In response to:

Nice Losers

Eleanor32 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:13 AM
So who then would have been able to take the fight to Obama? The only one WHO WAS RUNNING I can think of was Newt, with Rick Santorum just behind Newt and you know how that turned out. Let's face it. The people who put Obama back in office were the Mainstream News Media who have covered for Obama since the beginning (look at the scandals that we read about on this site that don't make it onto the Nightly News, which is where most people get their news) and those who voted illegally (more people voted in some places than were registered to vote?) Either those two things are correct or we can't even believe those who are writing columns on this site.
Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:18 AM
Ron Paul would have handily beaten 0bama. The antiwar left, who voted overwhelmingly for 0bama, would have instead voted for the doctor. Also, the substantial "Ron Paul or nobody" crowd, who stayed home for the election, would have also added to the Republican vote total. Everybody else would have voted the same as they did. Those two voting blocs would have made the difference.
Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:28 AM
Do you deny that those two voting blocs exist? Do you deny that their numbers are substantial? Do you deny that they voted (or didn't) like I said? Do you deny that they would have voted for Ron Paul?
Ron-CA Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:31 AM
Doug,
Please do not drive your car or operate any heavy machinery. You are clearly under the influence of hallucinogenic substances.
Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:33 AM
You sound just like a Democrat. Can't refute the substance of my post, so make a childish ad hominem attack. I use no drugs.
rickmcq Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:35 AM
Doug,

I deny that Ron Paul would have been any more successful with the US electorate than he has been in the US Congress.
Gerald163 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:38 AM
I agree with you, Doug. Dr. Paul has espoused nearly all the qualities for which both Dr. Sowell and Williams seem to be.
Gerald163 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:38 AM
See Ron-CA note for reason the GOP keeps losing.
Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:40 AM
He wasn't given the chance to prove you right or wrong. The people who actually have had the opportunity to vote for him have overwhelmingly re-elected him time after time. And he has been hugely successful ad getting people to think, read, and learn about the sordid underbelly of the federal government. How many people ever gave a thought to the results of the policies of the federal reserve before he brought them out of the shadows?
Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:41 AM
Ron-CA is not a thinker. He's a reactor. The politicians play him like a fiddle.
rickmcq Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 10:51 AM
Doug,

In reference to you 10:40 post, Ron Paul was in the US Congress for years, but he did not influence the other Members or impact legislation at all. Also, his picked successor, Randy Weber, won with approximately 53.5 percent of the ballots cast with a total of 130,937. Nick Lampson (D) was close behind with 109,264 or roughly 44.6 percent of the overall total. Not a strong statement of support for Paul's successor.
Gerald163 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 11:30 AM
Rick - I think time will reveal his contributions to understanding the monetary system as destroying our country, far more important than your points above.

Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment-- nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.

The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many re-runs of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran...