ForumGarden

What is the real problem with him anyways?

What stops the masses, other than they don't think he can win?

I think that's the whole thing. People are convinced, therefore they don't vote for him, therefore he doesn't win, therefore they feel justified in not having voted for him.

People vote for who they think will win, even if they know they won't like the result. If everyone voted for the person they feel is best for the job, maybe the person best for the job will win, for once.

In England we vote for party policy and have done that, in the main, while often pretending not to, since around 1780. We don't give a toss who the candidate is unless he's singularly repellent, like Neil Hamilton or William Waldegrave, or very distinctive and independent like George Galloway. Maybe that's why we have three main parties at the moment, because there happen to be three irreconcilable main party positions in England just now. We have room for a fourth if anyone can be bothered to build it.

On the other hand, the English will rarely vote for who they think will win just because. They're more likely to turn out to boost a party seen to be doing badly.

I don't need Ron Paul to be the President. Here are some reasons why:

Ron Paul does not believe in evolution.

Ron Paul does not believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy.

Ron Paul does not believe the Supreme Court should be able to hear cases regarding many important civil rights issues.

Ron Paul is virulently opposed to abortion rights.

Ron Paul opposes strong standards of separation of church and state.

He is anti-science, anti-choice. He feels a private business should have the right to ban customers for reasons of race, religion, any personal bigotries. His views on government are no match for modern times. His mindset is from hundreds of years ago. We have progressed beyond that.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Ron Paul as the republican candidate. I'd love it. :yh_clap

flopstock;1378417 wrote: What is the real problem with him anyways?

What stops the masses, other than they don't think he can win?


It's all about image--------he is old, high squeaky voice, looks like your uncle Harry.

AnneBoleyn;1378441 wrote:

This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Ron Paul as the republican candidate. I'd love it. :yh_clap


Ditto. I even hope he runs as an independent.

Lon;1378456 wrote: It's all about image--------he is old, high squeaky voice, looks like your uncle Harry.I doubt that's been it. People naturally resist quick (radical) change. Paul has been painted as radical by the media. And he is radical on some issues like the FED and the gold standard. Add that to the libertarian view that all federally owned (the people's) land should be sold off to private entities.

If Ron Paul had the ability to do half of what he'd like, I wouldn't vote for the guy, but about the only things he'd be able to do is change the conversation slightly, bring home the troops, cut the defense budget and cut funds to Israel and other countries. For that, he'd earn my vote and that of my family's and anyone else I could convince. But you think government is frozen now?

AnneBoleyn;1378441 wrote:

This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Ron Paul as the republican candidate. I'd love it. :yh_clapHe's the only one of the bunch who has a fighting chance of defeating the lying schmuck we have now. And I voted for Obama. Anyone who can still support Obama is a fool.

Ahso!;1378463 wrote: Anyone who can still support Obama is a fool.


Tell that to Osama Bin Laden...but say it real loud!:D

It's all about image--------he is old, high squeaky voice, looks like your uncle Harry.


Lon, if that is so, and you like the way the Pauls think--like father like son--you still have Rand. He is young & handsome BUT has the same hypocritical ideas. It is what they stand for that I object to. We Americans are mostly all angry right now, but let us not lose our heads. Unless, of course, you too want an end to Social Security & Medicare; if you too are against civil rights protections & a woman's freedom of choice; unless you too object to science, climate change & evolution. Not only do the Rands espouse the founders, or misunderstand most of them, IMO; they also wish to live in the 18th century. Their idea of freedom to choose is for an entreprenuer to bar anyone he wishes even based on personal prejudice. Those days, thank goodness, are over.

The ReTHUGlicans have sunk down to their lowest common denominator, the ones who would deny freedoms they don't approve of.

Ahso!;1378459 wrote: I doubt that's been it. People naturally resist quick (radical) change. Paul has been painted as radical by the media. And he is radical on some issues like the FED and the gold standard. Add that to the libertarian view that all federally owned (the people's) land should be sold off to private entities.

If Ron Paul had the ability to do half of what he'd like, I wouldn't vote for the guy, but about the only things he'd be able to do is change the conversation slightly, bring home the troops, cut the defense budget and cut funds to Israel and other countries. For that, he'd earn my vote and that of my family's and anyone else I could convince. But you think government is frozen now?


If you doubt the importance of image just look at every past presidential election. Usually the taller candidate wins, the better talker, the better groomed, the better personality. It's all hype and image and very little substance.

