If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Delusional RON PAUL supporters still delusional. Obvious tag still obvious   (seattletimes.nwsource.com) divider line 142
    More: Obvious, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Republican Proposal, delegates  
•       •       •

2375 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jun 2012 at 12:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-03 12:49:08 PM
th993.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-03 12:52:03 PM
Come on Brokered Convention!
 
2012-06-03 12:56:51 PM
Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.
 
2012-06-03 01:00:37 PM
RON PAUL is getting getting for the brand repositioning to RAND PAUL.

//BSABSVRP
 
2012-06-03 01:03:09 PM
scrapetv.com

/got nothin
 
2012-06-03 01:03:13 PM
They're even more delusional this year than in 2008, and there's fewer of them.
It's mind boggling.
 
2012-06-03 01:03:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.


I'm not here to defend RON PAUL supporters, but the one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position. That merits support if nothing else does. Too bad many of his other positions are pure crackpot.
 
2012-06-03 01:05:39 PM

AntiNerd: BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.

I'm not here to defend RON PAUL supporters, but the one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position. That merits support if nothing else does. Too bad many of his other positions are pure crackpot.


I think there are a lot of people in that category.

/Myself included
 
2012-06-03 01:05:55 PM
I probably support more of Ron Paul's policies than I am against which would make him the best candidate for me. The policies that he is against drive me up the wall, but hopefully he will focus on what I want changed first.

Personally I will probably write him in as well, not because of the lack of difference between the two jokers running, but because of they both have failed to earn my support.

The biggest thing is that Ron Paul shakes up the RNC enough to fracture their image. They need a reboot to reset conservative values back to being conservative. Not just, bail out the guy with the most money who screwed up.
 
2012-06-03 01:06:38 PM
fta ARE THERE ANY OTHER REASONS TO AMASS DELEGATES?

The more people they have inside the convention, the more power Paul's folks have in influencing both the party and Romney. They desperately want a voice in the party's policy platform.


Aw, but it don't get much dumber
 
2012-06-03 01:07:17 PM
i276.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-03 01:08:04 PM

AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position


No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.
 
2012-06-03 01:09:49 PM
home.whatsmykarma.com
 
2012-06-03 01:11:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.


example please?
 
2012-06-03 01:17:37 PM

TheLalagah: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

example please?


If you believe Rick Santorum, President Obama was the "anti-war government nig"
 
2012-06-03 01:19:14 PM
There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.
 
2012-06-03 01:24:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.


Which of the above has your loins a-flame with anticipation?
 
2012-06-03 01:26:09 PM

ordinarysteve: There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.


That is also a good point.

Only one of these candidates has actually ended a war.
 
2012-06-03 01:28:25 PM
oblivious tag?
 
2012-06-03 01:30:09 PM

AcneVulgaris: BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.

Which of the above has your loins a-flame with anticipation?


"None of the above." That would throw the country into a hilarious paroxysm of befuddlement.
 
2012-06-03 01:30:20 PM

AntiNerd: BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.

I'm not here to defend RON PAUL supporters, but the one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position. That merits support if nothing else does. Too bad many of his other positions are pure crackpot.


And if you look at that position it isn't so much anti-war as complete isolationism, which is a pretty nutty position. We don't need to play world police but sticking our heads in the sand is not a sane solution by contrast.
 
2012-06-03 01:33:46 PM

AcneVulgaris: BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.

Which of the above has your loins a-flame with anticipation?


I'm a white male, this election is not about my loins.
 
2012-06-03 01:40:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TheLalagah: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

example please?

If you believe Rick Santorum, President Obama was the "anti-war government nig"


Why would anyone believe Rick Santorum?
 
2012-06-03 01:43:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ordinarysteve: There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.

That is also a good point.

Only one of these candidates has actually ended a war.


Neither Obama or Romney is anti-war. I don't know who the hell you think the legitimate candidate here is, because it sure as hell isn't either one of them.
 
2012-06-03 01:47:14 PM
ordinarysteve:There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.

/And his party has Iran at the top of their agenda.
 
2012-06-03 01:47:17 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: AntiNerd: BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.

I'm not here to defend RON PAUL supporters, but the one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position. That merits support if nothing else does. Too bad many of his other positions are pure crackpot.

And if you look at that position it isn't so much anti-war as complete isolationism, which is a pretty nutty position. We don't need to play world police but sticking our heads in the sand is not a sane solution by contrast.


That's kind of how I feel too. I'm not opposed to teaming up with someone for a common cause, but in Paul's case, the solution comes from totally whacked-out premises. There's a good reason your math teacher always told you to show your work growing up: If your thought process is wrong, you might get the right answer on occasion, but you'll be way the hell off-base the rest of the time. That instability makes Paul predictable, but unreliable.
 
2012-06-03 01:51:44 PM

TheLalagah: cameroncrazy1984: ordinarysteve: There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.

That is also a good point.

Only one of these candidates has actually ended a war.

Neither Obama or Romney is anti-war. I don't know who the hell you think the legitimate candidate here is, because it sure as hell isn't either one of them.


Oh really? How many wars has Obama started? How many has he ended?

In what way does that answer make Obama "pro-war" ?
 
2012-06-03 01:55:37 PM
Anybody "like" RONPAUL on Facebook? Comedy gold.
 
2012-06-03 01:57:20 PM
The amassing of delegates within the state is the one point that Paul supporters have been doing right. Their biggest move yet is electing one of their own to the Chair of the Republican Party of Alaska. That will get them at least one automatic superdelegate next election. They are also winning state delegate chairs, county positions, etc, that may allow them in exert influence on the state platform.

I'd love for Nate Silver to analyze the Paul delegates and see if they can't be the swing vote in electing the next Republican National Committee Chair. Maybe not getting a Paul person up there, but perhaps an executive committee seat.
 
2012-06-03 01:58:23 PM

Ed Willy: The amassing of delegates within the state is the one point that Paul supporters have been doing right. Their biggest move yet is electing one of their own to the Chair of the Republican Party of Alaska. That will get them at least one automatic superdelegate next election. They are also winning state delegate chairs, county positions, etc, that may allow them in exert influence on the state platform.

I'd love for Nate Silver to analyze the Paul delegates and see if they can't be the swing vote in electing the next Republican National Committee Chair. Maybe not getting a Paul person up there, but perhaps an executive committee seat.


God help us all.
 
2012-06-03 02:03:39 PM

propasaurus: AcneVulgaris: BarkingUnicorn: Ron Paul is just a surrogate for "None of the above." His die-hard supporters make the Tea Party look like great compromisers.

Which of the above has your loins a-flame with anticipation?

I'm a white male, this election is not about my loins.


I'm going to run my loins for president.
 
2012-06-03 02:03:40 PM
Link

I got nothing, either
 
2012-06-03 02:07:10 PM
R0mney has the nominated bought and paid for.

As for Paul:
Bastardised libertarianism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-liber t arianism-makes-freedom-oppression
 
2012-06-03 02:10:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TheLalagah: cameroncrazy1984: ordinarysteve: There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.

That is also a good point.

Only one of these candidates has actually ended a war.

Neither Obama or Romney is anti-war. I don't know who the hell you think the legitimate candidate here is, because it sure as hell isn't either one of them.

Oh really? How many wars has Obama started? How many has he ended?

In what way does that answer make Obama "pro-war" ?


I didn't say he was pro-war, but he's certainly not anti-war as evidenced by the fact that we are still at war when we don't need to be. We bomb Iranian scientists and have drones and shiat over there killing innocent civilians in the process. Those countries haven't attacked anyone, but hey, who cares right?
 
2012-06-03 02:11:24 PM

Bucky Katt: R0mney has the nominated bought and paid for.

As for Paul:
Bastardised libertarianism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-liber t arianism-makes-freedom-oppression


How come it took a newspaper columnist from Britain to figure this out?
 
2012-06-03 02:12:43 PM

Bucky Katt: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libe r t arianism-makes-freedom-oppression


What is it about Fark's editor that inserts blank spaces into URLs?
 
2012-06-03 02:19:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TheLalagah: cameroncrazy1984: ordinarysteve: There's a difference between isolationism and anti-war. Paul is an isolationist loon.

That is also a good point.

Only one of these candidates has actually ended a war.

Neither Obama or Romney is anti-war. I don't know who the hell you think the legitimate candidate here is, because it sure as hell isn't either one of them.

Oh really? How many wars has Obama started? How many has he ended?

In what way does that answer make Obama "pro-war" ?


Well, Obama got us into Afghanistan, he screwed the pooch on Iraq, he started the Libyan war and Syria and if all goes according to plan, we'll be at war with Iran before the end of his second term.

/I know, I know.
//right now, I think having Obama in the White House is the only thing preventing us from attacking Iran
 
2012-06-03 02:28:12 PM
i47.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-03 02:49:23 PM

Mrtraveler01: Bucky Katt: R0mney has the nominated bought and paid for.

As for Paul:
Bastardised libertarianism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-liber t arianism-makes-freedom-oppression

How come it took a newspaper columnist from Britain to figure this out?


Because unlike the US, the UK actually still has some journalists left. And George Monbiot is one of the best.
 
2012-06-03 03:01:06 PM
You almost have to admire such blind optimism in the face of incontrovertible evidence of failure. They're right, they really are the only true Republicans left.
 
2012-06-03 03:05:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.


Gary Johnson isn't too fond of war. He was for Afghanistan, but against Iraq. He's also less crazy than Ron Paul on most fronts.
 
2012-06-03 03:06:46 PM

propasaurus: //right now, I think having Obama in the White House is the only thing preventing us from attacking Iran


If Romney wins, guaranteed we'll be invading Iran and then also lowering taxes to ensure there will be no way to pay for it.
 
2012-06-03 03:19:52 PM

Durendal: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

Gary Johnson isn't too fond of war. He was for Afghanistan, but against Iraq. He's also less crazy than Ron Paul on most fronts.


Gary Johnson is running as a Libertarian, is he not? The Republicans didn't want him.
 
2012-06-03 03:30:15 PM

Sabyen91: Durendal: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

Gary Johnson isn't too fond of war. He was for Afghanistan, but against Iraq. He's also less crazy than Ron Paul on most fronts.

Gary Johnson is running as a Libertarian, is he not? The Republicans didn't want him.


Johnson's anti-war stance was probably a big contributor to that.

Republicans are only for small government when it doesn't involve the military. They don't care how bloated and riddled with waste and fraud it is, just cutting the budget by a fraction of a percent is the same as capitulating to China.
 
2012-06-03 03:46:05 PM

Sabyen91: Durendal: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

Gary Johnson isn't too fond of war. He was for Afghanistan, but against Iraq. He's also less crazy than Ron Paul on most fronts.

Gary Johnson is running as a Libertarian, is he not? The Republicans didn't want him.


Yeah, I guess so. Has he officially bolted the party?
 
2012-06-03 03:48:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: Sabyen91: Durendal: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

Gary Johnson isn't too fond of war. He was for Afghanistan, but against Iraq. He's also less crazy than Ron Paul on most fronts.

Gary Johnson is running as a Libertarian, is he not? The Republicans didn't want him.

Johnson's anti-war stance was probably a big contributor to that.

Republicans are only for small government when it doesn't involve the military. They don't care how bloated and riddled with waste and fraud it is, just cutting the budget by a fraction of a percent is the same as capitulating to China.


That's not really true, either.
See: patriot act, no child left behind, social conservatism, war on drugs, women and gays, etc.

Conservatives aren't against big government, they're against paying for it.
 
2012-06-03 03:52:00 PM

Durendal: Sabyen91: Durendal: cameroncrazy1984: AntiNerd: one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position

No he isn't. He's the only Republican with an anti-war position.

Gary Johnson isn't too fond of war. He was for Afghanistan, but against Iraq. He's also less crazy than Ron Paul on most fronts.

Gary Johnson is running as a Libertarian, is he not? The Republicans didn't want him.

Yeah, I guess so. Has he officially bolted the party?


Yup, he is the (L) nominee. Link
 
2012-06-03 03:53:45 PM
Why Ron Paul's fans are still amassing delegates

They jeer at the idea of coalescing behind Mitt Romney. They're still scraping for every possible delegate. And they hold out hope that Ron Paul could win the presidency this year.

By MIKE BAKER Associated Press TACOMA, Wash. -

They jeer at the idea of coalescing behind Mitt Romney. They're still scraping for every possible delegate. And they hold out hope that Ron Paul could win the presidency this year.


What I couldn't tell from the beginning of the article is if they jeer at to the idea of coalescing behind Mitt Romney, or if they are scraping for every delegate, or if they still hold out hope that Ron Paul could win the presidency this year.
 
2012-06-03 03:56:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: Republicans are only for small government when it doesn't involve the military.


Or women's rights, gay rights, etc.
 
2012-06-03 03:57:53 PM

AntiNerd: I'm not here to defend RON PAUL supporters, but the one thing I can say for the candidate himself is that he is the only one with an anti-war position. That merits support if nothing else does. Too bad many of his other positions are pure crackpot.


His inability to get anything done makes his positions irrelevant. The guy's been in congress for decades and has jack to show for it. Why throw your vote away on someone who's proven to be incompetent?
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report