Ron Paul in 3rd Place in Nevada

[bwrice]

He's currently beating out Hucklebee, Thompson and Guiliani. Maybe he does have a chance?

[evan_bod]

One could only hope. He is the only one with a firm grasp on economics running in this election.

[Bergs]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NV
According to entrance polls, 58% of independants voted Paul. If he overtakes McCain, watch the fuck out.

Fox News executives should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

*EDIT* As of 4:23, 2nd Place

[Caveman]

Romney had an overwhelming victory there.... I wouldn't put too much hope into it... its not like Paul got 30% of the vote.

[Rootraz]

It really pisses me off that so many Americans would vote for Hillary.

[Bergs]

Its very important. The Republican nomination process is a cluster fuck. Every jocking of position matters.

[Spike Lee]

A win is a lot more important. You actually get delegates.

[LetsGetPhysical]

Paul is in 2nd place at this very moment.

[greg vs greg]

Romney had an overwhelming victory there.... I wouldn't put too much hope into it... its not like Paul got 30% of the vote.

95% of mormons voted for him, and there are a lots of mormons in nevada. and they say they don't vote based on religion. :rolleyes: one of the shittiest reasons to vote for someone, ever. right up there with race and gender.

[Death_Revenant]

Not fucking Romney, that's guy is a total fucking dick.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

Not fucking Romney, that's guy is a total fucking dick.

You'd rather Huckabee?

He's a good candidate aside from the flip-flopping issues:idea:

[Death_Revenant]

You'd rather Huckabee?

He's a good candidate aside from the flip-flopping issues:idea:

and the fact that he was like "FUCK YOU STONER" to the paralyzed dude suffering saying that marijuana was the only thing that helped.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

Answer my question: You would prefer Huckabee?

And Romney stated he didn't support medical marijuana in any form. Politicians will walk away from questions often (except for maybe Ron Paul); people just love to film Romney doing it and act like he's this evil person.

[Boomer]

Romney spends more time ducking questions and flip-flopping than actually talking about issues. That tells me two things. One, he lacks substance. Two, he lacks principle and integrity. To make matters worse, he is one of the hardliner against Iran when his companies make profits from them. That is hypocrisy.

In fact the entire GOP line of candidates are disappointed except Ron Paul being slightly better. McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney are almost interchangeble. While Ron Paul's gold standard ideas are abit too much for me, he seems like a genuine man.

[Fag Boy]

The title of this thread should read

Mitt Romney in 1st place in Nevada

[LetsGetPhysical]

The title of this thread should read

The Devil in 1st place in Nevada

Fixed for ya.

[shade]

A win is a lot more important. You actually get delegates.

No. You do not have to win to get delegates. Ron Paul got 4 delegates today. It is proportional. Not only is it proportional, but the delegates (for all candidates) can change their vote at the convention.

Before Romney ever had a 1st place victory, he was winning in delegates. He has been in 1st place for a while now.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

I'm curious, shade, who are your favorite Republicans besides Ron Paul?

[Spike Lee]

No. You do not have to win to get delegates. Ron Paul got 4 delegates today. It is proportional. Not only is it proportional, but the delegates (for all candidates) can change their vote at the convention.

Before Romney ever had a 1st place victory, he was winning in delegates. He has been in 1st place for a while now.

Yeah, my bad. I thought it was going to be proportional when I read it again.

[shade]

I'm curious, shade, who are your favorite Republicans besides Ron Paul?

I liked Tancredo's views on small government but could not stand his anti-Muslim policy. I liked Hunter because he was genuine.

Ron Paul is the only republican left for me. If he is not the nominee, I will do straight ticket libertarian. I don't care if that means Hillary wins. There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HILLARY, ROMNEY, GIULIANI, MCCAIN, ETC. They are all the same and will RUIN this country faster than Al Queda could ever hope.

Heed this: There are no conservatives in the race now other than Ron Paul. He is the only conservative running for president. No, Thompson is not a conservative. No, Fox News is not conservative.

[Spike Lee]

I liked Tancredo's views on small government but could not stand his anti-Muslim policy. I liked Hunter because he was genuine.

Ron Paul is the only republican left for me. If he is not the nominee, I will do straight ticket libertarian. I don't care if that means Hillary wins. There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HILLARY, ROMNEY, GIULIANI, MCCAIN, ETC. They are all the same and will RUIN this country faster than Al Queda could ever hope.

