Michigan Republican Primary: VOTE FOR RON PAUL ! ! !

**Searay215** · January-28-12, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by HistoryNotHisStory

The name of the game to win!

What the hell does that mean? A.Ron Paul won't win. B.Any Republican won't win. C. I'll take my payment in 1 $50 bill.....Thanks

**HistoryNotHisStory** · January-29-12, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Searay215

What the hell does that mean? A.Ron Paul won't win. B.Any Republican won't win. C. I'll take my payment in 1 $50 bill.....Thanks

However, Vote for Ron Paul for the Michigan Republican Nomination.

**maxx** · January-30-12, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by HistoryNotHisStory

The name of the game to win!

The last time Reps. won the presidency, most of us lost.

**HistoryNotHisStory** · February-07-12, 12:45 PM

As a reminder people, the michigan primary is in a few days!

Vote for ron paul!

A true american.

**vetalalumni** · February-07-12, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Politically, it is dumb as rocks to make a speech in front of a Confederate flag. Georgia, until 2001, and three other Southern states have reminders of the confederate flag in their state flags. A main point Paul made in that speech was that 11 other countries had gotten rid of their own slavery essentially by buying the slaves from slaveholders and setting them free thus averting costlier civil wars and things like Sherman's march to the sea in which property owners were not compensated as far as I know.
...

Big Government forcing immoral property owners to involuntarily give up their prized revenue generating property investments?

Originally Posted by oladub

...
I took a picture of my wife in front of Daughters of the Confederacy statue in Moultrie, Georgia the discovery of which was kind of a surprise to me a Northerner. Now I have proof that she is a neo-confederate I guess.
...

Context matters. If the statue in the background of the photograph was inadvertent, the context would disprove affinity with the Lost Cause.

Originally Posted by oladub

...

I suppose the same logic could extend to every politician who stands in front of Israeli flags at an AIPAC fundraiser in NY City. There are similar photos of Republicans too. There may also be US flags on any of these stages but showing them would ruin the fun and innuendos.

What was the context of this photograph?

**vetalalumni** · February-09-12, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I'm a Paul supporter but I think that being Mormon is a little bit of a plus and don't see that as a negative.
...

Mormonism is helpful to whom?

**oladub** · February-09-12, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by vetalalumni

Mormonism is helpful to whom?

I didn't say that being a Mormon was 'helpful'. I was responding to a snipe at Mormons. However, the Mormons I've personally known are hard workers, take care of their bodies, take care of each other, take responsibility for their families, keep off the dole, and tend to be traveled and fairly well educated. I'm sure Mormons have their share of bad eggs too except I haven't run into that many. Not a lot of bad habits among them from what I can see. Maybe if they are helpful it is as taxpayers contributing to the general welfare for the rest of us with poorer habits and more decadent cultures.

I've also heard that in Utah, Mormons are clannish and sometimes treat non-Mormons as outsiders. Maybe that is a good reason not to move to Utah. I'm not planning on becoming a Mormon or moving to Utah.

Once, I took a Greyhound from San Francisco to Detroit. I won a significant jackpot of nickels in Reno at a bus stop. I almost missed the bus but woke up at about 6am in Salt Lake City for a breakfast stop and heard the the M.T. choir practicing although I wasn't allowed into that building. Clear notes in clear air. There was something pristine, like diamonds, in the air, music and cathedral architecture of that place that morning. It was an interesting contrast to San Francisco and Reno. Such is our country.

One other note; Mormons offer useful genealogical services for almost free to non-Mormons. I appreciate that.

I don't think that being Mormon is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate.

edited to add since this is a Ron paul thread [[warning: this is not from an rb approved source) :
Ronverts: Breaking Up with Obama, Rebounding with Ron Paul

**vetalalumni** · February-09-12, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

...
I don't think that being Mormon is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate.
...

Do you think that being a Muslim, Atheist, or Buddhist is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate?

**oladub** · February-09-12, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by vetalalumni

Do you think that being a Muslim, Atheist, or Buddhist is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate?

Is this a PC test?

I don't think we have had anything but nominally religious presidents since Carter. Religion isn't a requirement and doesn't seem to correlate one way or another with a president's success. For all I know, we've had atheist presidents. I don't know if they make appearances at church because they are sincerely religious or they are trying to hit the right political notes.

Not to duck a question but it depends mostly on the individual. I could even vote for a Muslim president but being Muslim wouldn't generally be a plus. If you had asked me the question differently, "If you knew nothing about four candidates except that they were Mormon, Buddhist, atheist, and Muslim, in which order would you choose them? I would choose them in that order because of personal prejudices based on people, things I've observed, and what I think about things I've read. However, I would vote for a Muslim libertarian over Romney in the blink of an eye. "Liberty is what brings people together" as Ron Paul would say. How about you? In what order would you vote for a Morman, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a Muslim if that was all you knew about them and had to choose?

**maxx** · February-10-12, 11:37 AM

Bill Maher mentioned recently that Mitt Romney had his late father-in-law, a secularist, baptised about 14 months after his death. Maher quipped that they couldn't do it sooner because they had to wait for him to stop spinning in his grave. Mormons cling to one verse from the Bible that mentions people baptising the dead. Maher did an unbaptising ceremony for him.

There is something very arrogant and controlling about a group that thinks they can change a person's eternity

**maxx** · February-10-12, 11:38 AM

There is also something very sadistic about the belief in a hell.

