Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
You've moved substantially from being a Ron
Paul supporter into becoming a garden variety
true believer. Regarding anyone other than a
Ron Paul as being something other than dumb or,
perhaps patronizingly put, uninformed is the
stuff that has been a cancer in your laughable
"revolution."
I do not suffer from the narcissism that regards
my vote as a kind of declaration of religious
faith. I do not believe in messiahs and my
reading of history has proved to me that when a
country is led by those who are bestowed with
such an unrealistic view of themselves by their
citizens, bad things inevitably happen. They
begin to believe their own press releases and
the feature articles by cloying apologists.
As hard as it is for you to accept, this election
is not about Ron Paul. It is between Obama and
McCain. No one else matters unless you are one
of those miserable old coots who sits in his
rocking chair and says, "Don't blame me, I didn't
vote for him. I voted for ...." If that is the
case, enjoy your bitterness, but no one cares.
Barr, Paul, Nader, and all the rest are
irrelevant except as the answers to trivia
questions a decade from now.
My support of McCain is based on respect for
his efforts over the years in the Senate to roll
up his sleeves and actually do the hard work
associated with the task, holding to his prin-
ciples while enjoining others to fashion not
an ideologically pure government, but a workable
one. I do not agree with him on every issue and
disagree with him vehemently on some, but any
disagreements pale against the direction an
Obama presidency would take us. I have stated
my reasons for this previously.
I do not share any of the views expressed by some,
including RPUN, that Obama is a Muslim, or others
that oppose him for racial reasons. Neither view
is necessary to oppose him. My opposition, if
an opposition to the prospects of European
socialism stifling any possibility of rebuilding
our economic engines weren't enough, is that I
believe Obama is not only inexperienced, but
fundamentally corrupt to the core. Clinton had
skeletons in his closet but the pale in comparison
to the garbage Obama would bring to the White
House. The Rev. Wright linkage, the Rezko story,
and even the Ayers connection are but small stuff
compared to the deeds already done. The ACORN
connection should eliminate him from any serious
consideration as a candidate. And his Fannie/
Freddie connections are equally despicable.
You oddly suggest that my support of McCain is
connected to an Obama victory, but it is your
precious support of Ron Paul and refusal to put
the present dangers ... an Obama presidency and
subsequent introduction of European socialism
as the new economic model ... before your
"principles", is but a passive aggressive
response that gives you the very things you
claim to be against.
You are doing Obama a huge favor.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
What kind of bank is National City? Who owns
them? What avenues are available to your friend
under Florida law?

A Farmer wrote:

<quoted text>
I will gladly feed John McCain to Barack Obama. You claim that Barack is a socialist? McCain has a very thick and wide streak of Collectivism running through him that cannot be denied.
You are voting for a lighter shade of gray. Both candidates share the same basic collectivist theories on government.
I refuse to vote for a socialist and I refuse to vote for a "lite" socialist. Some of us have principles, Bill. Mine do not bend.
By the way, I will be out door-knocking for my incumbent State Representative tomorrow- he has an R behind his name and understands the dangers of collectivism, unlike John McCain.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
We've heard this kind of rhetoric on this thread
for 8000+ posts now. Ron Paul supporters have
a rather presumptive attitude that they and they
alone have principles. Where I grew up the Mafia
had its hand in all kinds of things. They had
principles too. That's not to infer any real
comparison, but to point out that principles are
not at all unique to Ron Paul conservatives.
The trick with any set of principles is to know
what to do when two of them within an ideology
are in tension with one another.

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry CP but local banks are fine and FDIC is broke

LocalBoy wrote:

McCain and the GOP ignored the traditional conservative platform and continued to push the neo con agenda. They will get beat just like in 2006.
The American people dont want liberal fascism, which is what McCain represents.
It's people like Bill who become obsessed with fighting against Paul to the point they abandon conservative values that will put Obama in the White House.
Neo-conservative fascist are dead, bring on the socialist
We can thank Bill and his intellectual fascist for this

