The Ron Paul Movement

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

I agree. The presidency is a lost cause. He's more useful as a catalyst for change in public opinion.

At 2/9/2012 3:22:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:30 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:19:31 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:17:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
He'll do far more for the libertarian movement as the leader of a philosophic revolution than as a President and I'm sure he knows that. He'll never be President, he's more useful than that. Paul seems to be more in the business of changing minds than changing things as a result of edict. Also non-war mongerer =\= isolationist. Some people refuse to learn.

War-mongering =/= attacking countries that attack us

attacking countries without doing anything=/= war-mongering. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars = war-mongering. World War I and II = necessary wars.

Tell me, when one is attacked, and loses about 2000+ of its citizen as a result, does one just sit by and do nothing? (No conspiracy crap please)

We were attacked by five terrorist thugs with boxcutters. That isn't IRAQ attacking us. If Iraq sent a fleet of drone planes and started bombing us, then that would be Iraq attacking us. But its not.

This is like saying that if a group of KKK members went to africa and killed some people, Africa is justified in going to war with all of America because we attacked them.

At 2/9/2012 3:12:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
He wants to basically remove our presence from the rest of the world, or to isolate us.

That's false. He wants are presence all over the world by means of trading and diplomacy. He doesn't want an empire, military occupation, nation building, selecting dictators and bombing everyone.

You seem to think that hes isolationist because he doesn't want to bomb the world. Wanting to be at war with everybody is the true isolationism and alienates everyone.

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

You're right, but I am not ready to discount Ron Paul just yet.

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

At 2/9/2012 3:32:16 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

You do realize that just about every person of consequence in the GOP basically begged Christie to run this year right?

At 2/9/2012 3:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:32:16 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

You do realize that just about every person of consequence in the GOP basically begged Christie to run this year right?

And did he run?....

At 2/9/2012 3:33:55 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:32:16 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

You do realize that just about every person of consequence in the GOP basically begged Christie to run this year right?

And did he run?....

Clearly not. Right now, he wants to finish in New Jersey, and it wouldn't be good for him politically to run for president right now.

Generally, once your done as president, everyone hates you.

At 2/9/2012 3:36:32 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:55 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:32:16 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

You do realize that just about every person of consequence in the GOP basically begged Christie to run this year right?

And did he run?....

Clearly not. Right now, he wants to finish in New Jersey, and it wouldn't be good for him politically to run for president right now.

Generally, once your done as president, everyone hates you.

Yes, but people do not hate you if you run for president and you lose. He could have run in 2012.

At 2/9/2012 3:37:30 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:36:32 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:55 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:32:16 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

You do realize that just about every person of consequence in the GOP basically begged Christie to run this year right?

And did he run?....

Clearly not. Right now, he wants to finish in New Jersey, and it wouldn't be good for him politically to run for president right now.

Generally, once your done as president, everyone hates you.

Yes, but people do not hate you if you run for president and you lose. He could have run in 2012.

He would have won, thats the problem.

At 2/9/2012 3:38:17 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:37:30 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:36:32 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:55 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:32:16 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:30:40 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:28:49 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:26:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:22:59 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:21:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Fine I'll give, on the whole isolationist point.

But, back to the main point of this thread, what makes you think this, so-called,"Long-Term Libertarian President, or whatever" plan, is really gonna work?

Doesn't seem to be getting much ground as it is.

Because he is gaining support.

Gaining support =/= Future presidency

Oh yes it does. Again, I do not expect him to be president in 2012, and he might have a slighter higher chance in 2016 or 2020 (there's nothing for him after that), but I still do not think he will become president. But I am not willing to discount his presidency. He still has a very good chance of winning the Republican Nomination either this year or in 2016.

I think Rand Paul has a better chance of being Prez in 2016/2020 than Ron Paul, tbh.

I think Christie/Daniels WILL be president 2016/2020.

Chances are low of that. Very low.

You do realize that just about every person of consequence in the GOP basically begged Christie to run this year right?

And did he run?....

Clearly not. Right now, he wants to finish in New Jersey, and it wouldn't be good for him politically to run for president right now.

Generally, once your done as president, everyone hates you.

Yes, but people do not hate you if you run for president and you lose. He could have run in 2012.

He would have won, thats the problem.

But you can't make the blanket statement that he is going to be president in 2016 when he might not even run.

At 2/9/2012 3:17:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
He'll do far more for the libertarian movement as the leader of a philosophic revolution than as a President and I'm sure he knows that. He'll never be President, he's more useful than that. Paul seems to be more in the business of changing minds than changing things as a result of edict. Also non-war mongerer =\= isolationist. Some people refuse to learn.

This. Paul's numbers have increased ALOT since last time. He will not win the Republican nomination, but he (or his supporters when he dies) will be the one having the last laugh.

At 2/9/2012 4:29:40 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:17:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
He'll do far more for the libertarian movement as the leader of a philosophic revolution than as a President and I'm sure he knows that. He'll never be President, he's more useful than that. Paul seems to be more in the business of changing minds than changing things as a result of edict. Also non-war mongerer =\= isolationist. Some people refuse to learn.

This. Paul's numbers have increased ALOT since last time. He will not win the Republican nomination, but he (or his supporters when he dies) will be the one having the last laugh.

Finally. Reason. +1.

This race is the first time I've been exposed a lot to Ron Paul and he's nowhere near as insane as I use to think. Then again, I've even listened to Newt and agreed with him a couple of times, so take your pick what's scarier.

However... the man sounds like an 80-year old teenager just entering puberty. I cannot, for the life of me, stand the way he speaks. It's not exactly fluid, he's definitely no orator, it's just not impressive in the least.

