Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

I am voting Ron Paul. Fed Pumps and Dumps.

Recs

18

October 03, 2012 – Comments (19) | RELATED TICKERS: AUY , GS , JPM

http://youtu.be/gsKgbgJS90w

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 03, 2012 at 2:31 AM, wolfman225 (62.99) wrote:

A vote for Ron Paul is effectively a vote for Barack Obama.

Progressives (both parties) got us into our current predicament incrementally. We can't get out of it all at once by waving Ron Paul's magic wand of Libertarianism. People used to government handouts won't stand for it and since even the parasites get the vote, any legislation to do so will surely fail and/or result in violent rebellion. We need to appropriate the tools of the Progressives and beat them at their own game, returning to Founding Principles as incrementally as we were led astray.

It has taken a century or more to get here, we're not gonna change things with a single President, or a single election.

Report this comment
#2) On October 03, 2012 at 2:39 AM, kthor (70.96) wrote:

voting green !!! what else can go wrong?

Report this comment
#3) On October 03, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Frankydontfailme (27.36) wrote:

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

Report this comment
#4) On October 03, 2012 at 11:12 AM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

No, the way things are stacking up, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. Ron Paul is not pulling votes away from Obama in equal numbers to Romney.

Report this comment
#5) On October 03, 2012 at 11:29 AM, catoismymotor (34.66) wrote:

Anyone here ever hear of the Electoral College?

If Romney does not win the popular vote it is not the fault of those that voted for Paul. To think otherwise is foolish and ignorant.

Report this comment
#6) On October 03, 2012 at 12:03 PM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

A vote for Ron Paul is a reminder to the American people that they are not beholden to a corrupt two-party system and can indeed vote for whoever they want. 

This would be far more important to the country than picking whichever Obamney clone tickles one's fancy. 

Report this comment
#7) On October 03, 2012 at 2:28 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

wolfman. my lefty say a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Romney. I really have to giggling at both sides saying that. I really do giggle. You see a vote for Ron Paul is exactly that. It does not go to eithor side. So many people are locked into the left right side. Did you know the UN did the Gun Ban treaty? People think that Romney will save them from Obama who in my oppion is just like Bush. How is that change working for us? He is bombing more Country's than Bush did.

Kthor good on the green party. 

Franky you are right a vote for Ron Paul is exactly that and it takes a vote from the Obama/Romney twins. 

Chk. the way things are stacking up is why would I vote for the Obama/Romney twins> they both love NDAA. Romney wants to build more Fusion Centers. With NDAA talk about a war on women much less the American People. Ech......... Besides Romney and crew before and durning the convention commited voter fraud and kidnapping. Not to mention changing the rules during the Convention> I should vote for eithor side. Oh just NDAA me now. Ech,,,,,,Ron Paul did get 190 delagates not counting the ones the RNC banned.

Cat, Spot on about the Electoral College. What would happen if G Johnson took oh say Flordia. Ron Paul and others socore some other electoral votes and no one wins the required ammount?  Even if everyone who voted for Ron Paul and others all voted Mc Cain he still could not have won. I have 6 friends who are now voting Ron Paul instead of Obama and Romney. They are waking up. 

Ryan yes. You are right on the Obamney twins. When fighting the Fed which the twins won't and indef..................QE3......... ........WELL.......is it a wonder we got the twins? For my troops and vets and Country I will vote Ron Paul. 

Fellow fools in the end will it really matter?  Spanish Company Will “Count” American Votes Overseas In November  http://www.westernjournalism.com/spanish-company-will-count-american-votes-overseas-in-november/

Besides Gorge Soros owns a major share in the company that will be counting the votes. If he wan't Obama to win he will. He might want want Romney to win so it does not really in the long run matter.Watch the vid. it is good.           http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/08/25/2012-us-presidential-election-fraud-in-motion-obama-sends-voting-services-to-george-soros-company-in-spain/

 

http://youtu.be/-MxlPpCIcO8

Report this comment
#8) On October 03, 2012 at 5:29 PM, motleyanimal (84.97) wrote:

If you can, consider voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President.

Report this comment
#9) On October 03, 2012 at 7:50 PM, SN3165 (< 20) wrote:

Ron Paul isn't runnning... is he? I see Gary Johnson is running, though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Report this comment
#10) On October 03, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.36) wrote:

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote for Biden. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Biden. 

Don't vote for Biden. Is that your point wolf/chk? 

Report this comment
#11) On October 03, 2012 at 11:04 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

Ron Paul is not running. What is the point of this debate?

Report this comment
#12) On October 04, 2012 at 2:54 AM, DarthMaul09 (29.72) wrote:

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for personal freedom.

We can do better than to accept what the Republicans and Democrats have to offer.

Report this comment
#13) On October 04, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Frankydontfailme (27.36) wrote:

#11

The point is, small minded people have the habit of converting a vote for a third party canditate into a vote for their least favorite establishment candidate. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote against either establishment candidate - a vote against the establishment itself.

If said small minded person knew their history, they'd be familiar with the solid probability of a third party candidate eventually winning. He may think that just because it hasn't happened in their lifetime, it will never happen!  

In a democracy, you vote for the candidate you want to win. Some people are happy to finalize the death of democracy and allow the corporations to decide which candidates we can choose from. 

Report this comment
#14) On October 04, 2012 at 11:38 AM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader syphoned enough votes away from Gore to tip the election to Bush. At the time you heard a lot of Nader voters making statement really similar to ones I see in these comments about how it doesn't matter which major party candidate got elected, they were all the same. But I doubt anyone would claim that that Bush presidency was indistinguishable from a Gore presidency, given that Gore almost certainly wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

Who is president matters. 

Report this comment
#15) On October 04, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.36) wrote:

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

How can you be so sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq? Maybe he would have invaded Iran and Iraq.

I thought Obama would have been a more peaceful president than McCain, but he ended up drone striking the middle east like a champ.

 There is no difference between establishment presidents. Notice how much Romney and Obama agreed during the debate? 

Report this comment
#16) On October 04, 2012 at 12:57 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

chk Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency.http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

I will vote Ron Paul because I would have problems voting for a person who like the Romney/Obama twins would NDAA any American Without Charges or Trial. Yes who is the president does matter and I will vote for a person who has walked the walk and not just talked the talk.   any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

Report: NDAA 2013 Makes Matters Worse for American Civil Liberties

Government—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention. Sections of 2013 NDAA are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/threads/65387-Report-NDAA-2013-Makes-Matters-Worse-for-American-Civil-Liberties

Then again does it really matter? SO who does really run the Country>  Hillary Clinton, at the CFR on July 15, 2009.
"We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."Hillary Clinton, at the CFR on July 15, 2009.

 

The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become
increasingly irrelevant. The nation's business will go on, regardless of
whether there's a long, drawn-out Senate trial.  http://prospect.org/article/trial-ties-senate-dont-worry-congress-irrelevant

Report this comment
#17) On October 04, 2012 at 4:02 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

chk Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency.http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

That's a masterful piece of dodging blame there, but Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida and Gore lost by 543. It's Nader's fault and no amount of dodging can change that. 

Report this comment
#18) On October 04, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.36) wrote:

It's Nader's fault that Bush beat Gore? Not Gore's fault for not attracting enough votes?

Very odd logic. 

Report this comment
#19) On October 05, 2012 at 12:11 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

lol Frank. Oh Chk. Giggling it was not Nader. It was the

Socialist

622

Socialist Workers

562

It was the Socialist who lost Gore the Election. lol. Or Al just couldn't reason with the socialist. 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement