More good news for Ron Paul!

[Tebow]

South Carolina Senator Ton Davis endorses Ron Paul

WMBF NEWS

Ron Paul moves into second in South Carolina

Poll: Ron Paul moves into second in South Carolina | The State Column

 

[Blackduck21]

Ron has the big Mo going into SC.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Get em Paul!!!

 

[sepe]

I'd vote for him if he had better hair.

 

[NYFelon]

he's not tall enough. I need a really tall candidate with finely coiffed hair.

 

[Hoosierdood]

From Ron Paul's facebook:

Matter of fact, one of my establishment opponents, Rick Santorum, recently told The Hilton Head Island Packet that, “To get an endorsement from someone like Tom Davis is a big deal. It would speak volumes to folks and make them take notice and give us a look.”

 

[dross]

I'd vote for him if he had better hair.

he's not tall enough. I need a really tall candidate with finely coiffed hair.

Gosh, I sure wish I was as sophisticated and discerning as you guys. Until I am, though, I guess I'll just vote for the guy with the best hair.

This crap is exactly what everyone HATES about Paul supporters. Not that you believe in your guy - I respect that. It's your contemptuous way of viewing other opinions - many of them well thought out - as if they are forme from such stupid and shallow considerations.

Reading the Paul supporters on this site has me in the odd emotional place of having to remind myself that it's not Ron Paul's fault he has supporters who seem intent on alienating everyone who might have a possibility of voting for the guy. I find myself hoping that some skeleton of Paul's exposes itself just so I can watch you guys suffer. That's how annoying it's become. Paul is by far the closest to my views of any candidate, but I often finding myself hoping that he'll go down in flames just so you guys will shut up and stop spewing this crap.

People aren't voting for Romney because of his hair or his looks or for any of those ridiculous self righteous reasons you like to spout. A very few may be, but usually those types don't vote in primaries. Some people actually like him. Others honestly think that he's got the best chance to beat Obama, which they regard as job one. That is not a shallow or stupid reason, no matter how much you believe he's no better than Obama.

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Forever in the margins, banished there by yourselves.

 

[sepe]

Gosh, I sure wish I was as sophisticated and discerning as you guys. Until I am, though, I guess I'll just vote for the guy with the best hair.

This crap is exactly what everyone HATES about Paul supporters. Not that you believe in your guy - I respect that. It's your contemptuous way of viewing other opinions - many of them well thought out - as if they are forme from such stupid and shallow considerations.

Reading the Paul supporters on this site has me in the odd emotional place of having to remind myself that it's not Ron Paul's fault he has supporters who seem intent on alienating everyone who might have a possibility of voting for the guy. I find myself hoping that some skeleton of Paul's exposes itself just so I can watch you guys suffer. That's how annoying it's become. Paul is by far the closest to my views of any candidate, but I often finding myself hoping that he'll go down in flames just so you guys will shut up and stop spewing this crap.

People aren't voting for Romney because of his hair or his looks or for any of those ridiculous self righteous reasons you like to spout. A very few may be, but usually those types don't vote in primaries. Some people actually like him. Others honestly think that he's got the best chance to beat Obama, which they regard as job one. That is not a shallow or stupid reason, no matter how much you believe he's no better than Obama.

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Forever in the margins, banished there by yourselves.

I'd say the majority of voters do vote based on who looks the most presidential. The majority don't spend any time to understand platforms or ideas. For those that actually like Romney, that is more embarrassing than voting based on the presidential look (at least if you pay attention to anything the guy has said). Even if Ron Paul goes down in flames, I'll still gladly mock the flip flopper.

 

[CindyE]

I dunno, I think i recall some people (not here) openly admitting to voting for the current president because of his appearance, "coolness" and other things not pertaining to his ability.

 

[hornadylnl]

Gosh, I sure wish I was as sophisticated and discerning as you guys. Until I am, though, I guess I'll just vote for the guy with the best hair.

