Fox News: Ron Paul Qualifies For Nomination

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5761ZEeN57A[/media]

Edited July 14, 2012 by ArmyVeteran37214

[Guest bkelm18]

In other news: Romney is the presumptive nominee and will trounce any fringe competition.

[RobertNashville]

Well, aside from the fact that this "news" report if a few months old, so what?

The parties can "nominate" anybody they want to nominate following any rules (or not) they chose and "qualified" or not, RP is not going to be the Republican nominee.

Edited July 15, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Garufa]

Excellent news! This means that RP will in fact become the next President!

[gjohnsoniv]

I admire your conviction for your candidate, but for the sake of us younger people, please help us remove Obama from office. As I have said before I don't think Romney is really all that better than Obama, but he isn't Obama and we can at least hope he will be better. I don't want to be saddled with the debt created by another four years of Obama in office.

[Caster]

Well then, let's have a celebratory drink!!!!

[kieefer]

ArmyVet is pulling your leg and more likely crying in his beer.

Ron Paul lost Nebraska on Sat. This video he posted is news from May of this year.

Ron Paul gets 'smoked' in Nebraska

http://www.politico....ska-128948.html

.

Edited July 16, 2012 by kieefer

[RobertNashville]

ArmyVet is pulling your leg and more likely crying in his beer.

Ron Paul lost Nebraska on Sat. This video he posted is news from May of this year.

Obviously you don't understand.

Based on past actions, I suspect that the Ron Paul supporters will be posting stuff like this 20 years from now (that's assuming of course that we don't re-elect Obama and we even have the freedom to post or express our opinion about anything.

Edited July 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

but for the sake of us younger people, please help us remove Obama from office.

And for us older people also, Obama’s following is solid and united. It will take every vote for Romney to beat Obama. Please think about what you are doing before voting for someone that has no chance of winning.

[gjohnsoniv]

And for us older people also, Obama’s following is solid and united. It will take every vote for Romney to beat Obama. Please think about what you are doing before voting for someone that has no chance of winning.

We can't act like 5 year olds who aren't getting their way. He does have a rather united following and we need the same.

[RobertNashville]

And for us older people also, Obama’s following is solid and united. It will take every vote for Romney to beat Obama. Please think about what you are doing before voting for someone that has no chance of winning.

Damn...I agree with DaveTN...hell must have frozen over...why didn't someone tell me???

[Sam1]

I for one think we should all be dumb enough to hope the gangreen in our foot just goes away because we refuse to comprimise on our belief of being handicapped, instead of amputating our leg, removing the problem and saving our life.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Am having trouble understanding so much "controversy" of folks alarmed that TN non-democrats might fail to vote republican. I mean, it doesn't matter to me if the conversation goes on forever. Look at 1911 vs glock, or those long zimmerman threads.

But as a practical matter-- For residents of TN-- Do any of ya'll really think Romney could possibly lose TN even if every libertarian and malcontent in the state would vote Gary Johnson? From watching results of numerous earlier elections, there seem to be zillions of TN citizens that will ALWAYS reflexively vote for the big gov republican. They will vote for a Romney, Alexander, Corker or Zach Wamp, over and over and over again. Speaking of zombies.. The sheer number of reflexive R voters is so huge-- The sum total of malcontent votes is barely even a statistical rounding error, lost in the noise. Especially since I suspect that a lot of malcontents who loudly complain, by election day they either knuckle under and vote the lesser evil, or they decide it isn't worth showing up to cast a useless vote for the guy they actually like.

Now maybe every single vote really makes a difference in a swing state, but do ya'll really think TN could POSSIBLY really be up for grabs for Obama? Ferinstance I was slightly concerned that Kerry might have a chance at TN, and the TN polls were pretty close, but on election day it wasn't even close.

Or are ya'll expecting that Romney is so dull, bland and unlikeable that voter turnout will be suppressed as record numbers of typically reliable R voters decide to heck with it, and this time they go eat a burger rather than vote? That the Obamabots might really take TN unless every single non-democrat habitual voter will hold his nose and "do his duty" for Romney?

[gjohnsoniv]

We have Memphis so... All joking in bad taste aside, no, I don't think it would be possible.

[Guest bkelm18]

Am having trouble understanding so much "controversy" of folks alarmed that TN non-democrats might fail to vote republican. I mean, it doesn't matter to me if the conversation goes on forever. Look at 1911 vs glock, or those long zimmerman threads.