AnneBoleyn;1378465 wrote: Lon, if that is so, and you like the way the Pauls think--like father like son--you still have Rand. He is young & handsome BUT has the same hypocritical ideas. It is what they stand for that I object to. We Americans are mostly all angry right now, but let us not lose our heads. Unless, of course, you too want an end to Social Security & Medicare; if you too are against civil rights protections & a woman's freedom of choice; unless you too object to science, climate change & evolution. Not only do the Rands espouse the founders, or misunderstand most of them, IMO; they also wish to live in the 18th century. Their idea of freedom to choose is for an entreprenuer to bar anyone he wishes even based on personal prejudice. Those days, thank goodness, are over.

The ReTHUGlicans have sunk down to their lowest common denominator, the ones who would deny freedoms they don't approve of.


Exactly. I like the way you write AB, welcome to Forum Garden.

Whatever, Lon, if it is image that denies Ron Paul the presidency that's fine by me.

Ahso! whatever made you vote for Obama in the first place? What were you expecting, & please be specific about the lies you say he told.

Saint_ I gave a list of the terrorist notches in Obama's belt with a link, for some reason my post was denied by administrators. I think Obama has been the greatest commander in chief since Truman. I think he must constantly remind folks of these accomplishments.

Saint_;1378464 wrote: Tell that to Osama Bin Laden...but say it real loud!:DOh, Pleeez! Give that a break! You actually think anyone who had been in the White House would have said: "wait, don't shoot!"? Obama has not stood firm on one issue, the man capitulates on everything. Maybe he's your kind of guy, but he'll never get my vote again.

SnoozeAgain, thank you so much for your warm words of welcome. I did make one mistake in my post that you quoted--I never should have used the term "....let us not lose our heads." It proved dangerous for my namesake as you recall!

AnneBoleyn;1378441 wrote: I don't need Ron Paul to be the President. Here are some reasons why:

Ron Paul does not believe in evolution. I'll be danged. I found the Youtube that verifies it. How much of an impact does that have on reality?

Ron Paul does not believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. I've never even heard this preposterous lie being floated before. Where'd you get this?

Ron Paul does not believe the Supreme Court should be able to hear cases regarding many important civil rights issues. What civil rights issues are covered by the US Constitution? The Supreme Court should be limited to hearing those cases.

Ron Paul is virulently opposed to abortion rights. "Virulently" meaning he doesn't think Roe v Wade is good law? It wasn't good law. He's stated very plainly that the question of abortion should be handled by the states, since it is a personal issue & not national. The other major candidates want to amend the Constitution to make abortion illegal nationwide. Is that better??

Ron Paul opposes strong standards of separation of church and state. I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate, please?

He is anti-science, anti-choice. Incorrect on both counts. He feels a private business should have the right to ban customers for reasons of race, religion, any personal bigotries. Private property rights are protected by the US Constitution. His views on government are no match for modern times. If by "modern times" you mean times of limited liberty and parental government programs designed to protect citizens from themselves, then you may be right that they don't match. "No match" is a misstatement. His mindset is from hundreds of years ago. We have progressed beyond that. "Hundreds"? Maybe 100 years ago, because it was 1913 when Washington began to turn its back on the Constitution and started favoring corporatism over individual liberty.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Ron Paul as the republican candidate. I'd love it. :yh_clapThen by all means, vote in your local Republican primary. I'd appreciate the help.

Welcome Anne-----------stay with us

I missed being born in Brooklyn by one week and was born in Newark instead-------Ugh!

AnneBoleyn;1378472 wrote: please be specific about the lies you say he told.

We can begin with the subject the video highlights.

How much of an impact does that have on reality?


Because it is ignorant.

Accountable, before I can answer the rest of your points, I ask for some advice. Am I permitted to use links here? An answer I had originally posted to Ahso! contained links, & the post was refused by the Admins, I believe the reason was "too many UrRLs". Could you help clear this up for me, please? I would like to include links in my answer, if possible. Thanks!

"We can begin with the subject the video highlights."

Sorry Ahso! no comprendo.

To Lon--at least you can't remember you were born in Newark! Thanks for the welcome.

AnneBoleyn;1378486 wrote: Because it is ignorant.

Accountable, before I can answer the rest of your points, I ask for some advice. Am I permitted to use links here? An answer I had originally posted to Ahso! contained links, & the post was refused by the Admins, I believe the reason was "too many UrRLs". Could you help clear this up for me, please? I would like to include links in my answer, if possible. Thanks!You need a certain number of posts first, I think it's twelve or ten.

AnneBoleyn;1378488 wrote: "We can begin with the subject the video highlights."

Sorry Ahso! no comprendo.You didn't watch the video in the op?

Ahso!;1378463 wrote: He's the only one of the bunch who has a fighting chance of defeating the lying schmuck we have now. And I voted for Obama. Anyone who can still support Obama is a fool."Lying schmuck" compared to Newt Gingrich who cheated on two of his wives and compared to bush before him that lied us into war costing $1 trillion dollars and compared to Newt the Grinch that stole Christmas being the fascist he is just like any proclaimed republican?