**Jimaz** · February-10-12, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Bill Maher mentioned recently that Mitt Romney had his late father-in-law, a secularist, baptised about 14 months after his death....

I couldn't resist Googling that.

New Rule: Atheism is not a religion! Unbaptizes Mitt Romney's Dead Father-In-Law!

**vetalalumni** · February-12-12, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

...
In what order would you vote for a Morman, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a Muslim if that was all you knew about them and had to choose?

This is insufficient information to vote for any candidate.

**oladub** · February-13-12, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by vetalalumni

This is insufficient information to vote for any candidate.

It was a response to rb's question " Do you think that being a Muslim, Atheist, or Buddhist is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate?" It sounded like something from a PC grand inquisitor but I played around with it as best I could. There wasn't other information to go along with that question either. You misquoted me though. The question was, " "If you knew nothing about four candidates except that they were Mormon, Buddhist, atheist, and Muslim, in which order would you choose them?"

I was in a voting booth with an aunt when I was a child in Detroit. She had a list the UAW recommended and voted for the UAW slate. She had a system for voting for other candidates she knew nothing about based on what ethnic group she thought their name was. Belgian named trumped. So I am comfortable with the question because in the real world that is often how things are done. For instance, Samuel Jackson was just quoted as saying, ""I voted for Barack because he was black. Cause that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them," " See? Not much different than my Aunt.

So there you have it. You can answer either rb's question, my question, both, or retain your purity.

edited to add: rb is correct about one thing, see next post, "It was a response to rb's question" should read "It was a response to vetalalumni's question"

**rb336** · February-13-12, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

It was a response to rb's question " Do you think that being a Muslim, Atheist, or Buddhist is in any way a negative toward a presidential candidate?" It sounded like something from a PC grand inquisitor but I played around with it as best I could.

first, that was vetalumni's question. second, it was a question in response to YOUR comment. Third, your question is absolutely absurd since the original question didn't limit knowledge of the candidate to his/her religion. Fourth, there are a great number of people, mostly in the republican party, who WOULD think twice, or three times, before voting for a Mormon, which makes the original question valid.

**vetalalumni** · February-13-12, 07:14 PM

Santorum support is growing in Michigan. It would be startling if he were able to win Livingston County.

**rb336** · February-14-12, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by vetalalumni

Santorum support is growing in Michigan. It would be startling if he were able to win Livingston County.

Michigan rejected extreme right wing candidates for governor, or at least rejected those who ran AS extreme right-wingers. Santorum will not get the votes here in the general election

**Whitehouse** · February-14-12, 06:41 PM

A snowball's chance in hell, but what the hell. Romney won, Gingrich won, Santorum won and now Paul?

Only outcome that is realistic:
Obama wins. So everybody wins. He's the only one not a Republican in this race.

**oladub** · February-14-12, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Whitehouse

A snowball's chance in hell, but what the hell. Romney won, Gingrich won, Santorum won and now Paul?

Only outcome that is realistic:
Obama wins. So everybody wins. He's the only one not a Republican in this race.

The primary is just about which Republican will oppose Obama. It would make sense for independents and even Democrats who oppose our foreign policy and encroaching police state to at least support Paul in the primary. If Paul doesn't win, and he probably won't, at least he will have more say in the Republican platform at the expense of neocons.

There are two outcomes:

A)More deficits, more debt, more attacks on personal privacy and the Constitution, extending the Patriot Act, TSA pat downs for grandmothers, badgering Iran [[risking WWIII), internet controls, continuing middle east wars, troops stationed all over the world, one size fits all federal education policy, corporate cronyism

B)Reduce the deficit by $1T in year one, restoration of personal privacy, restoration of the fourth amendment, ending the Patriot Act, ending the war on drugs, setting aside money to pay for social security, bringing the troops home, not aggravating Iran, internet privacy and freedom, state run education, ending corporate subsidies, liberty

A) Take your choice: Romney, Gingrich, Obama, Santorum

B) Ron Paul

The choice couldn't be clearer.

Ron Paul on the Issues:Honest Money, Budget, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Immigration, Audit the Fed, End the Fed, Gold Standard, Taxes, Israel,Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Civil Liberties, Education,Abortion, Global Warming, War on Drugs, TSA, National ID

**rb336** · February-15-12, 12:17 AM

Paulites crack me up

**HistoryNotHisStory** · February-15-12, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

the primary is just about which republican will oppose obama. It would make sense for independents and even democrats who oppose our foreign policy and encroaching police state to at least support paul in the primary. If paul doesn't win, and he probably won't, at least he will have more say in the republican platform at the expense of neocons.

There are two outcomes:

A)more deficits, more debt, more attacks on personal privacy and the constitution, extending the patriot act, tsa pat downs for grandmothers, badgering iran [[risking wwiii), internet controls, continuing middle east wars, troops stationed all over the world, one size fits all federal education policy, corporate cronyism

b)reduce the deficit by $1t in year one, restoration of personal privacy, restoration of the fourth amendment, ending the patriot act, ending the war on drugs, setting aside money to pay for social security, bringing the troops home, not aggravating iran, internet privacy and freedom, state run education, ending corporate subsidies, liberty

a) take your choice: Romney, gingrich, obama, santorum

b) ron paul

the choice couldn't be clearer.

ron paul on the issues:honest money, budget, foreign policy, healthcare, immigration, audit the fed, end the fed, gold standard, taxes, israel,iran, libya, afghanistan, civil liberties, education,abortion, global warming, war on drugs, tsa, national id

vote for ron paul!!!