This crap is exactly what everyone HATES about Paul supporters. Not that you believe in your guy - I respect that. It's your contemptuous way of viewing other opinions - many of them well thought out - as if they are forme from such stupid and shallow considerations.

Reading the Paul supporters on this site has me in the odd emotional place of having to remind myself that it's not Ron Paul's fault he has supporters who seem intent on alienating everyone who might have a possibility of voting for the guy. I find myself hoping that some skeleton of Paul's exposes itself just so I can watch you guys suffer. That's how annoying it's become. Paul is by far the closest to my views of any candidate, but I often finding myself hoping that he'll go down in flames just so you guys will shut up and stop spewing this crap.

People aren't voting for Romney because of his hair or his looks or for any of those ridiculous self righteous reasons you like to spout. A very few may be, but usually those types don't vote in primaries. Some people actually like him. Others honestly think that he's got the best chance to beat Obama, which they regard as job one. That is not a shallow or stupid reason, no matter how much you believe he's no better than Obama.

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Forever in the margins, banished there by yourselves.

Can't possibly be more annoying than those who bash Obama here but do nothing more than argue to maintain the status quo. You know, "Paul can't win". "A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama". As if somehow, their unprincipled vote for a statist with an R next to his name is more noble than voting for the true constitutionalist conservative.

 

[BigMatt]

Gosh, I sure wish I was as sophisticated and discerning as you guys. Until I am, though, I guess I'll just vote for the guy with the best hair.

This crap is exactly what everyone HATES about Paul supporters. Not that you believe in your guy - I respect that. It's your contemptuous way of viewing other opinions - many of them well thought out - as if they are forme from such stupid and shallow considerations.

Reading the Paul supporters on this site has me in the odd emotional place of having to remind myself that it's not Ron Paul's fault he has supporters who seem intent on alienating everyone who might have a possibility of voting for the guy. I find myself hoping that some skeleton of Paul's exposes itself just so I can watch you guys suffer. That's how annoying it's become. Paul is by far the closest to my views of any candidate, but I often finding myself hoping that he'll go down in flames just so you guys will shut up and stop spewing this crap.

People aren't voting for Romney because of his hair or his looks or for any of those ridiculous self righteous reasons you like to spout. A very few may be, but usually those types don't vote in primaries. Some people actually like him. Others honestly think that he's got the best chance to beat Obama, which they regard as job one. That is not a shallow or stupid reason, no matter how much you believe he's no better than Obama.

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Forever in the margins, banished there by yourselves.

That was a huge overreaction.

 

[Boiled Owl]

Can't possibly be more annoying than those who bash Obama here but do nothing more than argue to maintain the status quo. You know, "Paul can't win". "A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama". As if somehow, their unprincipled vote for a statist with an R next to his name is more noble than voting for the true constitutionalist conservative.

Actually whats more annoying is having a person who doesn't vote (brother in law) start @#$hing about politics / Obama.

Dross: Where / Who's campaign have you sent money to?

 

[hornadylnl]

Actually whats more annoying is having a person who doesn't vote (brother in law) start @#$hing about politics / Obama.

?

If a persons only political yardstick is Obama / Not Obama, I'd rather they didn't vote.

 

[KG1]

Gosh, I sure wish I was as sophisticated and discerning as you guys. Until I am, though, I guess I'll just vote for the guy with the best hair.

This crap is exactly what everyone HATES about Paul supporters. Not that you believe in your guy - I respect that. It's your contemptuous way of viewing other opinions - many of them well thought out - as if they are forme from such stupid and shallow considerations.

Reading the Paul supporters on this site has me in the odd emotional place of having to remind myself that it's not Ron Paul's fault he has supporters who seem intent on alienating everyone who might have a possibility of voting for the guy. I find myself hoping that some skeleton of Paul's exposes itself just so I can watch you guys suffer. That's how annoying it's become. Paul is by far the closest to my views of any candidate, but I often finding myself hoping that he'll go down in flames just so you guys will shut up and stop spewing this crap.

