Log in

View Full Version : Ron Pauls Aides what him to talk about Satan too.


JU_88
02-28-12, 05:12 AM
This is just loopy :doh:

http://www.fairport-erpost.com/opinion/x1771581956/Philip-Maddocks-Ron-Paul-s-aides-worried-his-ideas-aren-t-crazy-enough-to-win-GOP-primary

Catfish
02-28-12, 05:56 AM
"A sane president for an insane country", as they said about Obama.
So they need someone else ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-pauls-strange-claim-about-bases-and-troops-overseas/2012/02/08/gIQApZpqzQ_blog.html

"We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases. But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy."

What ? 900 bases in .. wait. Interesting, i had no idea.
And then they will all buy Mickeysoft Zune mobile phones of course, manufactured in Detroit ?

Paul about Obama:
"He has managed to turn small contingents of Marine guards into occupying armies and waste dumps into military bases."

Why is he the darling of the military ? He gets most money from them, but just .. why ?
Well, politics ..

AngusJS
02-28-12, 07:04 AM
I was going to ask why his denial of evolution wasn't loony enough, but then I remembered that rejecting science (what has it ever done for us, anyway?) is a basic requirement to be a Republican presidential candidate.

Jimbuna
02-28-12, 07:21 AM
A 76-year-old and still wanting to be POTA :o

Tribesman
02-28-12, 07:51 AM
This is just loopy
Thats a great piece. The best comedy is firmly rooted in reality.

gimpy117
02-28-12, 05:17 PM
I was going to ask why his denial of evolution wasn't loony enough, but then I remembered that rejecting science (what has it ever done for us, anyway?) is a basic requirement to be a Republican presidential candidate.

Of course it is....because even if you aren't that stupid you have to get votes and money from the radical right.

soopaman2
02-28-12, 05:28 PM
Is Dr. Paul a whackjob?

Of course.

Though I always did find him interesting. And he is alot saner and more "moderate" (in some respects), than the other Republicans out there.

Yes, a bit crazy, but maybe crazy is good, a break from the status quo that has plagued us. I do find him viable, though I cannot tell you why, kinda gut feeling maybe

He would do better as an independant IMHO. He would have to pander less to an extremist audience.(Yes you Tea-baggers, I mean you)

Oh and I am still voting for Obama. Dr. Paul is a good man I believe, but I would rather vote for Obama (maybe, my vote is most likely for lady Gaga, or Freddy Murcury), than let some middle class killing republican, have his chance at destroying what is left of us.

They only toe the party line, do what Grover Norquist tells them to.

Sorry I am still hungover from Bush, and still laughing at the R's for fielding Sarah Palin as a serious VP.

Platapus
02-28-12, 06:32 PM
As I have posted far too many times (but I will do it again).. In my opinion, the number one criteria for being POTUS is the demonstrated ability to make the deal with Congress.

As our government was designed, the POTUS needs congressional support for practically everything he or she wants to do. So any time a candidate tells me "vote for me and I will do xyz", what they are in fact telling me is that if they are elected they will ASK congress to authorize/fund XYZ.

So a worth of a POTUS is being able to make the deal with congress to get what he or she wants to do. Yes this means that nasty word compromise but also some political clout.

I my opinion, we have learned an important lesson with President Obama. A smart man with some good ideas (along with some bad ideas), but he does not seem to have the political clout to "make the deal" with congress. Everything he has done has been a fight, even with his own party.

Enter Ron Paul. Looking at his congressional career, he may hold the record for not being able to do anything. He is really good at voting no (and voting no is often the best thing a congresscritter can do. But a President can't succeed by simply vetoing stuff. A POTUS needs to get stuff approved.

Ron Paul has a crappy record in getting any of his ideas (some of which are pretty good) approved even by his own party. Most of his bills die in committee.

If Ron Paul is elected POTUS we will have a totally ineffectual President. Great at making speeches but lousy at getting anything done. Congress will continue to do what they have been doing to Ron Paul for years --- ignoring him.

TLAM Strike
02-28-12, 07:05 PM
Well its about time one of the candidates endorses our Dark Lord...


.. wait what the heck did I just write?


:O:

Oh and LOL at East Rochester, its the ghetto of suburbia; I would not pay too much attention to what's in its paper. :roll: