oki, i have a question concerning Mr. Paul

melodious
melodious Posts: 1,719
edited January 2008 in A Moving Train
I am watching the news in the a.m. and hear about the Republican gathering in Michigan...I notice that there is no mention of Ron Paul as a prospect. If the Repubs are keeping him out of the debates, then how is the rest of Amerika supposed to familiarize with him. Not everyone reads the internet for information purposes...Should one become a "troll" and infiltrate "mom and Pops" websites to make the voting population more familiar (whether it be about ron paul or information concerning vaccinations)...I have tried this once before--going to places to put out information where it was not welcomed...(i feel like it's disturbing other's peace, these days..)

Most people spend all their time watching mainstream media, and if info is not fed concerning Mr. Paul, then how will these people have an exposure when their options are being withheld..

I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

How does this work, if a person is not recognized "officially" by their party and yet wants to run in an election. I hope I am making sense.
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    he didnt do very well in the first 2 primaries, I'm sure that has something to do with it
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    melodious wrote:
    I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

    No
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Paul isn't a prospect. The backbone of his campaign is a vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. He is trying to win the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. i'll let you do the math. Its a fairly simple equation.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • melodious
    melodious Posts: 1,719
    thank you.
    all insanity:
    a derivitive of nature.
    nature is god
    god is love
    love is light
  • godpt3
    godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he didnt do very well in the first 2 primaries, I'm sure that has something to do with it

    I think we oughta challege the paultards: If RP pulls more than 10% in any single primary we'll donate $50 to their favorite non-RP charity and vice versa. :D
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • godpt3
    godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    cornnifer wrote:
    Paul isn't a prospect. The backbone of his campaign is a vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. He is trying to win the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. i'll let you do the math. Its a fairly simple equation.

    You're right. He isn't a prospect. He's an abomination.
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    The Moving Train started because of too much politics on the Porch. Perhaps we need a Paul page as well. ;)
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he didnt do very well in the first 2 primaries, I'm sure that has something to do with it

    He beat Giuliani in the first one (about THREE TO ONE!), and tied him in the second.
    HE BEAT FRED THOMPSON IN BOTH by about SEVEN TO ONE! (contrary to media bullshit, Giuliani spent SUBSTANTIALY more time in Iowa than Ron Paul)

    But both Giuliani and Fred get substantial coverage.

    WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

    Still think its fair?

    Bullshit.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • godpt3
    godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

    10%. Put up or shut up.
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    godpt3 wrote:
    10%. Put up or shut up.
    SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

    HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Solat13
    Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

    HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

    Not that anyone campaigned in Wyoming, but Thompson came in 2nd to Romney there and technically has more delegates pledged to him than Paul 6 vs. 2 but neither candidate is viable.

    Romney, McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani will get the nod.
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Solat13 wrote:
    Not that anyone campaigned in Wyoming, but Thompson came in 2nd to Romney there and technically has more delegates pledged to him than Paul 6 vs. 2 but neither candidate is viable.

    Romney, McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani will get the nod.

    From what i understand Wyoming is basicaly "rigged" in that it was decided by CLOSED VOTES ... delegates seleted by a group picked based off of prior years records of some sort.

    The public didn't even have a chance to make a statement there.

    Not that i think any of it matters at this point.

    I just can't believe there are so many here completely ignorant to the "Ruling Class" "conspiracy" that is suppressing an entire campaign and is CLEARLY BIASED.

    Fox edited Paul's shining answer to the "Frankly, Are You Electable?" mock-question ... from their rebroadcast, why?

    Jee. Maybe because it made the entire GOP look like the flaming asshats they are.

    :(
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • godpt3
    godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

    HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

    being serious here for a moment... will you take me up on this little wager? If RP pulls more than 10% in any primary or caucus, I'll make a donation to a charity of your choice. And if he doesn't you'll donate to a charity of my choice.

    Deal?
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

    HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

    I agree. thompson should be gone.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    godpt3 wrote:
    being serious here for a moment... will you take me up on this little wager? If RP pulls more than 10% in any primary or caucus, I'll make a donation to a charity of your choice. And if he doesn't you'll donate to a charity of my choice.

    Deal?

    no i wont.
    because i don't think he will.
    :(

    And i blame "the system", the media, and a completely ignorant electorate that is only made less informed by the bias and absolute bullshit spewed by the media.

    It is not that paul is unelectable, it is that the system doesn't want him elected.

    If you pull enough strings, use enough slander, rig enough polls, blackout on enough media coverage, edit enough debates, rig the debates with highly inflamatory questions, etc etc etc ... very shortly, reality will follow the little staged fantasy.

    :(
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

    It is not that paul is unelectable, it is that the system doesn't want him elected.


    I dont really think he is based on his performance at the debates. He is a horrible speaker. he comes across as yelling at you when he is asked a question. if he was more calm and spoke better he would have much more electability.
  • godpt3
    godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    And i blame "the system", the media, and a completely ignorant electorate that is only made less informed by the bias and absolute bullshit spewed by the media.

    That's right. It's "the man" that's always bringing a brother down. Fight the power!

    hahahahaha!!!!!! :D
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    no i wont.
    because i don't think he will.
    :(



    It is not that paul is unelectable, it is that the system doesn't want him elected.



    :(

    Oh yeah. That Republican running almost solely on a strict anti iraq war platform has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: When EVERYONE in your party disagrees with your only major stance, you are unelectable. Period.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    godpt3 wrote:
    That's right. It's "the man" that's always bringing a brother down. Fight the power!

    hahahahaha!!!!!! :D

    If you don't see that there is WAY more than a shred of truth in this assertion, it is you who are naive.

    And Jlew,
    yes, Dr. Paul is not the greatest speaker, but then again, what he does speak is TRUTH. 100% un tampered truth. The other candidates are great at orating bullshit until it fills their eyes.

    And if you were constantly asked insulting questions like "concerning your electibility congress man paul, well FRAKNLY, do you have any? ::Snickers all around::" ... how the hell would you start out ...

    and then EVERY time you start making a great point FIVE ... not one, not two, but FIVE other candidates start talking over you , INTENTIONALY making you look like an idiot, when in fact you are the ONLY ONE telling the TRUTH, and they are all just out to make a quick buck on YOUR back, while feeding you lies, protecting the status quo, and their precious "system".

    If ya'll don't see that, this fucking country deserves what it gets.

    Pathetic.

    Electability, Do You Have Any? TRUTH
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • godpt3
    godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    If you don't see that there is WAY more than a shred of truth in this assertion, it is you who are naive.

    I believe it's far easier to play the victim and blame everyone but yourself. You know, there's really not that much different between you and Jesse Jackson.


    It's the same with the effort to legalize pot. You guys would rather talk the talk than put forth the effort and walk the walk.
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg

Categories