OMG Ron Paul is Crushing Them in New Hampshire

reply to post by Kafternin


The younger folks are being handed a country in beat up shape. Its the older generation that doesnt us "OMG" that did this.

I think that younger people are getting more, and more involved. They are trying to figure out why they dont have the same chances as their parents. Also they are the ones that goto war...

They just said Ron Paul is a one man wrecking ball in the debate. I agree with that.

Paul got robbed on air time tonight. This was nonsense, and I'm not even a Paul fan and I find this to be nonsense. Paul and Huntsman were the only two sensible candidates on stage tonight. I can't believe the bull# that America sometimes produces. Are those other jackasses really actually running for president?

Nonsense, all of those candidates minus two were nonsense.

Ron Paul can't win as an independent. It is impossible.
The electoral college picks the president. They don't pick Independents.
He has to run as a Republican or a Democrat.
Obviously, he is neither. He is American.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Is anyone comparing the amount of airtime canidates are getting here? All I hear is Romney, albeit on TV in the backround....

Yes, so far haven't seen much on RP at all. Romney is their main focus.

Originally posted by mrnotobc

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by mrnotobc
Everyone else is just blowing wind.

Ron Paul shut them down so bad, they started talking about gays getting married, instead of the country going up in flames next week.

I think that's a good topic because it's going to make Santorum especially look bad.. Romney isn't really responding so well to it either if you ask me .. They didn't give Paul a chance to respond to that one.

I don't think Ron Paul cares about it. He'd probably say it;s not the federal governments business.

In a sense he would.

He supported DOMA, which I view as a serious mistake (personal opinion), but he has often said that he believes that government should be removed from marriages altogether.

Here is one thing that I am beginning to understand about Paul. He has strong ideals and he sticks to those ideals as much as he can. He is also a pragmatist; however. This is explempified in the earmarks issue. Yes, tax and spend is bad, but if we are going to spend anyway (and you know they will), at least the money can be spent on the tax payers and not special interests.

They seem to be saying Romney won.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


He did get just enough time to make his point, and then the rest got to talk. It's hard to say what was worse. Ron Paul, making them look bad when he was talking, or them making themselves look bad when they got the talk.

I can''t find the post I am replying to, but I would have to point out that RP is attempting to use the system against itself. As a Republican candidate he is on the ballot in every state. No signatures and certification of same required. A beautiful example of civil disobedience and illumination of the CON in one stroke. I have not seen the debate footage yet, but I am sure to be pleased with the RP honesty and sense, as displayed whenever he is in a state of waking. Meaning, everyone must sleep and whenever he is awake he is sensible, honest, and driven to truth.

Originally posted by dumschidt
I can''t find the post I am replying to, but I would have to point out that RP is attempting to use the system against itself. As a Republican candidate he is on the ballot in every state. No signatures and certification of same required. A beautiful example of civil disobedience and illumination of the CON in one stroke. I have not seen the debate footage yet, but I am sure to be pleased with the RP honesty and sense, as displayed whenever he is in a state of waking. Meaning, everyone must sleep and whenever he is awake he is sensible, honest, and driven to truth.

You say you haven't seen the footage, which is ironic because he specifically said he was a supporter of MLK and Rosa Parks and others through history who have used peaceful resistance and civil disobediance to get things done.

Gingrich failed to get on the Virginia Ballot, for example. www2.timesdispatch.com...

reply to post by rogerstigers


That's very insightful of you to notice that. That was one of the instances where everyone else got real quite. SMACK ACROSS the FACE. No one could say a word. What an answer.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
Ron Paul can't win as an independent. It is impossible.
The electoral college picks the president. They don't pick Independents.
He has to run as a Republican or a Democrat.
Obviously, he is neither. He is American.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this. They wouldn't be so worried about it if they thought it wasn't possible.

Feel free to "steal" this. I made it.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

Yes, he definately does. But what about the amount of time Huntsman and Perry got? They're ranking far behind Paul and yet they're given much more air-time. It's frustrating, to be sure. But I think he did well with the little time the media did allot him.
Stoked to see him battle it out further....



Paul for Potus

romney won

he will be the nominee

will he tap paul for veep ?

reply to post by ohiotim2112


Very nice work. I like it.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


I'm pretty sure Romney would never do that, but they are playing nice for now aren't they?

Ron Paul did NOTHING profound in this debate.

He looked sheepish and played the 'good guy' and didn't adapt to the conversation.

Mitt Romney looked like a "Leader", and I'm not even a fan of Romney.

Ron looked like a philosopher hiding in the corner with a contrarian retort once in a while.

Ron said nothing definitive. Nothing specific. He looked flustered and gave all his time away to the other speakers.

He didn't have concise answers and read from his usual Ron Paul talking points while the others actually gave a substantial debate....even if their policies are WACKO.

Ron Paul didn't 'crush' anything but some votes that might have gone his way in NH.

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Ron Paul did NOTHING profound in this debate.

He looked sheepish and played the 'good guy' and didn't adapt to the conversation.

Mitt Romney looked like a "Leader", and I'm not even a fan of Romney.

Ron looked like a philosopher hiding in the corner with a contrarian retort once in a while.

Ron said nothing definitive. Nothing specific. He looked flustered and gave all his time away to the other speakers.

He didn't have concise answers and read from his usual Ron Paul talking points while the others actually gave a substantial debate....even if their policies are WACKO.

Ron Paul didn't 'crush' anything but some votes that might have gone his way in NH.

I have to say, I agree with most of what you said here. There were a few points I disagree and they made me realize that there was a planned arrangement tonight. At one point Paul says "I don't like absolutes" and he got interrupted. He turned and told whoever interrupted him (think it was romney) and said "Don't interrupt me". The other point was during one point of the debate, he got angry.. I mean really angry and it showed.

He was often paying strong attention to the candidates, standing relatively straight and looking at the person talking.

I was a bit peeved when Perry interrupted him and took the balance of his time, though.

I liked his answer about what he would be doing on a Saturday night, but it wasn't a surprise. Unlike everyone else, he does not pander.

reply to post by Kafternin


The last time I checked Im 18 and allll my friends, family members and anybody else I've had enough time to talk to is going Ron Paul. It's just a matter of showing people the only sensible candidate.