Re: Glenn Beck just isn't buying it
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:27 pm
The way to leave a forum is to simply not show up and if you change your mind, you're always welcome back.
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
1405 donations does not equate "overwhelming" support, especially since the article stated it includes civilian personnel and dependents/ families. I know you just linked the article, but like I said I have yet to run across any of my military friends that I talk to regularly that support Ron Paul. Or their families. And very few outside of the military for that matter.Demosthenes wrote:Military people do donate more to Paul than the other candidates.ashlynne39 wrote:Her "selling point" was how polling shows that military men and women support Paul more than any other candidates combined. I haven't seen that poll but I suspect what she was talking about was the one about they give Paul more money than any other candidate combined and as I recall that has been debunked.
http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.co ... -donations
Paul, as was pointed out in another thread, has and is, attracting and immersing himself in fringe groups including sov'runs and TP/ TDs. You cannot blame anyone but him for any association with those groups, either by name only or by him actively meeting and greeting with them. You yourself have admitted that he was going too far with some of the groups he's meeting with. Hes got a lecture planned with the same group as Becraft for petes sake. What else do you want, him to have a laminated card from the Montana Freeman before you admit he got himself and all of you into this mess?Brandybuck wrote:I'm not sure what a State Representative endorsing a candidate has to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat. Yes I know he's a tax denier, but it's still the case of a state representative endorsing a candidate.Demosthenes wrote:Today's press release from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign:
Its the case of a known whackjob endorsing a presidential candidate. Tax protestor/ tax denier aside the man stole lumber from state owned lands without a care and then refused to pay damages and somehow managed to get away with it. So on top of being a TP, hes a thief.
On a related note, what the f*ck does the amount of money military personnel contribute to candidates have to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat?
I dont think it had anything to do with it really, just happened to be in the same article.
You guys are indeed confirming my fears that this bulletin will cause terrorism will be linked with Ron Paul. That is what exactly what you are doing. You call call sovruns terrorists and then link Ron Paul with sovruns.
Ron Paul linked himself with sov'runs multiple, multiple times and you refuse to see it and accept it so you blame us for pointing that out. He runs on a platform that runs along side their ideals in areas but he has actively sought them out and met them and been in their movement. Nothing you say or complain about can change that. Deal with it. You dont like it, ask him to stop fraternizing with sov'runs. Not all the Libertarian ideals mingle with sov'run ideals so if theres a problem point that out, stop dwelling on whats the same and keep yourself out of the sov'run mess.
Sorry, I am out of here. You have gone too far. I cannot find an "delete account" button, so admins, remove me from this forum.
We didnt go anywhere but point out the fact that as Wes pointed out, Paul laid in the bed.
Actually, I think the point is not that a nutball endorsed a candidate: it's that the candidate's campaign proudly made an official announcement about it, which implies that they approve of the nutball. If they didn't approve, they should have either said nothing at all or denounced the endorsement.JamesVincent wrote:Brandybuck wrote:I'm not sure what a State Representative endorsing a candidate has to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat. Yes I know he's a tax denier, but it's still the case of a state representative endorsing a candidate.Demosthenes wrote:Today's press release from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign:
Its the case of a known whackjob endorsing a presidential candidate. Tax protestor/ tax denier aside the man stole lumber from state owned lands without a care and then refused to pay damages and somehow managed to get away with it. So on top of being a TP, hes a thief.
I'm not sure what a State Representative endorsing a candidate has to do with the FBI declaring sovruns to be an expanding threat. Yes I know he's a tax denier, but it's still the case of a state representative endorsing a candidate.webhick wrote:Today's press release from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign:
I don't think it's feasible to disavow each nutball as they throw their support behind him. I mean, if he misses one then all of a sudden he's "agreeing" with their philosophies. But, I do think it's perfectly reasonable for him to counter-act his Idaho Campaign's announcement by stating he doesn't endorse this supporter's views.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Well, then, the solution is simple: Paul can issue a statement disavowing the nutball's support. Otherwise, to quote the famous maxim quoted by Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons": silence gives consent. If Paul does not speak out against the nutball, he is tacitly accepting his support, and must bear the consequences thereof.
If he's running any kind of a campaign, he is either in touch with his local affiliates or has people under him who are. It's true that he can't disavow each and every nutball; but when his Idaho campaign puts the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the guy, action is needed up at the top.webhick wrote:I don't think it's feasible to disavow each nutball as they throw their support behind him. I mean, if he misses one then all of a sudden he's "agreeing" with their philosophies. But, I do think it's perfectly reasonable for him to counter-act his Idaho Campaign's announcement by stating he doesn't endorse this supporter's views.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Well, then, the solution is simple: Paul can issue a statement disavowing the nutball's support. Otherwise, to quote the famous maxim quoted by Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons": silence gives consent. If Paul does not speak out against the nutball, he is tacitly accepting his support, and must bear the consequences thereof.
Now I remember why I laughed off this info - because it doesn't add anything significant to the conversation. Yes Paul gets the most donations. He got donations from 1405 people in the military. According to the bureau of labor statistics there are 2.4 million active and 1 million reserve military so I guess if the Paul folks want to make a big deal out of 1405 donations from this group of people more power to them.Demosthenes wrote:Military people do donate more to Paul than the other candidates.ashlynne39 wrote:Her "selling point" was how polling shows that military men and women support Paul more than any other candidates combined. I haven't seen that poll but I suspect what she was talking about was the one about they give Paul more money than any other candidate combined and as I recall that has been debunked.
http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.co ... -donations
I likes that quote.notorial dissent wrote:gleefully took them for a ride in his bright shiny cadillac of hooey
That's a sizeable "if". Remember Aaron Russo? Michael Badnarik? I seem to recall that they almost nominated the former moron for President, and did nominate the latter moron.notorial dissent wrote:If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate
Harry Browne was a serious candidate.wserra wrote:That's a sizeable "if". Remember Aaron Russo? Michael Badnarik? I seem to recall that they almost nominated the former moron for President, and did nominate the latter moron.notorial dissent wrote:If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate
How well did that work?Demosthenes wrote:Harry Browne was a serious candidate.wserra wrote:That's a sizeable "if". Remember Aaron Russo? Michael Badnarik? I seem to recall that they almost nominated the former moron for President, and did nominate the latter moron.notorial dissent wrote:If the Libertarian party really wants a serious candidate
He even wrote a nasty email to Larken Rose telling him to stop pushing scams.
Well good for him, And he made ever so much of an impression.... in both cases.Demosthenes wrote:Harry Browne was a serious candidate.
He even wrote a nasty email to Larken Rose telling him to stop pushing scams.