Sounds like voting for Obama is the best thing you could ever do in your life as an American

AnneBoleyn;1378472 wrote: Saint_ I gave a list of the terrorist notches in Obama's belt with a link, for some reason my post was denied by administrators.
On a point of information, newbie posts with links are held back by the system - nobody deliberately stepped in and denied the post. It helps hold back the swamp of spam we'd otherwise be subject to.

Spot, thanks for the info.

You didn't watch the video in the op?
Still not comprendo-ing, Ahso! What op? Where?

AnneBoleyn;1378486 wrote: Because it is ignorant.True, but it makes no difference when it comes to any of the issues I've mentioned. Where does Obama stand on Evolutionary Theory?

AnneBoleyn;1378496 wrote: Spot, thanks for the info.



Still not comprendo-ing, Ahso! What op? Where? :oPost numero uno.

K.Snyder;1378491 wrote: "Lying schmuck" compared to Newt Gingrich who cheated on two of his wives and compared to bush before him that lied us into war costing $1 trillion dollars and compared to Newt the Grinch that stole Christmas being the fascist he is just like any proclaimed republican?

Sounds like voting for Obama is the best thing you could ever do in your life as an AmericanWe're comparing him to Paul in this thread, Kev.

Ahso!;1378499 wrote: We're comparing him to Paul in this thread, Kev.And I'm highlighting why Paul has no chance in hell of winning an election posed by parties and not individuals. It means voting for individuals is grounds for losing by default, as heroic as it sounds it hasn't been this way,..well..EVER

Thanks to all for a great first day posting here. I'll be back as soon as I can, after all I'm being held (by) Accountable. Have a good night.

Perhaps Anne will actually respond to posts tomorrow.

AnneBoleyn;1378505 wrote: Thanks to all for a great first day posting here. I'll be back as soon as I can, after all I'm being held (by) Accountable. Have a good night.:wah: Have a good evening.

I'm intrigued by Rocky Anderson. He seems like a better outsider. His biggest obstacle is people not wanting to split the democratic vote in case Anderson loses.

AnneBoleyn;1378496 wrote: Still not comprendo-ing, Ahso! What op? Where?
Conventionally that would have been an capitalized acronym, OP, Original Post.

spot;1378516 wrote: Conventionally that would have been an capitalized acronym, OP, Original Post.Yes. I apologize for my laziness.

Accountable began this thread with a video and I referenced part of that video as one issue to support my assertion that Obama has reneged on several of his campaign promises, thus my calling him [Obama] a "lying schmuck".

koan;1378513 wrote: I'm intrigued by Rocky Anderson. He seems like a better outsider. His biggest obstacle is people not wanting to split the democratic vote in case Anderson loses.
I like his rhetoric.

"They want to see an alternative party. They recognize that these two militarist, corporatist parties have brought us to this disastrous place to where we are today."

"We've been voting as a nation against our own interests year after year," he said. "Most Americans — whether they consider themselves on the right, left, center, whatever — understand that their interests have been undermined by these folks in Washington, both in the White House and in Congress, who are acting as if they're on retainer with their largest campaign contributors rather than doing what's in the public's interest."
Rocky Anderson forms Justice Party, plans to run for president | Deseret News

Can you imagine this guy on the Dem ticket and Romney on the Repub ticket? With only Mormons to vote for, a lot of voters would have blood shooting from their eyes! :wah:

Mormons do have that Mountain Meadows Massacre thing hanging around that they haven't admitted to yet, AFAIK.

Accountable. I'll pick up where we left off yesterday.

2. Ron Paul does not believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. I've never even heard this preposterous lie being floated before. Where'd you get this?



One answer to this is that Roe v. Wade was decided as patient right to privacy in making the decision with personal physician. From Wikpedia: "In 2005 he sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act to define life as beginning at conception" & "In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion."

3. Ron Paul does not believe the Supreme Court should be able to hear cases regarding many important civil rights issues. What civil rights issues are covered by the US Constitution? The Supreme Court should be limited to hearing those cases.

From HG Legal Directory "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places." Brown v. Board of Education comes to my mind; Roe, etc.

4. Ron Paul is virulently opposed to abortion rights. "Virulently" meaning he doesn't think Roe v Wade is good law? It wasn't good law. He's stated very plainly that the question of abortion should be handled by the states, since it is a personal issue & not national. The other major candidates want to amend the Constitution to make abortion illegal nationwide. Is that better??