People aren't voting for Romney because of his hair or his looks or for any of those ridiculous self righteous reasons you like to spout. A very few may be, but usually those types don't vote in primaries. Some people actually like him. Others honestly think that he's got the best chance to beat Obama, which they regard as job one. That is not a shallow or stupid reason, no matter how much you believe he's no better than Obama.

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Forever in the margins, banished there by yourselves.

I applaud your effort dross but unfotunetly i'm sure you already knew before you posted it that you can't win. I myself have cut way back on participating in the GP forum for alot of the same reasons that you have pointed out.

I usually have tried to post things with a more rational approach and try to strip away all the needless rhetoric and snarkiness and vitriol and provide a point of view or post some bits of information that I have come across in the same manner.

What I usually find to be the case with a certain amount of people is that they are already pre-disposed to seeking out information such as articles or youtube clips that have have all the negative qualities that I listed previously.

I can see evidence that they are drawn to all of that and it carries over in the style in which they post sometimes. Whenever I see an article or a post that is heavily weighted with alot of venemous rhetoric then it automatically makes me skeptical of their motives or claims.

That kind of stuff turns alot of people off, myself included, and it often times reminds me of the negative qualities I observe in very liberal democrats.

 

[steveh_131]

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Well this is just human nature, Dross. I could say something similar:

"That's the problem with republicans. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate America, rich people, and you're an anarchist or a liberal."

I get that some people value "Beating Obama" over all else. I understand that, even if I don't agree with it. But even by that standard, I don't get how anyone thinks he has a better chance than Paul of beating Obama. Therefore, from my perspective, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

That's not a personal affront to you or anyone who thinks that way. That's just my perspective.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msQ1K_1OBNs&feature=g-all-lik&context=G283b003FAAAAAAAAQAA[/ame]

 

[1911 DeadHead]

That was a huge overreaction.

^^This. I hate to say it..... Chill Pill.

 

[dross]

I'd say the majority of voters do vote based on who looks the most presidential. The majority don't spend any time to understand platforms or ideas. For those that actually like Romney, that is more embarrassing than voting based on the presidential look (at least if you pay attention to anything the guy has said). Even if Ron Paul goes down in flames, I'll still gladly mock the flip flopper.

The majority? Or the majority of voters? Or of primary voters? Primary voters are the minority of the minority. Typically they know what they believe. Your post reeks of lack of understanding that people can look at the same set of facts and come up with different actions.

Some people - I don't agree with them, but some people fall pretty closely in line with the Romney way of thinking. You can get there without being stupid or shallow.

Can't possibly be more annoying than those who bash Obama here but do nothing more than argue to maintain the status quo. You know, "Paul can't win". "A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama". As if somehow, their unprincipled vote for a statist with an R next to his name is more noble than voting for the true constitutionalist conservative.

There's no "more noble" about it. Politics is ideology played out in a competitive format, that's all it is and all it can ever be. Why must you insist that a vote for a Republican is unprincipled? Is it possible that someone else has different principles than you? Or do you have a lock on all that's right, wrong, and principled? I promise you that my vote is based on MY principles which I hold very dear. I see NO compromise of my principles whatsoever. I DON'T HAVE A CANDIDATE WHO MATCHES MY PRINCIPLES IN THIS ELECTION. Every election from the time I started voting was a vote for the lesser of two evils. And this one is no different. Am I unprincipled because I didn't write in some fantasy candidate who matched me perfectly? Or is it just proof that I'm unprincipled because I don't agree with Paul on every issue?

That was a huge overreaction.

You stand there in your shoes, I stand in mine.

Actually whats more annoying is having a person who doesn't vote (brother in law) start @#$hing about politics / Obama.

Dross: Where / Who's campaign have you sent money to?

I have sent money to NO candidates. Why would I? I don't agree with any of them and I'm not sure who can best beat Obama, which I consider to be the most important goal.

If a persons only political yardstick is Obama / Not Obama, I'd rather they didn't vote.

I have several political yardsticks. The most important one this election cycle, is to get Obama out of office. That's what I think. I'd rather a lot of people wouldn't vote, but your statement implies something beyond disagreement, like there's something fundamentally wrong with a person who just wants to beat Obama. I don't see Obama and the Republicans the way you do. I see it differently. Why does that put us into some kind armed camps where we have to despise each other?

Well this is just human nature, Dross. I could say something similar:

"That's the problem with republicans. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate America, rich people, and you're an anarchist or a liberal."

I get that some people value "Beating Obama" over all else. I understand that, even if I don't agree with it. But even by that standard, I don't get how anyone thinks he has a better chance than Paul of beating Obama. Therefore, from my perspective, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

That's not a personal affront to you or anyone who thinks that way. That's just my perspective.

Please point out the next post you read that has a Republican saying what you wrote. I'll post a response to that. It's overwhelmingly the Paul supporters from my observations, but I don't really care about this point anyway. What difference does it make if other people do this? It still alienates potential allies and serves to marginalize the position.

^^This. I hate to say it..... Chill Pill.

Back at you. Look at the responses above which do exactly what I pointed out.

Look, there's a lot of fertile ground for discussion here. You guys cut off discussion with your dismissive contempt. Paul's electability, Obama vs. any Republican, the direction of the country and how to get it on track, all of these are reasonable and the bandwidth of reasonable solutions is wide. Many of you cut off debate by characterizing everyone who sees it differently as shallow, statist, mindless, misled or stupid. I'm none of those things, and what's more, you guys know it. I just disagree. I don't mind strong disagreement at all. Every time, though, you characterize a position I hold as being about the guy's hair, not only are you insulting, but you're getting it wrong.

I'm a libertarian, for goodness sake. I want Paul's view of government implemented. That's my ideal. You read my posts arguing for it many, many times. At least acknowledge that there is a position in existence that you can't contemptuously dismiss as being not just flawed, but flawed due to some deficiency in the person who holds the position.

Let's have a real discussion about some of this and not all the snark.

 

[NYFelon]

Gosh, I sure wish I was as sophisticated and discerning as you guys. Until I am, though, I guess I'll just vote for the guy with the best hair.

This crap is exactly what everyone HATES about Paul supporters. Not that you believe in your guy - I respect that. It's your contemptuous way of viewing other opinions - many of them well thought out - as if they are forme from such stupid and shallow considerations.

Reading the Paul supporters on this site has me in the odd emotional place of having to remind myself that it's not Ron Paul's fault he has supporters who seem intent on alienating everyone who might have a possibility of voting for the guy. I find myself hoping that some skeleton of Paul's exposes itself just so I can watch you guys suffer. That's how annoying it's become. Paul is by far the closest to my views of any candidate, but I often finding myself hoping that he'll go down in flames just so you guys will shut up and stop spewing this crap.

People aren't voting for Romney because of his hair or his looks or for any of those ridiculous self righteous reasons you like to spout. A very few may be, but usually those types don't vote in primaries. Some people actually like him. Others honestly think that he's got the best chance to beat Obama, which they regard as job one. That is not a shallow or stupid reason, no matter how much you believe he's no better than Obama.

That's the problem with libertarians. No one can just disagree with them, no, if you disagree you hate freedom, the Constitution, and you're a statist or a collectivist.

Forever in the margins, banished there by yourselves.

I'd get your internet humor receiver checked, it seems to be on the fritz. Every now and again, I crack wise. It's just in my nature. Perhaps if you didn't see rabid Ron Paul fanboyism in everything, you could laugh too.

 

[dross]

I'd get your internet humor receiver checked, it seems to be on the fritz. Every now and again, I crack wise. It's just in my nature. Perhaps if you didn't see rabid Ron Paul fanboyism in everything, you could laugh too.

Dude, I WISH I didn't see it everywhere, I really, really do.

And yeah, the humor has been bled out of me on this subject. None left.