Ohio Chatter DEV

bases_loaded

I said I agree. Islam is known for how well they treat their women.

You're right, I'm wrong.

I Wear Pants

bases_loaded;1061537 wrote:I said I agree. Islam is known for how well they treat their women.

You're right, I'm wrong.

What? I never mentioned Islam treating women well.

bases_loaded

I Wear Pants;1061540 wrote:What? I never mentioned Islam treating women well.

Santorum said the Bible preaches equality while the others don't. Look at Islam and you'll see he's right

I Wear Pants

bases_loaded;1061553 wrote:Santorum said the Bible preaches equality while the others don't. Look at Islam and you'll see he's right

Santorum meant that anyone but christians shouldn't want equality.

And the bible teaches a lot about inequality too. Lots of stuff in there about women being subservient to men, etc.

I Wear Pants

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;1061570 wrote:

I lol'd.

believer

Cleveland Buck;1061520 wrote:They are, but the media had a lot to do with it too. Ron got some endorsements from some high profile state senators in SC, including Tom Davis who is a rising star in the party (although probably not anymore). No one even knew about it, because it was not covered anywhere in the media. After the CNN debate, someone counted the number of times each candidate was mentioned in the analysis, Gingrich was mention 87 times, Romney 82 times, Santorum 60 or 70 times, and Ron Paul was mentioned once. Yes, one fucking time.

The corporations that own the media make billions from bailouts and war contracts and what not, so they are going to make sure Ron doesn't get a fair shot. And he doesn't get banker money and special interest money like the other candidates get, which is an even bigger disadvantage because the others get free advertising in the form of positive media. Ron Paul has to pay for any positive television he gets. It is quite the uphill fight.

Not disputing what you're claiming (although your "banker corporatist war monger" rants are somewhat over the top) and I am certainly loathe to defend the MSM by any way, shape, or form.

However, could it also be that Paul simply doesn't get much media attention because he's running a distant 4th place and has absolutely zero, nada, and no chance in hell of becoming POTUS?

O-Trap

believer;1061583 wrote:Not disputing what you're claiming (although your "banker corporatist war monger" rants are somewhat over the top) and I am certainly loathe to defend the MSM by any way, shape, or form.

However, could it also be that Paul simply doesn't get much media attention because he's running a distant 4th place and has absolutely zero, nada, and no chance in hell of becoming POTUS?

In the first primary, the top three were clustered, and Newt was convincingly 4th. In New Hampshire, he and was closer to Romney than Newt or Insanitorum.

Seems like up to this point, Paul has had as good a showing as anyone. I do think, however, that it seems like people are acting like he should be in a distant fourth, even though he hasn't been thus far, and I think others are picking up on that and accepting it as truth, when the facts seem to indicate that Paul had been doing just fine going into South Carolina.

Zombaypirate

stlouiedipalma;1055278 wrote:As for Ron Paul, he is proving once again that he's nothing more than a dumbed-down version of Ross Perot without the charts. Not going anywhere. My money says this whole contest is over by Sunday morning.

and with that our country.

Good bye America, the idiots have spoken. More debt more corruption. I hope all are very very pleased with their decision.

Zombaypirate

IggyPride00;1058209 wrote:Willard is like the worst of all worlds. A big government liberal who is a disciple/slave of crony capitalism with a finger in the wind approach to governing because he has no core moral beliefs (scary how that sentence alone could be used to describe Willard or BHO).

If this country is really left with a choice between BHO and Willard we are so far up a creek without a paddle it doesn't matter who wins.

We have a winner.

It amazes me to see people on both sides cry and moan how things are going south then turn around and vote for the same exact thing.

believer

O-Trap;1061594 wrote:In the first primary, the top three were clustered, and Newt was convincingly 4th. In New Hampshire, he and was closer to Romney than Newt or Insanitorum.

Seems like up to this point, Paul has had as good a showing as anyone. I do think, however, that it seems like people are acting like he should be in a distant fourth, even though he hasn't been thus far, and I think others are picking up on that and accepting it as truth, when the facts seem to indicate that Paul had been doing just fine going into South Carolina.

Jan 21, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)

[/FONT]

Newt Gingrich	243,153	40.4%
Mitt Romney	167,279	27.8%
Rick Santorum	102,055	17%
Ron Paul	77,993	13%
Rick Perry	2,494	0.4%
Other	8,192	1.4%

Bottom-line: A Ron Paul nomination isn't going to happen.[/FONT]

Zombaypirate

believer;1061612 wrote:

Jan 21, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)

[/FONT]

Newt Gingrich 243,153 40.4%

Mitt Romney 167,279 27.8%

Rick Santorum 102,055 17%

Ron Paul 77,993 13%

Rick Perry 2,494 0.4%

Other 8,192 1.4%

Bottom-line: A Ron Paul nomination isn't going to happen.[/FONT]

The bottom-line is correct, and has been correct from the beginning. The establishment in no way, shape or form want real change. The only change we will see is the deficit swelling higher and higher.

I know, lets vote for someone who will only increase it slowly. Yeah you want a bullet in your head now or prefer I slowly torture you. (Not you specifically Believer but in a general sense.)

believer

ccrunner609;1061615 wrote:Ron Paul will be out sometime in the next 10 days. Santorum will soon follow. Newt is going to mop up Florida by the same ammount as he did in SC. Neither Paul or Santorum will have the $ to continue.

I predict Santorum will huddle up with Newt (Veep nomination?) and drop out soon. Paul will go down but he'll go down kicking and screaming just to go out with a bang.

The Paulists will beg him to run third party, but I don't think Paul will have the desire or the finances to keep playing the game.

Then it will be a Romney vs. Newt battle. The MSM will do all it can to skewer Sir Newt to insure that Romney regains traction. Then the Republican establishment will break down into a brokered convention where the cigar chompers will decide who the ultimate candidate is. I'm thinking in the end it will be Romney because the Repubs won't feel confident that Newt will sway the fence riders.

Then as we head full force into the general election campaign this fall, the MSM will portray Romney as a profit-mongering jobs killing corporatist to try to convince the electorate that Obama is still their best bet for Hope & Change all the while ignoring their Appointed One's lackluster track record.

You have to love American politics!

HitsRus

A lot of this country voted for "hope and change" last presidential election. Just sayin'.

IggyPride00

Team Willard is shell shocked right now that he has finally been exposed for the fraud that he is. I love it, his surrogates are on the morning programs making excuses for him, and it appears that none of them get it.

Willard and the GOP establishment is finally learning that he nomination is not for sale, and won't go to the highest bidder. If he wants it he is going to have to earn it the old fashioned way. Something Willard is clearly not accustomed to having to do.

BGFalcons82

I've heard Newt speak several times over the past week. During this time, I have yet to disagree with anything he's said. Not one thing.

As the Paul supporters mass for their third-party run, I would aks that they consider a very important event that will occur during the next 4 years: There will be at least one Supreme Court opening and possibly more. Do you want these positions filled by Obama or Romney/Gingrich? This upcoming election will have far reaching effects beyond 2016.

It is my belief further Obama appointments will mean the end of the 2nd Amendment and thus, the end of the country founded in the 18th century.

Cleveland Buck

believer;1061612 wrote:

Jan 21, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)

[/FONT]

Newt Gingrich 243,153 40.4%

Mitt Romney 167,279 27.8%

Rick Santorum 102,055 17%

Ron Paul 77,993 13%

Rick Perry 2,494 0.4%

Other 8,192 1.4%

Bottom-line: A Ron Paul nomination isn't going to happen.[/FONT]

You get your news from cesspools like Fox News, so you probably don't even know the results of the first 2 states.

Iowa Caucus 1/3/12

Rick Santorum 29,839 24.6%
Mitt Romney 29,805 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,036 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,163 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,557 10.3%
Michele Bachmann 6,046 5%
Jon Huntsman 739 0.6%

New Hampshire Primary

Mitt Romney 97,532 39.3%
Ron Paul 56,848 22.9%
Jon Huntsman 41,945 16.9%
Newt Gingrich 23,411 9.4%
Rick Santorum 23,362 9.4%
Rick Perry 1,766 0.7%

Newt Gingrich was running the distant fourth, not Ron Paul. The media brought him back to life, blacked out Ron Paul, and the sheep like yourself ate it up. You should be proud of yourself. There are almost 600 delegates up for grabs in states that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum didn't even get on the ballot. Let me know when Megyn Kelly reports that one.

Cleveland Buck

BGFalcons82;1061667 wrote:I've heard Newt speak several times over the past week. During this time, I have yet to disagree with anything he's said. Not one thing.

As the Paul supporters mass for their third-party run, I would aks that they consider a very important event that will occur during the next 4 years: There will be at least one Supreme Court opening and possibly more. Do you want these positions filled by Obama or Romney/Gingrich? This upcoming election will have far reaching effects beyond 2016.

It is my belief further Obama appointments will mean the end of the 2nd Amendment and thus, the end of the country founded in the 18th century.

If we aren't going to elect the guy that will fix our major problem, the debt based bubble economy, then I would much rather the Democrat socialist take the blame for the coming collapse than a Republican socialist that calls himself a free marketer. That's all we need is someone in there talking about free markets when his government solutions and new wars bring about our bankruptcy. The revolt in this country will ensure that we never again have anything resembling a market economy again.

bases_loaded

How is Paul going to accomplish any of that?

