What makes you think ConHog does? Or does someone automatically meet that assertion when they think RP is the kook he is?

I don't know if I'd call him a kook. I mean, he speaks his mind, and sometimes his sentiments are off-color. But I do believe him to be honest, which I can't say for many politicians, who speak mostly to carefully analyzed talking points based on poll data. Not saying there's anything overtly wrong with using science to garner public support, politics is a science after all, but I;m left to wonder where many, including Romney, actually stand on issues, and which of those he'll be willing to compromise to push through those he's adamant on. How much of it is just a blind leap of faith? That's not very scientific.

[jimnyc]

I don't know if I'd call him a kook. I mean, he speaks his mind, and sometimes his sentiments are off-color. But I do believe him to be honest, which I can't say for many politicians, who speak mostly to carefully analyzed talking points based on poll data. Not saying there's anything overtly wrong with using science to garner public support, politics is a science after all, but I;m left to wonder where many, including Romney, actually stand on issues, and which of those he'll be willing to compromise to push through those he's adamant on. How much of it is just a blind leap of faith? That's not very scientific.

I don't find Ron Paul to be honest, but that's just my opinion. But he could clear that up by coming forth with specifically who wrote the racist newsletters, if it wasn't him. Then explain why this person wasn't confronted IMMEDIATELY and also dismissed immediately. Explain if, and how much, he profited from those newsletters. He dances around the issue, which makes him less than honest, IMO.

Then you have some VERY weird votes he has cast over the years, usually those where he is alone in his vote, but not always. I think he's in his own little world at times. Then he panders to the 9/11 kooks and has apparently went as far as to state that the CIA and the Bush administration might have been more involved than we are aware of. That makes him a kook, IMO.

[ConHog]

I don't find Ron Paul to be honest, but that's just my opinion. But he could clear that up by coming forth with specifically who wrote the racist newsletters, if it wasn't him. Then explain why this person wasn't confronted IMMEDIATELY and also dismissed immediately. Explain if, and how much, he profited from those newsletters. He dances around the issue, which makes him less than honest, IMO.

Then you have some VERY weird votes he has cast over the years, usually those where he is alone in his vote, but not always. I think he's in his own little world at times. Then he panders to the 9/11 kooks and has apparently went as far as to state that the CIA and the Bush administration might have been more involved than we are aware of. That makes him a kook, IMO.

The more I read/watch about this dude the more I believe he is anti Jew. Now I don't care if someone hates Jews or whatever, but I don't believe our POTUS should outwardly be against ANY group (and yes that includes Muslims.)