And the devotion his followers get - wow. I consider myself a pretty devoted partisan, but the man has an utter personality cult. In fact, I may do a report on how Paul supporters could possibly be their own cult for my cult psychology class. Seriously. If he asked them very slyly to bomb some city, a good portion of them would. That's the impression I get.

At 2/9/2012 5:04:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
This race is the first time I've been exposed a lot to Ron Paul and he's nowhere near as insane as I use to think. Then again, I've even listened to Newt and agreed with him a couple of times, so take your pick what's scarier.

That's interesting, considering the man has been debating politics in the public arena for decades.

However... the man sounds like an 80-year old teenager just entering puberty. I cannot, for the life of me, stand the way he speaks. It's not exactly fluid, he's definitely no orator, it's just not impressive in the least.

Romney and Obama are awesome orators. That's about where their awesomeness ends.

And the devotion his followers get - wow. I consider myself a pretty devoted partisan, but the man has an utter personality cult. In fact, I may do a report on how Paul supporters could possibly be their own cult for my cult psychology class. Seriously. If he asked them very slyly to bomb some city, a good portion of them would. That's the impression I get.

I think the pertinent question is "why?" When you look up a Ron Paul debate from the 80s, and he's saying the exact same things he's saying now, it kind shocks you into believing that he may have right on his side after all. Obama and Romney's views probably just shift with the political wind.

He may become VP. Santorum is a more likely choice though, Suzanna Martinez seems the best though.

At 2/9/2012 6:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
He may become VP. Santorum is a more likely choice though, Suzanna Martinez seems the best though.

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.

At 2/9/2012 6:49:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
He may become VP. Santorum is a more likely choice though, Suzanna Martinez seems the best though.

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.

Yes a santorum/paul all the way!

At 2/9/2012 6:52:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:49:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
He may become VP. Santorum is a more likely choice though, Suzanna Martinez seems the best though.

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.

Yes a santorum/paul all the way!

I love that idea, but unfortunately, I am going to have to go Romney/Paul. If Paul is not going to be president, in the end, I am going to support the candidate that has the greatest chance of beating Obama. And unfortunately right now, that is Romney. But if Santorum can somehow keep up the roll he is on and possibly overtake Romney...

At 2/9/2012 7:13:03 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:52:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:49:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
He may become VP. Santorum is a more likely choice though, Suzanna Martinez seems the best though.

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.

Yes a santorum/paul all the way!

I love that idea, but unfortunately, I am going to have to go Romney/Paul. If Paul is not going to be president, in the end, I am going to support the candidate that has the greatest chance of beating Obama. And unfortunately right now, that is Romney. But if Santorum can somehow keep up the roll he is on and possibly overtake Romney...

what if rick Santorum wins as he is on the incline in the polls and has the second most delegates.

But, if that happened.......and if something happened to Romney.....Ron-Paul would be.......*shudders* President.......

At 2/9/2012 7:26:29 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 2/9/2012 7:13:03 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:52:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:49:33 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 2/9/2012 6:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
He may become VP. Santorum is a more likely choice though, Suzanna Martinez seems the best though.

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.

Yes a santorum/paul all the way!

I love that idea, but unfortunately, I am going to have to go Romney/Paul. If Paul is not going to be president, in the end, I am going to support the candidate that has the greatest chance of beating Obama. And unfortunately right now, that is Romney. But if Santorum can somehow keep up the roll he is on and possibly overtake Romney...

what if rick Santorum wins as he is on the incline in the polls and has the second most delegates.

If Sanotrum can stay on the roll he is on and keep winning caucases, I will throw my support with him. I want whoever can beat Obama.

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.:

How could you possibly like Santorum and Paul when they are ideological opposites. Santorum is the very definition of a Big Government conservative who would seek to expand the military industrial complex and surveillance state. The guy is as status quo as it gets.

If Sanotrum can stay on the roll he is on and keep winning caucases, I will throw my support with him. I want whoever can beat Obama.:

That's dumb. Romney IS Obama... they have the exact same policies. Obama is every bit as "conservative" as Romney is, and Romney is every bit as "liberal" as Obama is. They both play the harlot... both true-blue politicians to the end. Gingrich is a self-serving neo-con, and Santorum would want to waterboard truant kids from school.

Why do you settle for the lesser of two evils? Ever heard the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend?" That applies to this conversation.

At 2/10/2012 10:17:28 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

I like detectableninja's idea of Romney/Paul ticket. Romney is the most electable of the candidates. But I like Santourm/Paul better because I like Santorum better.:

How could you possibly like Santorum and Paul when they are ideological opposites. Santorum is the very definition of a Big Government conservative who would seek to expand the military industrial complex and surveillance state. The guy is as status quo as it gets.

I like Sanoturm more than Romney. That dosen't mean I LIKE Santorum.

At 2/10/2012 10:21:30 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

If Sanotrum can stay on the roll he is on and keep winning caucases, I will throw my support with him. I want whoever can beat Obama.:

That's dumb. Romney IS Obama... they have the exact same policies. Obama is every bit as "conservative" as Romney is, and Romney is every bit as "liberal" as Obama is. They both play the harlot... both true-blue politicians to the end. Gingrich is a self-serving neo-con, and Santorum would want to waterboard truant kids from school.

Well Romney is a bit more Conservative than Obama. But Romneycare=Obamacare. No question there. Romney does not exactly equal Obama.

Why do you settle for the lesser of two evils? Ever heard the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend?" That applies to this conversation.

Well I don't think we have a choice considering Ron Paul isn't going to get elected.

I would have Romney over Obama and Santorum over Romney. Whoever can beat Obama.