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
You've moved substantially from being a Ron
Paul supporter into becoming a garden variety
true believer. Regarding anyone other than a
Ron Paul as being something other than dumb or,
perhaps patronizingly put, uninformed is the
stuff that has been a cancer in your laughable
"revolution."
I do not suffer from the narcissism that regards
my vote as a kind of declaration of religious
faith. I do not believe in messiahs and my
reading of history has proved to me that when a
country is led by those who are bestowed with
such an unrealistic view of themselves by their
citizens, bad things inevitably happen. They
begin to believe their own press releases and
the feature articles by cloying apologists.
As hard as it is for you to accept, this election
is not about Ron Paul. It is between Obama and
McCain. No one else matters unless you are one
of those miserable old coots who sits in his
rocking chair and says, "Don't blame me, I didn't
vote for him. I voted for ...." If that is the
case, enjoy your bitterness, but no one cares.
Barr, Paul, Nader, and all the rest are
irrelevant except as the answers to trivia
questions a decade from now.
My support of McCain is based on respect for
his efforts over the years in the Senate to roll
up his sleeves and actually do the hard work
associated with the task, holding to his prin-
ciples while enjoining others to fashion not
an ideologically pure government, but a workable
one. I do not agree with him on every issue and
disagree with him vehemently on some, but any
disagreements pale against the direction an
Obama presidency would take us. I have stated
my reasons for this previously.
I do not share any of the views expressed by some,
including RPUN, that Obama is a Muslim, or others
that oppose him for racial reasons. Neither view
is necessary to oppose him. My opposition, if
an opposition to the prospects of European
socialism stifling any possibility of rebuilding
our economic engines weren't enough, is that I
believe Obama is not only inexperienced, but
fundamentally corrupt to the core. Clinton had
skeletons in his closet but the pale in comparison
to the garbage Obama would bring to the White
House. The Rev. Wright linkage, the Rezko story,
and even the Ayers connection are but small stuff
compared to the deeds already done. The ACORN
connection should eliminate him from any serious
consideration as a candidate. And his Fannie/
Freddie connections are equally despicable.
You oddly suggest that my support of McCain is
connected to an Obama victory, but it is your
precious support of Ron Paul and refusal to put
the present dangers ... an Obama presidency and
subsequent introduction of European socialism
as the new economic model ... before your
"principles", is but a passive aggressive
response that gives you the very things you
claim to be against.
You are doing Obama a huge favor.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
"Based on theory and conjecture..." How odd,
that you would give a pass to Obama's weird
companions over the years and the "you scratch
my back and I'll scratch yours" relationship
with ACORN. Perhaps you should do just a little
research and ask yourself if you wish to give a
pass to Obama while making the claims you make
against McCain assumptions ... not theory and
conjecture.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a couple of points ... you are starting to
get a tad boring.
First, the new tack of "accusations" about
"intellectual" this or that is lame. It
signals that you just don't want to engage in
genuine debate and just prefer flinging the
cliches and slogans and simplistic reasoning
of your messiah.
.... Such as your dishonest appraisal of the
investigation of McCain. Confined to your
political world in which Ron Paul is the only
pure item in Congress, any investigation that
exonerated him or did not exonerate him would
have been proof of either a corrupt
jury or a guilty senator. Stacked deck, Clay.
Does anyone but Paul get a fair trial in
Hoosierville?

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try at altering the facts.
The investigation found that McCain broke no
laws and did not engage in any unethical
practice.
He subsequently apologized for what he described
as the worst case of bad judgment in his career.
But you know this and were trying to make some
strange point by twisting words ... like a
politician.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
We've heard this kind of rhetoric on this thread
for 8000+ posts now. Ron Paul supporters have
a rather presumptive attitude that they and they
alone have principles. Where I grew up the Mafia
had its hand in all kinds of things. They had
principles too. That's not to infer any real
comparison, but to point out that principles are
not at all unique to Ron Paul conservatives.
The trick with any set of principles is to know
what to do when two of them within an ideology
are in tension with one another.

Constitution Party wrote:

<quoted text>
Do Research? Did you know anything about ACORN 1 month ago?

Constitution Party wrote:

<quoted text>
Do Research? Did you know anything about ACORN 1 month ago?

