Oh its been a fight that has gone back and forth in the party since the days of Teddy R. He was not for liberty, neither was the later Rockefeller, who gave the name to Rockefeller Republican. Both were part of the invasive species known as progressive.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Gary Johnson-Ron Paul Factor.
- Thread starter Brass Magnet
- Start date
Oh its been a fight that has gone back and forth in the party since the days of Teddy R. He was not for liberty, neither was the later Rockefeller, who gave the name to Rockefeller Republican. Both were part of the invasive species known as progressive.
hermannr
Regular Member
What I don't think some of the republicians understand is that Ron Paul could pull a lot of democrats, not just independents. Personally, I hope that he actually gets enough delegates, that at a minimum there is a second or third vote at the convention.
It is possible, if he stays this strong in the early primaries that Ron could actually take the nomination. Then he could nominate Johnson for VP.
It is possible, if he stays this strong in the early primaries that Ron could actually take the nomination. Then he could nominate Johnson for VP.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
The statement does not require a cite. You can cite me on that.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Yes, Paul could pull a lot of Democrats. But why would the Republicans want to be associating with Democrats? If Democrats vote for a Republican than there must be something falwed about the Republican, right?
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
No, there is something flawed about both parties not any one particular candidate. Either one is about half right (according to platform, not deeds) but that means they're both half wrong too.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Well then, it looks like you and me are voting for neither party. I am glad to have shared this moment with you. God Bless America.
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
That's right, I'm going to vote for a person, not a party. I could care less what party they are part of as long as they espouse the ideals I favor and have a record that proves they will actually do it.
DangerClose
Regular Member
Wow, how'd I miss seeing that sentence the first time. Amazing.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
G22shooter
Campaign Veteran
+1
<if one could care less, then they care somewhat. if one could NOT care less, then they care not at all.>
hermannr
Regular Member
I supported Ron Paul in 1988, and I still support him.
I think it took a Wilson/FDR style democrat to wake up the nation though. The established, bleed them dry, what do you mean take away our money away from us, politicians (ya, both parties) call him crazy because he is a threat to their socialist nanny power. You don't have to be a republican to be tired of that
I think it took a Wilson/FDR style democrat to wake up the nation though. The established, bleed them dry, what do you mean take away our money away from us, politicians (ya, both parties) call him crazy because he is a threat to their socialist nanny power. You don't have to be a republican to be tired of that
rodbender
Regular Member
Like I've always said, The Democrats want the power to run our lives from cradle to grave; the Republicans want the same power, they just don't want to pay as much for it.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Now mind you I am not a fan of much republican policy, but there is enough ideological policies that they and the democrats hold that can be attacked and dismantled on pure logical and constitutional basis. This is nothing but smear lacking any substance.
Progressives in both parties want to rule our lives as you say. The difference is not how much is paid for it, but how our lives are ruled, dems want to change society, conservatives want things to be static. Don't be fooled progressives in the republican party don't want to reduce government or have it cost less or have a smaller tax burden; that is a lie they use when convenient to get votes.
georg jetson
Regular Member
I disagree that conservaties want no change... They are the warmongers that use 911 to tighten their grip on the citizen.
eh? What do you think the base word conserve means? Of course social conservatives want to conserve the social order. Once a change is done though they don't really try to reverse it. I never said or implied that social conservatives don't want to have a tight grip on citizens, in fact I thought I said the opposite (though I used the more generic term progressive)...
georg jetson
Regular Member
Yes you did... (retracting disagreement)
I said something indicating social conservatives don't want a tight control over people? Mind indicating where so I can edit such a wrong statement? I'd hate to think I've taken the side of social conservatives anywhere.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Sorry for being vague. After I read your response I retracted my disagreement.