Heed this: There are no conservatives in the race now other than Ron Paul. He is the only conservative running for president. No, Thompson is not a conservative. No, Fox News is not conservative.

That depends on how you define conservative? Reagan or Goldwater?

[shade]

That depends on how you define conservative? Reagan or Goldwater?

They are both conservative, but goldwater much more so.

No one in this race is a Reagan conservative (other than Paul). A reagan conservative would not talk about new programs and this and that federal program or "reworking" the health care industry. Language like that is command economy language which Reagan was firmly against.

Reagan did not talk about creating new programs to fiddle with society. He talked about getting government off of people's backs.

You watch Reagan talk and you tell me who he sounds like in this race:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4

Reagan endorsed Ron multiple times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

I find that people who talk about Reagan sound a lot like people who talk about Jesus, but don't read the bible themselves and instead have it interpreted for them - or cherry pick the bible to find things that support their views.

[EVO_9MR]

Paul is actually in 2nd place but all the media outlets are reporting him in 3rd
http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/results

[Spike Lee]

They are both conservative, but goldwater much more so.

No one in this race is a Reagan conservative (other than Paul). A reagan conservative would not talk about new programs and this and that federal program or "reworking" the health care industry. Language like that is command economy language which Reagan was firmly against.

Reagan did not talk about creating new programs to fiddle with society. He talked about getting government off of people's backs.

You watch Reagan talk and you tell me who he sounds like in this race:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4

Reagan endorsed Ron multiple times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

I find that people who talk about Reagan sound a lot like people who talk about Jesus, but don't read the bible themselves and instead have it interpreted for them - or cherry pick the bible to find things that support their views.

I see Reagan and Paul as diffrent. Sure they are against creating programs and shit but the two are diffrent in their foreign policy. Ron Paul want us to stop policing the world, Reagan was the opposite.

[shade]

I see Reagan and Paul as diffrent. Sure they are against creating programs and shit but the two are diffrent in their foreign policy. Ron Paul want us to stop policing the world, Reagan was the opposite.

WRONG. Watch that video I linked in the last post. That is the most common misconception about Reagan.

[Mr. Heskey]

That depends on how you define conservative? Reagan or Goldwater?

Goldwater goldwater goldwater goldwater.

Hell, I would hardly consider reagan a "conservative" either. But I did like a lot of what he did (sans the I-C Affair)

[Spike Lee]

WRONG. Watch that video I linked in the last post. That is the most common misconception about Reagan.
No. Ronald Reagan was for the Vietnam War. He was for the "containment" of the spread of communism. Sounds like policing other countries. It is an abuse of the truman doctrine to me.

[shade]

No. Ronald Reagan was for the Vietnam War. He was for the "containment" of the spread of communism. Sounds like policing other countries. It is an abuse of the truman doctrine to me.

WROOOOOOOONG. Again, watch the link of REAGAN talking about VIET NAM.

[Spike Lee]

I watched that video but it really is taken out of context. If you could give me the time frame and the rest of the segment regarding that clip, then I will change my statement.



Here is a quote from Reagan himself:

We should declare war on North Vietnam. . . .We could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas.
--Ronald Reagan, 1965

It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.
Ronald Reagan
The above quotes are also from 1965. The speech he gave was in 1964. He was talking about the Vietnam Conflict.

[Bullet]

There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HILLARY, ROMNEY, GIULIANI, MCCAIN, ETC. They are all the same and will RUIN this country faster than Al Queda could ever hope.

I totally agree with this.

They all have the same ideas as previous Presidents. And what have previous Presidents done? Not much, regarding our relations with other countries, our country deteriorating, and changes in general.

Ron Paul is different. But I think some of his ideas are too revolutionary...

[Spike Lee]

I totally agree with this.

They all have the same ideas as previous Presidents. And what have previous Presidents done? Not much, regarding our relations with other countries, our country deteriorating, and changes in general.

Ron Paul is different. But I think some of his ideas are too revolutionary...

As I started thinking that recently, I don't think so. The only ideas I consider revolutionary are two things:

We the People Act and his Gold Standard approach.

[Boomer]

I totally agree with this.

They all have the same ideas as previous Presidents. And what have previous Presidents done? Not much, regarding our relations with other countries, our country deteriorating, and changes in general.

Ron Paul is different. But I think some of his ideas are too revolutionary...
What's too revolutionary? Enforcing the constitution? Cutting the size of Federal government? Eliminating the income tax? Stop printing money out of thin air? Don't spend yourself to ruin? Don't pursue wars of aggression? Free trade? Protecting civil liberties?

That sounds like want the founders of this country wanted.

[Quick_Draw21]

As I started thinking that recently, I don't think so. The only ideas I consider revolutionary are two things:

We the People Act and his Gold Standard approach.

His ideas aren't revolutionary? :lmao: Wow that must be some really fucked up stuff you are smoking. Here's a few of the things he wants to do that are revolutionary:

1. Actually eliminate a ton of federal programs.
2. Stopping the income tax
3. End the federal reserve.
4. Close down US bases in other countries and ending tour military envolvment in other countries and peoples lives.
5. Oh and did I mention gtfo out of the middle east. As well as stopping our tax dollars from funding their genocidal wars.

[shade]

I watched that video but it really is taken out of context. If you could give me the time frame and the rest of the segment regarding that clip, then I will change my statement.



Here is a quote from Reagan himself:



The above quotes are also from 1965. The speech he gave was in 1964. He was talking about the Vietnam Conflict.

That is not policing the world. What he advocated was getting the job done and leaving. Instead, LBJ had fight a pussyfoot war where we battled over hills instead of carpet bombing the whole place. Reagan certainly was not in favor of long drawn out conflicts putting US lives at risk more than necessary.

[Spike Lee]

His ideas aren't revolutionary? :lmao: Wow that must be some really fucked up stuff you are smoking. Here's a few of the things he wants to do that are revolutionary:

1. Actually eliminate a ton of federal programs.
2. Stopping the income tax
3. End the federal reserve.
4. Close down US bases in other countries and ending tour military envolvment in other countries and peoples lives.
5. Oh and did I mention gtfo out of the middle east. As well as stopping our tax dollars from funding their genocidal wars.

Those are not revolutionary because they are common sense.

And Shade, getting involved in the first place is policing the world. Now if he saw it as inevitable, then I agree with his stance. After reading more and more about Reagan regarding Grenada and Latin America, he certainly does have a very similar approach that Ron Paul has. So I will agree with you on that. Except of course the Iran-Contra Scandal.

[Sketcher]

Those are not revolutionary because they are common sense.

Just because something is common sense doesn't mean it's not revolutionary. They are revolutionary because they are a brand new route that this country has never taken.

[shade]

Just because something is common sense doesn't mean it's not revolutionary. They are revolutionary because they are a brand new route that this country has never taken.

It is the route the country started with..

[Bullet]

His ideas aren't revolutionary? :lmao: Wow that must be some really fucked up stuff you are smoking. Here's a few of the things he wants to do that are revolutionary:

1. Actually eliminate a ton of federal programs.
2. Stopping the income tax
3. End the federal reserve.
4. Close down US bases in other countries and ending tour military envolvment in other countries and peoples lives.
5. Oh and did I mention gtfo out of the middle east. As well as stopping our tax dollars from funding their genocidal wars.

Okay, and you think everybody wants that? :lol:

A few people might agree with him - the smart ones, but most will disagree. They're probably thinking he's going to ruin the country (which is false). I'm not saying he's revolutionary in a bad way.

It is the route the country started with..

It is a route the country hasn't seen in a long time. That's why people are skeptical.

[EVO_9MR]

I think now is a pivotal time for us to follow that very route. Ron Paul is the only one even talking about the possible fall of our empire. Our society today is following the very path that Rome did; it became too big and ultimately collapsed upon itself. If we don't change our ways now, this trend will lead us to our demise. Just look at our dollar today.

[Bullet]

I think now is a pivotal time for us to follow that very route. Ron Paul is the only one even talking about the possible fall of our empire. Our society today is following the very path that Rome did; it became too big and ultimately collapsed upon itself. If we don't change our ways now, this trend will lead us to our demise. Just look at our dollar today.

"Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

[EVO_9MR]

I think it goes like:
"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" -Benjamin Franklin

but yeah, that's essentially the point. Laws like the Patriot Act are gonna ruin us rather than "protect" us.

[pinger]

Just because something is common sense doesn't mean it's not revolutionary. They are revolutionary because they are a brand new route that this country has never taken.


Your country is so far from a long term sustainable route that it is not funny. You guys have nearly burnt every bit of goodwill you have bought/enforced in the world.

Even countries historically and currently allied to you, such as Australia (my home country) are intimately uncomfortable with your current administrations modus operandi.

The fact that the same posturing is now being directed at Iran, with again even less evidence and justification than in the lead up to Iraq, makes the world increasingly nervous.

Honestly, the craziest, most bat-shit insane power in the world is currently the US government, bought sold and owned by lobby/oil/special interest groups, and anyone else who has contributed to the candidates campaigns.

You only have to look at your "democratic" (ie the richest and most corrupt win, who are then hamstrung by the souls they sold on the way) election system to realise how far you have come from what your founding fathers envisinged a constitutional democracy "for the people" should look like.

Wake up. Your country needs a fucking shake up.

[shade]

Your country is so far from a long term sustainable route that it is not funny. You guys have nearly burnt every bit of goodwill you have bought/enforced in the world.

Even countries historically and currently allied to you, such as Australia (my home country) are intimately uncomfortable with your current administrations modus operandi.

The fact that the same posturing is now being directed at Iran, with again even less evidence and justification than in the lead up to Iraq, makes the world increasingly nervous.

Honestly, the craziest, most bat-shit insane power in the world is currently the US government, bought sold and owned by lobby/oil/special interest groups, and anyone else who has contributed to the candidates campaigns.

You only have to look at your "democratic" (ie the richest and most corrupt win, who are then hamstrung by the souls they sold on the way) election system to realise how far you have come from what your founding fathers envisinged a constitutional democracy "for the people" should look like.

Wake up. Your country needs a fucking shake up.
I wish you could come vote for Ron Paul.

[B-Que]

That is not policing the world. What he advocated was getting the job done and leaving. Instead, LBJ had fight a pussyfoot war where we battled over hills instead of carpet bombing the whole place. Reagan certainly was not in favor of long drawn out conflicts putting US lives at risk more than necessary.


WROOOOOOOONG. Again, watch the link of REAGAN talking about VIET NAM.

Interesting, in the short course of a few posts, you went from implying that Reagan was against Vietnam and against the stopping the spread of communism by referencing a moment in the video (that Spike correctly pointed out was taken out of context) to trying to make up your own convenient definition of "policing" while admitting that Reagan did in fact support the Vietnam war.


I find that people who talk about Reagan sound a lot like people who talk about Jesus, but don't read the bible themselves and instead have it interpreted for them - or cherry pick the bible to find things that support their views.

So let me get this straight. You post a cherry-pickin' video bite of the Gipper and then criticize others for doing the same thing? You've referenced that video two or three times urging us to listen to Reagan's words. I don't know about you, but actions speak louder than words.

I'm thinking of Iran-Contra. :rolleyes: Yeah, Reagan wasn't for policing the world, just under-the-table dealings to finance other parties to do the policing. But wait, what have we redefined "policing" to mean again?

[Quick_Draw21]

Okay, and you think everybody wants that? :lol:

A few people might agree with him - the smart ones, but most will disagree. They're probably thinking he's going to ruin the country (which is false). I'm not saying he's revolutionary in a bad way.

I never claimed that everyone wanted his ideas only that they were revolutionary.

[theC]

Off topic, kinda... but today was the Louisiana caucus which determines 27 of the state's 44 delegates. Louisiana has a primary in february to determine the rest. (as is my understanding) I don't know why the media isn't covering this. Anyway, I don't know when the results are to be released but rumor has it that at least some parishes were reporting 50%+ support for Paul.

[shade]

Interesting, in the short course of a few posts, you went from implying that Reagan was against Vietnam and against the stopping the spread of communism by referencing a moment in the video (that Spike correctly pointed out was taken out of context) to trying to make up your own convenient definition of "policing" while admitting that Reagan did in fact support the Vietnam war.



So let me get this straight. You post a cherry-pickin' video bite of the Gipper and then criticize others for doing the same thing? You've referenced that video two or three times urging us to listen to Reagan's words. I don't know about you, but actions speak louder than words.

I'm thinking of Iran-Contra. :rolleyes: Yeah, Reagan wasn't for policing the world, just under-the-table dealings to finance other parties to do the policing. But wait, what have we redefined "policing" to mean again?
Youtube only allows 10 minute videos. The full video is 30 minutes. If you want, I can post all 3 links to that. In it, Reagan still talks like ron paul almost the entire time.