He will spend 4 years butting heads with congress.

BGFalcons82

Mr. Paul Bot (good avatar, BTW):
Did you consider my question? Based on your beliefs, not Ron's, are you happy with more statist justices to be appointed? To me, a 3rd party run by Ron Paul insures permanent change to our founding documents. Is this what you really desire?

believer

Cleveland Buck;1061674 wrote:You get your news from cesspools like Fox News, so you probably don't even know the results of the first 2 states.

Iowa Caucus 1/3/12

Rick Santorum 29,839 24.6%
Mitt Romney 29,805 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,036 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,163 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,557 10.3%
Michele Bachmann 6,046 5%
Jon Huntsman 739 0.6%

New Hampshire Primary

Mitt Romney 97,532 39.3%
Ron Paul 56,848 22.9%
Jon Huntsman 41,945 16.9%
Newt Gingrich 23,411 9.4%
Rick Santorum 23,362 9.4%
Rick Perry 1,766 0.7%

Newt Gingrich was running the distant fourth, not Ron Paul. The media brought him back to life, blacked out Ron Paul, and the sheep like yourself ate it up. You should be proud of yourself. There are almost 600 delegates up for grabs in states that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum didn't even get on the ballot. Let me know when Megyn Kelly reports that one.

First, my SC votes count came from the leftist AP not Fox News but if it serves to makes you feel better about Paul's chances, please don't let me interfere with your delusion. And don't get too excited. The lion's hare of those 600 delegates will go to the Romulans; not Saint Paul. Ron Paul will NOT be the nominee. Mark it down.

BGFalcons82;1061689 wrote:Mr. Paul Bot (good avatar, BTW):
Did you consider my question? Based on your beliefs, not Ron's, are you happy with more statist justices to be appointed? To me, a 3rd party run by Ron Paul insures permanent change to our founding documents. Is this what you really desire?

For the Kool Aid Paulists the short answer is yes.

bases_loaded;1061685 wrote:How is Paul going to accomplish any of that?

He will spend 4 years butting heads with congress.

NAW....Saint Paul will just be the Veto Prez. But since he'll never get the nomination nor get anywhere near the Oval Orifice - even if he runs third party - the point is moot.

pmoney25

BGFalcons82;1061689 wrote:Mr. Paul Bot (good avatar, BTW):
Did you consider my question? Based on your beliefs, not Ron's, are you happy with more statist justices to be appointed? To me, a 3rd party run by Ron Paul insures permanent change to our founding documents. Is this what you really desire?

Comical you mention statist and you like newt. I would be more concerned losing my second amendment rigjts with a big govt neo con police state than a liberal socialist. Obama will beat gingrich by double digits. Independents will not vote for newt.

Zombaypirate

believer;1061708 wrote:First, my SC votes count came from the leftist AP not Fox News but if it serves to makes you feel better about Paul's chances, please don't let me interfere with your delusion. And don't get too excited. The lion's hare of those 600 delegates will go to the Romulans; not Saint Paul. Ron Paul will NOT be the nominee. Mark it down.

For the Kool Aid Paulists the short answer is yes.

NAW....Saint Paul will just be the Veto Prez. But since he'll never get the nomination nor get anywhere near the Oval Orifice even if he runs third party, the point is moot.

Please stop with mentioning Kool-aid and Ron Paul in the same sentence.

Only Kool-aid being taken is by the idiots who accept what the two parties are going to offer.

Ron Paul is not going to be POTUS, he will not get the nomination even with 100% vote of the people the establishment will NEVER allow this to happen.

You will get what they force feed down your throat and then you will take the time to post how good they really are and we must vote against someone, we must take the lesser of two evils etc etc etc.

Pure nonsense. Just like our country is becoming with worthless candidates.

BGFalcons82

pmoney25;1061736 wrote:Comical you mention statist and you like newt. I would be more concerned losing my second amendment rigjts with a big govt neo con police state than a liberal socialist. Obama will beat gingrich by double digits. Independents will not vote for newt.

Hmmm...can you post a paper or video wherein any of the current R candidates advocate the abolition of the 2nd Amendment?

believer

Zombaypirate;1061759 wrote:Ron Paul is not going to be POTUS,....

We agree on this much at least. Unfortunately idiots who will toss their votes at Ron Paul (if he runs third party) serve only to exacerbate the nonsense that exists.

Saint Paul is millions of dollars short and a decade late to perform his miraculously perfect political voodoo.

The Paulist Purists are among the most vocal Obama critics. But for whatever inexplicable reason they insist on re-electing the Appointed One by default.

I guess if we're all heading for the abyss, the Paulists aim to get us there faster.

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012