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Interesting post I got from another thread.
Care to comment ?
I have been speaking with other voters in my area. There is much discord regarding a treasury bailout. One point of agreement was that the institutions should not be bailed out, however the accounts of the individual holders should be reimbursed by the Federal Reserve via the FDIC.
Furthermore, the federal reserve's power to issue bank notes should be limited and governed directly by the treasury department, under daily audit. Additionally, the treasury should have to mint physical currency to be held in escrow for all bank notes issued by the federal reserve, to do otherwise is unconstitutional.
The federal government should be able to shop for financing from any source it chooses, not a corrupt unconstitutional monopoly. The exclusive deal between the federal reserve and our great nations banking should come to a sudden stop.
Simply ceasing the fed's ability to issue bank notes, and bailing out account holders (retirement accts 401k's) with funds seized from the federal reserve's holdings, a constitutional action, by the treasury department and secret service. The department of the treasury, the only constitutional authority, will then hold sole control of the dollar. This will allow a system to be set up that allows independent banks to contact the federal government to answer solicitations for financing, much in the same way as a contractor would answer a solicitation for services, through the https://www.fbo.gov website for example. It could be as simple as adding a web-page to the existing Federal Business Opportunities website. Banks will compete for trillions of dollars to loan to the government, and with the fed out of the way, you have no prime interest rate. Additionally with the federal reserve out of the way than it's funding can also be reallocated back to it's source, this would be the federal income tax act, also from 1913. Imagine how much this could stimulate the economy.
In short, fix the problem, not the symptom. DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CORPORATE BAILOUT PROGRAM. HELP US TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY.

LocalBoy aka JFR-Clay wrote:

<quoted text>Dont know how many federal trials you attended but I can say from my experience I was far fairer to McCain than his administration would be to me, or any other modern federal administration for that matter.
Are you saying you support what McCain did with the S&L BS ? Sounds as if this is an example of acceptable politics in Oregon. Hoosiers either know better are we may just be stupid. Either way in my town McCain is a federal crook for what he did.
Boring is reading your post where you know everything and offer nothing except an endorsement to McCain, which on this thread goes nowhere.
"The fundamentals of the economy is strong"
"Gas tax holiday"
"I'm for tax cuts, no against them"
"I'm pro-choice/anti abortion"
"I'm not Bush"
And now you say after supporting this idiot for over a year that McCain is better than Obama.
Sounds like a party hack to me.
Tell us, was this lesser of two evils in play last year ?

Constitution Party wrote:

Thaaaaaaat's, right and Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

Bill R wrote:

As hard as it is for you to accept, this election is not about Ron Paul. It is between Obama and McCain. Barr, Paul, Nader, and all the rest are irrelevant except as the answers to trivia questions a decade from now. You are doing Obama a huge favor.

Bill R wrote:

You are doing Obama a huge favor.

Bill R wrote:

My support of McCain is based on respect for his efforts over the years in the Senate to roll up his sleeves and actually do the hard work associated with the task, holding to his principles while enjoining others to fashion not an ideologically pure government, but a workable one. I do not agree with him on every issue and disagree with him vehemently on some, but any disagreements pale against the direction an Obama presidency would take us.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
What kind of bank is National City? Who owns
them? What avenues are available to your friend
under Florida law?

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't said I support McCain on the S&L
matter and never implied that I did. I stated
that he was judged to have committed no crime
and that he, in turn, has on many occasions
admitted to having used bad judgment.
I have not supported McCain "for over a year."
I did not make a decision on who I was going to
support until fairly late in the primary season.
I think you confuse my analysis of the primaries
with support for McCain, as I suggested he would
win the nomination because he was in many quarters
their second choice. As others withdrew from the
race their supporters turned to McCain. This was
not an endorsement, just an observation of what
was occurring. For what it is worth, I regard
the field of candidates to be among the least
attractive in memory for both parties, Ron Paul
included.
That being said, I would suggest ... and I think
Lorax might agree with me on this ... that the
solution to our problems will not be resolved at
the executive level, but at the congressional
level. And I'd also suggest that the vast
majority of our problems, as I have said before,
have been created by unelected persons in a
plethora of departments and agencies of the
federal government. They do their thing inde-
pendent of the White House or adequate super-
vision of Congress.

PicassoIII wrote:

<quoted text>Standing around, singing Kumbayah(sp?) with a socialist a treehugger and a theocrat probably wasn't a good idea. Neither was pressing Paul. Got him some press at least, tho.