But as a practical matter-- For residents of TN-- Do any of ya'll really think Romney could possibly lose TN even if every libertarian and malcontent in the state would vote Gary Johnson? From watching results of numerous earlier elections, there seem to be zillions of TN citizens that will ALWAYS reflexively vote for the big gov republican. They will vote for a Romney, Alexander, Corker or Zach Wamp, over and over and over again. Speaking of zombies.. The sheer number of reflexive R voters is so huge-- The sum total of malcontent votes is barely even a statistical rounding error, lost in the noise. Especially since I suspect that a lot of malcontents who loudly complain, by election day they either knuckle under and vote the lesser evil, or they decide it isn't worth showing up to cast a useless vote for the guy they actually like.

Now maybe every single vote really makes a difference in a swing state, but do ya'll really think TN could POSSIBLY really be up for grabs for Obama? Ferinstance I was slightly concerned that Kerry might have a chance at TN, and the TN polls were pretty close, but on election day it wasn't even close.

Or are ya'll expecting that Romney is so dull, bland and unlikeable that voter turnout will be suppressed as record numbers of typically reliable R voters decide to heck with it, and this time they go eat a burger rather than vote? That the Obamabots might really take TN unless every single non-democrat habitual voter will hold his nose and "do his duty" for Romney?

Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

[tnhawk]

We have Memphis so... All joking in bad taste aside, no, I don't think it would be possible.

Many voters in memphis believe in the idea that you should vote early and vote often.

[RobertNashville]

Many voters in memphis believe in the idea that you should vote early and vote often.

Probably former residents of Chicago.

[Oh Shoot]

....Now maybe every single vote really makes a difference in a swing state, but do ya'll really think TN could POSSIBLY really be up for grabs for Obama? ...

Fact that in my lifetime TN went for Carter and twice for Clinton has always shown the possibility. And Gore lost by less than 4%.

Worst things get, the bigger the Dem vote from the have nots, too; that's the scariest thing about big gummit big daddy failure: it's more self perpetuating than overall moderate success.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks all. Agreed it is possible that people long-out-of-work would go for Obama, though it seems most folk who had previously been second-coming republicans wouldn't likely switch to Obama, the same dude who presided over their recent bad fortune? Usually whenever something bad happens, it is the fault of whatever warm body occupied the office at the time? After all, Hurricane Katrina would not have even been a tropical storm if Bush had been smart enough to sign the UN Global Warming treaty!

One might expect em to blame Obama for recent troubles, unless Romney is incapable of brainwashing people "its all obama's fault" even with a zillion bucks of campaign money. Maybe campaign money spent by Romney and Obama on this election will be so huge that they could pay off most folks' near-forclosed mortages should they spend the sums on useful real world purposes.

Am not arguing "anti-free speech" campaign reform nonsense, but you know there's gonna be some SERIOUS money blown assassinating each other's character this time around. At least it will bolster the bottom line for propaganda writers, ad companies, broadcasters, web services and print companies. Assuming campaigns don't outsource to asia. Wouldn't it be bizarre to receive incessant "grass roots" campaign calls from people with incomprehensible Indian or East European accents?

Yeah, Carter, Clinton, Gore. Blanton, McWherter, Bredeson. Not that long ago the South was yellow-dog democrat. When I was a kid in 1950's rural AL, maybe it is because everybody I knew was at best barely middle class, but republicans seemed rarer than dodo birds. People held FDR in as high regard as Robert E. Lee (and Robert E. Lee was held in very high regard). Of course democrats were not the same back then.

Some things were "more free" back then just because they hadn't got around to passing so many laws. Gun control law was near nonexistent compared to today. But in the years between FDR and Reagan, the USA was a dang socialist place, and most working folk didn't complain much. The same tax levels nowadays would have even the socialists screaming bloody murder. The federal tax rate on a cotton picker back then was higher than the tax rate on a doctor nowadays, wheras doctors and small biz owners were REALLY getting walloped back then. The gov wasn't even spending much of that money on welfare before Johnson. Except such as farm price subsidies. They weren't even radically over-paying gov employees. Private generally paid better and people worked gov jobs because they were easy and had superior job security. The gov was balancing the budget and spending all those highway-robbery tax rates hand over fist building a national highway system, space program, intercontinental bomber fleets and thousands of nuclear missile silos. And tanks and helicopters and on and on. And still balancing the budget. On the other hand we could probably balance the budget tomorrow if we re-instituted a 1950's tax rate. Look it up. It was a HIGH tax rate.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[TMF]

Worst things get, the bigger the Dem vote from the have nots, too; that's the scariest thing about big gummit big daddy failure: it's more self perpetuating than overall moderate success.

- OS

Such an odd relationship, but true.