The other major candidates are as wrong as Paul, & as wrong as you. I believe strongly in a woman's right to ownership over her person. I believe in abortion on demand, no apologies, no excuses necessary. There is no use butting heads over this issue. Roe is the law. As for states rights, I am very interested in the push for those who have carry permits for guns in their own states seeking the right to do so in states that do not recognize the permit. What about the rights of those states with strict gun laws? They no longer exist?

5. Ron Paul opposes strong standards of separation of church and state. I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate, please?



I'll let Ron Paul tell you in his own words: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs." From The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

Accountable, there are things I admire about Ron Paul. He was boldly against the Iraq War, he wants to end the Cuban Embargo, he opposes aggression & intervention without great cause, he is not afraid of the marijuana question, nor does he ever run from his positions. I have admiration for him on several levels, I would not like to see him as President.

Ahso! I want to watch the video again, then I'll get back to you. :yh_smiley

I'd swear lifelong allegiance to any candidate that would support a ban on handguns in the United States. But sadly, we're all crazy and we'll keep killing ourselves to the tune of 35,000 a year until we're all dead.

AnneBoleyn;1378596 wrote: Accountable. I'll pick up where we left off yesterday [...] Ahso! I want to watch the video again, then I'll get back to you.


Tell me, are you one of those recently highlighted in the newspapers as flooding onto social media sites to transform opinion in a specific direction by word of mouth testimony? I've wondered when we'd get socially engineered like that. If you are, is there a recommended best practice you abide by and can we see it? Does it involve declaring your interest in the matter under discussion, if asked?

I only bring it up because we've had similar newbies extolling dreadful low-budget movies for years and they've been paid to post here.

I'll make it easy on you. Obama promised his first act as president would be to bring the troops home. Not only has Obama reneged on that promise, he went as far as attempting to negotiate a longer official presence in Iraq and also tried to have American service personal exempt from Iraqi law.

Your turn.

Saint_;1378600 wrote: I'd swear lifelong allegiance to any candidate that would support a ban on handguns in the United States. But sadly, we're all crazy and we'll keep killing ourselves to the tune of 35,000 a year until we're all dead.Stop teasing.

spot;1378601 wrote: Tell me, are you one of those recently highlighted in the newspapers as flooding onto social media sites to transform opinion in a specific direction by word of mouth testimony? I've wondered when we'd get socially engineered like that. If you are, is there a recommended best practice you abide by and can we see it? Does it involve declaring your interest in the matter under discussion, if asked?

I only bring it up because we've had similar newbies extolling dreadful low-budget movies for years and they've been paid to post here.We had folks like that back in 2007 too if I remember correctly. FG's been on the map for a while now I believe.

Ahso!;1378605 wrote: We had folks like that back in 2007 too if I remember correctly. FG's been on the map for a while now I believe.


Here's a 2007 outline of the way web activism was used in the lead up to the last election - BBC NEWS | Americas | US campaigns go networking on the net

If I see one from this month I'll bring that in too.

Tell me, are you one of those recently highlighted in the newspapers as flooding onto social media sites to transform opinion in a specific direction by word of mouth testimony? I've wondered when we'd get socially engineered like that. If you are, is there a recommended best practice you abide by and can we see it? Does it involve declaring your interest in the matter under discussion, if asked?



I only bring it up because we've had similar newbies extolling dreadful low-budget movies for years and they've been paid to post here.




Spot, I am absolutely not, & yet I am very flattered to think that you may think that anyone would pay me for anything I have to say. Also, I think, though not sure, that it is only right-wing types doing that. I've never heard of the left doing that. I wish someone would pay me for something, but no, not me, I'm just a person seeking to kill time before time kills me. But, from the bottom of my heart, many thanks! I don't understand what you mean by "is there a recommended best practice you abide by and can we see it?" What does that even mean? Paid to post here? I wish!:yh_rotfl

"But sceptics say the real test will be whether the interest generated online is translated to a higher turnout at the ballot box. 'It did that, didn't it.

I'll be interested to see the percentages in sources this cycle.

AnneBoleyn;1378615 wrote: Spot, I am absolutely not, & yet I am very flattered to think that you may think that anyone would pay me for anything I have to say. Also, I think, though not sure, that it is only right-wing types doing that. I've never heard of the left doing that. I wish someone would pay me for something, but no, not me, I'm just a person seeking to kill time before time kills me. But, from the bottom of my heart, many thanks! I don't understand what you mean by "is there a recommended best practice you abide by and can we see it?" What does that even mean? Paid to post here? I wish!:yh_rotflWe'll see, won't we. if your still here after the election then I'll believe you. You're too well versed on DNC talking points.

Anne, any answer on my question about Obama's stance on Evolutionary Theory?